| Part of a series on |
| Freedom |
 |
| Concepts |
|
|
| By type |
|
|
| By right |
|
|
|
|
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion.[1] The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called "apostasy" —is also a fundamental part of religious freedom, covered by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2]
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right.[3][4]
In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.
Historically freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally "protected individuals" professing an officially tolerated non-Muslim religion.
In Antiquity a syncretic point-of-view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs. When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.
Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.[5][6]
Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance. This was the core for resentment and the persecution of early Christian communities.
Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Asoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.
Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.
Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which mainly involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina (then known as Yathrib), religious freedom for Muslims, Jews and pagans was declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina. The Islamic Caliphate later guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi (second class) status and their adult males pay the jizya tax as a substitute for the zakat paid by Muslim citizens. Jews and Christians were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the conquest of Islamic Spain by Berber-Arab forces from north Africa (the Almoravids, followed by the Almohads from the mid-12th century). Persecution of non-Muslims caused the emigration of many Jews (and Christians) into the northern, Christian states.[7]
Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia law, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.[8][9] In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi (Islamic judges) usually could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.[10]
Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.[11] Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that was usually forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter. According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292–1350), non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.[12][verification needed]
Religious freedom and the right to worship freely were practices that had been appreciated and promoted by most ancient Indian dynasties for over 5,000 years. As a result, people fleeing religious persecution in other parts of the world including Christians, Jews, Bahá'í Faith and Zoroastrians fled to India as a place of refuge to enjoy religious freedom.[13][14][15] This had been the underlying attitude of most rulers of India from time immemorial.
Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism.[16] Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.
India is an 80% Hindu country, yet its prime minister is a Sikh (Manmohan Singh), the chairperson of the ruling alliance is a Catholic woman of Italian birth (Sonia Gandhi), and three out of the twelve presidents of India have been Muslims. Further, the current Chief Election Commissioner of India is a Muslim, as are many successful Indians including film stars, artists, religious scholars, industrialists etc.
Many scholars and intellectually globally believe that India's predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been most tolerant religion,[17]
The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile said that religious tolerance of ‘Aryabhoomi,’ a reference to India found in Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years. “Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here. Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition,’’ Dalai Lama said.[18]
Freedom of religion in the Indian subcontinent is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi (304 BC to 232 BC) (Asoka). One of King Asoka's main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a just and humane society. Later he promoted the principles of Buddhism, and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.
The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of Asoka:
King Piyadasi (Ashok) dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics (hermits) or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways. But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them. For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech. That is to say, one must not exalt one’s creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.
The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. When around 1210 AD the Islamic Sultanates invaded India from the north-west, gradually the principle of freedom of religion deteriorated in this part of the world. They were subsequently replaced by another Islamic invader in the form of Babur. The Mughal empire was founded by the Mongol leader Babur in 1526, when he defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat. The word "Mughal" is the Indo-Iranian version of Mongol.
On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions. People could worship as they wished freely and openly, though the formation of 2 nations i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh has been on basis of religious intolerance.
After arrival of Europeans, Christians in zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival. Though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.[19]
The rise of the BJP political party and the emergence of Hindu nationalism have been accompanied by the repression of Christianity and in some cases assaults on Christians and their institutions. The worst of these happened in August 2008 when 4,640 houses and 252 churches were torched in Kandhamal. 54,000 people were made homeless by the violence. Attacks continue and in November 2010 Hindutva extremists attacked Christian homes in Peliguda, Kenduguda and Telarai villages in Orissa state: Christians say they were attacked for refusing to contribute to the local Durga Puja celebrations.[20][21] Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the nation's constitution. Accordingly every citizen of India has a right to profess, practice and propagate their religions peacefully.[22] Vishwa Hindu Parishad counters this argument by saying that evangelical Christians are forcefully (or through money) converting rural, illiterate populations and they are only trying to stop this.
In September 2010, Indian state Kerala's State Election Commissioner announced that "Religious heads cannot issue calls to vote for members of a particular community or to defeat the nonbelievers".[23] The Catholic Church comprising Latin, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara rites used to give clear directions to the faithful on exercising their franchise during elections through pastoral letters issued by bishops or council of bishops. The pastoral letter issued by Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council (KCBC) on the eve of the poll urged the faithful to shun atheists.[23]
Even today, most Indians celebrate all religious festivals with equal enthusiasm and respect. Hindu festivals like Deepavali and Holi, Muslim festivals like Mahanabi Jayanti, Christian festivals like Christmas and other festivals like Buddha Purnima, Mahavir Jayanti, Gur Purab etc. are celebrated and enjoyed by all Indians.
The Roman Catholic Church kept a tight rein on religious expression throughout the Middle Ages, basing its principles on the Bible and on the Gospel. Jews were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the most notable examples of the latter being the expulsion of all Jews from Spain in 1492. Some of those who remained and converted were tried as heretics in the Inquisition for allegedly practicing Judaism in secret. Despite the persecution of Jews, they were the most tolerated non-Catholic faith in Europe.
However, the latter was in part a reaction to the growing movement that became the Reformation. As early as 1380, John Wycliffe in England denied transubstantiation and began his translation of the Bible into English. He was condemned in a Papal Bull in 1410, and all his books were burned.
In 1414 Jan Hus, a Bohemian preacher of reformation, was given a safe conduct by the Holy Roman Emperor to attend the Council of Constance. Not entirely trusting in his safety, he made his will before he left. His forebodings proved accurate, and he was burned at the stake on 6 July 1415. The Council also decreed that Wycliffe's remains be disinterred and cast out. This decree was not carried out until 1429.
