European Interreligious Forum For Religious Freedom
1 2 3 4 5 » ... 33

Ma megint jó napja volt a vallásszabadságnak!
Ma az Európa Tanács parlamenti közgyűlésén Valeriu Ghiletchy előadó határozati javaslatot és ajánlást nyújtott be a közgyűlés 47 országból érkező tagjainak a “vallási kisebbségekhez tartozó szülők és gyermekek jogainak védelméről”. 

Parázs vitát követően a közgyűlés jóváhagyta a határozatot és az ajánlást, a szavazás végén pedig a Valeriu Ghiletchy előadót megtapsolták kitartásáért és bátorságáért.

A közgyűlés Esélyegyenlőségi és Diszkrimináció-mentességi Bizottsága a 13333. számú határozati kérelem beadását követően jelölte ki Valeriu Ghiletchy urat előadónak. 

A határozat a következőket mondja: 
  • A közgyűlés úgy találja, hogy néhány tagállamban a vallási mozgalmak és vallási kisebbségek a jogaik megnyirbálása következtében különösen veszélyeztetettek.  ​
  • A vallási kisebbségeket rosszallóan “szektának”, “szektásnak”, “praktikának” és hasonlónak bélyegeznek, melyek elfogultságot és stigmákat szülnek, valamint korlátozzák a szülőknek a jogát, hogy saját hitrendszerük szerint neveljék és tanítsák gyermeküket.  
  • A közgyűlés ezért úgy határoz, hogy tanulmányozni és nevesíteni fogja az olyan eseteket, amikor valamely tagország nem tartja tiszteletben a szülők jogát, hogy saját vallási és filozófiai meggyőződése szerint nevelje a gyermekeit. Különösen igaz ez a vallási kisebbségekre.

Rédigé par EIFRF le Thursday, April 27th 2017 | Comments (0)

3 chapters of the International Religious Freedom Roundtable (US, Europe and Vietnam. Implemented by EIFRF in Europe) gathered and got 93 signatories on this letter to President Vladimir Putin. The letter has been sent now.

