Constitutional Cultures Creating Constitutional Space

Brett G. Scharffs is Director of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies and Rex E. Lee Chair and Professor of Law for the BYU Law School.  Brock Mason is a Student Fellow for the International Center for Law and Religion Studies and PhD Candidate at Fordham University.

Gathered in Paris, France more than 70  years ago, the newly minted United Nations met to consider and vote on an important resolution. Drafted in the aftermath of World War II and its horrific humanitarian tragedies, Resolution 217A expressed deep aspirations to recognize, protect, and promote human rights throughout the world. And on December 10, 1948, with no country voting against it, Resolution 217A—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)—was adopted by the General Assembly. 

(more…)

Continue Reading Constitutional Cultures Creating Constitutional Space

Towards a Constitutional Definition of Religion: Challenges and Prospects

Dr. Alex Deagon is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology.

 


Definitions of “religion” are of central importance to creating the constitutional space for freedom of religion, for it is “religion” which receives protections in constitutional law and international law, and the definition of “religion” in “freedom of religion” will determine the scope of that freedom. However, attempts to define religion have proved to be controversial and contested.  There are many competing definitions by scholars and judges but no consensus has emerged. Some courts even refuse to define religion (see, for example, the 2013 Overview of the European Court of Human Rights’ Case-law of Freedom of Religion, para 11).

There are at least four challenges to defining religion.  (more…)

Continue Reading Towards a Constitutional Definition of Religion: Challenges and Prospects

Individual Spirituality and the Future of Freedom of Religion

Jeremy Patrick is a Lecturer for the University of Southern Queensland School of Law and Justice.[1]

 

 

The archetypal religious freedom claimant is a deeply serious, long-standing member of a religious organization who is faced with an agonizing decision: to follow the dictates of God or the laws of man. When judges and legal scholars think of religious freedom, they may think of such iconic issues as Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions despite the risk of death[2], the Amish gaining an exemption for their children from compulsory school attendance, or Jewish prison inmates demanding kosher meals[3]. With the sanctity of conscience given great weight, courts in major western liberal democracies have developed expectations that those claiming protection in this context must be sincere in their beliefs, that those beliefs must be recognizably religious, and that, nonetheless, important government objectives may still trump. 

(more…)

Continue Reading Individual Spirituality and the Future of Freedom of Religion