After the fall of the city of Granada Spain in 1492 the Muslim population was promised religious freedom by the Treaty of Granada, but that promise was short-lived. In 1501 Granada's Muslims were given an ultimatum to either convert to Christianity or to emigrate. The majority converted, but only superficially, continuing to dress and speak as they had before and to secretly practice Islam. The Moriscos (converts to Christianity) were ultimately expelled from Spain between 1609 (Castile) and 1614 (rest of Spain), by Philip III.
Martin Luther published his famous 95 Theses in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517. His major aim was theological, summed up in the three basic dogmas of Protestantism: • The Bible only is infallible • Every Christian can interpret it • Human sins are so wrongful that no deed or merit, only God's grace, can lead to salute. In consequence, Luther hoped to stop the sale of indulgences and to reform the Church from within, but this could not succeed, as his doctrine meant the end of the clergy and of the Pope. In 1521 he was given the chance to recant at the Diet of Worms before Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, then only 19. After he refused to recant he was declared heretic. Partly for his own protection, he was sequestered on the Wartburg in the possessions of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, where he translated the New Testament into German. He was excommunicated by Papal Bull in 1521.
The movement, however, continued to gain ground in his absence and spread to Switzerland. Huldrych Zwingli preached reform in Zürich from 1520 to 1523. He opposed the sale of indulgences, celibacy, pilgrimages, pictures, statues, relics, altars, and organs. This culminated in outright war between the Swiss cantons that accepted Protestantism and the Catholics. The Catholics were victorious, and Zwingli was killed in battle in 1531. The Catholic cantons were magnanimous in victory.
Meanwhile, Luther's idea had been interpreted radically by the leaders of the German Peasants' War, and Luther himself assisted the German princes in slaughtering these revolutionaries.
The defiance of Papal authority proved contagious, and in 1533, when Henry VIII of England was excommunicated for his divorce and remarriage to Anne Boleyn, he promptly established a state church with bishops appointed by the crown. This was not without internal opposition, and Thomas More, who had been his Lord Chancellor, was executed in 1535 for opposition to Henry.
In 1535 the Swiss canton of Geneva became Protestant. In 1536 the Bernese imposed the reformation on the canton of Vaud by conquest. They sacked the cathedral in Lausanne and destroyed all its art and statuary. John Calvin, who had been active in Geneva was expelled in 1538 in a power struggle, but he was invited back in 1540.
The same kind of seesaw back and forth between Protestantism and Catholicism was evident in England when Mary I of England returned that country briefly to the Catholic fold in 1553 and persecuted Protestants. However, her half-sister, Elizabeth I of England was to restore the Church of England in 1558, this time permanently, and began to persecute Catholics again. The King James Bible commissioned by King James I of England and published in 1611 proved a landmark for Protestant worship, with official Catholic forms of worship being banned.
In France, although peace was made between Protestants and Catholics at the Treaty of Saint Germain in 1570, persecution continued, most notably in the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew's Day on 24 August 1572, in which thousands of Protestants throughout France were killed. A few years before, at the "Michelade" of Nîmes in 1567, Protestants had massacred the local Catholic clergy.
The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II was characterized by its multi-ethnic nature and religious tolerance. Normans, Jews, Muslim Arabs, Byzantine Greeks, Lombards and native Sicilians lived in harmony.[24][25] Rather than exterminate the Muslims of Sicily, Roger II's grandson Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (1215—1250) allowed them to settle on the mainland and build mosques. Not least, he enlisted them in his – Christian – army and even into his personal bodyguards.[26]
Bohemia (present-day Czech Republic) enjoyed religious freedom between 1436 and 1520, and became one of the most liberal countries of the Christian world during that period of time. The so-called Basel Compacts of 1436 declared the freedom of religion and peace between Catholics and Utraquists. In 1609 Emperor Rudolf II granted Bohemia greater religious liberty with his Letter of Majesty. The privileged position of the Catholic Church in the Czech kingdom was firmly established after the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Gradually freedom of religion in Bohemian lands came to an end and Protestants fled or were expelled from the country. A devout Catholic, Emperor Ferdinand II forcibly converted Austrian and Bohemian Protestants.
In the meantime, in Germany Philip Melanchthon drafted the Augsburg Confession as a common confession for the Lutherans and the free territories. It was presented to Charles V in 1530.
In the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V agreed to tolerate Lutheranism in 1555 at the Peace of Augsburg. Each state was to take the religion of its prince, but within those states, there was not necessarily religious tolerance. Citizens of other faiths could relocate to a more hospitable environment.
In France, from the 1550s, many attempts to reconcile Catholics and Protestants and to establish tolerance failed because the State was too weak to enforce them. It took the victory of the converted Protestant prince Henry IV of France, and his accession to the throne, to impose religious tolerance formalized in the Edict of Nantes in 1598. It would remain in force for over 80 years until its revocation in 1685 by Louis XIV of France. Intolerance remained the norm until Louis XVI, who signed the Edict of Versailles (1787), then the constitutional text of 24 December 1789, granting civilian rights to Protestants. The French Revolution then abolished state religion and confiscated all Church property, turning intolerance against Catholics.
In 1558 the Transylvanian Diet of Torda declared free practice of both the Catholic and Lutheran religions, but prohibited Calvinism. Ten years later, in 1568, the Diet extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However it was more than a religious tolerance, it declared the equality of the religions. The emergence in social hierarchy wasn't depend on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs (Princes). The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore the Edict of Torda is considered by mostly Hungarian historians as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in the Christian Europe.
