Human V Religious Rights

Where can religions find sources of legitimacy for human rights? How do, and how should, religious leaders and communities respond to human rights as defined in modern International Law? When religious precepts contradict human rights standards - for example in relation to freedom of expression or in relation to punishments - which should trump the other, and why? Can human rights and religious teachings be interpreted in a manner which brings reconciliation closer? Do the modern concept and system of human rights undermine the very vision of society that religions aim to impart? Is a reference to God in the discussion of human rights misplaced? Do human fallibilities with respect to interpretation, judicial reasoning and the understanding of human oneness and dignity provide the key to the undeniable and sometimes devastating conflicts that have arisen between, and within, religions and the human rights movement? In this volume, academics and lawyers tackle these most difficult questions head-on, with candour and creativity, and the collection is rendered unique by the further contributions of a remarkable range of other professionals, including senior religious leaders and representatives, journalists, diplomats and civil servants, both national and international. Most notably, the contributors do not shy away from the boldest question of all - summed up in the book's title. The thoroughly edited and revised papers which make up this collection were originally prepared for a ground-breaking conference organised by the Clemens Nathan Research Centre, the University of London Institute of Commonwealth Studies and Martinus Nijhoff/Brill.

This volume examines the relationship between religion and human rights in seven major religious traditions, as well as key legal concepts, contemporary issues, and relationships among religion, state, and society in the areas of human rights and religious freedom.

Although the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States share many legal, social, and political values, they also represent different traditions in terms of how each understands the idea of universal human rights. The contributors to this volume represent legal-constitutional, historical, bio-ethical, philosophical, and social science reflections on what the two nation states share, and what distinguishes their understanding of universal human rights. The rise of neo-populist and authoritarian nationalist impulses in Europe and the Americas, the differing responses of the two liberal democratic republics provide an insight into how each nation state still affirms a long-standing commitment to universal human rights. No other work in German or English currently provides a comparison between the two countries and across many disciplines.

Media. By James Finn.

When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982, the first of its fundamental freedoms seemed less significant and less interesting than many of its other rights. However, the Salman Rushdie affair, the 9/11 attacks, and later the publication of the "Danish Cartoons" helped to move religion or religious difference to the forefront of public consciousness. These events seemed to confirm that religion, or at least particular religions, represented a threat to the values of liberal-democratic society. Religious freedom issues that may have been minor and easily resolved "on the ground" were increasingly seen through this lens of intractable conflict, and as opening the door to a broader threat to Western democracy. In Canada, anxiety about religion has been far less acute than in Europe or in the United States. Nevertheless, concern about the character of religion has shaped the public reaction to religious diversity and freedom. This has been most powerfully so in Quebec where, as in Europe, national identity remains a concern, and the political role of the Catholic church in the recent past has caused many to be wary of the visibility of religion in the public sphere. The book reviews the basic history of religious freedom in Canada; looks at state support for religion, including the place of religious practices and symbols in public institutions and the role of religious values in public decision making; the restriction or accommodation of religious practices by state action; religious restriction in particular contexts; state support for religious schools; freedom of religion in the context of the family, and in particular, the parent-child relationship; and freedom of conscience component of section 2(a)

Dialogue on the conflict between religious fundamentalism and women's rights is often stymied by an 'all or nothing' approach: fundamentalists claim of absolute religious freedom, while some feminists dismiss religion entirely as being so imbued with patriarchy as to be eternally opposed to women's rights. This ignores, though, the experiences of religious women who suffer under fundamentalism and fight to resist it, perceiving themselves to be at once religious and feminist. In Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women , Howland provides a forum for these different scholars, both religious and nonreligious, to meet and seek common ground in their fight against fundamentalism. Through an examination of international human rights, national law, grass roots activism, and theology, this volume explores the acute problems that contemporary fundamentalist movements pose for women's equality and liberty rights.

Religious exemptions have a long history in American law, but have become especially controversial over the last several years. The essays in this volume address the moral and philosophical issues that the legal practice of religious exemptions often raises.

This book presents a human rights-based assessment of the various modes of state–religion identification and of the various forms of state practice that surround and characterize these different state–religion models. This book makes a case for the recognition of a state duty to remain impartial with respect to religion or belief in all regards so as to comply with people’s fundamental right to be governed, at all times, in a religiously neutral manner.