- User contributions [en]

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Paraguay

2023-08-04T21:26:06Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Paraguay
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion was first protected in Paraguay under the constitution of 1870. Part I Chapter I Article 3 states that while Roman Catholicism is the state religion, “Congress… shall not have power to forbid the free exercise of any other religion…” (Hein Online). Freedom of religion is now protected under Article 24 of the 1992 constitution. It states that “[t]he freedom of religion, of worship, and ideological [freedom] are recognized without any restrictions other than those established in this Constitution and in the law” (constituteproject.org).

"Chapter I: General Declarations." Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay, pp. 1-3. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzpy0009&i=2.

“Paraguay 1992 (Rev. 2011) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Paraguay_2011.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Papua New Guinea

2023-08-04T21:21:48Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Papua New Guinea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is conditionally protected under Article 45 in Papua New Guinea’s 1975 constitution: “Every person has the right to freedom of conscience, thought and religion and the practice of his religion and beliefs, including freedom to manifest and propagate his religion and beliefs in such a way as not to interfere with the freedom of others, except to the extent that the exercise of that right is regulated or restricted by a law that complies with Section 38…” (constituteproject.org).

“Papua New Guinea 1975 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Papua_New_Guinea_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Panama

2023-08-04T21:20:30Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Palau

2023-08-04T21:17:01Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Palau
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is protected for Palauan citizens under Article IV Section 1 which states “[t]he government shall take no action to deny or impair the freedom of conscience or of philosophical or religious belief of any person nor take any action to compel, prohibit or hinder the exercise of religion” (constituteproject.org).

“Palau 1981 (Rev. 1992) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Palau_1992.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Pakistan

2023-08-04T21:14:55Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Pakistan
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Part II Article 18(a) of the first Pakistani constitution of 1956 states that while Islam is the state religion, freedom of religion is conditionally protected: “Subject to law, public order and morality… every citizen shall have the right to profess, practice and propagate any religion…” (Hein Online). This continues to be protected in Part I Section 2 of the current constitution which was ratified in 1973 (constituteproject.org).

“Pakistan 1973 (Reinst. 2002, Rev. 2018) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Pakistan_2018.

"Part II: Fundamental Rights." Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, pp. [27]-[37]. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzpk0008&i=34.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Oman

2023-08-04T21:11:51Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Oman
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is conditionally protected in Oman under Article 28 of the 1996 constitution: “The freedom to practice religious rites according to recognised customs is protected, provided it does not violate the public order or contradict morals” (constituteproject.org). However, Article 2 also establishes that “[t]he religion of the State is Islam and Islamic Sharia is the basis for legislation” (constituteproject.org).

“Oman 1996 (Rev. 2011) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Oman_2011.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/North Macedonia

2023-08-04T21:08:10Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=North Macedonia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 19 of the 1991 North Macedonian constitution protects freedom of religion: “The freedom of religious confession is guaranteed. The right to express one's faith freely and publicly, individually or with others is guaranteed” (constituteproject.org). It also further elaborates and states that “[t]he Macedonian Orthodox Church and other religious communities and groups are separate from the state and equal before the law…” (constituteproject.org).

“North Macedonia (Republic of) 1991 (Rev. 2011) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Macedonia_2011.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/North Korea

2023-08-04T21:07:13Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=North Korea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion was first established in North Korea under Part II Article 14 of the 1948 constitution which stated that “[e]very citizen shall have freedom of religion…” (Hein Online). Freedom of religion is now conditionally protected under Article 68 of the 1972 constitution. It states that “[c]itizens have freedom of religious belief. This right is granted through the approval of the construction of religious buildings and the holding of religious ceremonies. Religion must not be used as a pretext for drawing in foreign forces or for harming the State or social order” (constituteproject.org).

“Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of) 1972 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Peoples_Republic_of_Korea_2016.

"Part II: General Provisions." Constitution of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, pp. 2-4. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzkp0005&i=2.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Nigeria

2023-08-04T21:05:36Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nigeria
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 23.1 of the 1960 Nigerian constitution is the first time freedom of religion was protected for Nigerian citizens. It states: “Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom… to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance” (Hein Online). Freedom of religion continues to be protected under Article 38.1 of the current constitution and it uses the same language as the first reference (constituteproject.org).

"Chapter III: Fundamental Rights." CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERATION OF NIGERIA, pp. [17]-[27]. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzng0011&i=22.

“Nigeria 1999 (Rev. 2011) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Nigeria_2011.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Niger

2023-08-04T21:04:39Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Nicaragua

2023-08-04T21:03:20Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nicaragua
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Free practice of religion was prohibited in the first Nicaraguan constitution of 1826, with Title 4 Chapter 2 Article 46 establishing that “[t]he Religion of the State is the Catholic, Apostolic, Roman, with the exclusion of the public exercise of any other” (Hein Online, 1826). Freedom of religion was first protected in the 1838 constitution under Article 53 which established Catholicism as the state religion, but stipulated that “the public exercise of the other religions is not prohibited” (Hein Online, 1838). Article 29 of the current constitution protects freedom of religion for its citizens. It establishes that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of conscience and thought and to profess or not profess a religion” (constituteproject.org).

"Chapter 1: General Provisions." Constitution of the State of Nicaragua 8 April 1826, 1826, pp. 7-8. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0038&i=7.

"Chapter V: Of the Government and of Religion." Political Constitution of the Sovereign, Free and Independent State of Nicaragua 12 November 1838, 1838, pp. 8-8. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzni0040&i=8.

“Nicaragua 1987 (Rev. 2014) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Nicaragua_2014.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/New Zealand

2023-08-04T21:01:39Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Kingdom of the Netherlands

2023-08-04T20:59:11Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Kingdom of the Netherlands
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is currently protected in the Netherlands under Article 6 Section 1 of the 1814 constitution. It states “[e]veryone shall have the right to profess freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law” (constituteproject.org).

“Netherlands 1814 (Rev. 2008) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Netherlands_2008.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Nepal

2023-08-04T20:52:23Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Nauru

2023-08-04T20:51:13Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Nauru
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 11 Section 1 of Nauru’s 1968 constitution protects freedom of religion for its citizens. It states: “A person has the right to freedom of conscience, thought and religion, including freedom to change his religion or beliefs and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest and propagate his religion or beliefs in worship, teaching, practice and observance” (constituteproject.org).

“Nauru 1968 (Rev. 2015) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Nauru_2015.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Namibia

2023-08-04T20:35:30Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Namibia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is protected for Namibian citizens under Article 21 Section 1c which states that “[a]ll persons shall have the right to… freedom to practise any religion and to manifest such practice…” (constituteproject.org).

“Namibia 1990 (Rev. 2014) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Namibia_2014.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Myanmar

2023-08-04T20:33:28Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Myanmar
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion was first conditionally protected under Article 21(b) of the 1947 Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma which states that Burmese citizens “shall enjoy the right to profess their religion… provided the enjoyment of any such freedom does not offend the laws or the public interest” (Hein Online). Article 34 of Myanmar’s current constitution protects freedom of religion for its citizens. It states: “Every citizen is equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practise religion subject to public order, morality or health and to the other provisions of this Constitution” (constituteproject.org).