ACT OF RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE: His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God.
— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund[27]
In the Union of Utrecht (20 January 1579) personal freedom of religion was declared in the struggle between the Northern Netherlands and Spain. The Union of Utrecht was an important step in the establishment of the Dutch Republic (from 1581 to 1795). The establishment of a Jewish community in the Netherlands and New Amsterdam (present-day New York) during the Dutch republic is an example of the freedom of religion. When New Amsterdam surrendered to the English in 1664, the freedom of religion was guaranteed in the Articles of Capitulation.
Intolerance of dissident forms of Protestantism also continued, as evidenced by the exodus of the Pilgrims who sought refuge, first in the Netherlands, and ultimately in America, founding the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts in 1620. William Penn, the founder of Philadelphia, was involved in a case which had a profound effect upon future American law and those of England. In a classic case of jury nullification the jury refused to convict William Penn of preaching a Quaker sermon, which was illegal. Even though the jury was imprisoned for their acquittal, they stood by their decision and helped establish the freedom of religion.
Poland has a long tradition of religious freedom. The right to worship freely was a basic right given to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth throughout the 15th and early 16th century, however, complete freedom of religion was officially recognized in Poland in 1573 during the Warsaw Confederation. Poland kept religious freedom laws during an era when religious persecution was an everyday occurrence in the rest of Europe.[28]
The General Charter of Jewish Liberties known as the Statute of Kalisz was issued by the Duke of Greater Poland Boleslaus the Pious on 8 September 1264 in Kalisz. The statute served as the basis for the legal position of Jews in Poland and led to creation of the Yiddish-speaking autonomous Jewish nation until 1795. The statute granted exclusive jurisdiction of Jewish courts over Jewish matters and established a separate tribunal for matters involving Christians and Jews. Additionally, it guaranteed personal liberties and safety for Jews including freedom of religion, travel, and trade. The statute was ratified by subsequent Polish Kings: Casimir III of Poland in 1334, Casimir IV of Poland in 1453 and Sigismund I of Poland in 1539. The Commonwealth set a precedent by allowing Jews to become ennobled.
- See also: Freedom of Religion in the United States
Most of the early colonies were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship, with Maryland being the only exception. For example, Roger Williams found it necessary to found a new colony in Rhode Island to escape persecution in the theocratically dominated colony of Massachusetts. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were the most active of the New England persecutors of Quakers, and the persecuting spirit was shared by the Plymouth Colony and the colonies along the Connecticut river.[29] In 1660, one of the most notable victims of the religious intolerance was English Quaker Mary Dyer who was hanged in Boston, Massachusetts for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[29] As one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs, the hanging of Dyer on the Boston gallows marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and New England independence from English rule, and in 1661 King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[30]
Another notable example of religious persecution by Puritans in Massachusetts was the Salem witch trials in 1692 and 1693. Thirty-one witchcraft trials were held, convicting twenty-nine people of the capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen women and five men, were hanged. One man who refused to enter a plea was crushed to death under heavy stones in an attempt to force him to do so.
Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[31] Fifteen years later (1649) the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof." The Maryland Toleration Act was repealed with the assistance of Protestant assemblymen and a new law barring Catholics from openly practicing their religion was passed.[32] In 1657, the Catholic Lord Baltimore regained control after making a deal with the colony's Protestants, and in 1658 the Act was again passed by the colonial assembly. This time, it would last more than thirty years, until 1692,[33] when after Maryland's Protestant Revolution of 1689, freedom of religion was again rescinded.[31][34] In addition in 1704, an Act was passed "to prevent the growth of Popery in this Province", preventing Catholics from holding political office.[34] Full religious toleration would not be restored in Maryland until the American Revolution, when Maryland's Charles Carroll of Carrollton signed the American Declaration of Independence.
Reiterating Maryland's earlier colonial legislation, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:
- "[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Those sentiments also found expression in the First Amendment of the national constitution, part of the United States' Bill of Rights:
- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The United States formally considers religious freedom in its foreign relations. The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom which investigates the records of over 200 other nations with respect to religious freedom, and makes recommendations to submit nations with egregious records to ongoing scrutiny and possible economic sanctions. Many human rights organizations have urged the United States to be still more vigorous in imposing sanctions on countries that do not permit or tolerate religious freedom.
Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference. The Canadian Human Rights Act allows an exception to freedom of religion with respect to religious dress, such as a Sikh turban, when there is a bona fide occupational requirement, such as a workplace requiring a hard hat.[35]
On 25 November 1981 the United Nations General Assembly passed the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief." This declaration recognizes freedom of religion as a fundamental human right in accordance with several other instruments of international law, but the international community has not passed any binding legal instruments that guarantee the right to freedom of religion.[36]
The contemporary idea of religious freedom as a human right remains a contested topic. The major areas of debate are listed below.
Atheist organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which bills itself as the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and skeptics) in the United States,[37] argue that "Freedom From Religion" is a right in the United States that is guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.[citation needed] Critics of atheism respond, "The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."[38]
Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations, (using an argument first put forward by his friend and contemporary David Hume) states that in the long run it is in the best interests of society as a whole and the civil magistrate (government) in particular to allow people to freely choose their own religion as it helps prevent civil unrest and reduces intolerance. So long as there are enough different religions and/or religious sects operating freely in a society then they are all compelled to moderate their more controversial and violent teachings, so as to be more appealing to more people and so have an easier time attracting new converts. It is this free competition amongst religious sects for converts that ensures stability and tranquillity in the long run.
Adam Smith argued in favour of freedom of religion.
