English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In reading closely a recent celebrated anthology on religious freedom, Politics of Religious Freedom (Danchin, Hurd, Mahmood and Sullivan, 2015), I found myself both highly stimulated and informed by the discussions therein, even when I found myself disagreeing. Yet, one irritating feature of the logic of discourse that turns up in this collection kept nagging at me. This would ordinarily be a small point but I believe the same oddity turns up in almost everything I have read about religious liberty. This is the failure to distinguish two senses of the term, “religious liberty.” The first sense refers to institutional freedom or sovereignty. I shall apply the convention, “freedom of religion” (FR) for this first sense of “religious liberty.” But, a second sense, denoting individual freedom of conscience, belief, practice and so on, also circulates in the discourse of religious liberty. This, I call “religious freedom” (RF). And, in order to avoid confusion with the term, “religious liberty,” I shall reserve that term for general uses bringing both “freedom of religion” with “religious freedom” under the same umbrella. This means that term, “religious liberty,” as commonly used in the literature thus includes both the institutional, “freedom of religion” and individual, “religious freedom.” Why does this distinction matter? Why, in particular, does it matter to “freedom of conscience”? Untangling these two usages, so often smuggled in under the cover of “religious liberty,” can, I urge, make a difference to discussions of freedom of conscience, because freedom of conscience often suffers at the hand of freedom of religion, as does religious freedom itself. In applying this convention, I am also aware that, although conceptually distinct, some FR and RF may have practical, material relations to one another. Thus, it may be the case that, FR, such as freedom of conscience, or freedom to practice one’s religion, are only possible given FR, given some degree of sovereignty of the religious community of which a given individual can form

"On an Antinomy in the Discourses of Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience"