Defaming the Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis of the United Nations analyses the development of and the controversy around the formulation and interpretation of... Show moreDefaming the Freedom of Religion or Belief: A Historical and Conceptual Analysis of the United Nations analyses the development of and the controversy around the formulation and interpretation of the freedom of religion or belief as a universal right within the United Nations. The legal, philosophical, and political dimensions of the subject are discussed.This study demonstrates that the universality, content, and non-discriminatory implementation of the freedom of religion or belief has been questioned since its drafting process, not only on a theoretical level by postmodern views, but also, throughout the years, from a legal and political perspective within the UN. From various angles, these actors seem to ‘defame’ the freedom of religion or belief—hence the title of this study—and have succeeded in changing the provision by interpreting it differently than its original 1948 objectives. These developments have continued and will most likely continue to lead to a diminishment of the normative force of the legal provisions regarding the freedom of religion or belief. Various topics, such as religious tolerance, blasphemy, defamation of religion, and apostasy, are discussed in this context. Show less
In discussing extremism, the key questions are: to whom is a duty owed and what are the limits of intolerance that are to be tolerated? Answering these questions requires examining limits and... Show moreIn discussing extremism, the key questions are: to whom is a duty owed and what are the limits of intolerance that are to be tolerated? Answering these questions requires examining limits and rights; analyzing them in the context of extremism is the ‘core’ of this book. While freedom of speech and freedom of religion are vital to democracies, the freedoms are not unlimited. Where to draw the line between permissible and impermissible is complicated. Religious and secular extremists pose dangers to society and individuals alike; the question I will seek to answer to what extent should, and does, society protect itself against a readily identifiable threat. Whether society chooses to ‘see’ that threat is essential to the discussion; examining why the threat is minimized, at best, and ignored, at worst, is a classic example of history repeating itself. The extremist, in addition to taking the law into his own hands, unequivocally rejects restrictions and limitations imposed by society intended to preserve civil and social order. As discussed in chapter one, I define extremism as a powerful combination of violence and ideology that must necessarily always be “correct” in the mind of its believers. For those believers their ideology is invariably “the truth” and must be defended at all costs. Show less