Smith also points out that laws that prevent religious freedom and seek to preserve the power and believe in a particular religion will, in the long run, only serve to weaken and corrupt that religion. As its leaders and preachers become complacent, disconnected and unpractised in their ability to seek and win over new converts.[39]
| “ |
The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent, where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or, perhaps, into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects.[40] |
” |
Hinduism is one of the more open-minded religions when it comes to religious freedom.[41] It respects the right of everyone to reach God in their own way. Hindus believe in different ways to preach attainment of God and religion as a philosophy and hence respect all religions as equal. One of the famous Hindu sayings about religion is: "Truth is one; sages call it by different names."[41]
Part of the
Oscar Straus Memorial in Washington, D.C. honoring the right to worship.
According to the Catholic Church in Dignitatis Humanae, "the human person has a right to religious freedom," which is described as "immunity from coercion in civil society."[42] This principle of religious freedom "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion."[42] In addition, this right "is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."[42]
Previous to this Vatican II message, Pope Pius IX had written in his Syllabus of Errors: "[It is an error to say that] Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" (15); "[It is an error to say that] In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" (77); "[It is an error to say that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship" (78).
Some Orthodox Christians, especially those living in democratic countries, support religious freedom for all, as evidenced by the position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Many Protestant Christian churches, including some Baptists, Churches of Christ, Seventh-day Adventist Church and main line churches have a commitment to religious freedoms. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also affirms religious freedom.[43]
However others, such as African scholar Makau Mutua, have argued that Christian insistence on the propagation of their faith to native cultures as an element of religious freedom has resulted in a corresponding denial of religious freedom to native traditions and led to their destruction. As he states in the book produced by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief — "Imperial religions have necessarily violated individual conscience and the communal expressions of Africans and their communities by subverting African religions."[44][45]
Joel Spring writes about the Christianization of the Roman Empire, "Christianity added a new impetus to the expansion of empire. Increasing the arrogance of the imperial project, Christians insisted that the Gospels of the Church were the only valid source of religious beliefs. By the 5th century, Christianity was thought of as co-extensive with the Imperium Romanum. This meant that to be human, as opposed to being a natural slave, was to be "civilized" and Christian. Historian Anthony Pagden argues, 'just as the civitas; had now become coterminous with Christianity, so to be human—to be, that is, one who was "civil." and who was able to interpret correctly the law of nature—one had now also to be Christian.
"After the fifteenth century, most European colonialists rationalized the spread of empire with the belief that they were saving a barbaric and pagan world by spreading Christian civilization."[46] In the Portuguese and Spanish colonization of the Americas the policy of Indian Reductions and Jesuit Reductions resulted in forced conversions of indigenous peoples of the Americas from their long practiced spiritual and religious traditions and theological beliefs. The actual population of indigenous peoples, congregations of neophytes and the untouched, plummeted from unintended consequences of missionary Christianity's contacts.[47]
Conversion to Islam is simple (cf. shahada), but Muslims are forbidden to convert from Islam to another religion (cf. Apostasy in Islam). Certain Muslim-majority countries are known for their restrictions on religious freedom, highly favoring Muslim citizens over non-Muslim citizens. Other countries[who?], having the same restrictive laws, tend to be more liberal when imposing them. Even other Muslim-majority countries are secular and thus do not regulate religious belief[48][not in citation given].
Some Islamic theologians[who?] quote the Qur'an (“There is no compulsion in religion”[2:256] and “Say: O you who reject faith, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship...To you be your religion, and to me be mine”[109:1–6], i.e. Sura Al-Kafirun) to show scriptural support for religious freedom.
Quran 2:190–194, referring to the war against Pagans during the Battle of Badr in Medina, indicates that Muslims are only allowed to fight against those who intend to harm them (right of self-defense) and that if their enemies surrender, they must also stop because God does not like those who transgress limits.
In Bukhari:V9 N316, Jabir ibn 'Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin accepted Islam and then when he got a fever he demanded that Muhammad to cancel his pledge (allow him to renounce Islam). Muhammad refused to do so. The Bedouin man repeated his demand once, but Muhammad once again refused. Then, he (the Bedouin) left Medina. Muhammad said, "Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good." In this narration, there was no evidence demonstrating that Muhammad ordered the execution of the Bedouin for wanting to renounce Islam.
In addition, Quran 5:3, which is believed to be God's final revelation to Muhammad, states that Muslims are to fear God and not those who reject Islam, and Quran 53:38–39 states that one is accountable only for one's own actions. Therefore, it postulates that in Islam, in the matters of practising a religion, it does not relate to a worldly punishment, but rather these actions are accountable to God in the afterlife. Thus, this supports the argument against the execution of apostates in Islam.
However, on the other hand, some Muslims support the practice of executing apostates who leave Islam, as in Bukhari:V4 B52 N260; "The Prophet said, 'If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'"
In Iran, the constitution recognizes four religions whose status is formally protected: Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.[49] The constitution, however, also set the groundwork for the institutionalized persecution of Bahá'ís,[50] who have been subjected to arrests, beatings, executions, confiscation and destruction of property, and the denial of civil rights and liberties, and the denial of access to higher education.[49] There is no freedom of conscience in Iran, as converting from Islam to any other religion is forbidden.
In Egypt, a 16 December 2006 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Council created a clear demarcation between recognized religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – and all other religious beliefs;[51][52] no other religious affiliation is officially admissible.[53] The ruling leaves members of other religious communities, including Bahá'ís, without the ability to obtain the necessary government documents to have rights in their country, essentially denying them of all rights of citizenship.[53] They cannot obtain ID cards, birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates, and passports; they also cannot be employed, educated, treated in public hospitals or vote, among other things.[53] See Egyptian identification card controversy.
Among the most contentious areas of religious freedom is the right of an individual to change or abandon his or her own religion (apostasy), and the right to evangelize individuals seeking to convince others to make such a change.
Other debates have centered around restricting certain kinds of missionary activity by religions. Many Islamic states, and others such as China, severely restrict missionary activities of other religions. Greece, among European countries, has generally looked unfavorably on missionary activities of denominations others than the majority church and proselytizing is constitutionally prohibited.[54]
A different kind of critique of the freedom to propagate religion has come from non-Abrahamic traditions such as the African and Indian. African scholar Makau Mutua criticizes religious evangelism on the ground of cultural annihilation by what he calls "proselytizing universalist faiths":
...the (human) rights regime incorrectly assumes a level playing field by requiring that African religions compete in the marketplace of ideas. The rights corpus not only forcibly imposes on African religions the obligation to compete—a task for which as nonproselytizing, noncompetitive creeds they are not historically fashioned—but also protects the evangelizing religions in their march towards universalization ... it seems inconceivable that the human rights regime would have intended to protect the right of certain religions to destroy others.[55][page needed]
Some Indian scholars[56] have similarly argued that the right to propagate religion is not culturally or religiously neutral.
In Sri Lanka there have been debates regarding a bill on religious freedom that seeks to protect indigenous religious traditions from certain kinds of missionary activities. Debates have also occurred in various states of India regarding similar laws, particularly those that restrict conversions using force, fraud or allurement.
In 2008 Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a Christian human rights non-governmental organisation which specializes in religious freedom, launched an in-depth report on the human rights abuses faced by individuals who leave Islam for another religion. The report is the product of a year long research project in six different countries. It calls on Muslim nations, the international community, the UN and the international media to resolutely address the serious violations of human rights suffered by apostates.[57]
Legal opinion on apostasy by the
Fatwa committee at
Al-Azhar University in
Cairo, the highest Islamic institution in the world, concerning the case of a man who converted to Christianity: "Since he left Islam, he will be invited to express his regret. If he does not regret, he will be killed pertaining to rights and obligations of the Islamic law."
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).[58]
In Islamic law (Sharia), the consensus view is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted under duress, for example, due to an imminent danger of being killed. A female apostate must be either executed, according to Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), or imprisoned until she reverts to Islam as advocated by the Sunni Hanafi school and by Shi'a scholars.[59]
Ideally, the one performing the execution of an apostate must be an imam.[59] At the same time, all schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that any Muslim can kill an apostate without punishment.[60]
Religious practice may also conflict with secular law creating debates on religious freedom. For instance, even though polygamy is permitted in Islam it is prohibited in secular law in many countries. Does prohibiting polygamy then curtail the religious freedom of Muslims? The US and India, both constitutionally secular nations, have taken two different views of this. In India polygamy is permitted, but only for Muslims, under Muslim Personal Law. In the USA polygamy is prohibited for all. This was a major source of conflict between the early LDS Church and the United States until the Church amended its position on practicing polygamy.
Similar issues have also arisen in the context of the religious use of psychedelic substances by Native American tribes in the United States as well as other Native practices.
In 1955, Chief Justice of California Roger J. Traynor neatly summarized the American position on how freedom of religion cannot imply freedom from law: "Although freedom of conscience and the freedom to believe are absolute, the freedom to act is not."[61] But with respect to the religious use of animals within secular law and those acts, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah in 1993 upheld the right of Santeria adherents to practice ritual animal sacrifice with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”. (quoted by Justice Kennedy from the opinion by Justice Burger in Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division 450 U.S. 707 (1981))[62]
In international law the freedom of religion and belief is protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). This protection extends to specifically non-religious beliefs, such as humanism. However, minority or disfavored religions still receive the spiritual injustice of persecution in many parts of the world.[49][63]
The law in Germany provides the term of “religious majority” (Religionsmündigkeit) with a minimum age for minors to follow their own religious beliefs even if their parents don't share those or don't approve. Children 14 and older have the unrestricted right to enter or exit any religious community. Children 12 and older cannot be compelled to change to a different belief. Children 10 and older have to be heard before their parents change their religious upbringing to a different belief.[64] There are similar laws in Austria[65] and in Switzerland.[66]
In its 2011 annual report, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom designated fourteen nations as "countries of particular concern". The commission chairman commented that these are nations whose conduct marks them as the world’s worst religious freedom violators and human rights abusers. The fourteen nations designated were Burma, China, Egypt, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Other nations on the commission's watchlist include Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela.[67]
There are concerns about the persecution of religious minorities such as the banning of worn religious articles such as the Muslim veil, Jewish skullcap, and Christian cross in certain European countries.[68][69] Article 18 of the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights limits restrictions on freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs to those necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.[70] Freedom of religion as a legal concept is related to, but not identical with, religious toleration, separation of church and state, or secular state (laïcité).
Where individuals and not governments are concerned, religious toleration is generally taken to refer to an attitude of acceptance towards other people's religions.[citation needed] Such toleration does not require that one view other religions as equally true; rather, the assumption is that each citizen will grant that others have the right to hold and practice their own beliefs.[citation needed] Against this backdrop, proselytism can be a contentious issue, as it could be regarded as an offense against the validity of others' religious beliefs, including irreligious belief.[citation needed]
27 October is International Religious Freedom Day, in commemoration of the execution of the Boston martyrs for their religious convictions 1658–1661.[citation needed]. The U.S. proclaim 16 January Religious Freedom Day.[71]
Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion.
The Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life performed a study on religious freedom in the world, for which data were gathered from 16 governmental and non-governmental organisations – including the United Nations, the U.S. State Department and Human Rights Watch – and representing over 99.5 percent of the world's population.[72][73] According to the results, that were published in December 2009, about one-third of the countries in the world have high or very high restrictions on religion, and nearly 70 percent of the world's population lives in countries with heavy restrictions on freedom of religion.[72][73] This concerns restrictions on religion originating from both national authorities and social hostilities undertaken by private individuals, organisations and social groups. Government restrictions included constitutional limitations or other prohibitions on free speech.
Social hostilities were measured by religion-related terrorism and violence between religious groups.
The countries in North and South America reportedly had some of the lowest levels of government and social restrictions on religion, while The Middle East and North Africa were the regions with the highest.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran were the countries that top the list of countries with the overall highest levels of restriction on religion.
Of the world's 25 most populous countries, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan had the most restrictions, while Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States Had some of the lowest levels.
While the Middle East, North Africa and the Americas exhibit either extremely high or low levels of government and social restrictions, these two variables do not always move together: Vietnam and China, for instance, had high government restrictions on religion but were in the moderate or low range when it came to social hostilities. Nigeria and Bangladesh follow the opposite pattern: high in social hostilities but moderate in terms of government actions.
The study found that government restrictions were relatively low in the U.S., but the levels of religious hostilities were higher than those reported in a number of other large democracies, such as Brazil and Japan.
While most countries provided for the protection of religious freedom in their constitutions or laws, only a quarter of those countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice.
In 75 countries – four in 10 in the world – governments limit the efforts of religious groups to proselytise and in 178 countries – 90 percent – religious groups must register with the government.
India and China, also exhibited extreme, but different restrictions on religion. China showed very high levels of government restriction but low to moderate levels of social hostilities, while India showed very high social hostilities but only low levels of government restrictions.
Israel stood out among the nations surveyed with "high scores on the social hostilities index" in comparison with other countries that are more authoritarian or less ordered.[74]
Topping the government restrictions index were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Uzbekistan, China, Egypt, Burma, Maldives, Eritrea, Malaysia and Brunei.
At the top of the social hostilities index were Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Somalia, Israel, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Saudi Arabia.[74]
- ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.
- ^ "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights". The United Nations. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml.
- ^ Davis, Derek H.. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right". Archived from the original on 1 February 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080201105738/http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/religion/religion_essay.html. Retrieved 5 December 2006. (archived from the original on 1 February 2008).
- ^ Congressional Record #29734 – 19 November 2003. Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=5ANDmIIpAmwC&pg=PA29734. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ Cyrus Cylinder, livius.org.
- ^ Richard A. Taylor; E. Ray Clendenen (15 October 2004). Haggai, Malachi. B&H Publishing Group. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-0-8054-0121-9. http://books.google.com/books?id=hII6mqKrH9kC.
- ^ Frank, Daniel H. and Leaman, Oliver. 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 137–138. ISBN 0-521-65574-9
- ^ (Weeramantry 1997, p. 138)[citation needed]
- ^ Sachedina, Abdulaziz Abdulhussein (2001). The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513991-7.
- ^ Mark R. Cohen (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. p. 74. ISBN 0-691-01082-X. http://books.google.com/?id=fgbib5exskUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=cohen+Under+Crescent+and+Cross&q. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
- ^ al-Qattan, Najwa (1999). "Dhimmis in the Muslim Court: Legal Autonomy and Religious Discrimination". International Journal of Middle East Studies (University of Cambridge) 31 (3): 429–444. DOI:10.1017/S0020743800055501. ISSN 00207438.
- ^ Sherman A. Jackson (2005). Islam and the Blackamerican: looking toward the third resurrection. Oxford University Press. p. 144. ISBN 0-19-518081-X. http://books.google.com/?id=nprKYM8sleYC&pg=PA144&dq=ankiha+fasida#v=onepage&q. Retrieved 10 April 2010.
- ^ The Last Jews of Kerala, p98
- ^ Katz 2000; Koder 1973; Thomas Puthiakunnel 1973; David de Beth Hillel, 1832; Lord, James Henry 1977.
- ^ Parsis#History
- ^ Who are the Jews of India? – The S. Mark Taper Foundation imprint in Jewish studies. University of California Press. 2000. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-520-21323-4. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=ZWX6pF2PTJwC&pg=PA26.; "When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, they brought a spirit of intolerance utterly alien to India. They soon established an Office of Inquisition at Goa, and at their hands Indian Jews experienced the only instance of anti-Semitism ever to occur in Indian soil."
- ^ Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India – by David Ludden; 1996
- ^ "India’s religious tolerance lauded". Deccan Herald. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/42229/indias-religious-tolerance-lauded.html. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ "Christian Persecution in India: The Real Story". Stephen-knapp.com. http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_persecution_in_india.htm. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ Cookson, Catharine (2003). Encyclopedia of Religious Freedom. Taylor & Francis. pp. 179–80. ISBN 978-0-415-94181-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=R0PrjC1Ar7gC&hl=en.
- ^ Pontifex, John; John Newton, editors (2011). "India" in Persecuted and Forgotten? A Report on Christians oppressed for their Faith, 2011 Edition. Sutton, Surrey, UK: Aid to the Church in Need. pp. 55–55. ISBN 978-0-9553339-6-5. http://www.aidtochurch.org/pdf/P&F_FINAL.pdf.
