|
Hard Questions
Religious
freeedom in former Soviet Union
One consequence of globalisation, whether we like it or
not, is a pluralistic society where many different beliefs
co-exist. How should society respond to this challenge?
Should it ban beliefs that are not considered acceptable
by some? Is so, who will define what is an acceptable belief
and what is not? Should the issue be looked at from a global
or a national perspective? What is the role of dialogue
between different cultures, minorities and belief systems?
Merudevi Dasi, Religious Freedom and New Religious
Movements in Europe,(published in ISKCON
Communications Journal, Vol. 8 No.2-March 2001)
If you read media stories, you have probably heard of "cults"
that encourage their followers to commit suicide, situations
where certain "religious" groups have abused young
people, and/or about groups that take advantage of others
for financial profit. In view of these stories, should there
be limits to religious freedom? The international community
says that there should be when it is "necessary to protect
public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental
rights and freedoms of others". (See
UN page.)
Believing whatever you like is one thing, engaging in practices
that are harmful to others is a different matter altogether.
It is up to different religious communities to ensure that
their own practices uphold the fundamental dignity and human
rights of their members and others.
 In
thinking about rights and their related responsibilities:
* What limits would you place
on religious freedom and why?
* What types of behaviour would
you like to see religious or belief communities regulate
for themselves on a voluntary basis?
(You may wish to reflect on a religious
or belief community with which you are familiar).
|
What would you do?
Israeli
soldiers praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem
Sometimes, in fact often, the rights of different groups conflict.
The scenario below is drawn from real-life religious freedom
situations in different countries and shows how complex it
might be to determine who has the right to do what. How would
you resolve these problems?
|
SCENARIO ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The majority of the population from Country A is from
one dominant faith. As such, this faith’s institutions
have some influence over the government’s policies
and education programmes in the country. While the country’s
Constitution guarantees religious freedom, some minority
and ethnic groups operate in the country. They are required,
however, to have state authority to function. Under
this policy, places of worship must conform to established
zoning laws.
Members of one minority group have been holding "house
church" meetings because they do not have enough
financial resources to have their own centre. This group
claims they are not breaking any criminal laws and have
a right to both religious freedom and private meetings
in their own homes. Parents in the neighbourhood, however,
have complained to the authorities that minors are attending
these meetings, are being "brainwashed" by
their teachings, and being encouraged to convert. Some
members of the dominant faith in Country A have raided
a few of the "house church" meetings and threatened
the participants.
Your group is representing an international organisation
that is to issue advice to the parties concerned about
how to resolve this conflict. What kind of brief statement
would you make?
Some questions to reflect on:
*Does the government have the right to break up these
meetings and/or declare them illegal? If so, on what
grounds?
*What responsibilities does the minority faith group
and/or members of the dominant faith have to the community?
*Is there additional information in this case you
would want to ask for?
*Are there creative solutions to the above problems
that would bring people together rather than create
more divisions?
|
For more scenarios to reflect on click
here
|
