Excavating the Constitutional Value of Freedom from Religion and Comparing Conceptions of Human Rights

Muhammad Haaziq Bujang Syarif

Contributor

10 Oct 2024 · 08:12 10 October 2024 08:12 WIB 12 minutes reading time: 12 minutes 69 read

This article will analyze the position of the Indonesian constitution towards atheism, considering that the Indonesian constitution is very thick with religious values.

Excavating the Constitutional Value of Freedom from Religion and Comparing Conceptions of Human Rights

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Background
Religious Freedom in the Concept of Human Rights
Freedom of Religion as a Constitutional Right
Conclusion
References
Source Online
Legislation

Section 2/3: Religious Freedom in the Concept of Human Rights

Religious Freedom in the Concept of Human Rights

According to Jan Materson of the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights, human rights are rights inherent to human beings without which it is impossible for humans to live as human beings. Human rights are divided into two fundamental rights, namely equality and freedom.[4] As a norm that departs from a paradigm, human rights are a crystallization of various value systems and philosophies about humans and all aspects of their lives that focus on human life and dignity.[5]

The culmination of this crystallization was realized when it was formulated Universal Declaration of Human Right (UDHR) on December 10, 1948 with 30 articles. Article 2 emphasizes that the human rights held by each individual must not be discriminated against for any reason, including religion.[6] Religion in the view of international human rights must not legitimize discriminatory treatment of humans. Furthermore, international human rights do not position religion as a reference for limiting human rights in certain circumstances.[7]

Freedom of religion is categorized as a negative right that is formulated on the freedom from (freedom from) interference from other parties, especially the state.[8] With the demand for “freedom”, one of the implications is that the state is prohibited from further intervention in the religious freedom of its citizens. In addition, this type of right requires the state to take action (obligation of conduct) immediately without delay.[9]

Another implication that can be drawn from categorizing this right as a negative right is that human rights allow freedom from religion. This conclusion can be drawn from the categorization of religious rights as negative rights which contain the principle of “freedom from”. By analogy, the definition of “freedom of religion” can be interpreted as “freedom from religion”. Freedom of religion is considered a right that implies the freedom of the individual concerned to use it or not.

This is reinforced in Article 18 paragraph (2) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which states that there should be no coercion to adhere to a religion or belief.[10] Coercion in any way is prohibited, even coercion to choose a religion or belief. The state does not even have the authority to intervene because the state is positioned as an obligation holder who is only obliged to ensure that the guarantee of these rights remains in place.

Human rights highlight freedom of religion with extensive interpretation, is permissive with interpretation freedom from religion. Humans as rights holders are free to determine whether to use freedom of religion or freedom from religion. Therefore, referring to international human rights, the notion of atheism can be justified as a form of freedom from religion.