Freedom of religion Wikipedia.Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Human Rights' title='Be There Download Limits To Freedom Of Expression Human Rights' />Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.Learn about what this means.The Myth of Media Freedom in Lebanon.Issue 18, Summer 2013.By Nabil Dajani. May 12, 2013.We define a department as a major city department if its a member of the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association.There are 68 member departments in the.It also includes the freedom to change ones religion or belief.Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamentalhuman right.In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is generally considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers in other faiths.Freedom of belief is different.It allows the right to believe what a person, group or religion wishes, but it does not necessarily allow the right to practice the religion or belief openly and outwardly in a public manner.HistoryeditHistorically, freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action.Each of these have existed to varying degrees.While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has also often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, and political disenfranchisement.Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis, literally protected individuals professing an officially tolerated non Muslim religion.In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view often allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs.When street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was generally perceived to be an infringement of community rights.Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca.BC, and initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder.Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam.Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 3.BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, and refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance.This was the core for resentment and the persecution of early Christian communities.Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, which was encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka.Greek Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 7.AD and 1. 17 AD and in Alexandria in 1.AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult.Muslim worldeditFollowing a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 6.AD which mainly involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina then known as Yathrib, religious freedom for Muslims, Jews and pagans was declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina.The Islamic Caliphate later guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non Muslim communities accept dhimmi status and their adult males pay the punitive jizya tax instead of the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism, were usually accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al Andalus, Indian subcontinent, and the Ottoman Millet system.In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi Islamic judges usually could not interfere in the matters of non Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states usually had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts.Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order.Non Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that were usually forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous self marriage where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter.According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim 1.Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices even if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion.Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,5.India and never faced anti Semitism.Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Greats reign in the 3rd century BC.Freedom to practise, preach and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India.Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in the list of national holidays.Although India is an 8.Hindu country, India is a secular state without any state religions.Many scholars and intellectuals believe that Indias predominant religion, Hinduism, has long been a most tolerant religion.Rajni Kothari, founder of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies has written, India is a country built on the foundations of a civilisation that is fundamentally non religious.The Dalai Lama, the Tibetan leader in exile, said that religious tolerance of Aryabhoomi, a reference to India found in the Mahabharata, has been in existence in this country from thousands of years.Not only Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism which are the native religions but also Christianity and Islam have flourished here.Religious tolerance is inherent in Indian tradition, the Dalai Lama said.Freedom of religion in the Indian subcontinent is exemplified by the reign of King Piyadasi 3.BC Ashoka. One of King Ashokas main concerns was to reform governmental institutes and exercise moral principles in his attempt to create a just and humane society.Later he promoted the principles of Buddhism, and the creation of a just, understanding and fair society was held as an important principle for many ancient rulers of this time in the East.The importance of freedom of worship in India was encapsulated in an inscription of Ashoka King Piyadasi Ashok dear to the Gods, honours all sects, the ascetics hermits or those who dwell at home, he honours them with charity and in other ways.But the King, dear to the Gods, attributes less importance to this charity and these honours than to the vow of seeing the reign of virtues, which constitutes the essential part of them.For all these virtues there is a common source, modesty of speech.That is to say, one must not exalt ones creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others without legitimate reasons.One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them.The initial entry of Islam into South Asia came in the first century after the death of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.When around 1. 21.AD the Islamic Sultanates invaded India from the north west, gradually the principle of freedom of religion deteriorated in this part of the world.They were subsequently replaced by another Islamic invader in the form of Babur.The Mughal empire was founded by the Mongol leader Babur in 1.Ibrahim Lodi, the last of the Delhi Sultans at the First Battle of Panipat.The word Mughal is the Indo Iranian version of Mongol.On the main Asian continent, the Mongols were tolerant of religions.People could worship as they wished freely and openly, though the formation of two countries, i.Pakistan and Bangladesh, has been on the basis of religious intolerance.After the arrival of Europeans, Christians in their zeal to convert local as per belief in conversion as service of God, have also been seen to fall into frivolous methods since their arrival, though by and large there are hardly any reports of law and order disturbance from mobs with Christian beliefs, except perhaps in the north eastern region of India.Freedom of religion in contemporary India is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 2.Arab Media Society.Introduction. In the late 1.New World Information and Communication Order NWICO.Supported and promoted by UNESCO, its recommendations were adopted by the UN general assembly.Although not legally binding and far from implementation, the US withdrew from UNESCO over the issue, claiming that NWICO sought to restrict freedom of the press through regulation. Best Remote Desktop Software Over Internet there. This example of the West protecting the rights of corporate media and private sector dominance of