- User contributions [en]

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Roman Legal and Political Thought

2023-08-08T00:47:35Z

Mben127:

{{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=Roman Legal and Political Thought
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Maintaining order and power within the Roman Empire was a key aspect to the functions and elements within the roman legal and political spheres. Consequently, Roman legal and political thought has become very influential to modern law and legal systems. Those who posed a threat saw great consequences and persecution as the Romans highly valued loyalty to Rome. According to Cicero, “Rome’s power and success lay in the superiority of its religious system (Simón, 2022, 465).”
Romans were notoriously open to foreign religious influence and mobility throughout the Republic (Orlin, 2008, 232). “Religion played a decisive role in the circulation of ancestral wisdom and construction of civic identity that was deeply embedded in the political culture of the Roman Republic, (Simón, 2022, 466).” The Edict of Augustus demonstrates how the early empire contributed to the continuation of this openness in stating; “Since the nation of the Jews… have been found grateful to the people of the Romans... it seems good to me and to my advisory council, that the Jews shall use their own customs in accordance with their ancestral law, just as they used to use them in the time of Hyrcanus, the high priest of their highest god; and that their sacred offerings shall be inviolable and shall be sent to Jerusalem and shall be paid to the financial officials of Jerusalem… But if anyone is detected stealing their sacred books or their sacred monies, either from a synagogue or from a mens' apartment, he shall be considered sacrilegious, and his property shall be brought into the public treasury of the Romans (Caesar Augustus, 1 BCE).” Simon Price discusses the importance of how cults represented themselves in relation to the Empire. “Some practices related explicitly to the Roman Empire in different ways; at least compatible with Roman order, dedications, sacrifices, and prayers being offered for the well-being of the emperor (Price, 2012, 16).” As supported by the Edict of Augustus, loyalty to Rome was essential, with foreign and ethnic cults such as Judaism being allowed in this context by exhibiting that loyalty.
Other polytheistic religions were tolerated as Rome expanded, absorbing diversity into its borders. Foreign and ethnic cults became popular and could be traced beyond the religious boundaries of Rome, with adaptations in respect to Roman religions being critical to their survival. However, tolerance was not constant throughout history, and at some points, even foreign cults such as the Cult of Isis were subjected to restrictions and edicts from the senate or emperors. “Octavian encouraged the worship of Isis but on Roman terms: only outside the pomerium. Octavian thus achieved a double aim: accepting Egypt with the sphere of the Roman empire but also demarcating the boundary between Romans and non-Roman to recreate a clear sense of Roman identity (Orlin, 2008, 245).” This train of thought further supports the idea that religions were tolerated in relation to Roman identity through restrictions that supported order and fostered loyalty to the original bounds of Rome, commonly in respect to the religious boundary that defined the sacred city limits.
Augustus, as the first emperor, wrote his edict and established the precedent of tolerance within the empire that would last among the first few emperors. Tiberius being his successor, is documented by Tacitus to heavily follow the precedent set by Augustus by publicly stating his dependence on Augustan policies, as noted throughout the books of Annals, exemplified in Annals 1.77.3-4 (Cowen, 2009, 180). Therefore tolerance did not change dramatically in the beginning, until it was under Tiberius that the crucifixion of Christ occurred. “Jesus had undergone the death penalty from the Romans under the reign of Tiberius, by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Annals 44:5)” However, Jesus was not sentenced to death for being Jewish or Christian, but for accusations against him claiming opposition of payment to Caesar, and incitement of anti-Rome sentiments (Blumell, 2003, 14). This is also described in Luke 23:2. Following the death of Jesus, “Pilate reported to Tiberius not only the trial and condemnation of Jesus but also subsequent events indicating his divinity…On the basis of this report, according to Tertullian, Tiberius proposed to the senate Christ's acceptance among the deities of the Roman pantheon and his admission to the cult of the Empire. It is a well-known fact that during the Republican period, the Senate had absolute authority on religious matters. The Senate, however, rejected Tiberius' proposal. The emperor, recognizing the judicial consequences for the Chris- tians of this negative decision of the senate, seemingly tried to neutralize its effects by "threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians (Bacchiocchi, 1998,7).” The disconnect between the senate and Tiberius here shows the legal formalities necessary for establishing tolerance amongst shared powers, and the neutralization of the decision with Tiberius’ threats. Following the rule of Tiberius was Caligula who made no changes to the status of religious freedom at the time, yet his successor Claudius was accredited to reestablishing Tiberian tolerance with the Edict of Claudius on Jewish Rights. “it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws. (Claudius, 41 CE).” Despite this Edict, it is under the rule of Claudius that a Jewish uprising occurred resulting in the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, signifying the beginning of the Jewish diaspora (Bacchiocchi, 1998, 13).
Following Claudius is Emperor Nero, who changes the way Jews and Christians are perceived for centuries when he becomes the ‘First Persecutor’ of Christians (Blummell, 2003, 16). According to Tacitus Nero blamed Christians as a scapegoat for the fire that occurred during his rule in Rome; “nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians... First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race (Tacitus, Annals, 5:44:3-7).” Following the Rule of Nero, ten emperors would go on to permanently receive the title of “persecutor” through the records of ancient Christian writings and accounts from those such as Tacitus and Tertullian (Blummell, 2003, 4). Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximin, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, and Diocletian would continue the persecution of Christians for the next two and half centuries until the Reign of Constantine finally allows for the religion again. Edicts and orders against the Christians took place throughout numerous rules, “Emperor Decius initiated and rigorously enforced an empire-wide persecution against the Christians commencing in 249 CE when he issued an imperial edict requiring all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire sacrifice to the gods Rome. As a result, Christians who refused to offer sacrifices were not only sought out, but they were either forced into exile or executed (Blumell, 2003, 5).” The Edict of Milan finally restored toleration for the Christians, issued by Emperor Constantine in 313, and ended the persecution of Christians. However, the acts and pursuits of punishing the Christians for centuries go back to the crucial principles of Roman political and legal thought that leadership felt necessary to maintain order; that being loyalty to Rome. Jesus and the monotheistic religions following him challenged that loyalty and security thus were perceived as a threat, therefore explaining the hostility and persecutions that took place to maintain loyalty and order as loyalty to the Roman Gods was considered loyalty to Rome.
The different periods and leaderships of Rome demonstrated different levels of religious tolerance and to the extreme end, absolute intolerance. Regardless, it is an essential point to acknowledge that religion played a key part in Roman politics, survival, and identity, and for the most part, mobility and flexibility did occur with the integration of cults into the Roman religion.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. 1983. “ROME AND CHRISTIANITY UNTIL A.D. 62". Andrews University Press. Vol. 21, no. 1: 3–25. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=auss.