- ^ "The Constitution of India" (PDF). http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ a b "‘Using places of worship for campaigning in Kerala civic polls is violation of poll code’ | Indian Orthodox Herald – Breaking Church Catholicate News And Doctrinal Information". Orthodoxherald.com. 18 September 2010. http://www.orthodoxherald.com/2010/09/18/%E2%80%98using-places-of-worship-for-campaigning-in-kerala-civic-polls-is-violation-of-poll-code%E2%80%99/. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ "Roger II". Encyclopædia Britannica. http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9377080/Roger-II. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ "Tracing The Norman Rulers of Sicily". New York Times. 26 April 1987. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D61331F935A15757C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ Christopher Gravett (15 November 1997). German Medieval Armies 1000–1300. Osprey Publishing. pp. 17. ISBN 978-1-85532-657-6. http://books.google.com/books?id=nav0JZtAJbcC.
- ^ Unitarian Universalist Partner Church Council. "Edict of Torda" (DOC). Retrieved on 2008-01-23.
- ^ Zamoyski, Adam. The Polish Way. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1987
- ^ a b Rogers, Horatio, 2009. Mary Dyer of Rhode Island: The Quaker Martyr That Was Hanged on Boston Common, 1 June 1660 pp.1–2. BiblioBazaar, LLC
- ^ Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: a comprehensive encyclopedia. Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=EzvHvEDPosQC&pg=PR41&dq=charles+1661+-+massachusetts+execution&hl=en&ei=HYB-TPnjLubX4watiJyxBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=charles%201661%20-%20massachusetts%20execution&f=false. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ a b Zimmerman, Mark, Symbol of Enduring Freedom, p. 19, Columbia Magazine, March 2010
- ^ Brugger, Robert J. (1988). Maryland: A Middle Temperament. , p 21, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-3399-X.
- ^ Finkelman, Paul, Maryland Toleration Act, The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, New York: CRC Press. ISBN 0-415-94342-6.
- ^ a b Roark, Elisabeth Louise, p.78, Artists of colonial America Retrieved 22 February 2010
- ^ Freedom of Religion and Religious Symbols in the Public Sphere. 2.2.2 Headcoverings. Parliament of Canada. Publication No. 2011-60-E. Published 2011-07-25. Retrieved 21 December 2011.
- ^ "A/RES/36/55. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief". United Nations. 25 November 1981. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/36/a36r055.htm. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ Website of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
- ^ Elena Garcia, Atheist Billboard Hits Idaho, 10 March 2009, The Christian Post.
- ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Naitons, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.643-649
- ^ Smith, Adam (1776), Wealth of Naitons, Penn State Electronic Classics edition, republished 2005, p.647
- ^ a b "Hindu Beliefs". religionfacts.com. http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs.htm.
- ^ a b c "Declaration on religious freedom – Dignitatis humanae". Vatican.va. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may", the eleventh Article of Faith.
- ^ Mutua, Makau. 2004. Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
- ^ J. D. Van der Vyver; John Witte (1996). Religious human rights in global perspective: legal perspectives. 2. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 418. ISBN 90-411-0177-2. http://books.google.com/?id=XSnpr1ndq5kC.
- ^ Joel H. Spring (2001). Globalization and educational rights: an intercivilizational analysis. Routledge. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8058-3882-4. http://books.google.com/?id=3lobX1DC_i0C&pg=PA92.
- ^ Alan Taylor (2002). American colonies; Volume 1 of The Penguin history of the United States, History of the United States Series. Penguin. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-14-200210-0. http://books.google.com/?id=NPoAQRgkrOcC&pg=PA40.
- ^ United States of America, Department of State. "2010 International Religious Freedom Report". International Religious Freedom Report. US Department of State. http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2010_5/index.htm. Retrieved 15 February 2012.
- ^ a b c International Federation for Human Rights (1 August 2003). "Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran" (PDF). fdih.org. http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf. Retrieved 20 October 2006.
- ^ Iran Human Rights Documentation Center (2007). "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran" (PDF). Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. http://www.iranhrdc.org/english/pdfs/Reports/bahai_report.pdf. Retrieved 3 March 2007.
- ^ Mayton, Joseph (19 December 2006). "Egypt's Bahais denied citizenship rights". Middle East Times. http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20061220-033209-2100r. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
- ^ Otterman, Sharon (17 December 2006). "Court denies Bahai couple document IDs". The Washington Times. http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20061217-122113-6320r.htm. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
- ^ a b c Nkrumah, Gamal (21 December 2006). "Rendered faithless and stateless". Al-Ahram weekly. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/825/eg5.htm. Retrieved 23 January 2007.
- ^ "US State Department report on Greece". State.gov. 8 November 2005. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51555.htm. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
- ^ Sanu, Sankrant (2006). "Re-examining Religious Freedom" (PDF). Manushi. http://www.manushi-india.org/pdfs_issues/PDF%20Files%20150/Sankrant%20Sanu.%204-12.pdf. Retrieved 26 July 2008.
- ^ "No place to call home". Christian Solidarity Worldwide. 29 April 2008. http://www.online2.church123.com/attach.asp?clientURN=christiansolidarityworldwide2&attachFileName=09ae125dba76986113441ef1463aca8e.attach&attachOriginalFileName=CSW_Briefing_Apostasy_April_2008.pdf.
- ^ [1] from "Leaving Islam: Apostates speak out" by Ibn Warraq
- ^ a b Heffening, W.. "Murtadd". In P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam Online Edition. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.
- ^ Adbul Qadir Oudah (1999). Kitab Bhavan. New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan. ISBN 81-7151-273-9. , Volume II. pp. 258–262; Volume IV. pp. 19–21
- ^ Pencovic v. Pencovic, 45 Cal. 2d 67 (1955).