the flow of communication brings to mind the history of media and mass communications in Lebanon where a uniquely unequal and imbalanced flow of information exists to serve mostly corporate and sectarian interests in the name of freedom of the media.The Lebanese media, often hailed as the freest in the region, have in fact failed to contribute to national development.None of the hundreds of Lebanese media institutions or outlets speak for all Lebanon instead, each medium operates as a voice for a political or sectarian faction, reinforcing and encouraging divisions in society.Much as the tenets of NWICO sought the equalization of the flow of information between nations, so must there be an effort within Lebanon to establish a balance among public, private and government interests, between the rich and the poor, the ruler and the ruled, the powerful and the weak, and the minorities and the majority.The Media in Lebanon.It is often stated that that the Lebanese media are the most free in the Arab region, yet I will argue that this is a myth.Freedom of the media in Lebanon is restricted, as it is in other Arab countries, but the difference is that the restrictions have their origins in Lebanons sectarian and financial structures rather than in the government.The Lebanese media are relatively free from government interference because Lebanon does not have a real government but rather a coalition of tribal sectarian bosses or financiers.The power and influence of these bosses is usually greater than that of government institutions.While Lebanon has relatively liberal laws regulating its media institutions, the application of these laws is selective.The print media still operate under a 1.President Fuad Chehab.This law provided the press with a level of freedom with minimal formal state censorship.It established the limits within which the freedom of the press might be exercised.The actual implementation of these limits, however, was determined by the unique confessional nature of the Lebanese system of government.Because of the sectarian nature of Lebanon and its media, the various media institutions usually focus exclusively on issues relevant to a particular religious sect rather than on those relevant to the larger Lebanese society.Furthermore, the total population of Lebanon is in itself too small to allow for the financial self sufficiency of the 1.Given the lack of financial self sufficiency and the low salaries of the average newspaper journalist, media professionals and institutions are forced to seek outside subsidies.The audiovisual media operate under a 1.Higher Council for Audiovisual Media.This council is ineffective as its decisions are merely advisory and its ten members five of whom are appointed by the Council of Ministers i.Parliament are selected more for their sectarian affiliation than their media experience.The serious problems affecting the Lebanese media are thus not related to excessive government controls.These media have always managed to outsmart the government by going around regulations and maintaining their freedom to operate.The main defect of the media lies in their inability to serve the genuine interests of the overall Lebanese society given the particular societal structures that regulate their organization, management and financing.The historic tendency of Lebanese journalists to speak for specific sectarian groups and to promote sectarian interests led media institutions to concentrate more on commentary and opinion than on news and facts.This gave outside powers and interests the incentive to play active roles in the affairs of Lebanon through the media.Each media institution came to be looked upon as a representative and spokesperson for that group.Thus, Lebanese media institutions have accentuated differences in society.This characteristic became particularly apparent during the civil war and is obvious today in the medias coverage of the fighting in Syria and its effect on the conflicting Lebanese groups.Any claim to objectivity made by the Lebanese media is to be viewed with skepticism.The predisposition of the Lebanese media to speak for certain social, political and sectarian groups is reinforced by the structure of the media system.Lebanon has 1. 10 licensed political publications serving a population of about four million.While circulation and audience figures are carefully guarded secrets, the assumption is that none of these publications sell more than 1.The vast majority of Lebanese publications therefore cannot support themselves from circulation and advertising revenue alone.The situation is similar with the audiovisual media.Since both print and audiovisual media outlets are not financially self sufficient, they are predisposed to accept financial assistance from outside sources, including foreign entities, in exchange for editorial support.This allows foreign and business interests to use the media as a vehicle by which to present their agendas and exert influence on internal and regional affairs.Indeed, handing out bribes to newspapers and journalists is commonly accepted as normal, and even justified by some on account of the poor salaries and lack of benefits available to journalists.There are many examples of journalists and editors mounting spirited defenses of this system.A leading Lebanese publisher once announced at an open forum on media affairs that the publisher who does not take bribes is an ass.At a conference in 2.Mustaqbal, Faysal Salman, challenged the point of imposing a code of ethics on journalists in a fundamentally corrupt system.He said Ive read the proposed code of ethics offered to Lebanese journalists, and by extension to the Arab world, and which were here to discuss and endorse.Ive read it more than five times.And every time I felt my anger increasing a bit and decided to let you in on what occurred to me.I became convincedand I may be wrongthat what weve listed in the codes clauses has made us prophets or missionaries and weve written commandments, which were prepared to preach.I ask you, and ask myself to be more modest, and urge you to be objective and rational and to simplify matters and understand the reality we live in Lebanon and every Arab country.Were not here to one up each other.Were responsible men and women.Therefore, lets be up to the challenge, and not go too far in dreaming up whats unattainableWhy do you want me to fight the dragon I wont be able to defeat it.I first want to provide a plan to face the dragon, so where is the plan.I urge you, once again, to review these clauses that I find insulting to journalistsNot everyone working in the media is guilty.Were talking about all journalists hereWheres the logic of having a journalists pay set at 2.This isnt in defense of deviation, but a call for rationality, of objectivity.Responding to Salman, the late president of the Lebanese Journalists Association Melhem Karam said, What my colleague, Mr.Faysal Salman, said was frank.He said what every journalist must say.A more revealing and recent example of the attitude of some journalists came in the wake of the assassination of General Wessam al Hassan, head of the Information Branch of the Internal Security Forces I.S. F. in October 2.Charles Ayoub, editor in chief of Al Diyar, a newspaper generally aligned with Syria and Hezbollah, published a front page account in which he described accepting financial assistance in return for taking a middle line in his papers coverage of two political alliances, the March 1.Western backed, anti Syria and the March 8th movement pro Syria.Here is an extract One day, the late Gen.Wessam al Hassan called me to ask if my newspaper Al Diyar could take a middle line between the March 8th and March 1.I replied in the affirmative, so he asked me what March 8th would do as a result of the papers shifting its loyalty.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |