Law, State and Religious Freedom in Brazil: A Historical and Constitutional Analysis of Freedom of Belief and Religion

This research sees to discuss the position of the State regarding Freedom of Belief, under the legal perspective. In other words, as the Brazilian Constitution guarantees freedom and the free exercise of religion in its art. 5, item VI, the question is: May the Brazilian State interfere with the freedom of individual belief, or can it provide legal guarantees so that this freedom is ensured? By the deductive method and by the analysis of recent judgments of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court in cases of extraordinary appeals, the limits of the State of action or inaction in relation to religious freedom will be upheld, concluding that the State must always ensure the sovereignty of secularity and neutrality in religious matters, observing freedom of belief. Keywords: Religious freedom; Brazilian State; Law

Conscientious objection

Conscientious objection is a means of exercising freedom of belief, conscience and ethical convictions in the face of legal orders that could collide with their principles by excessively invading their autonomy. Although this right corresponds to every person, the health field is one of the most frequent to invoke it, generating bioethical dilemmas at the time of its exercise.

True Believers? – Sincerity and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Sincerity of belief as a condition for the protection of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Three types of insincerity in the context of freedom of belief – Parody religions – Fraudulent religions – Conceptual linkage between insincerity and ulterior motive – Insincerity defined as demanding to practise one’s ‘belief’ while solely having an ulterior motive – Circumstances that should not be considered evidence of insincerity: implausible manifestations, inconsistency with co-believers – Circumstances that should be considered evidence of insincerity: obvious unseriousness, ignorance, personal inconsistency – Comparison to rejected and accepted forms of evidence of insincerity in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights – Burden of proof in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

KEBEBASAN BERAGAMA DAN BERBICARA DALAM BINGKAI KAJIAN TAFSIR NUSANTARA

Freedom of belief is one of the human rights that is often discussed in the international community, including freedom of religion. It has been stated in the Quran very clearly that everyone has the freedom to embrace a religion they believe in, beside it has also been explained by Allah that Islam is the most blessed religion. However, there are still forces in choosing a religion in various ways. One of the gifts that Allah has given to humans is freedom of religion based on his own beliefs and freedom of speech. This research focused on how the interpretation of the Archipelago Mufassir about freedom of religion and speech in the al-Qur'an. This study used a qualitative literature approach (Library Research). This type used the thematic analysis method. The primary data source was Tafsir Nusantara, the secondary data was the writer tried to collect data related to the discussion. The results of this study indicated that freedom of religion and speech according to Nusantara Mufassir’s (as Hamka, Quraisy Shihab dan Hasbi Ash-Shidieqy) interpretations towards QS. al-Baqarrah verse 256 that Allah has ordered his people not to force someone to adhere Islam but invite people to think about the truth of Islam. Furthermore, QS. al-Isra' verse 36 implies freedom of speech, it is explained that someone is allowed to speak the truth and not spread lies; a prohibition against talking about something uncertain and to determine something based on personal prejudice and allegation. This verse also prevents from such disadvantages, as accusation, wrong prejudice, lies and false witnesses.

Purposes and Content of Legal Restrictions in Criminal Punishment

A comparison of the goals of punishment and the goals of restricting rights and freedoms declared in the Constitution shows that only crime prevention, both at the level of a threat of punishment and the actual execution of punishment, fully corresponds to the constitutional standards of restricting rights. The goal of restoring social justice cannot legitimize punishment because it turns punishment into a demonstration of a just retribution for the violations committed by the offender. The goal of correcting convicts does not have direct legal grounds in Russia as well. However, since punishment includes both a restriction of rights and educational-rehabilitation programs, the goal of correction could only be justified as an element of penitentiary rehabilitation practice, as a desired result of moral and psychological influence on a person. The analysis of the contents of punishment from the standpoint of restricting human rights showed that these restrictions of rights of a convicted person could be either a part of punishment or could be immediately connected with the punishment, ensuring its execution and constituting part of the «punishment regime». The restrictions of rights in the process of executing a punishment (compulsive labor, restriction of visits, etc.) could only be introduced as necessary restrictions that ensure not only the law-abiding behavior of convicts during the term of punishment and their correction, but also a preparation for their release. The restrictions of rights and freedoms that constitute the essence of criminal punishment should not infringe on the «core of the personality», should not result in a situation when these rights and freedoms become meaningless, should not be cruel or humiliating for human dignity. It is established that the following rights should not be restricted as a criminal punishment: a right to life, equality, privacy, inviolability of the home, use of a native language, freedom of belief, conscience and religion, freedom of thought and speech, a right to education, protection provided by the state, and some others. The deprivation or restriction of three rights should be recognized as rational and sufficient for constituting punishment: those of physical freedom, property and involvement in some types of activities.

Cidades MIL: anúncio de um novo tempo. Reflexões

Aiming to stimulate reflection on Media and Information Literacy Cities (MIL Cities), this study associates some data collected in bibliographic and virtual sources and data resulting from participant observation in the following dialogue Working Groups: Psychology and Religion (National Association of Research and Post Graduate Studies in Psychology); Interfaith Coalition in Health and Spirituality (House of Reconciliation) and Interreligious Forum for a Culture of Peace and Freedom of Belief (Secretariat of Justice and Citizenship of Sao Paulo State). Privilegicing the themes Urban Politics in Brazil; MIL Cities; Human Diversity

An Outlook of Each of the Islamic Thought and the Contemporary Global Thought on the Human Concept and Rights

This study aimed at identifying the view of Islamic thought and the contemporary global thought on the human concept and rights. It also aimed at highlighting the interest of the Islamic and contemporary thinkers in the human rights area and knowing the way both thinkers meet. The researcher applied the theoretical (comparative) method using both the description and analysis. The study concluded the following results: The contemporary Islamic view of the human concept and rights covered all types of rights, such as freedom of belief and thought, education, right to live, personal freedom, protection of property and honor, child rights, the woman, equality before the law; and fight against the racial discrimination. The study further showed the emergence of originality and independence in the rights and freedoms in Islamic thought and the balance in legislation. On the other hand, the study underscored the convergences of both the Islamic and global thought in the human rights field that emerged in the Islamic Declaration of the Human Rights in 1990. This declaration emphasized the contribution of mankind's efforts that are related to human rights, which aim at protecting the human against exploitation and persecution and ensure his freedom and right to a decent life. All these provisions and principles are in agreement with the Islamic Sharia (law), which indicates that many of these principles are deeply rooted in Islamic thought. The study also emphasized that human rights in global thought are of great importance, at the level of peoples, states, and international organizations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was issued by the General Assembly of the United Nations on Dec. 10, 1948, is a culmination of the Western civilization and the efforts of the thinkers and reformers in it. The declaration provided that "forgetting" or neglect of human rights led to barbaric acts that hurt the human conscience. Received: 19 December 2020 / Accepted: 4 February 2021 / Published: 5 March 2021

Freedom for me and, perhaps, you – but surely not them? Attitudes to new religions in contemporary democracies

Throughout history, new religious movements (NRMs) have been treated with suspicion and fear. Although contemporary democracies do not throw members of NRMs to the lions or burn them at the stake, they have ways and means of making it clear that pluralism and freedom of religion have their limits. The limits to pluralism are evident enough in countries such as Saudi Arabia or North Korea that have regimes stipulating that citizens must adhere exclusively to their one and only True religion or ideology. Limitations to pluralism have also been manifest in countries such as Northern Nigeria, Sri Lanka or Myanmar (Burma), where terrorists have used violence to eliminate religions other than their own. Even otherwise peaceful democracies – that have signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and other statements affirming freedom of belief (and non-belief) for all – can discriminate against religions, especially the new religious movements in their midst, and this they do in a variety of ways [Richardson 1994; Lindholm 2004; Kirkham 2013]. This paper outlines, from the perspective of a sociologist of religion, some of the ways in which such attitudes toward, and treatment of, NRMs can demonstrate more subtle, but nevertheless marked and serious limitations to freedom, even in societies that pride themselves on their progressive and inclusive approach to diversity.