OVERRIDING INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

	The United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other human rights treaties, protect and guarantee the wide variety of freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is found in the 137 countries around the world that have signed these covenants.

While such a definition of religion may have been embraced by modern scholars as the correct approach to the subject, international human rights law mandates it as the only approach. And while international human rights instruments purposely do not define religion, they do establish core international standards requiring that governments not use discriminatory definitions or apply objective definitions in discriminatory ways.

Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that religious discrimination occurs, even in democratic societies. The internationally acclaimed 1997 study Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World Report, prepared by the University of Essex Human Rights Centre in conjunction with experts from 50 countries, has found that religious discrimination and repression is broadly occurring through the application of “narrow interpretations” of the concept of religion.

Some of the most important international standards to guard against this discrimination were developed by the United Nations, which seeks as one of its primary aims to encourage “respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” (Art. 1(3) of the Charter). These principles of equality and non-discrimination are of such fundamental importance that they are regarded as principles of customary international law, binding on all civilized nations.

To further these principles, United Nations human rights treaties, resolutions and reports call upon all member states to use a definition of religion that is sufficiently objective and expansive to avoid discrimination among religions. For this reason, the United Nations has rejected tests derived from Judeo-Christian concepts as outdated and unduly restrictive and suggested instead an inclusive and “ethically neutral” approach like that followed by religious scholars.