Religious Nationalism and Religious Freedom in Asia: Mapping Regional Trends in a Global Phenomenon

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Jaclyn Neo ◽  
Brett G. Scharffs
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Religious Nationalism ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Peaceful Coexistence ◽  
Constitutional Government ◽  
Pluralistic Societies ◽  
Regional Trends ◽  
National Boundaries

AbstractIn recent times, religious nationalism has emerged as a major basis for identity and mobilization. In Asia, religious nationalism specifically challenges existing pluralist approaches to constitutional government, which have generally been seen as necessary to ensure peaceful coexistence. The increasing alignment of religious and national boundaries has the worrying capacity to neutralize the “cross-cutting cleavages” that could otherwise vitiate the centrifugal tendencies of pluralistic societies. In the context of pluralistic Asia, therefore, religious nationalism is fundamentally anchored in a rejection of ethnic, religious, cultural, and even legal plurality. This has serious consequences for the freedoms of religious groups, particularly minority groups and minorities within dominant religious groups. This article introduces the Special Issue studying not only the phenomenon of religious nationalism in Asia, but also its impact on the rights of religious groups and their religious freedoms, broadly conceived.

When the World Laughs

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
William V. Costanzo
Keyword(s):  
Far East ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
The Far East ◽  
Regional Trends ◽  
Values And Beliefs ◽  
History Of ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
Lost In Translation ◽  
Cross National ◽  
Film Comedy

This is a book about the intersection of humor, history, and culture. It explores how film comedy, one of the world’s most popular movie genres, reflects the values and beliefs of those who enjoy its many forms, its most enduring characters and stories, its most entertaining routines and funniest jokes. What people laugh at in Europe, Africa, or the Far East reveals important truths about their differences and common bonds. By investigating their traditions of humor, by paying close attention to the kinds of comedy that cross national boundaries and what gets lost in translation, this study leads us to a deeper understanding of each other and ourselves. Section One begins with a survey of the theories and research that best explain how humor works. It clarifies the varieties of comic forms and styles, identifies the world’s most archetypal figures of fun, and traces the history of mirth from earliest times to today. It also examines the techniques and aesthetics of film comedy: how movies use the world’s rich repertoire of amusing stories, gags, and wit to make us laugh and think. Section Two offers a close look at national and regional trends. It applies the concepts set forth earlier to specific films across a broad spectrum of sub-genres, historical eras, and cultural contexts, providing an insightful comparative study of the world’s great traditions of film comedy.

scholarly journals Special Solicitude: Religious Freedom at America’s Public Universities

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 30
Author(s):  
William E. Thro
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Public Universities ◽  
Religious Organizations ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Religious Expression ◽  
University Campuses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government

Rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument that the First Amendment requires identical treatment for religious organizations and secular organizations, the Supreme Court held such a “result is hard to square with the text of the First Amendment itself, which gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations.” (Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 189). This “special solicitude” guarantees religious freedom from the government in all aspects of society, but particularly on public university campuses. At a minimum, religious expression and religious organizations must have equal rights with secular expression and secular organizations. In some instances, religious expression and religious expression may have greater rights. The Court’s 2020 decisions in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, reinforce and expand the “special solicitude” of religion. Indeed, Espinoza and Our Lady have profound implications for student religious groups at America’s public campuses. This article examines religious freedom at America’s public universities. This article has three parts. First, it offers an overview of religious freedom prior to Espinoza and Our Lady. Second, it briefly discusses those two cases. Third, it explores the implications of those decisions on America’s public campuses.

Exploring the Frontier of Chinese Ethnic Minority Education: An Interview With Prof. Xing Teng

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780042110146
Author(s):  
Xing Teng ◽  
Ping-Chun Hsiung
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Minority ◽  
Open Space ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Education ◽  
Ethnic Minority Groups ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Final Version ◽  
Educational Anthropology ◽  
Education In China ◽  
Ethnic Minority Education

Xing Teng has spearheaded ethnic minority education and educational anthropology in China. As a member of the Han majority and an ally to ethnic minority groups, he has endeavored to open space for ethnic minority education in China. I sat down with Professor Teng in the summer of 2018. After transcribing the original interview into Chinese and in consultation with Professor Teng, four segments from the interview are translated for this Special Issue, with added footnotes. Statements are also included in the text for clarity. The final version has been lightly edited and condensed for length and clarity.

scholarly journals The Right to Discriminate

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Sandberg
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Human Sexuality ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Broadcast Media ◽  
High Profile ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right

The first decade of the 21st century has witnessed a number of controversies surrounding the interaction between law and religion in the United Kingdom. In particular, tensions have emerged between laws protecting religious freedom and those which prohibit discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. In particular, Parliament has repeatedly examined the scope and ambit of exceptions afforded to religious groups which allow them to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation when specific conditions are met. And these exceptions have reportedly led to tensions within both the Blair and Brown cabinets and rebukes from the Vatican and the European Commission, criticising the exceptions for being too narrow and too broad respectively. The exceptions have also been challenged by way of judicial review, have been applied or commented upon in a number of high-profile cases and have attracted comment in the print and broadcast media. A number of employees have brought claims asserting that new legal requirements promoting equality on grounds of sexual orientation are incompatible with their religious beliefs. This article seeks to explore the legal changes that have occurred in the first decade of the 21st century affecting religion and sexual orientation with particular reference to how courts and tribunals have dealt with clashes between the two. It discusses the extent to which English law allows religious groups and individuals to follow their own beliefs regarding human sexuality.

scholarly journals Compelling Freedom on Campus: A Free Speech Paradox

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-18
Author(s):  
Jamie Cameron*
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Law School ◽  
Professor Emeritus ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Indirect Control ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Supreme Court

In 1985, it was largely unknown how the Supreme Court of Canada would respond to the Charter.1 At first glance, a drugstore’s right to be open for business on Sunday, selling groceries, plastic cups, and a bicycle lock, seemed an unlikely source of inspiration for the Court’s first pronouncement on the essence of freedom. Perhaps unexpectedly, the justices enforced the entitlement, finding that a Sunday closing law compelling a corporation to comply with the Christian Sabbath infringed section 2(a)’s guarantee of religious freedom.2 In doing so, R v Big M Drug Mart defined freedom as “the absence of coercion or constraint,” stating without equivocation that no one who is compelled “to a course of action or inaction” is “truly free”.3 In Justice Dickson’s considered view, coercion includes “blatant forms of compulsion”, such as “direct commands to act or refrain from acting on pain of sanctions”, as well as forms of indirect control.4 In plain and unmistakeable terms, Big M promised that, under the Charter, “no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or conscience”.5   * Professor Emeritus, Osgoode Hall Law School. I thank Kate Bezanson and Alison Braley-Rattai for includingme in this special issue of Constitutional Forum, and am grateful to Kate Bezanson for her comments onan earlier draft. I also thank Ryan Ng (JD 2021) for his valuable research assistance in the preparation ofthis paper. Finally, I note that I was a member of York University’s Free Speech Working Group in fall 2018.This paper does not in any way express the views of York University or the Working Group, which has longsince disbanded. 1Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 2(a), Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].2R v Big M Drug Mart, [1985] 1 SCR 295, 18 DLR (4th) 321 [Big M].3Ibid at 336.4Ibid.5 Ibid at 337.

scholarly journals DEMOKRASI DI INDONESIA Antara Pembatasan dan Kebebasan Beragama

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Abu Hafsin
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
Ambiguous Words ◽  
Clear Explanation ◽  
Religious Teaching

<p>Democracy has been understood differently. Law no.1/PNPS/1965 which<br />is previously recognized as protection of religious followers is recognized as<br />limitation that denied principle of democracy recently. The polemic of religious<br />freedom ended with proposal of judicial review on law no.1/PNPS/1965 proposed</p><p>by some group of societies. This proposal, finally, is rejected by prime<br />court. This rejection can be corrected since UUD 1945 follows an expressive<br />relativism on religious freedom. Because of the existence of ambiguous words<br />in such law, revision is really needed so that there will be a clear explanation<br />related to who has the authority to determine whether certain religious teaching<br />is wrong or not. It is important to solve the problematic matters faced by government and certain religious groups.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong> : demokrasi, relativisme</p>

Young People in Transition: The National Identity of Minority Youth

2018 ◽  
pp. 274-302
Author(s):  
Anthony Heath ◽  
Konstanze Jacob ◽  
Lindsay Richards
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Social Integration ◽  
Ethnic Group ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Migration Background ◽  
Minority Youth ◽  
The Other ◽  
Religious Groups ◽  
The One

This chapter uses CIL4EU data to investigate strength of identification with the nation and with the ethnic group. It explores how these vary across ethnic and religious groups, generations, and destination countries and how far these differences can be explained by processes of social integration on the one hand or perceptions of being excluded on the other hand. The key findings are that young people with a migration background are less likely than those without a migration background to identify strongly with their country of residence. This holds true more or less irrespective of their ethnic group or religion. Differences between European and non-European minority groups, and between Muslims and members of other non-Christian religions were generally modest in size, rarely reached statistical significance and were dwarfed by the overall gap between minorities and the majority.

Conclusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 207-214
Author(s):  
Spencer W. McBride
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Discrimination ◽  
Mob Violence ◽  
Religious Minority ◽  
Religious Minorities ◽  
Joseph Smith ◽  
Southern States

The Conclusion of the book considers the extent to which Joseph Smith was correct that the states’ rights doctrine condoned mob violence against religious minorities and that the United States would never experience universal religious freedom without a federal government empowered to protect religious minorities. The Missouri militia’s invocation of the violent expulsion of Mormons from the state as their plan to expel abolitionists in the 1850s is examined as a telling example. Joseph Smith’s presidential campaign and its tragic end encapsulate the failure of nineteenth-century Americans to establish universal religious freedom. Many Americans championed states’ rights as a way to maintain race-based slavery in the Southern states, but few acknowledged that this philosophy also disadvantaged religious minority groups. The Conclusion also considers the role of systemic religious discrimination in federal policy for the management of Utah Territory and the multiple denied applications for Utah statehood.

Dissent and the State

2020 ◽  
pp. 313-333
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Rose
Keyword(s):  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The State ◽  
Religious Groups

The relationships between persecution, toleration, dissent, and the state were often paradoxical. The chapter outlines justifications for and forms of persecution and toleration, echoing recent emphasis on how the two were entwined. It argues that, while dissenting identities often emerged in the circumstances of state persecution, dissenters could be as keen on capturing as on rejecting the state, understood in three different ways. First, as an apparatus of enforcement, the state relied on individuals who negotiated demands for persecution or toleration at every level, creating a fragile patchwork of religious freedom and restraint. Second, demands made for persecution of other religious groups by those who felt monarchs were being too tolerant turned obedient subjects into active citizens. Third, dissenters flexibly sought prerogative, parliamentary, or Protectoral aid. While historians have often asked whether the state possessed the power to persecute, they should also consider whether it wielded the authority to tolerate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document