Blumell, Lincoln. 2003. “ The Early Roman Emperors and The Christians: an Examination of Early Emperors Ascribed Position and Persecutors of the Christians" 1-134 https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/0652a587-f013-4b79-ae37-21575e955086/content.

Cowan, Eleanor. 2009. “Tacitus, Tiberius and Augustus.” Classical Antiquity 28, no. 2 (October): 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2009.28.2.179.

Orlin, Eric M. 2002. “Foreign Cults in Republican Rome: Rethinking the Pomerial Rule.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 47: 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/4238789.

Orlin, Eric M. 2008. “Octavian and Egyptian Cults: Redrawing the Boundaries of Romanness.” The American Journal of Philology 129, no. 2: 231–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27566703.

‌Price, Simon. 2012. “Religious Mobility in the Roman Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 102: 1–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41724963?searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default%3A21e1cabaa214dd0985aef2480469d958&seq=1

Simón, Francisco. 2022. “Religion and Rituals in Republican Rome,” January (January), 455–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119673675.ch33.

Tacitus. 98 AD. “The Annals” 1937 translation. Book 1-16. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/home.html.

“Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE.” n.d. Www.bu.edu. https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/tx/romansources.htm.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Roman Legal and Political Thought

2023-08-08T00:46:02Z

Mben127: 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=Roman Legal and Political Thought |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=Maintaining order and power within the Roman Empire was a key aspect to the functions and elements within the roman legal and political spheres. Consequently, Roman legal and poli..."