- ^ "Criminal Law and Procedure By Daniel E. Hall - Cengage Learning, July 2008 - p. 266 [2]
- ^ Davis, Derek H.. "The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right". http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/2/dav2.pdf. Retrieved 3 March 2009.
- ^ "Gesetz über die religiöse Kindererziehung". Bundesrecht.juris.de. http://bundesrecht.juris.de/kerzg/BJNR009390921.html. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ Bundesgesetz 1985 über die religiöse Kindererziehung (pdf)
- ^ "Schweizerisches Zivilgesetzbuch Art 303: Religiöse Erziehung". Gesetze.ch. http://www.gesetze.ch/sr/210/210_025.htm. Retrieved 3 September 2011.
- ^ "US commission names 14 worst violators of religious freedom". Christianity Today. 29 April 2011. http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10154&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
^ "USCIRF Identifies World's Worst Religious Freedom Violators: Egypt Cited for First Time" (Press release). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 28 April 2011. http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3595. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
^ Annual Report 2011 (Report). United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 2011. http://www.uscirf.gov/images/book%20with%20cover%20for%20web.pdf. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
- ^ "France Passes Religious Symbol Ban". Christianity Today. 9 February 2004. http://www.christiantoday.com/article/france.passes.religious.symbol.ban/17.htm. Retrieved 29 April 2011.
- ^ "The Islamic veil across Europe". BBC News. 17 November 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5414098.stm. Retrieved 2 December 2006.
- ^ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, retrieved 4 July 2009.
- ^ Religious Freedom Day, 2006 – A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America, Religious Freedom Day, 2001 – Proclamation by the President of the United States of America 15 January 2001
- ^ a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Executive summary)". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=491. Retrieved 29 December 2009.
- ^ a b "Global Restrictions on Religion (Full report)". The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. December 2009. http://pewforum.org/newassets/images/reports/restrictions/restrictionsfullreport.pdf. Retrieved 29 December 2009. [dead link]
- ^ a b Eli Clifton, Few States Enjoy Freedom of Faith, Report Says.
- Daniel L. Dreisbach and Mark David Hall. The Sacred Rights of Conscience: Selected Readings on Religious Liberty and Church-State Relations in the American Founding (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund Press, 2009).
- Barzilai, Gad (2007). Law and Religion. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-2494-3. .
- Beneke, Chris (20 September 2006). Beyond Toleration: The Religious Origins of American Pluralism. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-19-530555-8. .
- Curry, Thomas J. (19 December 1989). Church and State in America to the Passage of the First Amendment. Oxford University Press; Reprint edition (19 December 1989). ISBN 0-19-505181-5. .
- Frost, J. William (1990) A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).
- Gaustad, Edwin S. (2004, 2nd ed.) Faith of the Founders: Religion and the New Nation, 1776–1826 (Waco: Baylor University Press).
- Hamilton, Marci A. (17 June 2005). God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law. Edward R. Becker (Foreword). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-85304-4. .
- Hanson, Charles P. (1998). Necessary Virtue: The Pragmatic Origins of Religious Liberty in New England. University Press of Virginia. ISBN 0-8139-1794-8. .
- Hasson, Kevin 'Seamus', The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America, Encounter Books, 2005, ISBN 1-59403-083-9
- McLoughlin, William G. (1971) (2 vols.). New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Murphy, Andrew R. (July 2001). Conscience and Community: Revisiting Toleration and Religious Dissent in Early Modern England and America. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0-271-02105-5. .
- Mutua, Makau (2004). Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
- Stokes, Anson Phelps (1950) Church and State in the United States, Historic Development and Contemporary Problems of Religious Freedom under the Constitution, 3 Volumes (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers).
- Stokes, DaShanne (In Press). Legalized Segregation and the Denial of Religious Freedom
- Stüssi Marcel, MODELS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: Switzerland, the United States, and Syria by Analytical, Methodological, and Eclectic Representation, 375 ff. (Lit 2012)., by Marcel Stüssi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
- Associated Press (2002). Appeals court upholds man's use of eagle feathers for religious practices
- American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978)
- Policy Concerning Distribution of Eagle Feathers for Native American Religious
- Ban on Minarets: On the Validity of a Controversial Swiss Popular Initiative (2008), , by Marcel Stuessi, research fellow at the University of Lucerne.
- "Religious Liberty: The legal framework in selected OSCE countries." (PDF). Law Library, U.S. Library of Congress. May 2000. Archived from the original on 25 June 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080625032914/http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/rellib1.pdf. Retrieved 6 April 2007.
- Utt, Walter C. (1964). "Brickbats and Dead Cats". Liberty (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 59 (4, July–August): 18–21. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19640401-V59-04__C.pdf#view=fit. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
- Utt, Walter C. (1960). "A Plea for the Somewhat Disorganized Man". Liberty (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 55 (4, July–August): 15, 16, 29. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19600401-V55-04__C.pdf#view=fit. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
- Utt, Walter C. (1974). "Toleration is a Nasty Word". Liberty (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 69 (2, March–April): 10–13. http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/LibM/LibM19740201-V69-02__C.pdf#view=fit. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Context, limitations and duties
|
|
- Article 28: Social order
- Article 29.1: Social responsibility
- Article 29.2: Limitations of human rights
- Article 29.3: The supremacy of the purposes and principles of the United Nations
- Article 30: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Key concepts |
|
|
| Movements |
|
|
| Issues |
|
|
| Related topics |
|
|