Letter to Vladimir Putin about the Yarovaya law with 93 signatories
August 4, 2016
Vladimir Putin
President of Russia
The Kremlin
Presidential Executive Office
Dear Mr. President,
We write as an informal group of organizations and individuals who are scholars, religious and secular leaders, and human rights advocates to express our deep concern about Federal Laws № 374-ФЗ and 375-ФЗ, On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to establish additional measures to counter terrorism and ensure public safety (the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law), which you signed into law on 6 July 2016.
The Federal Anti-Terrorism Law further restricts religious freedom. We are particularly concerned about the amendments that introduce an entire new section to the Religion Law, imposing strict limits on sharing beliefs, including where and who may share them, and increase extremism punishments.
As impact studies are now done and a set of normative acts or instructions are developed for its implementation, we respectfully urge you to ensure the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law is not used against peaceful spiritual groups.
We are a truly multi-faith group of organizations and individuals, representing a high degree of diversity. We agree on very little theologically, but we all agree on the importance of religious freedom for all faiths and none. And we all share common interests and goals with the Russian government—stability, security, peace and prosperity in Russia.
We are aware of the fact that Russia has to be vigilant in order to prevent extremism, violence and terrorism. But you must fully consider and understand the impact of these amendments on social cohesion and national security. The need to counter violent extremism is pressing, but cracking down on religious freedom is a dangerous and counterproductive response.
This conclusion is increasingly bolstered by empirical research. An exhaustive study by academics from Harvard, Notre Dame and Georgetown found “that religious communities are most likely to support democracy, peace and freedom for other faiths, and least likely to take up the gun or form dictatorships, when governments allow them freedom to worship, practice and express their faiths freely and when religious communities in turn renounce their claims to permanent offices or positions of policy-making authority.”[1] Dr. Brian Grim, a noted expert on society, the economy and religion, has found a strong correlation between government restrictions on religion and religiously-motivated violence.[2]
Further, the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law poses threats to the fundamental human rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by Russia’s Constitution and its international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) human dimension commitments, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
When evaluated within these legal frameworks, the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law raises a number of serious problems. It restricts the dissemination of beliefs in public to registered groups and organizations, and bars even informal sharing of beliefs by individuals acting on their own behalf. Perhaps most concerning, it restricts the beliefs that can be shared, limits the places where sharing beliefs can happen and explicitly bans sharing beliefs in residential buildings, "except as provided for by Article 16, Part 2 of [the Religion Law]." Article 16, Part 2, states that worship services and other religious rites and ceremonies may be freely held in residential premises, as well as in premises owned or rented by religious organizations. It is therefore unclear what this part of the amendment will mean in practice.
Prominent Russian citizens have made valid points in voicing great concerns, including:
  • Mikhail Fedotov, Chair of the Presidential Council on Civil Society Development and Human Rights, argues that the amendments restricting sharing beliefs "create unjustified and excessive restrictions on the freedom of conscience of believers of all religions, and encroach upon the fundamental constitutional principle of non-interference by the state in the internal arrangements of religious associations."
  • Albir Krganov, the Mufti of Moscow, the Central Region of Russia and Chuvashia, said that he did not know how the law could possibly be enforced given that Muslim leaders routinely visit the homes of believers without specific authorization. “This was an unjustified step,” Krganov said. Moreover, the provisions of the law and the failure of the deputies to consult with religious groups will, he suggested, “lead to the radicalization of Islamic society in the country,” with many “simply going underground and no longer listening to official religious workers.” That in turn will lead to “a split within the Islamic community,” something no one can possibly want.
  • On 23 June, the Consultative Council of Leaders of Protestant Churches, led by Pentecostal Bishop Sergei Ryakhovsky, appealed publicly to you not to sign a law which they see as both unconstitutional and impractical. "It is not possible to forbid believers to pray, to share with others their religious experiences, to quote lines of scripture in conversation with people, or to perform certain religious rituals outside of religious buildings—or to prohibit them from doing it all in residential premises," their letter points out. They also stress that both the Constitution and international legal norms guarantee the right to disseminate beliefs as an integral part of the right to freedom of religion and belief.
  • Bishop Konstantin Bendas of the Union of Evangelical Christians pointed out on 24 June that, "We follow the common biblical practice of house churches, in which parishioners not only come to church on Sundays, but gather in each other’s flats or houses during the week, when small services may be held, to which may be invited, among others, even people who are not members of the church. By my reckoning, in Moscow alone more than a thousand of these house churches gather every week." The presence of non-believers or members of other faiths may lead such events to be considered "missionary activity."
  • On 26 June, the Baptist Council of Churches published an open letter of protest reminding you that the government itself refused to support earlier attempts to restrict sharing beliefs. It also complains that legislators responsible for the Bill did not seek the views of competent experts or the opinions of believers, "who are the most affected by the new amendments", and that the Bill violates Russian citizens’ constitutional right "freely to choose, hold, and disseminate religious and other beliefs" (Article 28) to all other citizens, regardless of whether or not they belong to the same or any religious association. The Baptists fear that the law will "create conditions for the repression of all Christians" and that "Any person who mentions their religious views or reflections out loud or puts them in writing, without the relevant documents, could be accused of ‘illegal missionary activity’ and subjected to a heavy fine."
  • "Spreading faith is a statutory objective of almost every religious association, organizations and groups alike, as well as a way to practice their religion for believers, who until recently had a constitutional right to share their creed with others, be publicly baptized, read prayers, offer literature, and just talk heart to heart", Mukaddas Bibarsov, Co-chair of the Council of Muftis and head of the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Volga Region said in a 29 June article.
The Federal Anti-Terrorism Law also includes amendments to the Criminal Code which will increase punishments for offenses under Article 282.2, Part 1 ("Organization of an extremist organization") and Part 2 ("Participation in an extremist organization").
Russia is a great power, and we believe with great power status comes the need to act in conformity with Russia's international human rights commitments and accept responsibility for joint solutions. So we hope and trust you will focus on common interests and goals, and ensure the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law is not used against peaceful spiritual groups.
Greg Mitchell
Co-Chair, International Religious Freedom Roundtable
President, The Mitchell Firm

