¿Qué debe contener una constitución en materia de libertad religiosa?

Gary Doxey es Director Asociado del Centro Internacional de Estudios de Derecho y Religión de la Universidad Brigham Young.

En ocasión de este Primer Foro Anual de Derecho y Religión del Cono Sur, quisiera abordar la pregunta: ¿Qué debe contener una constitución en materia de Libertad Religiosa? Es oportuno estudiar esta cuestión ya que la República de Chile actualmente está redactando una nueva constitución.

Debo recalcar que hablo desde una perspectiva internacional. No soy chileno, aunque Chile es un país que me resulta muy querido. Respeto profundamente la responsabilidad que tienen los chilenos, empezando por los honorables convencionales, de elegir las disposiciones de su constitución. Como extranjero me limito a ofrecer mis observaciones en calidad de estudiante de la materia, con la esperanza de que puedan ser de provecho.

(more…)

Continue Reading ¿Qué debe contener una constitución en materia de libertad religiosa?

(Un)friendly Algorithm: Religious Freedom and Digital Technologies

This blog series explores some threats that digital technologies can create to freedom of religion or belief and other human rights. It starts with Neville Rochow’s elaboration on the potential harmfulness of algorithm-based decision-making if the program does not take account of religious beliefs. Rochow emphasizes that the predictable and (in many ways) helpful expansion of AI’s role in everyday life must be accompanied by companies’ greater corporate accountability and obedience to the law.

Yulia Razmetaeva explains why AI technology may be non-neutral and have a significant influence on freedom of thought pointing at it as a source of fake information  that calls for violence.

(more…)

Continue Reading (Un)friendly Algorithm: Religious Freedom and Digital Technologies

What Is and What Should Never Be: Corporate and Digital Specters that Threaten Fundamental Freedoms

Neville Rochow QC is an Australian Barrister, Associate Professor (Adjunct) at the University of Adelaide Law School, and a member of Anthony Mason Chambers in Adelaid

Corporations are notorious for their bad behavior in the pursuit of profits [1] and the need for laws to regulate them [2]. In relation to religious and other freedoms, where corporations have any influence upon their exercise, laws and regulatory regimes could work to enhance the enjoyment of rights and freedoms. But there are legal and regulatory measures that just should not be undertaken since they diminish that enjoyment. The distinctions between what can be done and what should not be done, what is and what should never be, have become all the more important as our lives are increasingly ruled by corporate powers and now their digital servants.

As to potential impact, consider the instance of what happens to religious freedom when an algorithm in the emergency room computer decides whether or not to administer a blood transfusion. If nothing in the program asks a question whether the patient is a faithful Jehovah’s Witness, the machine will decide the question without consultation on religious faith. Religious freedom is rendered irrelevant.

(more…)

Continue Reading What Is and What Should Never Be: Corporate and Digital Specters that Threaten Fundamental Freedoms