In early 2024, Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (ROC), placed his proverbial cards on the table by declaring Russia's aggression against Ukraine nothing less than a "holy war." Although much evidence had already accumulated against the Patriarch for his steadfast commitment to President Putin's illegal war, until this point very few of Ukraine's partners had taken any meaningful measures against Kirill or his church in response. This unabashed and full-throated declaration, however, must serve as a wakeup call; action against the ROC's wholesale endorsement of Kremlin misadventure-including the church's involvement in the deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children and public incitement to hatred and genocide-can no longer be merely an afterthought. To confront this reality, the article unpacks and explains away the faulty rationales used to preempt the imposition of sanctions on certain ROC institutions and officials. Following this assessment, the article closes by sketching out what a more unified and coherent sanctions regime might look like, and how it can serve as part of a larger concerted effort directed at securing accountability for ROC actions, including its ongoing efforts to consolidate and normalize Russian control over annexed and occupied Ukrainian territory.
Abstract When governments are structurally unable to provide social services, or when disaster strikes, relief organisations tend to step in. This is also the case in South and East Asia. Such organisations may be faith-based, leading to the emergence of what Asians colloquially call “rice Christians”: persons who (allegedly) convert to a religion in order to access services, or out of loyalty to the aid-supplying organisation. Such converts may continue to practice their traditional religions and beliefs. This raises the question whether rights to religion or belief are still available to “rice Christians” when governments, e.g., seek to redevelop a sacred site that formed part of their original belief system. The present article addresses that question, drawing upon the concept of multiple religious belonging (‘mrb’) and a 2017 decision of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in which the court accepted that individuals may adhere to multiple religions, especially where conversion happened within a missionary context and the now-claimed belief is Indigenous or traditional. It argues in favour of recognition of mrb within the context of freedom of religion, which would mean that also “rice Christians” can continue to rely on original belief systems to protect their practices and places.
Abstract The study presents a critical view of the church registration processes in the Czech Republic from a sociological jurisprudence perspective. First, it reviews the main issues as they appear in the current debate on the relationship between the state and religion. Next, it addresses the socio-cultural specifics of the relationship between state and religion in the Czech Republic and describes the current legal settings. The analytical part focuses on the judicial review of church registration processes between 2010 and 2022. Finally, the authors review individual cases and their legal outcomes to gain insight into the key problematic issues. The authors argue that (a) the national legal setting creates an unequal environment for the organizations that have been assessed in the study, and that (b) consequently, the state often exceeds its authority in the church registration process.
This article considers case law concerning parental refusal to consent to medical treatment of a child based on religious belief or conscience. The focus of enquiry is on three pivotal decisions of the Irish Superior Courts which will serve to chart the development of judicial reasoning in this contentious area of law. In the last few decades, Ireland has experienced significant changes in its population and attitudes toward religion as a result of increased immigration, multiculturalism, and secularism. This case law analysis reveals that there has been a shift from a test that examines the motivations or reasons for parental decision making to one that focuses on the effect on the child. This shift in focus raises concern about the extent to which the religious or conscientious objection of a parent concerning a child’s medical treatment will be considered in future cases. The present analysis provides an illuminating example of the way in which religion and the state can be in tension with each other.
Abstract This article considers case law concerning parental refusal to consent to medical treatment of a child based on religious belief or conscience. The focus of enquiry is on three pivotal decisions of the Irish Superior Courts which will serve to chart the development of judicial reasoning in this contentious area of law. In the last few decades, Ireland has experienced significant changes in its population and attitudes toward religion as a result of increased immigration, multiculturalism, and secularism. This case law analysis reveals that there has been a shift from a test that examines the motivations or reasons for parental decision making to one that focuses on the effect on the child. This shift in focus raises concern about the extent to which the religious or conscientious objection of a parent concerning a child’s medical treatment will be considered in future cases. The present analysis provides an illuminating example of the way in which religion and the state can be in tension with each other.
Abstract Internalization of costs of religious preferences fits the religious self-perception and ideology of many religious communities and is in their long-term interest. It also strengthens the external value of religious communities, norms, and institutions for the wider society. Many forces press religious communities to reduce the costs of religious preferences. Within a community, costs are reduced by limiting the available choices or shifted to its weaker members; outside the community, costs are shifted to other groups or the state. Incentives influence the allocation of costs, which in turn shape internal communal choices and the religious vitality and sustainability of the community. The allocation of costs also affects the external relations of communities. This article suggests that the allocation of costs is yet another aspect of religious and ideological communities in liberal states that deserves investigation at the constitutional, legal, and regulatory levels.
Abstract The references to God in the preamble to the Indonesian Constitution raise a fundamental question, “do these references mean that the Constitution should be religious?” This paper aims to propose a new interpretation to the references to God in the preamble. Particularly, it suggests reinterpretation of the trajectory of the phrase “belief in One and Only God” in the making of the 1945 Constitution and during the amendment process, and of its legal significance. This article will also examine the implication of those references for the legitimacy of the state implementation of Islamic law. By analyzing the Constitutional Court’s decisions in the Religious Court Jurisdiction case, this article further investigates the implication of the constitutional interpretation of this phrase for the constitutionality of Islamic law. It argues that the preamble which is secular in nature provides the paradigm for enabling and limiting the institutionalization of religion, including Islamic law.
Abstract Should judges engage in theological deliberations? This question has often been asked in the context of religious claims before the courts in India. Following the hijab ban by the Karnataka government, the subsequent decision of the Karnataka High Court (khc) upholding it, and a split verdict by the Supreme Court of India (sci), the question is doing the rounds once again. The present article attempts to critically analyze the decisions of the khc and the sci on the hijab controversy. The analysis draws on the claim of Justice Dhulia that the courts are not the proper forum to engage in theological deliberations, and judicial interference is warranted only when the limits set by the Constitution are violated. In alignment with the claims of Justice Dhulia, the present article argues that in matters concerning government interference in religious practices, the focus of the reviewing court should be more on the legitimacy of the restriction rather than the religious validity of the practice. The author agrees with Justice Dhulia that in matters concerning the right to religion, proportionality is objectively the better standard of judicial review, as it dissuades the court from inquiring into the religious and cultural practices of the parties.
The article offers an overview of recent United States court cases on the topic of religious family agreements, focusing in particular on cases seeking to enforce mahr provisions, provisions of ketubahs , and religious upbringing agreements. Overall, the recent cases display the tensions created by an intersection of separate concerns: interpretive, doctrinal, and constitutional. The cases ultimately display a cautious approach, including a general reluctance to enforce provisions where doing so might interfere with religious freedom or override the financial rights of vulnerable parties.
Dr. Rawia Aburabia's book, "Within the Law, Outside of Justice: Polygamy, Gendered Citizenship, and Colonialism in Israeli Law," is published in Hebrew and focuses on polygamy in Israel and mandatory Palestine.While it offers significant insights for a Hebrew-speaking audience, its contributions are also invaluable for international readers.This review seeks to introduce the English-speaking world to Dr. Aburabia's work.It will outline the book's main arguments and support the author's effort to influence Israeli government policy.It will also discuss Aburabia's methods and their potential implications for current and future research projects.To exemplify the book's heuristic value, I will share thoughts evoked by a critique of one of its arguments around settler colonialism.Before concluding I will add some suggestions
Abstract This article analyzes how the evolution of religiosity will affect the secularity of Spanish law. In a liberal constitutional system such as that of Spain, the influence of religion on law is inevitable. The article proposes a model based on two variables: the increase or decrease of the religious population and the capacity and willingness of religions to influence secular law. The four possible resulting scenarios are religious aggrandizement (a growing religious population seeking to shape the law); religious secularization (a growing religious population with a worldview compatible with secularity); religious backlash (some religious minorities undermining the secularity of the law); and religious diminishment (a declining religious population losing its capacity or willingness to influence the law). The model demonstrates theoretically that inclusion policies do not necessarily lead to the Islamization of Spain. Ignoring religious issues can lead to the marginalization of a religious minority, which favors radicalization and non-acceptance of secularity.