Member of the Economic and Social Council of the UN


Rev. Dr. Lennox Abrigo
Sheikh Hussain Labib Abu-Rukun
Druze Council for the Preservation of Druze Heritage, Ussafia
C. Naseer Ahmad
Leith Anderson
National Association of Evangelicals
Ivan Arjona
Foundation for the Improvement of Life, Culture and Society (Spain)
Bejzat Becirov
Executive Director
Professor Silvio Calzolari
Orientalist and Historian of Religions
Istituto Superiore di Studi Religiosi of Florence (Italy)
Anuttama Dasa
Minister of Communications
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)
Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D.
Fellow, Treasurer and Board Member, International Academy of Freedom of Religion and Belief
Member, Board of Experts, International Religious Liberty Association
Piero d’Ettorre
Torino (Italy)
Michael Donnelly
Director of Global Outreach
Home School Legal Defense Association
Acharya S.P.Dwivedi
Multifaith Action Society
Thomas F. Farr
Religious Freedom Institute
Barry A. Fisher
International Human Rights
Fleishman & Fisher
Los Angeles (USA)
Rev. E. Wayne Gaddis
Greater True Light Missionary Baptist Church
Los Angeles (USA)
Mike Ghouse
Center for Pluralism
Washington (USA)
Eric Gozlan
Responsable Associatif pour le Dialogue Interreligieux (France)
Brian Grim
Religious Freedom & Business Foundation
Christopher J. Hale
Executive Director
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Lauren B. Homer
Law and Liberty Trust
Dr. Joel C. Hunter
Senior Pastor
Northland, A Church Distributed
Rimon Kasher
Professor (Emeritus)
Bar-Ilan University (Israel)
Adnan Khan
Ambassador at Large
Council of Pakistan American Affairs
Muslim Community
Amjad Mahmood Khan, Esq.
National Director of Public Affairs
Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA

M. Jean-Claude Kolly
Président of the CLIMS (Centre de Liaison et d’Information des Mouvements Spirituels)
Larry Lerner
Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union
Dimitris Levantis
Attorney, Executive Member
SOS Racism (Greece)
Rev. N. J. L'Heureux, Jr.
Executive Director
Queens Federation of Churches
Brent McBurney
President & CEO
Advocates International
Very Reverend William A. McComish
Honorary Dean of the Cathedrale St Pierre de Genève
Founder and Honorary Président of the Spiritual Call of Geneva
Bishop Juan Carlos Mendez
Churches in Action
Co-Chair, Los Angeles Interfaith Clergy Coalition
Russell D. Moore
Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Gloria Moran
Law Professor (retired)
University of La Coruña (Spain)
Scott Morgan
Red Eagle Enterprises
Rev. Cecil L. "Chip" Murray
Professor, Center for Religion, University of Southern California (USC)
Co-Founder, The Cecil Murray Center for Community Engagement, USC

Irenée Omositsn Namboka
Retired Staff, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Human Rights Protection Advisor, DPKO, United Nations Peacekeeping Mission, Liberia
Kathryn Cameron Porter
President and Founder
The Leadership Council for Human Rights
Mr. Bruno Portigliatti
Hon. President
Buddhist Union of Europe
Carlo Proserpio
Asco Pratocentenaro - Milano (Italy)
Bashy Quraishy
FAIRPLAY and Ethnic Debate Forum
Pervez Rafique 
Former Member Parliament, Punjab Pakistan
Executive Director, Bleeding for Belief
Tina Ramirez
Hardwired, Inc.
Arron Rhodes
Karan Singh
Sikh Foundation Switzerland
Rev. Dr. David A. Spence, B.A.; B.D.; M.Div.
Retired Minister
The United Church of Canada
Professor Daniele Spero
Coordinator of the Department of Science and Faith Fondazione Studium Cattolico Veneziano Patriarchy of Venice (Italy)

Leonid Stonov
Director, International Bureaus and Activities
Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union
Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett
Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice
Aldo Natale Terrin
Professor Emeritus of History of Religions
Universita' Cattolica Di Milano (Italy)
Chris Vonck
Rector of the Faculty for Comparative Study of Religions - Antwerp
World Congress of Faiths Belgium
Bill Walsh
Human Rights Attorney
Bisceglie and Walsh
Travis S. Weber, Esq.
Director, Center for Religious Liberty
Family Research Council
Rev. Janet Weiland
Los Angeles Interfaith Clergy Coalition
Rev. Alan Wilding
Universal Peace Federation Western Canada
Mrs. Michiko Wilding
Universal Peace Federation Western Canada
Peter Zoehrer
Secretary General
[1] Monica Duffy Toft, Daniel Philpott and Timothy Samuel Shah, “God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics.” (New York: Norton, 2011), p. 18.
[2] Brian Grim, “The Price of Freedom Denied: Religious Persecution and Conflict in the Twenty-First Century.” (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011). Brian Grim, et al, “Is Religious Freedom Good for Business?: A Conceptual and Empirical Analysis.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion (Volume 10: Article 4, 2014).

Rédigé par EIFRF le Thursday, August 4th 2016 | Comments (0)

Online petition to be read and signed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin: prevent implementation of the Yarovaya Law against peaceful religions

Why this is important

On 6 July 2016, President Putin signed draconian new anti-terrorism legislation (the Yarovaya Law) that will suppress religious freedom in Russia. In fact, the Yarovaya Law poses severe threats to the fundamental human rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by Russia’s Constitution and its international human rights obligations.

We are particularly concerned about the amendments that introduce an entire new section to the Religion Law, imposing strict limits on sharing beliefs, including where and who may share them, and increase extremism punishments.

As impact studies are now being done and a set of instructions are being developed for the Law’s implementation, we urge President Putin to ensure the Yarovaya Law is not used against peaceful spiritual groups. 

The Yarovaya Law represents an unprecedented assault on religious freedom that has not existed since Soviet times. It restricts the dissemination of beliefs in public to registered groups and organizations, and bars even informal sharing of beliefs by individuals acting on their own behalf. Perhaps most concerning, it restricts the beliefs that can be shared, limits the places where sharing beliefs can happen and explicitly bans sharing beliefs in residential buildings. 

The Yarovaya Law also includes amendments to the Criminal Code which will substantially increase punishments for violations of these restrictions on religious freedom. 

Russia is a great power, and with great power status comes the need to act in conformity with Russia's international human rights commitments. 

We urge President Putin to ensure that instructions for implementation of the Yarovaya Law are adopted so that the Law is not used to repress religious freedom against peaceful spiritual groups.

Rédigé par EIFRF le Saturday, July 16th 2016 | Comments (0)

Rev. Petar Gramatikov, Vice President of EIFRF, is interviewed here by the World Forum of Religions

Interview of Vice-President of EIFRF by the World Forum of Religions
In this timely interview, Bulgarian Orthodox priest and prominent interfaith leader Petar Gramatikov recalls the oppression of religion during Communism, singles out migration as a key challenge, warns against secularization and anti-clericalism but praises the togetherness of religions on this challenge, and criticizes the position of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church on the Pan-Orthodox Council.

Interview conducted by Mário Nicolini, Executive Director, Forum of the World’s Religions – Slovakia

Could you please tell us something about yourself: who and what inspired you to become a religious leader, what were the formative moments in your life and what keeps you motivated these days?