{{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=Roman Legal and Political Thought
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Maintaining order and power within the Roman Empire was a key aspect to the functions and elements within the roman legal and political spheres. Consequently, Roman legal and political thought has become very influential to modern law and legal systems. Those who posed a threat saw great consequences and persecution as the Romans highly valued loyalty to Rome. According to Cicero, “Rome’s power and success lay in the superiority of its religious system (Simón, 2022, 465).”
Romans were notoriously open to foreign religious influence and mobility throughout the Republic (Orlin, 2008, 232). “Religion played a decisive role in the circulation of ancestral wisdom and construction of civic identity that was deeply embedded in the political culture of the Roman Republic, (Simón, 2022, 466).” The Edict of Augustus demonstrates how the early empire contributed to the continuation of this openness in stating; “Since the nation of the Jews… have been found grateful to the people of the Romans... it seems good to me and to my advisory council, that the Jews shall use their own customs in accordance with their ancestral law, just as they used to use them in the time of Hyrcanus, the high priest of their highest god; and that their sacred offerings shall be inviolable and shall be sent to Jerusalem and shall be paid to the financial officials of Jerusalem… But if anyone is detected stealing their sacred books or their sacred monies, either from a synagogue or from a mens' apartment, he shall be considered sacrilegious, and his property shall be brought into the public treasury of the Romans (Caesar Augustus, 1 BCE).” Simon Price discusses the importance of how cults represented themselves in relation to the Empire. “Some practices related explicitly to the Roman Empire in different ways; at least compatible with Roman order, dedications, sacrifices, and prayers being offered for the well-being of the emperor (Price, 2012, 16).” As supported by the Edict of Augustus, loyalty to Rome was essential, with foreign and ethnic cults such as Judaism being allowed in this context by exhibiting that loyalty.
Other polytheistic religions were tolerated as Rome expanded, absorbing diversity into its borders. Foreign and ethnic cults became popular and could be traced beyond the religious boundaries of Rome, with adaptations in respect to Roman religions being critical to their survival. However, tolerance was not constant throughout history, and at some points, even foreign cults such as the Cult of Isis were subjected to restrictions and edicts from the senate or emperors. “Octavian encouraged the worship of Isis but on Roman terms: only outside the pomerium. Octavian thus achieved a double aim: accepting Egypt with the sphere of the Roman empire but also demarcating the boundary between Romans and non-Roman to recreate a clear sense of Roman identity (Orlin, 2008, 245).” This train of thought further supports the idea that religions were tolerated in relation to Roman identity through restrictions that supported order and fostered loyalty to the original bounds of Rome, commonly in respect to the religious boundary that defined the sacred city limits.
Augustus, as the first emperor, wrote his edict and established the precedent of tolerance within the empire that would last among the first few emperors. Tiberius being his successor, is documented by Tacitus to heavily follow the precedent set by Augustus by publicly stating his dependence on Augustan policies, as noted throughout the books of Annals, exemplified in Annals 1.77.3-4 (Cowen, 2009, 180). Therefore tolerance did not change dramatically in the beginning, until it was under Tiberius that the crucifixion of Christ occurred. “Jesus had undergone the death penalty from the Romans under the reign of Tiberius, by the procurator Pontius Pilate (Tacitus, Annals 44:5)” However, Jesus was not sentenced to death for being Jewish or Christian, but for accusations against him claiming opposition of payment to Caesar, and incitement of anti-Rome sentiments (Blumell, 2003, 14). This is also described in Luke 23:2. Following the death of Jesus, “Pilate reported to Tiberius not only the trial and condemnation of Jesus but also subsequent events indicating his divinity…On the basis of this report, according to Tertullian, Tiberius proposed to the senate Christ's acceptance among the deities of the Roman pantheon and his admission to the cult of the Empire. It is a well-known fact that during the Republican period, the Senate had absolute authority on religious matters. The Senate, however, rejected Tiberius' proposal. The emperor, recognizing the judicial consequences for the Chris- tians of this negative decision of the senate, seemingly tried to neutralize its effects by "threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians (Bacchiocchi, 1998,7).” The disconnect between the senate and Tiberius here shows the legal formalities necessary for establishing tolerance amongst shared powers, and the neutralization of the decision with Tiberius’ threats. Following the rule of Tiberius was Caligula who made no changes to the status of religious freedom at the time, yet his successor Claudius was accredited to reestablishing Tiberian tolerance with the Edict of Claudius on Jewish Rights. “it is right that also the Jews, who are in all the world under us, shall maintain their ancestral customs without hindrance and to them I now also command to use this my kindness rather reasonably and not to despise the religious rites of the other nations, but to observe their own laws. (Claudius, 41 CE).” Despite this Edict, it is under the rule of Claudius that a Jewish uprising occurred resulting in the expulsion of the Jews from Rome, signifying the beginning of the Jewish diaspora (Bacchiocchi, 1998, 13).
Following Claudius is Emperor Nero, who changes the way Jews and Christians are perceived for centuries when he becomes the ‘First Persecutor’ of Christians (Blummell, 2003, 16). According to Tacitus Nero blamed Christians as a scapegoat for the fire that occurred during his rule in Rome; “nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians... First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next, on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race (Tacitus, Annals, 5:44:3-7).” Following the Rule of Nero, ten emperors would go on to permanently receive the title of “persecutor” through the records of ancient Christian writings and accounts from those such as Tacitus and Tertullian (Blummell, 2003, 4). Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Maximin, Decius, Valerian, Aurelian, and Diocletian would continue the persecution of Christians for the next two and half centuries until the Reign of Constantine finally allows for the religion again. Edicts and orders against the Christians took place throughout numerous rules, “Emperor Decius initiated and rigorously enforced an empire-wide persecution against the Christians commencing in 249 CE when he issued an imperial edict requiring all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire sacrifice to the gods Rome. As a result, Christians who refused to offer sacrifices were not only sought out, but they were either forced into exile or executed (Blumell, 2003, 5).” The Edict of Milan finally restored toleration for the Christians, issued by Emperor Constantine in 313, and ended the persecution of Christians. However, the acts and pursuits of punishing the Christians for centuries go back to the crucial principles of Roman political and legal thought that leadership felt necessary to maintain order; that being loyalty to Rome. Jesus and the monotheistic religions following him challenged that loyalty and security thus were perceived as a threat, therefore explaining the hostility and persecutions that took place to maintain loyalty and order as loyalty to the Roman Gods was considered loyalty to Rome.
The different periods and leaderships of Rome demonstrated different levels of religious tolerance and to the extreme end, absolute intolerance. Regardless, it is an essential point to acknowledge that religion played a key part in Roman politics, survival, and identity, and for the most part, mobility and flexibility did occur with the integration of cults into the Roman religion.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. 1983. “ROME AND CHRISTIANITY UNTIL A.D. 62". Andrews University Press. Vol. 21, no. 1: 3–25. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1626&context=auss.

Blumell, Lincoln. 2003. “ The Early Roman Emperors and The Christians: an Examination of Early Emperors Ascribed Position and Persecutors of the Christians" 1-134 https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/0652a587-f013-4b79-ae37-21575e955086/content.

Cowan, Eleanor. 2009. “Tacitus, Tiberius and Augustus.” Classical Antiquity 28, no. 2 (October): 179–210. https://doi.org/10.1525/ca.2009.28.2.179.
‌‌
Orlin, Eric M. 2002. “Foreign Cults in Republican Rome: Rethinking the Pomerial Rule.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 47: 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/4238789.

Orlin, Eric M. 2008. “Octavian and Egyptian Cults: Redrawing the Boundaries of Romanness.” The American Journal of Philology 129, no. 2: 231–53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27566703.

‌Price, Simon. 2012. “Religious Mobility in the Roman Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 102: 1–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41724963?searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default%3A21e1cabaa214dd0985aef2480469d958&seq=1

Simón, Francisco. 2022. “Religion and Rituals in Republican Rome,” January (January), 455–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119673675.ch33.

Tacitus. 98 AD. “The Annals” 1937 translation. Book 1-16. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/home.html.

“Roman Sources on the Jews and Judaism, 1 BCE-110 CE.” n.d. Www.bu.edu. https://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/tx/romansources.htm.
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Transcendentalism

2023-08-08T00:41:00Z

Mben127: 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=Transcendentalism |pageLevel=Breakout |contents=A religious, philosophical, and literary movement; Transcendentalism emphasized true freedom through individual discovery by “rejecting materialism and confining religious doctrines, and inste..."

Freedom of Association/Depends on governance

2023-08-08T00:34:17Z

Mben127: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Association |section=Culture and Politics |question=Depends on governance |questionHeading=Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)? |pageLevel=Question |contents=The United States Supreme Court has recognized two types of associative freedoms protected under the Constitution; expressive and intimate (Congress, Amdt 1.8.1). Expressive associatio..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Association
|section=Culture and Politics
|question=Depends on governance
|questionHeading=Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=The United States Supreme Court has recognized two types of associative freedoms protected under the Constitution; expressive and intimate (Congress, Amdt 1.8.1). Expressive association covers an individual’s right to form and join groups or unions that express a collective purpose, while intimate refers to an individual’s right to maintain private associations (Hudson Jr., 2009). Freedom of association is covered under Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United States Court system has recognized both aspects of freedom of association through multiple court cases such as Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and Roberts v. United States Jaycees (Hudson Jr., 2009). The United Nations Human Rights Office states “Freedom of association is an essential element of democracy that serves as a vehicle for the exercise of many other rights guaranteed under international law, including the right to freedom of expression (UN Human Rights. 2023).
Examples of expressive association include interacting and organizing amongst other citizens to collectively express and promote common interests, as well as the right to form and join trade unions, or work for non-governmental organizations(NGOs). Within the intimate aspect of association, those in democracies have a right to hold private relationships and associations without interference. In major democratic regimes such as the United States and the United Kingdom, freedom of association is respected and protected. In the United States, “officials respect the constitutional right to assembly; laws and practices give wide freedom to NGOs and activists to pursue civic and policy agendas; and federal law guarantees trade unions the right to organize and engage in collective bargaining (Freedom House, 2023).” In the United Kingdom, the freedom to assemble, go on strike, and bargain collectively are also all respected. NGOs may also operate freely, and workers have a right to organize trade unions, and even their own Labour Party. While perfect freedom is not always the case, as seen in examples of police brutality against protesters in the United States, and in the UK with the Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act of 2022, freedom of association is generally upheld and protected within democratic regimes.
However, global democracy is on the decline, and in the 2015 John Hopkins University Press’ Journal of Democracy, Douglas Rutzen discusses how authoritarianism is placing an increasing threat to civil society. He says, “Since 2012, more than 160 laws constraining the freedoms of association or assembly have been enacted or proposed in 60 countries. This trend is consistent with the continuing decline of democracy worldwide(Rutzen, 2015, 30).” Freedom in the World 2023 shows us that 2022 was the 17th consecutive year of a global decline in freedom. As freedom of association is recognized by international law, this is not reflected when exercised within authoritarian regimes. In Countries such as Venezuela, freedom of association is strongly restricted and those who exercise this right can face major consequences. “The government is being investigated for crimes against humanity regarding how they treat opposition protests; Human Rights activists and members of NGOs face harassment, threats, and arrest; and the government has cracked down on labor unions with opposition unions and several labor union leaders have been arrested or killed (Freedom House, 2023)”. The autocratic regime of Kazakhstan also has strict restrictions on those who assemble and protest. Those who fail to follow these restrictions are subject to detainment, torture, and death as seen in the 2022 gas price protests in western Kazakhstan. “NGOs continue to operate but face government harassment when they attempt to address politically sensitive issues. There are extensive legal restrictions on the formation and operation of NGOs…Workers have limited rights to form and join trade unions or participate in collective bargaining. The government is closely affiliated with the largest union federation and major employers, while genuinely independent unions face repressive actions by the authorities. The country’s major independent trade union body was dissolved in 2017(Freedom House, 2023).” Intimate association is also not free within an autocracy as seen in Russia. Although private relationships are allowed, social media is heavily monitored, minority religious groups are often targeted, and political repression has impacted private discussions with cases of citizens reporting others for expressing views or associations in opposition to the government. “The government restricts freedom of assembly. Overwhelming police responses, the excessive use of force, routine arrests, and harsh fines and prison sentences have largely discouraged unsanctioned protests, while pro-Kremlin groups are able to demonstrate freely… The government has also relentlessly persecuted NGOs, particularly those that work on human rights and governance issues. Civic activists are frequently arrested on politically motivated charges(Freedom House, 2023).” Exercising freedom of association within an autocratic regime is heavily restricted and poses a major risk. While sometimes possible to assemble and protest, it is not without registration and approval, being met with police force, or facing other significant consequences.
As the middle ground between democracy and autocracy, hybrid regimes recognize freedom of association accordingly. Freedom House ranks countries on a scale of 1-4; democratic regimes typically place at a 3 or 4 regarding freedom of association, whereas autocratic regimes place at a 0 or 1. However, hybrid regimes consistently place at a 1, 2, or 3 depending on the nation. As declared by the European Parliament, Hungary has now transitioned from a deficient democracy, into a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy. (European Parliament Press Release, 2022).” However, according to Freedom House, Hungary exemplifies a true hybrid regime with the possession of liberty and limitations to the freedom of association. The freedom to assemble is constitutionally protected and often respected, scoring a 4/4; however, associations with NGOs that go against the government agenda are subjected to stigmatization, monitoring, and fines placing associative freedom at a 2/4 (Freedom House, 2023). The hybrid regime of Jordan, a constitutional monarchy with an elected lower house in parliament, has a registration system for the formation of associations that must be approved by authority (Makary, 2007). In the International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law’s 10th volume issued in 2007, Marc Makary examines the case studies of Jordan and Lebanon and the guarantees of freedom of association in non-democratic environments. He states “While freedom of association in Jordan is protected by the Constitution, its laws are contrary to the standards for freedom of association set by International Law. Article 16 of the Constitution grants Jordanians the right ‘to establish societies and political parties provided that the objects of such societies and parties are lawful, their methods peaceful, and their by-laws not contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.’ While Article 16 seems to provide space for individuals to establish associations, its paragraph (iii) places the establishment of associations and political parties under the control of the law with Jordanian Law N° 33 of 1966 granting absolute discretion to the Minister of Social Affairs or the Minister of Interior to register associations, ban undeclared associations, and establish long and burdensome administrative procedures (Makary’s, 2007). ” Makary’s findings have not changed much since 2007, as the current hybrid regime strictly limits free assembly, heavily monitors and regulates NGO operations in an arbitrary manner, and limits the industries in which unions may form with the limited right to strike (Freedom House, 2023). Hungary was on the more positive end of the spectrum with middle averaging scores, contrary to Jordan with scores of 1/4 and 0/4 regarding freedom of association.
Hybrid systems can fluctuate how much freedom they allow for people to associate with each other. Democratic regimes remain at the top levels of ability regarding the right to exercise freedom of association without interference; whether that be through assembly, union membership, expressive group discussion, or intimate association, citizens of democracies face little to no limits. In contrast, Autocratic regimes place heavy restrictions and limits on the exercise of this freedom and often punish those who do. While the actions do not vary much depending on the regime, the ability to do so freely without interference is truly where the differences lie.

European Parliament. 2022. “MEPs: Hungary Can No Longer Be Considered a Full Democracy. News. European Parliament.” Www.europarl.europa.eu. September 15, 2022. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220909IPR40137/meps-hungary-can-no-longer-be-considered-a-full-democracy.

Freedom House. 2023. “ Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report.” Freedom House. 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2023
‌
Gorokhovskaia, Yana, Adrian Shahbaz, and Amy Slipowitz. 2023. “Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy.” Freedom House. 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years.

Jr, David L. Hudson. 2009. “Freedom of Association.” Www.mtsu.edu. 2009. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1594/freedom-of-association.

‌Makary, Marc. “Notification or Registration? Guarantees of Freedom of Association in Non-Democratic Environments: Case Studies of Lebanon and Jordan.” n.d. ICNL. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.icnl.org/resources/research/ijnl/notification-or-registration-guarantees-of-freedom-of-association-in-non-democratic-environments-case-studies-of-lebanon-and-jordan.

Rutzen, Douglas. "Authoritarianism Goes Global (II): Civil Society Under Assault." Journal of Democracy, vol. 26 no. 4, 2015, p. 28-39. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0071.

United Nations Human Rights. 2023. “OHCHR Freedom of Assembly and of Association.” n.d. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/freedom-assembly-and-association#:~:text=Everyone%20has%20the%20rights%20to,protests%2C%20both%20offline%20and%20online.