"Chapter II: Basic Principles." The Constitution of the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma, 1974, pp. 4-7. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmm0005&i=8.

“Myanmar 2008 (Rev. 2015) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Myanmar_2015.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Mozambique

2023-08-04T20:30:42Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Mozambique
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion was first noted in Article 33 of Mozambique’s 1975 constitution which stated that “[i]n the People’s Republic of Mozambique the State guarantees the freedom of citizens to practice or not to practice a religion” (Hein Online). Article 4 of Mozambique’s current constitution states that “[a]ll citizens shall have the freedom to practice or not to practice a religion. Nobody shall be discriminated against… or benefit from or be exempt from duties, on the grounds of his faith or religious persuasion or practice” (constituteproject.org).

“Mozambique 2004 (Rev. 2007) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Mozambique_2007.

"Section II: Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens ." Official English Translation, The Constitution of the People's Republic of Mozambique, 1975, pp. 5-6. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzmz0011&i=6.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Morocco

2023-08-04T20:26:44Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Morocco
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is protected in Morocco in tandem with the establishment of a state religion. Article 6 of the first Moroccan constitution of 1962 determines that Islam is the religion of the state while also protecting “the free exercise of beliefs [cultes]” for all (Hein Online). This right is still protected today under Article 3 of the current constitution (constituteproject.org).

"Fundamental Principles." Constitution of Morocco, pp. 562-563. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/HOL/P?h=hein.cow/zzma0011&i=1.

“Morocco 2011 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 26, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Ivory Coast

2023-08-04T19:50:55Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Ivory Coast
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=While the constitution of Côte d’Ivoire does not protect freedom of religion per se, it does prohibit discrimination based on religious grounds in Article 4: “All Ivoirians are born and remain free and equal in rights. No one may be privileged or discriminated against by… their religion or belief…” (constituteproject.org).

“Côte d’Ivoire 2016 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cote_DIvoire_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Italy

2023-08-04T19:49:46Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Israel

2023-08-04T19:48:15Z

Gyurcsac: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=History |question=Country sources |questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right? |breakout=Israel |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=Freedom of religion is established in the 1992 Basic Law Human Dignity and Liberty. This law describes Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, but also “references the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, which protects..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Israel
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is established in the 1992 Basic Law Human Dignity and Liberty. This law describes Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”, but also “references the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, which protects freedom to practice or not practice religious beliefs, including freedom of conscience, faith, religion, and worship, regardless of an individual’s religion” (state.gov). Additionally, “the law recognizes only Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Druze faith, and the Baha’i Faith” (state.gov).

Israel, West Bank and Gaza - United States Department of State. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/israel-west-bank-and-gaza/.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Iraq

2023-08-04T19:45:05Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Iran

2023-08-04T19:42:55Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Iran
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Articles 12 and 13 establish religious freedoms and restrictions in Iran. Article 12 states that “the official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'farî school [in usul al-Dîn and fiqh], and this principle will remain eternally immutable… These schools enjoy official status in matters pertaining to… affairs of personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and wills) and related litigation in courts of law” while Article 13 provides for freedom of other religious minorities “Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education” (constituteproject.org).

“Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1979 (Rev. 1989) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iran_1989.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Indonesia

2023-08-04T19:41:29Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Indonesia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 28E Sections 1 and 2 establish personal freedoms in the Indonesian constitution: “Every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice… Every person shall have the right to the freedom to believe his/her faith (kepercayaan), and to express his/her views and thoughts, in accordance with his/her conscience” (constituteproject.org). But it “states citizens must accept restrictions established by law to protect the rights of others… to satisfy ‘just demands based upon considerations of morality, religious values, security, and public order in a democratic society’” (state.gov).

“Indonesia - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, June 2, 2022. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/indonesia/.

“Indonesia 1945 (Reinst. 1959, Rev. 2002) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Indonesia_2002.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/India

2023-08-04T19:39:38Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=India
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is protected under Article 25 Section 1 which states that “[s]ubject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion” (constituteproject.org). Freedom of religion is not allowed to operate freely, as “ten of 28 states have laws restricting religious conversions. Four state governments have laws imposing penalties against so-called forced religious conversions for the purpose of marriage…” (state.gov).

“India - United States Department of State.” U.S. Department of State, June 10, 2022. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/india/.

“India 1949 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/India_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Iceland

2023-08-04T19:36:23Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Iceland
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The state religion and freedom of religion are stated in Section VI Articles 62 and 63 of Iceland’s constitution. Article 62 establishes that “the Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State. This may be amended by law” while Article 63 states that “all persons have the right to form religious associations and to practice their religion in conformity with their individual convictions. Nothing may however be preached or practised which is prejudicial to good morals or public order” (constituteproject.org).

“Iceland 1944 (Rev. 2013) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Iceland_2013.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Hungary

2023-08-04T19:34:50Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Hungary
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=In Article XV, The Hungarian constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, while Article VII protects freedom of religion, stating that “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include the freedom to choose or change one's religion or other belief, and the freedom of everyone to manifest, abstain from manifesting, practise or teach his or her religion or other belief through religious acts, rites or otherwise, either individually or jointly with others, either in public or in private life” (constituteproject.org).

“Hungary 2011 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Hungary_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Honduras

2023-08-04T19:33:53Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Honduras
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The constitution of Honduras protects freedom of religion under Article 77 which states: “The free exercise of all religions and cults is guaranteed without preference to one, provided they do not violate the law and public order. Ministers of the various religions may not hold public office or engage in any form of political propaganda, invoking religious motives or, as a means to such end, thus taking advantage of the religious beliefs of the people” (constituteproject.org).

“Honduras 1982 (Rev. 2013) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Honduras_2013.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Haiti

2023-08-04T19:32:08Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guyana

2023-08-04T19:30:16Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guyana
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is protected in Guyana’s constitution under Article 145 Sections 1-6. Section 1 states that “[e]xcept with his or her own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his or her freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his or her religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his or her religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance” (constituteproject.org).

“Guyana 1980 (Rev. 2016) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Guyana_2016.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guinea-Bissau

2023-08-04T19:28:10Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guinea-Bissau
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is protected in Guinea-Bissau under Article 52 Sections 1-3 of the constitution which establishes that “1. Freedom of conscience and of religion is inviolable. 2. All are assured the liberty of worship, which in no manner may violate the fundamental principles established by this Constitution. 3. The freedom to teach any religion under its denomination is guaranteed” (constituteproject.org).

“Guinea-Bissau 1984 (Rev. 1996) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Guinea_Bissau_1996.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guinea

2023-08-04T19:26:19Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Guinea
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Article 14 of Guinea’s constitution establishes that “the free exercise of worship [culte] is guaranteed, under reserve of the respect for the law and the public order. The religious institutions and communities are created and administered freely” (constituteproject.org).

“Guinea 2010 Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Guinea_2010.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Guatemala

2023-08-04T19:23:43Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Grenada

2023-08-04T19:21:06Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Grenada
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Chapter I Article 9.1-6 establishes freedom of religion and conscience for the individual, the community, and society in Grenada. It states “[e]xcept with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, including freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance” (constituteproject.org).

“Grenada 1973 (Reinst. 1991, Rev. 1992) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Grenada_1992.
}}

Freedom of Expression/Country forces

2023-08-04T02:46:33Z

Gyurcsac: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=History |question=Country forces |questionHeading=What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Debates and movements for the protection of freedom of expression are a recent development that “scarcely arose before the revolutions of the eighteenth century" (Zoller 2009, 803). But one can see that it is frequently in response to oppressi..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Country forces
|questionHeading=What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Debates and movements for the protection of freedom of expression are a recent development that “scarcely arose before the revolutions of the eighteenth century" (Zoller 2009, 803). But one can see that it is frequently in response to oppressive governmental measures that opposition arises to promote freedom of expression for democratic society and its citizens from external censorship. The intended outcome of these revolutions was to ensure the citizen’s right “to freely speak one's mind, represent one's viewpoint, defend one's opinions, communicate one's ideas… without fear for life, liberty, or possessions, but with peace of mind and a firm certainty of freedom from government harassment…” (Zoller 2009, 803). There are five notable historical movements and events that helped contribute to the widespread belief of freedom of expression as a fundamental right: the Enlightenment, The American and French Revolutions, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Arab Spring.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT

The promotion of freedom of expression as a universal right was first established by the philosophes of the Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. Frederick of Prussia, Immanuel Kant, and Johann Gottlieb Fichte all wrote on the idea of freedom of expression, especially in how it relates to free thought and opinion. James Schmidt quoted Immanuel Kant in support of the claim that freedom of thought, however praiseworthy in its own right, is much more valuable when informed by the thoughts of others: “‘… but how much and how accurately would we think if we did not think, so to speak, in community with others to whom we communicate our thoughts and who communicate their thoughts to us!’” (Schmidt [quoting Kant] 1996, 30). Agreeing with this sentiment, Frederick of Prussia also expressed his wish “to rule over a noble, brave, freethinking people, a people that has the power and liberty to think and to act, to write and to speak, to win or to die” (Schmidt [quoting Frederick of Prussia] 1996, 89). At this point in history, freedom of expression, especially in a monarchical context, became a key component of Enlightenment thought, as it was determined that the right to possess and share one’s opinions was the mark of a civilized society.

THE AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTIONS

Building upon Enlightenment philosophies, freedom of expression (or the lack thereof) played central roles in the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th centuries. However, how freedom of expression was expressed in each case manifested very differently.

In America, "as taxes were imposed without their consent, colonists believed their freedom of expression and representation was violated. Protests, petitions, and gatherings were quickly put down by government officials. Freedom of expression, speech, and the press were punishable and denied to many" (Charkins et. Al 2019, 35). The repression of what the colonists believed to be a fundamental right only exacerbated the situation and eventually led them to demand “the formation of a government that would promise protection of those inherent liberties" via the American Revolution (Pomerance 2016, 112). After the war, this eventually prompted the ratification of the First Amendment to the Constitution that confirmed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution, 1791).

Conversely, while American efforts came from an institutionalized lack of freedom, the French struggle came from a surprising decision from King Louis XVI. In 1789, when he called a meeting of the Estates General, he began by “suspending censorship of publications, even allowing writings that criticized the monarchy…" (Pomerance 2016, 114). This afforded French people freedom of expression to a degree they had never seen before, and soon newspapers and pamphlets across France were calling for a democratic overhaul of the whole country. This top-down decision from the King paved a slightly untraditional path to revolution, especially in contrast to the Americans who were denied freedom of expression from their government. Louis had opened the floodgates, and just months after the first meeting, “there was little doubt that free speech and expression were high on the list of demands from the Frenchmen calling for change” (Pomerance 2016, 117). These sentiments were eventually listed in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, in Articles 10 and 11 which state that “no one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order,” and “the free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law" (“Declaration of the Rights of Man”).

THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

International protections of fundamental rights did not emerge until the late 20th century in response to the “barbarous acts” of World War II (Amnesty International). And in response to these acts, it became a goal of the newly founded United Nations to set a global standard for freedom and justice for everyone, regardless of nationality or citizenship. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948 and establishes a comprehensive list of rights and liberties that everyone is entitled to. Freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 19 which states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (United Nations 1948). While the UDHR is not a legally binding document, it was the first international agreement focused on the protection of basic human rights and freedoms.

THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL

The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major turning point in the history of freedom of expression and its applications. During the Cold War, Europe was split between a democratic West and a communist East, with a physical manifestation of this divide erected in Berlin by the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). Many basic freedoms and liberties were suppressed in the Eastern Bloc, and “human rights violations in East Germany centered mainly on freedom of movement, expression and association” (Human Rights Watch 1989). Before the fall, “the potential to express dissidence… [marked] the border between East and West," but after, East Berliners used their restored freedoms to express their opinions without fear of retribution (Zoller 2009, 806). The fall of the Berlin Wall was a major win for universal human rights, and it marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War that inspired similar democratic movements across the Eastern Bloc that eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

THE ARAB SPRING

Applications of human rights and freedoms will have to continue to adapt to societal changes. As recently seen with the Arab Spring uprisings, widespread access to the internet and social media channels that now allow near total freedom of expression on a global scale has reshaped how one can utilize this freedom for the promotion of democracy, but it has also raised questions as to how parameters of this right should be drawn in instances of dangerous or harmful views. Before the rise of the internet, “discussions focused on the idea of what a man was allowed to utter or write when he found himself to be at odds with an established orthodoxy…", but now, it is imperative that “national legislations should envisage legal instruments to carefully limit its application (when abusive), in those situations in which free speech becomes an obstacle for the free exercise of other fundamental rights” as free speech and expression can be shared on an international level (Racolța 2019, 8, 15). Although freedom of expression is now an expected right of democratic societies, it remains at the forefront of international discussions to determine how to both ensure the right itself for people deprived of it and to also protect people from abuses of free expression.

REFERENCES
Charkins, Jim, Michelle Herczog, and Thomas Herman. “Breaking Down the Silos: The American Revolution--A Story Well Told.” Social Studies Review 58 (January 2019): 25–42. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&AN=154271093&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

“Declaration of the Rights of Man.” Avalon Project. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp.

“EAST GERMANY.” Human Rights Watch World Report, 1989. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Eastgerm.htm.

Pomerance, Benjamin. “First In, First Out: Promises and Problems of Free Expression in Revolutionary and Post-Revolutionary Governments.” Maryland Journal of International Law 31, no. 1 (January 2016): 107–79. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=122460887&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Racolța, Remus, and Andreea Verteș-Olteanu. 2019. “Freedom of Expression. Some Considerations for the Digital Age.” Jus et Civitas VI (LXX) (1): 7–16. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=139539130&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Schmidt, James. What Is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions. Philosophical Traditions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=4657&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Amnesty International, April 11, 2023. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/#:~:text=The%20UDHR%20was%20adopted%20by,for%20freedom%2C%20justice%20and%20peace.

United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948.