Frankly speaking, it all began in the 1980’s as a sort of dissident reaction to the totalitarian moral grammar and to the atheistic state indoctrination and ideology. Most formative in my life were certain people – firstly, the extraordinary international leaders who changed the world for the better, president Ronald Reagan and pope John-Paul II; secondly, a Western-Orthodox (of the Uniate Church in my native city of Plovdiv) archimandrite Velik, who did not fear the authorities and gave the first catechetical lessons to schoolchildren. This opened the door of the Christ’s Church for me as well.

Very important for my personal involvement in ecumenical spirituality and interfaith movement were my post-graduate specializations and studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, at the Swiss Ecumenical Institute Bossey of the World Council of Churches, and at the Orthodox Theological Institute of the Ecumenical Patriarchate – Chambesy/Geneva, which is a joint-venture program with the Protestant Theological Faculty of Geneva University and the Catholic Theological Faculty of Fribourg University.

What book would you recommend to every practitioner of interreligious dialogue?

I would like to recommend a small pocket-size book on the personality and deeds of a great contemporary leader of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy, His All Holiness Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, who had a great impact on theory and practice of interreligious dialogue. He is my inspiration as an Orthodox clergyman and theologian. This is the bilingual, Greek-English, edition: Chryssavgis Fr. John, Konstantinos Delikostantis, The Patriarch of Solidarity, 2nd ed., Istanbul, Dec. 2014, 179 p.

What role did religion play during Communism in your country?

Religion in communist Bulgaria was reduced by the totalitarian authorities to a kind of folklore and cultural tradition. The Orthodox faith developed into a sort of neo-pagan practice. There is a popular saying from those times that our faithful flock became religious practitioners “on four wheels” – the first time they entered the church was for baptism, the second time for marriage and the third time for their burial and final departure from this world. It is a valid depiction also for the believers of the second largest traditional religion in Bulgaria, Islam. On the other hand, during this period of both open and hidden, both physical and psychological persecution of religion, all true believers of different ethnic and religious backgrounds were united in their suffering and struggle for human rights and religious freedom. Interfaith dialogue was natural and sincere, because in this combat for civil and religious liberties everybody – all Christian denominations, Muslim and Judaic believers – were on the same side together.

Unfortunately, during the Soviet-dominated era, no religious body protested the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan, nor was there ever any public protest by religious leaders against actions taken to persecute believers. Bishops and their counterparts in other religions often praised the state for its attitude toward believers. This being said, a number of courageous individuals spoke out at the cost of arrest and imprisonment.

Religious associations had only the most limited possibilities for publishing. On the rare occasions when the Bible was published, the number of printed copies was  pitifully small. Neither were religious associations permitted to import religious books from abroad. Bibles, Korans and prayer books brought to the country by visitors were confiscated at the border during grueling. Only a few institutions of religious education were permitted.

What has – and has not – changed with the Annus Mirabilis 1989?

I like this question of yours very much. Using capitalization for Annus Mirabilis points directly to the title of the poem written by John Dryden published in 1667. It commemorated the London “year of miracles”, 1665–1666, a series of tragedies that included the Great Fire of London, the Great Plague of London and some decisive battles. For Central and Eastern Europe, the year 1989 was the time of our Redemption. It was the “year of miracles” indeed, and with this term we suggest that events could have been worse. In Dryden’s view, God saved Europe from destruction. In our context, God performed miracles in Europe, liberating us from the grasp of Communist ideology and oppression. After these political changes in our part of the European continent and the elimination of fear of public expression of religious beliefs, the space opened for legal interfaith work and mutually beneficial co-operation.

What positive and negative trends  do you see in today’s Europe and how can people of faith help to reinforce the former and mitigate the latter?

Today all religious practitioners are facing secularization and anti-clerical ideologies. They are obliged to stand all together again in defense of the place of religious ethics and moral standards within the framework of Euro-Atlantic values of a United Europe. Today’s togetherness of all religions, at least on a grassroots level, is one of the positive trends.

