Search results

This chapter is intended to elaborate on the existing academic literature addressing the migration of constitutional ideas. Through an examination of ongoing efforts to enshrine “defamation of religion” as a violation of international human rights, the author confirms that the phenomenon of migration is not restricted to positive constitutional norms, but rather also encompasses negative ideas that ultimately may serve to undermine international and domestic constitutionalism. More specifically, the case study demonstrates that the movement of anti-constitutional ideas is not restricted to the domain of “international security” law, and further, that the vertical axis linking international and domestic law is in fact a two-way channel that permits the transmission of domestic anti-constitutional ideas up to the international level.

In reaching the findings presented herein, the chapter also adds to the universalism–relativism debate by demonstrating that allowances for “plurality consciousness” on the international level may in certain instances undermine fundamental norms previously negotiated and accepted as authoritative by the international community. From this perspective, the movement in favor of prohibiting “defamation of religion” is not merely a case study that helps to expand our understanding of how anti-constitutional ideas migrate, but also indicative of a reenergized campaign to challenge the status, content, and stability of universal human rights norms.

In the light of intensifying academic discourses on contemporary religious education in Hong Kong, this paper aims to examine how the interreligious model (i.e. that features teaching religious variety rather than a particular faith) is consistent with Hong Kong’s social context. It begins with a theoretical conceptualization that interreligious education originates from certain preconditions and is only understood contextually. Next, the analysis identifies the preconditions within Hong Kong milieus: sociodemographic, sociocultural and legal.

Theoretically driven case study. The paper analyses Hong Kong's development toward interreligious education.

Albeit most conceptualizing of interreligious education has been conducted in Europe, the study finds the model functional to Hong Kong. Moreover, these preconditions-religious heterogeneity, freedom of religion and secularity – are met, although with their specifics. These preconditions, however, do not imply imperativeness yet rather feasibility if the interreligious model adheres to Hong Kong’s educational aims.

This study develops theoretical lenses for interreligious education in Hong Kong. First, it analyzes religious heterogeneity, freedom of religion and secularity within the Hong Kong milieus and reveals Hong Kong’s capacity to implement the interreligious model. It also advances scholarship on interreligious education in relatively underexplored settings (referring not simply to Hong Kong but to Chinese societies and contemporary Asia).

The USA is witnessing a conflict between LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer) consumers/supporters and Christian fundamentalist service providers/opponents regarding whether service can be denied based on religious values. The purpose of this paper is to make a timely investigation into this conflict between marketplace inclusion (for LGBTQ consumers) and freedom of religion (for religious service providers).

The intersection of marketplace inclusion for LGBTQ consumers and religious freedom for service providers is examined by identifying appropriate strategies that address this conflict and reviewing how differing religious perspectives influence perceptions of LGBTQ consumer rights, all building off the social identity threat literature.

LGBTQ and religious identities often conflict to influence consumer behavior and service provider interactions. Such conflict is heightened when there is a lack of substitutes (i.e. only one service provider in an area for a specific service). Common LGBTQ consumer responses include changing service providers, providing justification for the provision of services and pursing legal recourse. Suggested strategies to address this conflict include highlighting common social identities and using two-sided messages for service providers, using in-group interventions for social groups and using government interventions for public policy.

Research has yet to examine the conflict between marketplace inclusion and religious freedom, particularly for the inclusion of LGBTQ consumers. Thus, this paper provides a novel conceptual model detailing these relationships to stimulate discussion among consumers, service providers, social groups and public policy in addition to serving as a foundation for future research.

Western liberal states are considered to be secular in nature, with a presumed neutrality of state laws from religious values and norms. However, this claim overlooks the inherent influence that religious groups (namely, dominant Christian churches and groups) have as informal institutions. According to neo-institutionalists, informal institutions, like these religious norms and values, interact with and influence formal state institutions. As such, it could be argued that the norms and values of dominant religious groups within the state have a role in shaping governmental policies and the law. This is evident when examining the debates around multiculturalism and religious freedom that arise in liberal democratic states such as Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (UK). In particular, the recent Sharia debates that have arisen in each of these jurisdictions illustrate that the secular state legal system is often positioned as “neutral” and free from religious influence – and thus incompatible with, and unable to, accommodate the religious orders of minority groups. However, this idea that the state is entirely free from religious values is a fallacy that ignores the historical role and influence of Christian churches in each state. In opposing the accommodation of Sharia in private dispute resolution, common arguments include the inherent patriarchal nature of the religion leading to further oppression and disadvantage of Muslim women when seeking resolution of personal law matters (i.e. divorce and property settlements). The secular state law is positioned against this (and religion more broadly) as the “fair” and “just” alternative for minority women – protector of individual rights. Though this ignores the inherent gender hierarchies embedded within formal state institutions, including the legal system that has been implicitly shaped by religious moral values to varying degrees – where minority women are also faced with a set of gender biases. When combined with the internal pressures from their communities and families this can often place them in a double-bind of disadvantage. In this paper, I draw on feminist institutionalism to examine the informal institutional norms that arise from dominant Christian churches in Australia, Canada, and the UK. In particular, the ways in which these informal norms have influenced the development of state laws, and continue to operate alongside the legal system to shape and influence governmental policies, laws, and ultimately the outcomes for Muslim women.