United States Congress. Constitution Annotated. Amdt1.8.1 Overview of Freedom of Association. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/
}}

Freedom of Religion/Traditions

2023-08-05T00:38:15Z

Mben127: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Religion |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=Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) protects an individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The classification of freedom of religion as a fundamental right is to..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Religion
|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=Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) protects an individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The classification of freedom of religion as a fundamental right is to allow public choice of worship and to ensure protection from persecution on religious grounds and from conformity to a cultural majority through government influence. A state authority cannot interfere with how one chooses to worship or practice their religion, or whether one chooses if they worship at all. However, there is a philosophical and moral tradition of state secularism that challenges the classification of this freedom.
From a secular state perspective, a state with separation between religious institutions and law making bodies or governance powers, is intended to offer a neutral standpoint on the matter of religion. The institutional order separates church and state, in order to prevent religious powers from advancing their interests with the use of political influence, and to keep political duties prioritized over religious obligations. “In a secular state, the protection of freedom of conscience and the equal treatment of people in religious matters does require restrictions on religious freedom in official spaces (Castro, 2021)” This perspective puts into question how fundamental religious freedom really is in practice compared to the freedom of conscience, whether in a public or private manner.
Hobbes suggests that rather than separation of church and state, the subordination of church to the state for the sake of survival through unity is well within the authority of the state (Curley, 2015, 2). Unity through a common religion would then in theory benefit the survival of the state. In Leviathan, Hobbes discusses the Rights of Sovereigns by Institutions, articulating how the sovereign is judge of what is necessary for the peace and defense of its subjects, including the judgment of what doctrines are fit to be taught by them (Hobbes, 1651, XVIII). In his analysis, Edwin Curley discusses the extent to Hobbsian theory where he believes this repression is just so far it does not exceed its limits. “Repression of thought and expression beyond what is necessary for political purposes is not only an abrogation of the sovereign's duty, it is counter-productive, provoking bitterness and resentment, and undermining the loyalty of his subjects (Curley, 2015, 3). While there is still the right to private conscience, as long as one adheres to the doctrines of the state publicly, based on the previous argument, Hobbes advocates for the private beliefs of whatever one chooses, as long as it does not affect the actions of an individual as a subject to the sovereign state. “Hobbesian theory states that laws bind actions; people are thus free to do whatever they like as long as this doing stays in their thoughts (Tralau, 2011, 67).” This restriction on free practice, public or private, and the individual classifications of religious liberty and liberty of conscience, declassify freedom of religion as a fundamental right completely, but still includes freedom of conscience as acceptable under the limit that it still does not threaten the state.
According to this theory by Hobbes, Freedom of conscience is the only guaranteed element of this freedom, truly classified as a fundamental right, in order to avoid disparity and conflict within the body of state subjects. While Hobbes advocated for absolute state authority, removing religious freedom from the state completely, the secular state allows religious liberty but only to an extent. In both a Hobbesian state and a secular state, freedom of conscience can only truly be protected as a fundamental right, to ensure true neutrality or stability. Freedom of conscience and religion combat one another in each of these perspectives, thus disputing the classification of freedom of religion in the philosophical tradition of a Hobbesian state, or a moral tradition of state secularism and neutrality.

Castro, Faviola Rivera. 2021. “Rawls’ Critique of the Secular State.” IDEES. December 17, 2021. https://revistaidees.cat/en/rawls-critique-of-the-secular-state/.

‌Curley, Edwin. 2015. “Hobbes and the Cause of Religious Toleration.” https://sites01.lsu.edu/faculty/voegelin/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2015/09/Edwin-Curley.pdf.

Hobbes, Thomas. April 1651. Leviathan. “The Project Gutenberg EBook of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes.” n.d. Www.gutenberg.org. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#link2H_4_0215.

‌Tralau, Johan. 2011. “Hobbes Contra Liberty of Conscience.” Political Theory 39, no. 1: 58–84. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23036034?seq=14.
}}

Freedom of Expression/Era

2023-08-05T00:24:22Z

Mben127: Created page with "{{Right section |right=Freedom of Expression |section=History |question=Era |questionHeading=Is the identification of this right associated with a particular era in history, political regime, or political leader? |pageLevel=Question |contents=Freedom of expression is a relatively new term, however, not a new concept. For much of its history, the individual freedoms covered under freedom of expression were established in isolated contexts throughout time and eventually tr..."

{{Right section
|right=Freedom of Expression
|section=History
|question=Era
|questionHeading=Is the identification of this right associated with a particular era in history, political regime, or political leader?
|pageLevel=Question
|contents=Freedom of expression is a relatively new term, however, not a new concept. For much of its history, the individual freedoms covered under freedom of expression were established in isolated contexts throughout time and eventually translated into this overarching concept of freedom of expression. The identification of this freedom is a product of many contributions over several centuries, resulting in associations to multiple eras and contributors: yet remaining limited to being a fundamental element of democratic regimes. The composition of freedom of expression possesses two elements associated with the present-day interpretation. The first element is the origins of the foundational freedoms covered under the overall “Freedom of expression.” The second element is the transition from individual freedoms to the broader notion of expression.
Today, it is universally understood that freedom of expression includes freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While freedom of speech has origins in ancient Greece through the concept of Parrhêsia, (Konstan, 2012, 1), freedom of the press and expression have a significant concrete appearance through the works of John Milton in Areopagitica(1644). In the book Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens, Arlene Saxonhouse discusses how Milton “Protests the licensing of books and the governmental restraints thereby placed on free expression in published works… Milton argues in a series of allusions to the world of ancient Athens, tying Milton to the values expressed by the ancient Athenian, connecting freedom of speech to human virtue and political freedom’’ (Saxonhouse 2005, 20).
The next significant development to freedom of expression was the ratification of the Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution; a document that drew inspiration from the English Magna Carta (1215). Although the Magna Carta did not explicitly mention free speech, it did guarantee certain liberties that would be conceptualized into modern democracy and go on to inspire the Bill of Rights, i.e The First Amendment (WEX Definitions Team, 2020). Thus, The First Amendment became an important development in what would come to be called freedom of expression. However, it wouldn't be until 1948 that “freedom of expression” was officially coined and universally recognized. Following World War II, freedom of information was declared a fundamental human right but the language of “freedom of expression” was not agreed upon until it was drafted and entered into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 by an American committee (Kleinwächter, 2022). Between The First Amendment and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, innovations such as the telegraph and radio broadcasting proposed new obstacles to information sharing beyond borders. This led to multiple treaties and conventions discussing the censoring of content shared internationally, thus challenging freedom of speech and press, however, no explicit mention of freedom of expression was mentioned in these international treaties(Kleinwächter, 2022). Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this includes the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information through any media regardless of frontiers.” It was here that the individual freedoms within the First Amendment translated into the united concept of “freedom of expression” and then became internationally recognized into law through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966 with the same language used in Article 19 (Kleinwächter, 2022). With a long evolution and multiple developments contributing to the concept today, the identification of this freedom is not limited to a single era, but rather significant to several. ..
The associations of these eras parallel the significance of the identification of this freedom in relation to a specific type of regime. These dates, as well as the overall notion of this freedom, are important to the development and expansion of democracy and democratic institutions. This element of democracy facilitates open debate, proper consideration of different perspectives, and the negotiation and compromise necessary for consensual policy decisions (Freedom House, 2023). Without this freedom, true democracy would not exist as “the suppression of ideas is inconsistent with the concept that a democratic society bases its decisions on full and open discussion of all points of view (Bogen, 1983, 464).” Expressing content or discontent for a government, policy, or principle, as well as proposing solutions or critiques, amongst expressions of other topics, allows for the democratic process to function for its intended purpose and is profoundly within the right of an individual to do so as a protected human right.
Unlike the association to a single regime type, this freedom is not limited to a single political leader. Instead, multiple figures, often not in positions of leadership, opposed the censoring of opinions and ideas, and acted as the main contributors to the expansion of freedom of expression. Those who drafted the Magna Carta opposed the monarchy of King John; Milton opposed government censorship, and the Framers of the Constitution opposed absolute power by a single ruler. All of these developments over time resulted in the association to several contributors who led us to the contemporary understanding of this freedom. This long evolutionary process with collaborative efforts from key points and figures throughout history has resulted in the identification of this right being tied to multiple eras and figures, yet to only one regime type.

Konstan, David. 2012. “The Two Faces of Parrhêsia: Free Speech and Self-Expression in Ancient Greece.” Antichthon 46. Cambridge University Press: 1–13. doi:10.1017/S0066477400000125.

Saxonhouse, Arlene W. 2005. Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens. Cambridge University Press. 11-37

WEX Definitions Team. 2020 “Magna Carta.” LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/magna_carta#:~:text=The%20writers%20of%20the%20Bill.

Bogen, David S. 1983. “The Origins of Freedom of Speech and Press” 42. Maryland Law Review. 429-465.
https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=mlr

Freedom House. “Freedom of Expression.” 2023. https://freedomhouse.org/issues/freedom-expression

Kleinwächter, Wolfgang. 2022. “A History of the Right to Freedom of Expression.” Observer Research Foundation. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/a-history-of-the-right-to-freedom-of-expression/
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Brunei

2023-08-05T00:18:19Z

Mben127:

{{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=Brunei
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The Constitution of Brunei Declares the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam (Shafeite sect) the Official religion of the country, However, Part II, Article 3, Section 1 states, “all other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony by the persons professing them.” This Assertion is first seen in the 1959 Constitution of Brunei Darussalam

CIA World Factbook. Brunei. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/brunei/#government

U.S. Department of State 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Brunei https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/brunei

International Commission of Jurists. Constitution of Brunei Darussalam 1959. https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Brunei-Constitution-1959-eng.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Burkina Faso

2023-08-05T00:16:57Z

Mben127:

{{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=Burkina Faso
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Under Chapter I, Article 7, Freedom of Religion is asserted in the 1991 Constitution of Burkina Faso. This article also specifies that respect for the law, public order, good morals, and the human person must be upheld with free practice. Equality regardless of religion is also guaranteed under Article I.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Constitution of Burkina Faso. 1991. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/bkf128139E.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Burundi

2023-08-05T00:10:28Z

Mben127:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Cambodia

2023-08-05T00:08:38Z

Mben127:

{{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=Cambodia
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1947 Constitution of Cambodia declares Buddhism as the religion of the state. However, It asserts under Article 8 that, “Liberty of conscience is absolute. So is that of worshiping…” but limits this liberty of worship by articulating that it “suffers no other restrictions than those made necessary by the maintenance of Public order.”

Advocatanomy Law Library. Cambodia Constitution 1947. https://advocatetanmoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/cambodia-constitution-1947.pdf

CIA World Factbook. Cambodia. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/cambodia/#government
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Cameroon

2023-08-05T00:05:06Z

Mben127:

{{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=Cameroon
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The 1972 constitution of Cameroon first asserts that Freedom of religion and worship shall be guaranteed in Article 15 of the preamble. In Article 14 the state is declared secular and neutral, also opening the preamble with adherence to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While not specifically mentioned in the 1961 Constitution, it also affirms adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Which covers religious freedom under Article 18.

International Labour Organization. Constitution of Cameroon 1972. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/43107/133753/F868661776/CMR-43107%20(EN).pdf

https://condor.depaul.edu/mdelance/images/Pdfs/Federal%20Constitution%20of%20Cameroon.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Cape Verde

2023-08-05T00:01:20Z

Mben127:

{{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=Cape Verde
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of religion is first asserted in the 1980 Constitution of the Republic of Cabo Verde under Title II, article 48. This article also guarantees freedom from religious discrimination, separation of church and state, freedom of religious instruction, guaranteed religious presence in hospitals, prisons, and armed forces, and the protection of religious places of worship.

Constitute Project. Constitution of the Republic of Cabo Verde. 1980. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cape_Verde_1992
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Czech Republic

2023-08-05T00:00:00Z

Mben127:

{{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=Czech Republic
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The first assertion of freedom of religion within the Czech Republic was asserted in the 1960 Constitution of Czechoslovakia under Chapter II, Article 32. However, In the 1992 Constitution of the Czech Republic, freedom of religion is not mentioned. Instead, there is a supplemental document, The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, under the Constitutional Order of 1992 that covers religious freedom under Article 15.

International Labour Organization. Constitution of the Czech Republic https://www.ilo.org/dyn/travail/docs/1967/Constitution%20of%20the%20Czech%20Republic.pdf

World Statesman. Constitution of Czechoslovakia. 1960. https://www.worldstatesmen.org/Czechoslovakia-Const1960.pdf

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/ustavni_soud_www/Pravni_uprava/AJ/Listina_English_version.pdf
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Cyprus

2023-08-04T23:58:41Z

Mben127:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Croatia

2023-08-04T23:54:51Z

Mben127:

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Democratic Republic of the Congo

2023-08-04T23:53:02Z

Mben127:

{{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=Democratic Republic of the Congo
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Under Title II, Article 24, Freedom of religion is affirmed in the 1964 Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, It does state that worship, teaching, practices, and performance of worship should be subject to the respect of public order and good morals.

U.S. Department of State. Report on Religious Freedom. 2022. Democratic Republic of The Congo. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/democratic-republic-of-the-congo/

Wikisource. Translated 1964 Constitution of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Constitution_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_(1964)#Title_II._Fundamental_rights
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Comoros

2023-08-04T17:36:55Z

Mben127:

{{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=Comoros
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Religious Freedom is not guaranteed in Comoros. The Constitution declares Sunni Islam the religion of the state under Chapter V, Article 97 under the current constitution. However, Under Title I, Chapter I, Article 2, equality is guaranteed regardless of religion.

U.S. Department of State. Report on International Religious Freedom. 2021. Comoros. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/comoros/

Constitute Project. 2018 Constitution of Comoros. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Comoros_2018
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Chile

2023-08-04T17:27:14Z

Mben127:

{{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=Chile
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=Freedom of Religion was first covered in the 1925 Constitution of The Republic of Chile under Chapter III, Article 10, Section 2. However, the specification that religion may not be contrary to morality, good usage, and public order, is made in the same assertion.

Constitute Project. 1925 Constitution of the Republic of Chile. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chile_1925?lang=en

CIA World Factbook. Chile. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/chile/#government
}}

Freedom of Religion/History/Country sources/Chad

2023-08-04T17:13:20Z

Mben127:

{{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=Chad
|pageLevel=Breakout
|contents=The first assertion of Religious Freedom is covered under the 1996 Constitution of The Republic of Chad, under Title II, Chapter I, Article 27. Article 14 of Title II also guarantees equality without distinction of origin, of race, of sex, of religion, of political opinion or of social position.

Constituteproject. Constitution of the Republic of Chad. 1996. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Chad_2005

U.S. Department of State. Report on International Religious Freedom. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/chad/#:~:text=The%20October%20Transitional%20Charter%20establishes,and%20secularism%20of%20the%20state.”
}}