Religious intolerance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since October 2006. |
| Religious persecution |
|---|
| By persecuting group: |
| By strategy: |
By targeted group:
|
| “ |
No orthodox church ever had power that it did not endeavor to make people think its way by force and flame. And yet every church that ever was established commenced in the minority, and while it was in the minority advocated free speech -- every one. John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, while he lived in France, wrote a book on religious toleration in order to show that all men had an equal right to think; and yet that man afterward, clothed in a little authority, forgot all his sentiments about religious liberty, and had poor Serviettes burned at the stake, for differing with him on a question that neither of them knew anything about. In the minority, Calvin advocated toleration -- in the majority, he practiced murder. |
” |
|
—Blasphemy Trial, Robert Green Ingersoll, http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/blasphemy_trial.html |
||
Religious intolerance is either intolerance motivated by one's own religious beliefs or intolerance against another's religious beliefs or practices. It manifests both at a cultural level, but may also be a formal part of the dogma of particular religious groups.
The mere statement on the part of a religion that its own beliefs and practices are correct and any contrary beliefs incorrect does not in itself constitute intolerance. There are many cases throughout history of established religions tolerating other practices. Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (a society, a religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practises, persons, beliefs or whatever on religious grounds.
Religious intolerance and persecution have been common throughout history, and members of any given faith and even some secular ideologies have been both perpetrators and victims of it at one time or another.
Religious intolerance may be purely religious, but can be a "cover story" for an underlying political or cultural motive.
[edit] Contemporary attitudes and practice
A number of countries worldwide contain provisions within their constitutions expressly forbidding the state from engaging in certain acts of religious intolerance or preference within its own borders. Examples include The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Article 4 of the Basic Law of Germany, Article 44.2.1 of the Constitution of The Republic of Ireland, Article 40 of the Estonian Constitution[1] and Article 24 of the Constitution of Turkey. Many other states, whilst not containing constitutional provisions directly related to religion, nonetheless contain provisions forbidding discrimination on religious grounds (see, for example, Article 1 of the French Constitution, article 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and article 40 of the Constitution of Egypt). It should be noted that these constitutional provisions do not necessarily guarantee that all elements of the state remain free from religious intolerance at all times, and practice can vary widely from country to country.
Other countries, meanwhile, may allow for religious preference, for instance through the establishment of one or more state religions, but not for religious intolerance. Finland, for example, has the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Finnish Orthodox Church as its official state religions, yet upholds the right of free expression of religion in article 11 of its constitution.
Some countries retain blasphemy laws, forbidding defamation of religious belief, which are sometimes seen as a way of condoning religious intolerance. Whilst some countries retain laws forbidding all forms of blasphemy (such as Germany where in 2006 Manfred van H. was convicted of blasphemy against Islam), the connection between intolerance and blasphemy laws is most closely connected if the laws apply to only one religion. In the United Kingdom, for instance, it is illegal to make blasphemous remarks only if the remarks are directed against the beliefs of the Church of England, though there have been no convictions since 1922 (see Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom). In Pakistan blasphemy directed against either the tenets of the Qur'an or the Prophet Mohammed is punishable by either life imprisonment or death. Apostasy, the rejection of one's old religion, is also criminalised in a number of countries, notably Afghanistan with Abdul Rahman being the first to face the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
The United Nations upholds the right to free expression of religious belief in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while article 2 forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. Article 18 also allows for the freedom to change religion. The Declaration is not legally binding, however the United States chose in 1998 to pass the International Religious Freedom Act, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom, and mandating that the United States government take acation against any country found to violate the religious freedoms outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[2] The European Convention on Human Rights, which is legally binding on all European Union states (following the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the United Kingdom), makes restricting the rights of an individual to practice or change their religion illegal in article 9, and discrimination on the basis of religion illegal in article 14.
In its 2000 annual report on international religious freedom, the U.S. State Department cited China, Myanmar, Iran, Iraq and Sudan for persecuting people for their religious faith and practices. The report, which covers July 1999 through June 2000, details U.S. policy toward countries where religious freedom is violated in the view of the U.S. State Department.[3] The advocacy group Freedom House produced a report entitled "Religious Freedom in the World" in 2000 which ranked countries according to their religious freedom. The countries receiving a score of 7, indicating those where religious freedom was least respected, were Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Myanmar and North Korea. China was given a score of 6 overall, however Tibet was listed separately in the 7 category. Those countries receiving a score of 1, indicating the highest level of religious freedom, were Estonia, Finland, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway and the United States. [4]
Within those countries that openly advocate religious tolerance there remain debates as to the limits of tolerance. Some individuals and religious groups, for example, retain beliefs or practices which involve acts contrary to established law, such as the use of cannabis by members of the Rastafari movement, the religious use of eagle feathers by non-Native Americans (contrary to the eagle feather law, 50 CFR 22), or the practice of polygamy amongst Mormons in the 19th century (for clarification visit http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1). The precise definition of "religion", and to which groups it applies, can also cause controversy, for example the case of Scientologists who regard the refusal by the German government to recognise their religious status as an example of religious intolerance whereas the government regards it as a matter of regulation involving a commercial organisation. Attempts to legislate against acts of religious intolerance amongst citizens frequently come up against issues regarding the freedom of speech; whilst in France being convicted of incitement to religious hatred can carry a maximum of 18 months in prison an attempt to pass a similar law by Tony Blair's Labour government in the United Kingdom had to be dropped in April, 2006 after criticism that it restricted free speech. In Victoria, Australia the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 makes illegal "conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons" on the grounds of religious belief.
