Bhavit Chopra HRLT Internal Assessment 2

Human Rights Law and Theory
L-CT-0032
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT 2
Submitted to: Professor Bidisha Bandyopadhyay

Submitted by: Bhavit Chopra
Student ID: 21011883
Course: BCom LLB – 2021
Section – B
Universal Principles and Local Challenges: Analyzing Freedom of Religion
or Belief as a Human Right
Abstract
This paper explores freedom of religion or belief as a universal human right, promoting
individual autonomy and pluralistic societies. Enshrined in pivotal international instruments,
such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, FoRB safeguards the right to freedom of choice to practice, express, or
hold religious or nonreligious convictions. Universality is the challenge cultural particularism
and political agendas throw to FoRB and usually place it in tensions with other rights, gender
equality and freedom of expression included. The study therefore traces the historical and
normative foundations of FoRB, critiques the selective application of FoRB, and delves into
the complexity of its relation to the current human rights issue. Arguing on the paper's
proposition of inter-cultural dialogue that will respect diversity in light of fundamental human
rights, a nuanced approach is presented as a harmonizing method in FoRB as other rights are
protected hence making it a continuous relevant dialogue in an inter-connectedly globalized
world. Thus, the necessity of FoRB will be confirmed anew as protecting human dignity in
the spirit of mutual respect among divergent societies.
Introduction
Freedom of religion or belief is recognized as a universal fundamental human right,
according to key international instruments that include the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Protection of FoRB affords
protection of the right of individual autonomy to make, practice, or express a choice in
religious or nonreligious beliefs, while affording rights against discrimination and
persecution in the name of beliefs. This right provides the bedrock foundation for pluralistic
societies and allows peaceful coexistence if it is open and respectful of a range of cultural,
religious, and philosophical points of view. FoRB is a contested right, both culturally and
politically, and challenges universal application. Critics argue that sometimes FoRB may be
at collision with other rights like freedom of expression or gender equality, while, in some
states and groups, it is limited due to grounds on traditional or ideological principles. This
paper presents that even with those limits, FoRB continues to be an essential universal right
inherent to human experience, which needs to be aligned with other human rights, while also
being made to fit context-specific interpretations so as to become more practical. This paper
aims at restating the position of FoRB as an essential human right by highlighting its
historical underpinnings, the barriers it faces in universalism, and tensions with other rights.1
Historical and Normative Foundations of FoRB

The roots of freedom of religion or belief find strong backings deep in the history of human
rights. The modern conception of FoRB is premised on universal human dignity and the
1
L Claus, “Montesquieu’s Mistakes and the True Meaning of Separation” (2005) 25 Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies 419 <https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi022>.
respect of individual conscience; this has been codified since the Second World War with the
promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Article 18 of the UDHR
declares that "everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion" and
comprises within it both the right to think or hold religious beliefs of any kind which one
chooses as well as the right to practice, change, or abstain from any religion or belief. The
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 solidified this universal
commitment by restating Article 18 from the UDHR but provided a legal framework holding
states accountable for freedoms of religion and belief.2
The normative core of FoRB affirms the principle of universalism according to which the
right is inherent in all members, regardless of cultural or religious background. This
universalist stance has been highlighted in the basic international instruments and was further
adhered to by various organs such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee.3 In
General Comment No. 22 on Article 18, the UNHRC explained that FoRB applies equally to
theistic, non-theistic, and atheistic beliefs, and thus, its scope is universal and inclusive. 4 In
addition, the European Court of Human Rights has declared that FoRB is indispensable to a
"democratic society" and relevant for believers and unbelievers alike. The court noted that
protection for FoRB transcends religious lines and includes all expressions of belief. In
Kokkinakis v. Greece, the ECtHR held that FoRB is an inherent part of individual identity
and societal pluralism and therefore a right closely related to individual autonomy and
democracy.5
Although holding universalist ambitions, FoRB has been confronted by different challenges
and misinterpretations, especially since states always try to restrict its application based on
national or religious interests. Such applications of FoRB definitions which tend to limit it
such as only a few religions can be recognized officially in various countries, put its
applicability at a universal risk. This is because in limiting FoRB, normative aspirations that
FoRB creates are then contrasted by the reality of implementing the same; hence inclusivity
that FoRB promises becomes limited. Heiner Bielefeldt criticizes these particularistic
restrictions, pointing out that such narrow definitions or political misuse of FoRB undermine
the basis of universality undergirding human rights.
Universalism vs. Cultural and Political Challenges