The purpose of this paper is to show how individual law is defined in Islam. Individual law includes a set of human rights that the government is bound to vindicate by duty. Islamic law approach is how human beings transcendence, and freedom may be formed wisely.

Spiritual flourishing is the goal of Islamic Sufism. The main topics of individual freedom are discussed here are freedom of opinion, will, religion, speech, meeting, minorities, rule of law, equality before law, rights resulted from implementing justice, ownership and self-determination of destiny and jobs, which are explained through the Islamic Sufism viewpoint.

By comparing individual law in Islamic law with the other law schools, transcendence of the former is more clarified.

Comparative research of the other religions’ gnosticism will develop the paradigm.

The principles highlighted in this study can be used for applied debates in the field to promote individual law for understanding and recompilation.

Delicateness, truthfulness and righteousness of Islamic Sufism may turn the attentions of scholars and researchers to this rich viewpoint.

Individual law scholars have not touched the topic from this viewpoint. This paper opens new challenging area.

This study aims to perform a systematic review of the dialectics and telematics strategy for regulating religion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also analyzes some important issues related to religions, state, and society.

A critical literature review was performed to complete this study, using media, institutional, national, and international reports, as well as recent and previous studies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Religion was one of the social entities that had a crucial effect on the COVID-19 pandemic. The new system in the form of social distancing affects its performance. Furthermore, the response of religion in Indonesia is unique when its status is considered as the largest Islamic country in the world. Therefore, this study attempts to analyze and demonstrate the dynamics of relationships between actors, religion, and state in the process and strategy of religious regulation.

This study was carried out using a single methodological approach.

This study provides input to both religion and the state (government) in building a synergy of constructive responses to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It provides input to society in understanding the critical intersection between religion, state, and society.

This may be the first academic study that analyzes the problems of the process of regulating religion in the context of COVID-19.

The First Amendment so states,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (United Nations, 2006)

Within the confines of this law are the foundational touchstones of our democracy identifying the protection of five critical freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly and the freedom to petition to the government. Many institutions of higher education and spheres of academe outline academic freedom as the right of a scholar to express ideas without risk of potential professional consequence. Within that domain of the freedom to express and share information, the American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as,

the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.

In a time where democratic freedoms are being challenged, the concepts of intellectual freedom and academic freedom require examination as key tenets of our democracy to be upheld, celebrated and honored. This chapter will critique and consider how institutions, organizations and entities have a keen ability to be empowered and disempowered by the appropriate execution or the lack of execution of both the tenets of intellectual and academic freedoms. This chapter will deconstruct both concepts through the lens of a social justice framework, thereby posing the question how challenging key democratic elements of the citizenry to express and share ideas, inform and responsibly disseminate ideas handicaps both the will and core of a democracy to thrive. This chapter will highlight how communities expand and narrow the domains of intellectual and academic freedom, from within the United States exploring the role of the Constitution, yet also infusing a global perspective. This chapter will examine what both academic and intellectual freedoms look like outside of the United States, and how theoretically and tangibly the concepts are applied. This chapter explores the application of the core tenets of intellectual and academic freedoms through a social justice framework and the introduction of reframing the consideration of both freedoms as human rights. A social justice framework incorporates the principle of fair and impartial treatment being afforded and entitled to all members of the citizenry. Seemingly to oppose and prevent these modes of expression and foundational elements of freedom both obstruct the principles of social justice and disrupt a democracy.

The purpose of this paper is to determine the appropriate legal balance and framework whereby issues of health care, patient access and rights of conscience can be best accommodated.

A review of existing case law, statutes and conscience clauses as applied to the philosophical debate surrounding conscience in health care.

Freedom of conscience is strongly anchored in British law and policy. Practice within the health care industry, however, has been slow and resistant to rights of conscience. Respecting the right of health care workers to exercise that right, benefits the health care industry at large, and patients themselves.

This debate, particularly since the so-called “Scottish mid-wives case” and the recent General Pharmaceutical Council consultation on religion and personal values, has come to the forefront of bio-ethical discourse in recent months. As such, this treatment provides a valuable legal tool to answering the various positions involved in the debate.