Zoller, Elisabeth. "Foreword: Freedom of Expression: Precious Right in Europe, Sacred Right in the United States," Indiana Law Journal 84, no. 3 (Summer 2009): 803-808
}}

Freedom of Association/Country forces

2023-08-04T02:37:13Z

Gyurcsac: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=History |question=Country forces |questionHeading=What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance? |pageLevel=Question |contents=First mentions of freedom of association as a right emerged during the Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries from philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu. Locke forms his argument on a larger scale in terms of political socie..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=History
|question=Country forces
|questionHeading=What historical forces or events, if any, contributed to a widespread belief in its importance?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=First mentions of freedom of association as a right emerged during the Enlightenment period of the 17th and 18th centuries from philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu. Locke forms his argument on a larger scale in terms of political society as a whole: “Nothing can make any man so but his actually entering into [society] by positive engagement and express promise and compact. This is that which, I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any commonwealth” (Locke 1690, 158). Montesquieu however specifies his argument in terms of economic associations: “… all associations of merchants, in order to carry on a particular commerce, are seldom proper in absolute governments” (Montesquieu 1748, 352). Conversely, if associations are not “proper” in absolute governments, one can conclude that Montesquieu advocated for freedom of association as a necessary component of a democratic society to protect individual interests. While Enlightenment philosophers were among the first to raise the issue of association rights, it took several hundred years for it to be officially and legally codified. Major historical movements that have promoted freedom of association are of twofold importance: firstly, association rights are often exercised to highlight societal or political injustices, but the right itself also lends legitimacy to the people who want to see progress in their societies and governments.

In terms of formal acceptances of freedom of association, the first country-specific code emerged in France in 1789 and the United States in 1791. In the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Article 11 establishes that “the free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law” (“Declaration of the Rights of Man”). Shortly after the publication of this document, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified, ensuring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Constitution. Amendment I). While freedom of association is not explicitly identified here, the freedoms that are listed are specific elements of what constitutes freedom of association as a whole.

CODIFIED LAWS THAT PROTECT FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION

The promotion of freedom of association did not emerge on an international scale until after World War II. First in 1948 with the adoption of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 20 provides that “everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association." This was the first international agreement to refer to human rights and liberties that everyone should enjoy, regardless of nationality or citizenship. And while this is not a universally legally binding document, it serves as a baseline for legal frameworks around the world and establishes freedom of association as a fundamental right of democratic societies. Building upon the UDHR later in 1966, the UN established the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to ensure the protection of fundamental civil and political rights in each of its participant countries. Article 22 states that:

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others…

While the UDHR is an internationally focused agreement, it is not legally binding for the partner countries and therefore has no real jurisdiction or right to action. Conversely, the ICCPR as a legal document guarantees the rights it establishes in each country that ratifies the Covenant.

AMERICAN LABOR AND TRADE UNION MOVEMENT

The American labor and trade union movement of the early 20th century was a major historical force that contributed to a more widespread belief in freedom of association. In light of the industrialization of the 18th and 19th centuries, the movement fought for the rights of workers to form trade unions and bargain collectively. As we saw in the UDHR, one can think of union membership as an exercise of freedom of association. An example from the decade before the promulgation of the UDHR that might make this clear is the passage of the National Labor Relations Act into law in 1935. Its main objective was to guarantee freedom of association for employees via the formation of union organizations. Section 7. C provides that “employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection…” (United States Code: National Labor Relations). Because of the work of trade organizations like the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, freedom of association was now a legally protected right for American employees in their places of work.

WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE

The women’s suffrage movement of the 19th and 20th centuries was greatly dependent on freedom of association as a means of action, and it also helped to promote a more widespread belief in this freedom as a fundamental right. Organizations like the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) in the US and the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in the UK were instrumental in organizing efforts of like-minded people who wanted to see gender equality for political rights. One of the most notable events of the movement was the Seneca Falls Convention that convened in 1848. At this convention, Elizabeth Cady Stanton produced the Declaration of Sentiments, which explained both what activists wanted to see produced from their actions (i.e., gender equality socially, politically, religiously, and economically), but also how they planned to use freedom of association to publicize their message and complaints. The Declaration proclaims that “we shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and National legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press on our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions embracing every part of the country” (Stanton, 1848). By utilizing freedom of association to organize the efforts of their activists, they could achieve greater clarity of message and work more efficiently to bring their goals to fruition.

AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Similar to the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights Movement in America was highly dependent on the right to join organizations of one’s choosing and therefore was crucial to affirming the importance of freedom of association. But unlike the suffrage movement, there was an added barrier to the free utilization of this right— institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination. Organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) emerged as a way for like-minded individuals to coordinate efforts and provide support for other activists, but they were often met with resistance on grounds of racial discrimination. In the landmark case NAACP v. Alabama, John Patterson sued the state in an attempt to ban the organization from operating in Alabama based on the argument that “the NAACP was a foreign corporation not qualified to do business in Alabama” (Rubinowitz 2017, 1237). Patterson then “obtained an order compelling the NAACP to provide its membership list as part of the state’s assessment of the organization.” But “the organization refused to comply because of the harm that would cause both the individual members and the NAACP itself" (Rubinowitz 2017, 1237). The case reached the Supreme Court in 1958, and a unanimous Court decided in favor of the petitioners, explaining that “in the circumstances of this case, compelled disclosure of petitioner's membership lists is likely to constitute an effective restraint on its members' freedom of association…” (NAACP v. Alabama 357, 1958).

ANTI-APARTHEID MOVEMENT

The anti-apartheid movement in South Africa spanned several decades of the 20th century and was aimed at dismantling the systemic racism that the government of South Africa was built on. It utilized and promoted freedom of association as a means to organize resistance efforts and promote fundamental equality which contributed to a widespread belief in this right. The African National Congress (ANC) was the primary group leading the liberation movement for many years before being forced to go underground in the 1960s. Despite this, and after decades of repression, censorship, and violence at the hands of the apartheid government, the resistance efforts reached new heights in the 1980s. As more community organizations began to appear, it became clear that there was a need for greater structure to achieve their goals of liberation. This led to the creation of organizations like the United Democratic Front (UDF) and Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). The importance of these organizations cannot be overstated-- it was the persistent efforts of anti-apartheid associations that won out in the end and put the ANC in power from 1994 onwards (ANC History: The Struggle for People’s Power, 2023).

SOLIDARITY

The Solidarity movement was a trade union movement in Poland in the late 20th century that leveraged freedom of association to protest the communist regime. Communist rule in Poland had long been unpopular, and Solidarity was not the first movement to arise in opposition to them, but it was the first to successfully utilize the right of association to produce change which proved its importance as a fundamental right (Bartkowski 2009, 2). Following years of economic decline, Poland saw massive labor strikes in the summer of 1980. The trade union Solidarity was born out of the Gdansk Shipyard under the leadership of Lech Walesa and was legalized by the Polish government shortly thereafter as they determined that “it is considered expedient to establish new self-governing trade unions that will genuinely represent the working class” (Gdansk Agreement 1980, 11). They became the first legal trade union in the Eastern Bloc, and they eventually grew into a popular political movement. But as its popularity and size continued to develop, the communist regime imposed martial law and forced Solidarity underground. However, Solidarity survived this repression and later played a key role in the appointment of the country’s first non-communist prime minister nearly a decade later (Bartkowski, 2009).

REFERENCES

“ANC History.” African National Congress. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://www.anc1912.org.za/history/.
Baron de Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by Thomas Nugent. Batoche Books, 2001.
Bartkowski, Maciej. “Poland’s Solidarity Movement (1980-1989).” International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, December 2009. https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/polands-solidarity-movement-1980-1989/.
“Declaration of the Rights of Man.” Avalon Project. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp.
Khronika Press. “The Gdansk Agreement: Protocol of Agreement between the Government Commission and the Interfactory Strike Committee Concluded on August 31, 1980 at Gdansk Shipyards.” World Affairs 145, no. 1 (1982): 11–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20671927.
Locke, John. “Of the Beginning of Political Societies.” Essay. In Two Treatises of Government 10, 10:146–58. London: Thomas Tegg et. al, 1823.
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (U.S. Supreme Court June 30, 1958).
Rubinowitz, Leonard S. 2017. “The Courage of Civil Rights Lawyers: Fred Gray and His Colleagues.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 67 (4): 1227–75. https://search-ebscohost-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123785450&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. “The Declaration of Sentiments.” The Seneca Falls Declaration 1848 . Accessed June 16, 2023. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1826-1850/the-seneca-falls-declaration-1848.php.
UN General Assembly. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 16 December 1966.

United Nations General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). New York: United Nations General Assembly, 1948.

U.S. Constitution. Amendment I

United States Code: National Labor Relations, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-166 Suppl. 2 . 1935.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Greece

2023-08-03T15:08:05Z

Gyurcsac:

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=History
|question=Country sources
|questionHeading=What is the oldest written source in this country that mentions this right?
|breakout=Greece
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Part 1 Section II Article 3.1-2 of Greece’s constitution establishes “[t]he prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ…” and that “the ecclesiastical regime existing in certain districts of the State shall not be deemed contrary to the provisions of the preceding paragraph” (constituteproject.org). While Part 2 Article 13.1-2 states that “Freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. The enjoyment of civil rights and liberties does not depend on the individual's religious beliefs. All known religions shall be free and their rites of worship shall be performed unhindered and under the protection of the law. The practice of rites of worship is not allowed to offend public order or the good usages. Proselytism is prohibited” (constituteproject.org).

“Greece 1975 (Rev. 2008) Constitution.” Constitute. Accessed July 21, 2023. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Greece_2008.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Ghana

2023-08-03T15:06:40Z

Gyurcsac:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Absolute Idealism

2023-08-02T01:20:19Z

Gyurcsac: Replaced content with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |pageLevel=Breakout }}"

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Thomism and medieval Christianity

2023-08-02T01:16:50Z

Gyurcsac: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Tradition contributions |questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right? |breakout=Thomism and medieval Christianity |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=Freedom of religion, as one understands it today, is a relatively modern concept that arose from the work of Enlightenment philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, de..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Thomism and medieval Christianity
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion, as one understands it today, is a relatively modern concept that arose from the work of Enlightenment philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, despite its relative modernity, theoretical arguments related to freedom of religion in its most simplified sense (i.e., the right to accept or deny faith in any sense) have existed for centuries. Medieval Europeans did not enjoy freedom in choosing or refusing religion, as ecclesiastical structures were employed and amended to bolster political systems. Symbiotic relationships between church and state were a key characteristic of Medieval Europe and were seen to be a natural continuation of their respective roles in society. In analyzing the extent to which freedom of religion was respected or restricted in the Medieval period, one cannot expect to find evidence for the clear pro or contra argument in texts and sources. One can, however, apply modern logic and understanding of what freedom of religion constitutes to theoretically comprehend how Medieval theologians would have viewed and treated freedom of religion. By analyzing the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria from the 13th and 16th centuries, respectively, one can see the theoretical beginnings of freedom of religion as a natural right to be enjoyed by all peoples.

Thomism refers to the teachings and beliefs of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a prominent Catholic theologian and philosopher whose works were heavily influenced by classical Greek and Roman thought. Much of Thomas’ work is based on a reconciliation of faith and reason to obtain true knowledge of the world and, if employed properly, of God. Freedom of religion was a nonexistent concept during the period Aquinas lived through. Despite this, one can see that spiritual arguments of the 13th century were focused on personal interpretation versus the organizational doctrine of Christianity. His magnum opus, Summa Theologica, is a systematic theological tome of what Aquinas believed to be the sum of all known learning. He employs Aristotelian logic processes to explain the relationship between God and man and how man can use faith and reason to understand God's natural world and workings.

It is important to note that while Aquinas forms his arguments for a Christian audience, he does offer insight into broader faith-centered topics, like how to define heresy and man’s right to a free conscience. To Aquinas, heresy was something that only Christians could commit, as “heresy is the species of unbelief that belongs to those who profess the Faith of Christ but corrupt its dogmas” (Summa Theologica II-II, q. 11, a. 1). Those who are not Christian cannot be heretics, based on the definition of heresy being inherent to the Christian faith. Aquinas explains further that “it is irrelevant to the corruption of the Christian Faith if someone holds a false opinion in matters that do not belong to the Faith, e.g., in geometrical matters or others of this sort, which cannot in any way pertain to the Faith. Rather, it is relevant only when someone has a false opinion with respect to the things that belong to the Faith” (ST II-II, q. 11, a. 2). Therefore, through omission, Aquinas acknowledges that peoples of other faiths are not contrary (or heretical) to Christianity, but rather believers of something else entirely. This is not to be confused with unbelief, which according to Aquinas, is a sin since that implies unbelievers are completely “without faith” (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 1).

If we can infer from the Summa that only Christians are capable of heresy, where does that leave Thomist views of freedom of religion? As established earlier, freedom of religion in our modern sense was not understood in the same way by Medieval Europeans. However, it is important to establish that Aquinas believed in a moral order that “is prior to and superior to the legal order; and this moral order is what he calls the ‘natural law’" (Thiry, 174). Humans can't act contrary to this human or natural law, as Aquinas “conceived of human beings as… possessing natural liberty in terms of self-mastery, or natural dominium” (Cornish, 559). In synthesizing Aquinas’ arguments, he “contended that all human beings, Christian or not, had a moral obligation to follow even an erroneous conscience. This principle applied to everyone never previously exposed to the Christian message… [however] it did not apply… to Christian defectors—heretics and apostates—who… should be punished” (Little). Therefore, we can conclude that while not a proponent of freedom of religion per se, Saint Thomas Aquinas did believe in the idea of a free conscience that man was obliged to follow, so long as he was not committing Christian heresy or living with an absence of faith.

Several decades after Aquinas’ death and prompted by the actions of the insurgent French King Philip, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull, Unam Sanctam, or “One Holy.” In the theoretical context of the extent of freedom of religion in Medieval Europe, this declaration put square limitations on the operational ability of political capabilities when challenged by spiritual controls. While the Unam Sanctam changed little for the average European Christian, it marks a turning point in the way in which organized religion interacted with temporal structures. Boniface explained that:

"We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard ‘[Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest" (Papal Encyclicals Online).

Here for the first time in Christian history, the pope ordained that the political and temporal “sword” should be squarely subordinated and at the mercy of the Catholic church. In concluding his bull, Boniface stated, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Papal Encyclicals Online). Every human creature, regardless of race, creed, location, or language, was now to be governed by the spiritual (and political through subjugation) sword of the pope in Rome. While this bull was issued after Thomas Aquinas lived, this document would prove to be an instrumental point of contention for neo-Thomists in the late-Medieval period when the question of freedom of religion ceased to be purely theoretical and began to have practical implications due to the colonization of the New World.

Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546) was a crucial figure in the Spanish Scholasticism movement and a founder of the School of Salamanca, a neo-Thomist school of thought that produced innovative analyses and teachings on Spanish colonialism, Catholic superiority, and natural rights of all peoples. While Vitoria and Aquinas are formidable religious theorists, their philosophies emerged within different social, political, and religious contexts. While neo-Thomist in nature, Vitoria's works were heavily influenced by the social and political issues created by Spanish colonialism and its interactions with indigenous (non-Christian) Americans.

Drawing on Thomist beliefs in freedom of conscience and the superiority of human (or natural) law to temporal powers, Vitoria was a staunch advocate for respecting the inherent humanity of those that the Spanish encountered in the New World. Vitoria “treated [the] law as made by ‘reason and enlightenment’, not just the will. Natural law, derived from eternal law by reason, was binding on all humanity; its principles applied to mutable situations and different peoples. God was the indirect cause of human laws, which were binding on the conscience of individuals” (Izbicki et al., 2019). So, despite the different faiths of the Spaniards and indigenous Americans, human law was omnirelevant in neo-Thomist philosophy.

The second part of Vitoria’s theoretical argument focuses on the limitations of the Pope as the head of Christendom and the spiritual and temporal controls available to him. Vitoria’s arguments were set directly against what was laid out in the Unam Sanctum of 1302; he argued that the Pope did not enjoy infallible temporal and spiritual power over non-Christians. Vitoria was keen to point out that “…the Pope 'has no temporal power over the Indians or over other unbelievers’” … because “Christ had no temporal power, and so neither can his representative [i.e., the Pope] on earth’” (Ruston, 11). Unlike the two-sword metaphor used to explain the powers available to the Pope in the early 14th century, Vitoria draws the line to exclude “unbelievers” and removes them from the Pope’s jurisdiction. Here again, we see the vital importance of man’s free conscience and the role of natural law in rudimentary accounts of freedom of religion. However, Vitoria did not believe that temporal power was superior to spiritual, just that Christian laws from the Pope did not bind all humanity equally (Izbicki et al., 2019). Vitoria was a Christian and a contemporary of Saint Thomas Aquinas by two and a half centuries. Still, he was able to remove personal religiosity from his political and social opinions in a way that did not become conventional until much later in history. Vitoria took Thomist beliefs of human law and free will one step further than Aquinas in his practical arguments related to the protections indigenous Americans should enjoy in the face of the Spanish conquistadors exploring the New World.

The arguments presented by Saint Thomas and Francisco de Vitoria have surprisingly modern applications in examining their theoretical applications to contemporary understandings of human rights and freedoms. As expressed earlier, because it would be impossible to draw a straight conclusion to support or contradict how they viewed freedom of religion within the social, political, and religious climates of Medieval Europe, we must analyze their works from a theoretical perspective. Suppose we can take the (neo-)Thomist emphases on the importance of free conscience as the primary basis of freedom of religion and man’s right to have a clear conscience. In that case, we can conclude “that when a government seeks to delimit the range of free behavior so that religious beliefs and practices regarding God are excluded or suppressed, the state necessarily acts against the very structure of deliberative human freedom itself, with respect to both its deepest initial inclinations and its ultimate transcendent horizon" (White, 1159). While Thomas and Vitoria would not have shared our contemporary understanding of freedom of religion, their appreciation for the necessity of free conscience over that of ecclesiastical or political restrictions translates well to modern arguments for freedom of religion as a natural and inalienable right to be enjoyed by everyone.

REFERENCES
Aquinas, Thomas. New English Translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae (Summa Theologica). Translated by Alfred Freddoso. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2023. https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/TOC.htm.

Cornish, Paul J. “Marriage, Slavery, and Natural Rights in the Political Thought of Aquinas.” The Review of Politics 60, no. 3 (1998): 545–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407988.

Gundacker, Jay, and Noah Rosenblum. “Historical Context of Thomas Aquinas.” Historical Context of Thomas Aquinas; The Core Curriculum. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/historical-context-thomas-aquinas.

Izbicki, Thomas and Matthias Kaufmann, "School of Salamanca", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/school-salamanca/>.

Keys, Mary M. “Aquinas’s Two Pedagogies: A Reconsideration of the Relation between Law and Moral Virtue.” American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 3 (2001): 519–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669236.

Little, David. “Christianity and Religious Freedom in the Medieval Period (476 – 1453 CE).” Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/christianity-and-religious-freedom-in-the-medieval-period-476-1453-ce.

O’Neill, Taylor Patrick. “Self-Destruction and the Sin of Heresy.” Church Life Journal, November 26, 2020. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/to-choose-where-there-is-no-choice-self-destruction-and-the-sin-of-heresy/.

Pagden, Anthony. “Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe’s Imperial Legacy.” Political Theory 31, no. 2 (2003): 171–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3595699.

Pope Boniface VIII. “Unam Sanctam (1302).” Unam Sanctam One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority, April 27, 2017. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm.

Ruston, Roger. “Justice, Peace and Dominicans 1216-1999: IV—Francisco Vitoria: The Rights of Enemies and Strangers.” New Blackfriars 80, no. 935 (1999): 4–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43250200.

Sarmiento, Edward. “HUMAN DIGNITY IN THE THOUGHT OF VITORIA.” Blackfriars 27, no. 319 (1946): 378–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43701441.

Thiry, L. “The Ethical Theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Interpretations and Misinterpretations.” The Journal of Religion 50, no. 2 (1970): 169–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1201784.

White, Thomas Joseph. “The Right to Religious Freedom: Thomistic Principles of Nature and Grace.” Nova et Vetera 13, no. 4 (2015): 1149–84. https://www.academia.edu/27787560/The_Right_to_Religious_Freedom_Thomistic_Principles_of_Nature_and_Grace.
}}

Freedom of Association/Traditions

2023-08-02T01:07:47Z

Gyurcsac: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=Philosophical Origins |question=Traditions |questionHeading=Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right? |pageLevel=Question |contents=While freedom of association is a fundamental human right today, it has not always been recognized as such. Furthermore, several philosophers stretching from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century have argu..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Traditions
|questionHeading=Are there any philosophical or moral traditions that dispute the classification of this right as a fundamental right?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=While freedom of association is a fundamental human right today, it has not always been recognized as such. Furthermore, several philosophers stretching from the Enlightenment period to the 20th century have argued for restrictions to be placed on freedom of association, rendering it a conditional right. Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, and Carl Schmitt are four such philosophers who, despite being products of varying centuries, disputed the classification of freedom of association as a fundamental and unconditional right in their respective social, political, and economic contexts.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Hobbes viewed freedom of association as an important social right, but not as a fundamental or unconditional one. Freedom of association was subject to political authority under the agreement that both the citizens and authority entered into to maintain societal and political order. This agreement exists to counter the natural state of human life which is “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). By giving up some freedom and liberty in exchange for order, protection, and security from the sovereign or authority, the natural state of humanity can be counteracted (Lloyd). Hobbes emphasized that while individuals are allowed to form relationships and create associations with others, these groups are ultimately subordinated to the sovereign, who can dissolve associations for the good of society to maintain peace and order.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

Rousseau’s views on freedom of association are heavily centered on his ideal of a social contract. This is a relationship that exists between the individual and the state in which the individual experiences no net loss of freedom, but rather exchanges some of his natural freedom for civil freedom (Bertram). In his seminal work The Social Contract, Rousseau explains this exchange by emphasizing that man should promote the common good of society over his own interests: “Each citizen would then be perfectly independent of all the rest, and at the same time very dependent on the city; which is brought about always by the same means, as the strength of the State can alone secure the liberty of its members.” (Rousseau, 24). The main issue with unconditional freedom of association came from his claim that “the required degree of social cohesion could not, in practice, be achieved merely through appeal to rational self-interest” (Chappell). This is not to say that Rousseau believed in stamping out individuality in its entirety, just that devotion to a stable political and societal status quo should be the main priority of civilized societies.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Marx held a more complex view of freedom of association than other political philosophers. His philosophy was rooted in a socially mediated economic structure that would then, in turn, impact a society's political and social practices—he believed in abolishing private ownership of production (capitalism) and instead establishing collective ownership (socialism or communism). He believed that capitalist systems limit and distort freedom of association because of their economically exploitative and class-based structures; relationships in capitalist societies are never between “individuals,” but rather between “workers and capitalist, between farmer and landlord” (Marx, 44). Socialist or communist political and societal structures would allow freedom of association because individuals could unite freely based on their interests and needs (Jian-xing, 351).

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985)

Schmitt was a prominent member of the Nazi party, and his views on freedom of association are very much influenced by his “anti-democratic and anti-liberal” political beliefs (Frye, 818). In a similar approach to Hobbes, Schmitt believed that freedom of association is an important but highly conditional right that is subject to a central authority. If associations prove to be a threat to the central authority or order of society, the authority must dissolve them (Vinx). He stipulates that the decisions of the authority should not be influenced by external morals, but rather solely based on political reasoning (Vinx). His parameters on freedom of association raise concerns over the potential to justify authoritarianism and the abuse of democratic principles.

REFERENCES

Bertram, Christopher, "Jean Jacques Rousseau", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/rousseau/>.

Chappell, Richard. “Rousseau and Freedom.” Philosophy, et cetera, April 27, 2005. https://www.philosophyetc.net/2005/04/rousseau-and-freedom.html.

Frye, Charles E. “Carl Schmitt’s Concept of the Political.” The Journal of Politics 28, no. 4 (1966): 818–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2127676.

Hobbes, Thomas. “The Project Gutenberg eBook of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes.” Edited by Edward White and David Widger. The Project Gutenberg eBook of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, March 27, 2021. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm.

Jian-xing, Y., Jun-guo, C. A reconsideration of Marx’s idea of “association of free individuals”. J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. 2, 348–355 (2001). https://doi-org.uc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/BF02839474

Lloyd, Sharon A. and Susanne Sreedhar, "Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/hobbes-moral/>.

Marx, Karl. Edited by Matthew Carmody. The Poverty of Philosophy, 2009. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/.

Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. Translated by G.D.H/ Cole. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. Accessed July 13, 2023. https://discoversocialsciences.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Rousseau-Social-Contract.pdf.

Sowell, Thomas. “Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual.” Ethics 73, no. 2 (1963): 119–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379553.

Vinx, Lars, "Carl Schmitt", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/schmitt/>.

Williams, Garrath. “Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed July 11, 2023. https://iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Absolute Idealism

2023-08-02T00:54:09Z

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|section=Philosophical Origins
|question=Tradition contributions
|questionHeading=What have religious and philosophical traditions contributed to our understanding of this right?
|breakout=Thomism and medieval Christianity
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion, as one understands it today, is a relatively modern concept that arose from the work of Enlightenment philosophers in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, despite its relative modernity, theoretical arguments related to freedom of religion in its most simplified sense (i.e., the right to accept or deny faith in any form) have existed for centuries. Medieval Europeans did not enjoy freedom in choosing or refusing religion, as ecclesiastical structures were employed and amended to bolster political systems. Symbiotic relationships between church and state were a key characteristic of Medieval Europe and were seen to be a natural continuation of their respective roles in society. In analyzing the extent to which freedom of religion was respected or restricted in the Medieval period, one cannot expect to find evidence for the clear pro or contra argument in texts and sources. One can, however, apply modern logic and understanding of what freedom of religion constitutes to theoretically comprehend how Medieval theologians would have viewed and treated freedom of religion. By analyzing the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria from the 13th and 16th centuries, respectively, one can see the theoretical beginnings of freedom of religion as a natural right to be enjoyed by all peoples.

Thomism refers to the teachings and beliefs of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a prominent Catholic theologian and philosopher whose works were heavily influenced by classical Greek and Roman thought. Much of Thomas’ work is based on a reconciliation of faith and reason to obtain true knowledge of the world and, if employed properly, of God. Freedom of religion was a nonexistent concept during the period Aquinas lived through. Despite this, one can see that spiritual arguments of the 13th century were focused on personal interpretation versus the organizational doctrine of Christianity. His magnum opus, Summa Theologica, is a systematic theological tome of what Aquinas believed to be the sum of all known learning. He employs Aristotelian logic processes to explain the relationship between God and man and how man can use faith and reason to understand God's natural world and workings.

It is important to note that while Aquinas forms his arguments for a Christian audience, he does offer insight into broader faith-centered topics, like how to define heresy and man’s right to a free conscience. To Aquinas, heresy was something that only Christians could commit, as “heresy is the species of unbelief that belongs to those who profess the Faith of Christ but corrupt its dogmas” (ST II-II, q. 11, a. 1). Those who are not Christian cannot be heretics, based on the definition of heresy being inherent to the Christian faith. Aquinas explains further that “it is irrelevant to the corruption of the Christian Faith if someone holds a false opinion in matters that do not belong to the Faith, e.g., in geometrical matters or others of this sort, which cannot in any way pertain to the Faith. Rather, it is relevant only when someone has a false opinion with respect to the things that belong to the Faith” (ST II-II, q. 11, a. 2). Therefore, through omission, Aquinas acknowledges that peoples of other faiths are not contrary (or heretical) to Christianity, but rather believers of something else entirely. This is not to be confused with unbelief, which according to Aquinas, is a sin since that implies unbelievers are completely “without faith” (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 1).

If we can infer from the Summa that only Christians are capable of heresy, where does that leave Thomist views of freedom of religion? As established earlier, freedom of religion in our modern sense was not understood in the same way by Medieval Europeans. However, it is important to establish that Aquinas believed in a moral order that “is prior to and superior to the legal order; and this moral order is what he calls the ‘natural law’" (Thiry, 174). Humans can't act contrary to this human or natural law, as Aquinas “conceived of human beings as… possessing natural liberty in terms of self-mastery, or natural dominium” (Cornish, 559). In synthesizing Aquinas’ arguments, he “contended that all human beings, Christian or not, had a moral obligation to follow even an erroneous conscience. This principle applied to everyone never previously exposed to the Christian message… [however] it did not apply… to Christian defectors—heretics and apostates—who… should be punished” (Little). Therefore, we can conclude that while not a proponent of freedom of religion per se, Saint Thomas Aquinas did believe in the idea of a free conscience that man was obliged to follow, so long as he was not committing Christian heresy or living with an absence of faith.