It is also true that universality claims of FoRB have faced significant resistance-especially
when cultural or religious contexts oppose its application. For instance, in some majority
Muslim states, Freedom of Religion or Belief is granted exclusively to a subset of those
2
Evans, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (Cambridge University Press
1997)
4o
3
Gunn, ‘The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law’
(2003) 16 Harvard Hum Rts J 189
4
Bielefeldt, Pinto, and Petersen, ‘Introduction: Freedom of Religion or Belief as a Human
Right’ (2022) 20(2) Rev Faith & Intl Affairs 1
5
Tore Lindholm, ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief from a Human Rights Perspective’ in Hans
Aage Gravaas, Christof Sauer, Tormod Engelsviken, Maqsood Kamil, and Knud Jørgensen
(eds), Freedom of Belief & Christian Mission (Fortress Press 2015)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1ddcn3r.6.
religions that were previously acceptable to the ruling regime. This subset is comprised of a
variety of minority factions such as Baha'i or even Ahmadiyyah. Selective recognition of five
religions in China, namely, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism,
imposes selective FoRB at the expense of other beliefs not recognized in the state. The said
recognition of a few religious groups places them above other beliefs according to the ruling
state's expectations, yet other beliefs remain at a lowly back seat. These policies have
revealed tensions between principles of universality and cultural particularism; namely, the
belief of the right of the state in certain matters relating to their particular cultural or religious
imperatives, irrespective of violation to the universality framework that characterizes human
rights.6
Post-colonial perspectives complicate the issue by contesting the legitimacy of imposing
universal human rights standards, often described as the "brainchild" of the Western world.
Critics have it that the broad application of FoRB overshadows the traditional beliefs and
practices not aligned with human rights from a Euro-centric perspective. Scholars from some
post-colonialist and feminist perspectives hold views that human rights, be it FoRB, in their
practice reinforce Western domination by providing a universal mechanism that is not
tailored with the culture specifics. For instance, the cultural importance given to
individualistic values within FoRB would collide with the collective customary ways in
cultures where religiousness is defined by one's collective identity rather than a choice. Tore
Lindholm responds to this by claiming that FoRB as a moral and political right surpasses
cultural distinctions since it serves to vindicate the dignity of humans in whatever culture or
faith.
Amid such pressures, FoRB advocacy demands a cross-cultural discourse which respects
diversity as they continue to assert universally-held rights. This, however might help to create
bridging gaps that often make a difference between these particular universal principles and
locally-held practices, and open more doors for the creation of space where FoRB takes
account of cultural differences sensitivities without necessarily conceding core rights. The
United Nations, in promoting international dialogues on FoRB, encourages states to honor
diverse beliefs while maintaining a commitment to universal human rights. A flexible yet
principled interpretation of FoRB by the international community can work toward a model
that respects cultural diversity and universal human rights standards.
Intersection with Other Human Rights and Contemporary Critiques

