FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W66326298> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W66326298 endingPage "282" @default.
• W66326298 startingPage "269" @default.
• W66326298 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The title of this article is a paradox itself. Freedom of religion is a part of human rights law. The basic assumption of human rights law is that human rights are universal and that respect for human rights should not depend on any particular economic, political, or cultural context. Indeed, if basic liberties were dependent upon their appropriateness to the norms of a particular country, group, or community, they would unavoidably lose their critical content. If every group producing specific, context-related norms were entitled to tailor human rights to its own needs and values, Muslim women would not be able to fight the discriminations they endure their countries, and it would be impossible to condemn genital mutilations, which are justified the name of cultural specificities. However, many countries do impose an official religion, and the economic or political of the country is often an excuse to deny human rights general. Thus putting freedom of religion in context might be considered dangerous, but such a view would be a misunderstanding. II. Two KINDS OF CONTEXTUALIZATION To understand human rights and cultural contexts, one should distinguish between two very different methods of relating human rights to cultural contexts (not to mention the political and economical ones). The first method-the bad type-is the one summarized above: adapting basic liberties to a certain would mean that when a conflict of norms arises, the particular cultural value will prevail. In these circumstances, the relevant communities will only accept the segment of human rights law that fits into their own normafive system. That is, they would retain their prejudices, not allowing the universal norm of human rights to prevail over their own specific values. This selective reception of human rights by a culture would simply mean subordinating human rights to the values of the group. The latter norms would be immune to any moral criticism expressed from outside the culture. This kind of universal claim (for instance, the universal requirement that religion is a matter of conscience, not of force) would unavoidably be labelled ethnocentric. Instead of seeing basic human rights norms as impartial and transcultural standards, the (often self-appointed) leaders of the group would simply dismiss these external norms as the requirements of another particular culture, that is, Western culture. Such a claim should be patiently rebutted. If this is not carefully done, human rights will lose their critical edge and become an innocuous part of cultures that will remain sovereign as far as the values they want to impose (that is, very often, the way they treat their own members) are concerned. But there is a second method-the good type-of considering human rights a particular context. This view takes into account the fact that several conceptions of basic liberties exist democratic countries. Consequently, it would be an oversimplification to consider one of these interpretations as authentic and the others not. In fact, the meaning of human rights is the subject of an ongoing debate. Such a controversy is normal open societies particularly due to the fact that the universal norm of human rights is much more complex than it first appears. For instance, the status of religion itself is different the United States than many European countries. Of course, this is an oversimplification of the problem. There are divergent currents of thought everywhere, and the debate takes place as much within the broad cultural contexts (United States, Western Europe, Eastern Europe-where the Orthodox Church is dominant, etc.) as between systems. I would like to briefly emphasize some of the very problematic elements of this debate. In doing so, I hope to clarify some of the complex contemporary stakes of freedom of religion. Although such an analysis will not produce general agreement, a systematic study of confused notions' may help to create a clearer view of the disIMAGE FORMULA8agreements because an intelligible opposition of perspectives is better for democracy than sheer confusion. …" @default.
• W66326298 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W66326298 creator A5020608188 @default.
• W66326298 date "2002-01-01" @default.
• W66326298 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W66326298 title "Freedom of religion in context" @default.
• W66326298 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W66326298 type Work @default.
• W66326298 sameAs 66326298 @default.
• W66326298 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W66326298 countsByYear W663262982017 @default.
• W66326298 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W66326298 hasAuthorship W66326298A5020608188 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C2775854416 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C2777998198 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C2780339416 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C2780712339 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W66326298 hasConcept C95691615 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C138885662 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C144024400 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C151730666 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C169437150 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C17744445 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C190253527 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C199539241 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C2775854416 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C2777998198 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C2779343474 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C2780339416 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C2780712339 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C41895202 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C527412718 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C86803240 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C94625758 @default.
• W66326298 hasConceptScore W66326298C95691615 @default.
• W66326298 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W66326298 hasLocation W663262981 @default.
• W66326298 hasOpenAccess W66326298 @default.
• W66326298 hasPrimaryLocation W663262981 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W1541147003 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W1589751811 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W1882574430 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W1975195213 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W1998680686 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2115706336 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2144317101 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2255136540 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2334042391 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2343535198 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2492323035 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2499050146 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2596443945 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2903181654 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W29929606 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W2993061042 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W3124059987 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W3206669519 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W86923977 @default.
• W66326298 hasRelatedWork W185472020 @default.
• W66326298 hasVolume "2002" @default.
• W66326298 isParatext "false" @default.
• W66326298 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W66326298 magId "66326298" @default.
• W66326298 workType "article" @default.