Several decades after Aquinas’ death and prompted by the actions of the insurgent French King Philip, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull, Unam Sanctam, or “One Holy.” In the theoretical context of the extent of freedom of religion in Medieval Europe, this declaration put square limitations on the operational ability of political capabilities when challenged by spiritual controls. While the Unam Sanctam changed little for the average European Christian, it marks a turning point in the way in which organized religion interacted with temporal structures. Boniface explained that:

"We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard ‘[Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest" (Papal Encyclicals Online).

Here for the first time in Christian history, the pope ordained that the political and temporal “sword” should be squarely subordinated and at the mercy of the Catholic church. But, he did not stop there-- Boniface concluded by stating "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Papal Encyclicals Online). Every human creature, regardless of race, creed, location, or language, was now to be governed by the spiritual (and political through subjugation) sword of the pope in Rome. While this bull was issued after Thomas Aquinas lived, this document would prove to be an instrumental point of contention for neo-Thomists in the late Medieval period when the question of freedom of religion ceased to be purely theoretical and began to have practical implications due to the colonization of the New World.

Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546) was a crucial figure in the Spanish Scholasticism movement and a founder of the School of Salamanca, a neo-Thomist school of thought that produced innovative analyses and teachings on Spanish colonialism, Catholic superiority, and natural rights of all peoples. While Vitoria and Aquinas are formidable religious theorists, their philosophies emerged within different social, political, and religious contexts. While neo-Thomist in nature, Vitoria's works were heavily influenced by the social and political issues created by Spanish colonialism and its interactions with indigenous (non-Christian) Americans.

Drawing on Thomist beliefs in freedom of conscience and the superiority of human (or natural) law to temporal powers, Vitoria was a staunch advocate for respecting the inherent humanity of those that the Spanish encountered in the New World. Vitoria “treated [the] law as made by ‘reason and enlightenment’, not just the will. Natural law, derived from eternal law by reason, was binding on all humanity; its principles applied to mutable situations and different peoples. God was the indirect cause of human laws, which were binding on the conscience of individuals” (Izbicki et al., 2019). So, despite the different faiths of the Spaniards and indigenous Americans, human law was omnirelevant in neo-Thomist philosophy.

The second part of Vitoria’s theoretical argument focuses on the limitations of the Pope as the head of Christendom and the spiritual and temporal controls available to him. Vitoria’s arguments were set directly against what was laid out in the Unam Sanctum of 1302; he argued that the Pope did not enjoy infallible temporal and spiritual power over non-Christians. Vitoria was keen to point out that “…the Pope 'has no temporal power over the Indians or over other unbelievers’” … because “Christ had no temporal power, and so neither can his representative [i.e., the Pope] on earth’” (Ruston, 11). Unlike the two-sword metaphor used to explain the powers available to the Pope in the early 14th century, Vitoria draws the line to exclude “unbelievers” and removes them from the Pope’s jurisdiction. Here again, we see the vital importance of man’s free conscience and the role of natural law in rudimentary accounts of freedom of religion. However, Vitoria did not believe that temporal power was superior to spiritual, just that Christian laws from the Pope did not bind all humanity equally (Izbicki et al., 2019). Vitoria was a Christian and a contemporary of Saint Thomas Aquinas by two and a half centuries. Still, he was able to remove personal religiosity from his political and social opinions in a way that did not become conventional until much later in history. Vitoria took Thomist beliefs of human law and free will one step further than Aquinas in his practical arguments related to the protections indigenous Americans should enjoy in the face of the Spanish conquistadors exploring the New World.

The arguments presented by Saint Thomas and Francisco de Vitoria have surprisingly modern applications in examining their theoretical applications to contemporary understandings of human rights and freedoms. As expressed earlier, because it would be impossible to draw a straight conclusion to support or contradict how they viewed freedom of religion within the social, political, and religious climates of Medieval Europe, we must analyze their works from a theoretical perspective. Suppose we can take the (neo-)Thomist emphases on the importance of free conscience as the primary basis of freedom of religion and man’s right to have a clear conscience. In that case, we can conclude “that when a government seeks to delimit the range of free behavior so that religious beliefs and practices regarding God are excluded or suppressed, the state necessarily acts against the very structure of deliberative human freedom itself, with respect to both its deepest initial inclinations and its ultimate transcendent horizon" (White, 1159). While Thomas and Vitoria would not have shared our contemporary understanding of freedom of religion, their appreciation for the necessity of free conscience over that of ecclesiastical or political restrictions translates well to modern arguments for freedom of religion as a natural and inalienable right to be enjoyed by everyone.

REFERENCES
Aquinas, Thomas. New English Translation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae (Summa Theologica). Translated by Alfred Freddoso. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2023. https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/TOC.htm.

Cornish, Paul J. “Marriage, Slavery, and Natural Rights in the Political Thought of Aquinas.” The Review of Politics 60, no. 3 (1998): 545–61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407988.

Gundacker, Jay, and Noah Rosenblum. “Historical Context of Thomas Aquinas.” Historical Context of Thomas Aquinas; The Core Curriculum. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/historical-context-thomas-aquinas.

Izbicki, Thomas and Matthias Kaufmann, "School of Salamanca", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/school-salamanca/>.

Keys, Mary M. “Aquinas’s Two Pedagogies: A Reconsideration of the Relation between Law and Moral Virtue.” American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 3 (2001): 519–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669236.

Little, David. “Christianity and Religious Freedom in the Medieval Period (476 – 1453 CE).” Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/christianity-and-religious-freedom-in-the-medieval-period-476-1453-ce.

O’Neill, Taylor Patrick. “Self-Destruction and the Sin of Heresy.” Church Life Journal, November 26, 2020. https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/to-choose-where-there-is-no-choice-self-destruction-and-the-sin-of-heresy/.

Pagden, Anthony. “Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe’s Imperial Legacy.” Political Theory 31, no. 2 (2003): 171–99. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3595699.

Pope Boniface VIII. “Unam Sanctam (1302).” Unam Sanctam One God, One Faith, One Spiritual Authority, April 27, 2017. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm.

Ruston, Roger. “Justice, Peace and Dominicans 1216-1999: IV—Francisco Vitoria: The Rights of Enemies and Strangers.” New Blackfriars 80, no. 935 (1999): 4–18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43250200.

Sarmiento, Edward. “HUMAN DIGNITY IN THE THOUGHT OF VITORIA.” Blackfriars 27, no. 319 (1946): 378–87. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43701441.

Thiry, L. “The Ethical Theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas: Interpretations and Misinterpretations.” The Journal of Religion 50, no. 2 (1970): 169–85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1201784.

White, Thomas Joseph. “The Right to Religious Freedom: Thomistic Principles of Nature and Grace.” Nova et Vetera 13, no. 4 (2015): 1149–84. https://www.academia.edu/27787560/The_Right_to_Religious_Freedom_Thomistic_Principles_of_Nature_and_Grace.
}}