Regulating Religion: Secularism and Religious Freedom in the Global Era

Modern moments are characterized by an unprecedented "belief" in the law (Comaroff 2009). The purpose of this interdisciplinary project is to deepen our new and critical understanding of the dilemma related to the protection and implementation of "religious freedom". What is often overlooked with the current call to this famous idea (l) is that you must first have "religion" in order to enforce the law that guarantees the freedom of religion (Sullivan 2005). However, it is very difficult to define "religion" (Asad 1993; Keane 2007). It is the use of power around what is regarded as "religion" without a doubt, it shapes, coordinates and positions the subject and the citizen in the government (Asad 2006). This is a serious dilemma of legislative religious freedom.

Discussions about 'Freedom of religion and freedom of religion' are often frustrating, abstract and tightly regulated. This project will transcend familiar freedom of religion as a representation of freedom and tolerance through "freedom of religion" created and negotiated in the contact between citizens and the legal system. This comparison project on the intersection of law and religion consists of three case studies. Each case study aims to treat "freedom of religion" in various aspects of country-specific business as a concept and practice. France, Indonesia, Sri Lanka. These countries were chosen because the national police were "religious" and "secular" and revealed various ways to adapt to religious pluralism. By focusing on "friction" (Tsing 2005) that occurs when people meet the concept of globalization (religious freedom), this project studies religious globalization and legalization of religion, broader discussion on international law I will help you. Gender and citizenship

In his provocative exploration entitled "Beyond Freedom of Freedom", hard explored the influence of secularism and religious freedom on the world stage. She said that the logic of political secularism and subsequent religious freedom is long in the center of the United States, the United Nations and many individual countries. In her opinion, the scope of religion is clumsy, and the double culture of religion and secularism is obscuring more than it clarifies. She thinks it is impossible to distinguish elements of religious society from elements of non religious society. "To rely on the category of religious actors according to political objectives" means "We assume that some form of behaviorism is not driven by religion, neither consistency nor sociologically legitimate intellectual behavior" I think.

Since everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of religion can not be regulated from different perspectives in terms of the freedom of an individual who is convicted. This level of religion is interpreted as a set of beliefs based on a religious position (traditional or contemporary) or religious facts. This means that it contains the typical beliefs of any religion, including positive and negative beliefs, ie atheism, agnosticism or indifference to religion.