This makes the universal application of FoRB even more complicated, especially where it
intersects with other human rights, particularly gender equality and freedom of expression.
Tensions are often found when FoRB is invoked to justify practices that appear to infringe on
other rights, such as gender-based discrimination or limitations on freedom of expression. For
example, some religious practices and beliefs have been criticized for perpetuating patriarchal
norms that are in conflict with modern conceptions of gender equality. This leaves some
religious interpretations limiting women's rights by putting them in their limited spheres
within religious and social areas, which remains a significant concern regarding the
implementation of FoRB in areas violating gender equity. According to Bielefeldt, Pinto, and
6
Bielefeldt, Pinto, and Petersen, ‘Introduction: Freedom of Religion or Belief as a Human
Right’ (2022) 20(2) Rev Faith & Intl Affairs 1, 1.
Petersen, this framing of FoRB against gender equality is what dilutes the indivisibility of
human rights and refuses to recognize the myriad of diverse interpretations within religious
traditions to support gender equity.7
Another critical area where FoRB meets such strong challenges is the arena of freedom of
expression. For example, disputes surrounding blasphemy laws that have been legitimized by
many states under the cloak of protecting religious feelings are yet another source of dispute
as they are mostly applied in a manner that becomes tools of censorship and persecution
towards religious minorities. Mostly, blasphemy laws have received much criticism as
suppressing free speech and the silence of dissenting voices. Through such restrictions, one
cannot help but question whether they still enjoy their right to criticize the concept of
religious beliefs without limitations or restraint. The Rabat Plan of Action, prepared under the
United Nations umbrella, argues that FoRB should be harmonized with freedom of
expression by making it hard to criminalize hate speech while promoting less restrictive
approaches including interfaith dialogue and public education.8
The relationship between FoRB and LGBTQ rights is also a thorny issue. Religious leaders
have largely used the grounds of FoRB to deny LGBTQ rights by appealing to doctrinal
beliefs in order to advance discrimination. This further reinforces a zero-sum mentality in
which the rights of FoRB individuals are pitted against those of LGBTQ people. As scholars
have argued, this type of thinking has neglected the possibility of the harmonious coexistence
of FoRB and LGBTQ rights by emphasizing the importance of diverse identities within
religious frameworks. The integrated approach should then be embraced; in interpreting
FoRB, rights accorded to sexual minorities of their expression on their identity should not, at
all, violate the liberties of religion groups holding some doctrines where they do not violate
some rights of individualism.
Conclusion
Freedom of religion or belief continues to stand as an indispensable human right that would
propel pluralism and inclusivity. While FoRB is faced with challenges to its universality-the
cultural particularism, the political manipulation, and conflict with other human rights-the
foundational role in the protection of individual autonomy and tolerance reaffirms the
importance of FoRB. This needs to be handled in a nuanced manner that is respectful of
cultural diversity and upholds universal human rights principles. This will be done by
encouraging dialogue and supportive non-restrictive policies so that the international
community can continue to uphold FoRB in a manner compatible with other rights, including
freedom of expression and gender equality, so that FoRB remains a bedrock of human dignity
and an example of the universality of human rights.
Bibliography
7
Bielefeldt H, Pinto TA, and Petersen MJ, ‘Introduction: Freedom of Religion or Belief as a
Human Right’ (2022) 20(2) The Review of Faith & International Affairs 1-12
https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2022.2065799.
8
Ibid.
1. Bielefeldt, Heiner. “Misperceptions of Freedom of Religion or Belief.” Human Rights
Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2013): 33-68. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23352251.
2. Tore Lindholm, ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief from a Human Rights Perspective’ in

Hans Aage Gravaas, Christof Sauer, Tormod Engelsviken, Maqsood Kamil, and Knud
Jørgensen (eds), Freedom of Belief & Christian Mission (Fortress Press 2015)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1ddcn3r.6.
3. Bielefeldt H, Pinto TA, and Petersen MJ, ‘Introduction: Freedom of Religion or
Belief as a Human Right’ (2022) 20(2) The Review of Faith & International Affairs 1-
12 https://doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2022.2065799.
4. Evans M, Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe (Cambridge University
Press 1997)Taylor, Paul M. Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights
Law and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2005.
5. An-Na’im, Abdullahi Ahmed. “The Interdependence of Religion, Secularism, and
Human Rights.” Common Knowledge 11, no. 1 (2005): 56-80.
https://doi.org/10.1215/0961754X-11-1-56.
6. Gunn JT, ‘The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in
International Law’ (2003) 16 Harvard Human Rights Journal 189-215
7. Claus L, “Montesquieu’s Mistakes and the True Meaning of Separation” (2005) 25
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 419 <https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi022>

Bhavit Chopra HRLT Internal Assessment 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhavit Chopra HRLT Internal Assessment 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhavit Chopra HRLT Internal Assessment 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Rights Law and Theory

Submitted to: Professor Bidisha Bandyopadhyay

Historical and Normative Foundations of FoRB

Universalism vs. Cultural and Political Challenges

Intersection with Other Human Rights and Contemporary Critiques

2. Tore Lindholm, ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief from a Human Rights Perspective’ in

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.