The most negative trend in today’s Europe is the rise of nationalism and other “-isms”. Nationalism teaches you to be proud of things that you have not achieved, to hate people who you do not know.

How has the migration crisis affected the political, social and interreligious dynamics in Bulgaria and South East Europe? What should be done by civic and religious groups?

The migration crisis affects Bulgaria like the rest of Europe. But it is poverty, an everyday challenge for Bulgarians, which discourages many refugees from seeking shelter in Europe’s poorest nation. “Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction: we need war on it”, said Reverend Jesse Jackson, an iconic American civil rights activist in 2014. Nowadays, much like the US, we are freer — but less equal. The civic and and religious groups are obliged to influence the political milieu and decision-makers in our respective countries to implement the right instruments and standards for the most humane solutions possible regarding resettlement, socialization and integration of refugees in Europe.

What is to be expected of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in Crete? Would it have effect on developments in Bulgaria?

The Russian Orthodox Church is using the stance of the Bulgarian Church as an excuse for not participating in the Synod. The Russian Church will not participate in the Council due to the “non-participation of some of the local Orthodox Churches” and the “breach of the principle of consensus” adopted by the Rules of the Assembly. According to the media, three days before the Bulgarian decision, Russian Patriarch Kiril sent nearly an ultimatum to Patriarch Bartholomew, stating that in case of non-compliance, the Russian Church will not attend the council. Indeed, the letter of the Bulgarian Synod copies parts 4, 5 and 6 of Kiril’s letter.

This is the second time the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC) is “taking a position” on the demands of the Russian Church. In January the BOC surprised the world just ten days before the meeting of the primates of the Orthodox sister-churches by conditioning its participation on the settlement of the status of the Czech-Slovak Metropolitan, His Eminence Rostislav. Rostislav had been elected and recognized as Metropolitan by the Moscow Patriarchate, but not by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other local Orthodox churches. As a result of this Bulgarian ultimatum, which threatened to jeopardize the meeting of the primates, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew acknowledged Rostislav as the Czech-Slovak Metropolitan.

Now the Bulgarian Church is doing the same thing, presenting Russian claims as its own, which reinforces suspicions about its autonomy in making such important decisions on the life of the church. Orthodoxy is not in danger. We are in danger of finding ourselves outside of Orthodoxy!

How are interfaith efforts regarded by the dominant church in your country today? Do you find resonance with the minority churches, religions, spiritual groups?

Today, there are opinions that the problem with the pan-Orthodox Council is due to the fact that now the situation is different than before, when the Ecumenical Councils were controlled by the emperors. Expectations and hopes that the Church and the State still cooperate closely are still present in Orthodoxy. The Catholics and the Protestants have already realized their separation from the State. Many churches will have to realize it for themselves. There is some internal resentment to this dynamic in many Churches due to the fact that they are not accustomed to make decisions on their own. They are closely connected with the state and the church leadership remains too far from the people.

Read more


Rédigé par EIFRF le Tuesday, June 28th 2016 | Comments (0)

על המכתב חתומים עשרים ושלושה ארגונים לזכויות אדם, קואליציות דתיות ואינדיבידואלים, כולל יהודים, מוסלמים, דרוזים, נוצרים, אתאיסטים ובני דתות ואמונות אחרות. לנוחותכם, ההקדמה למטה. את המכתב כולו, בנוסף לדף הסבר על ארגון "השולחן העגול לחופש דת בינלאומי" ניתן להוריד בלינק בסוף העמוד - כרגע רק באנגלית.

השולחן העגול לחופש דת בינלאומי, אשר יושב בוושינגטון די.סי. ופועל בשיתוף עם חברי קונגרס, מנהיגי דת ושגרירים מרחבי העולם שולח מכתב פתוח לחברי הכנסת בנוגע לחוק נגד כתות
Dear Members of the Knesset,

Attached you will find an open non-governmental organization (NGO) letter to Members of the Knesset, which was jointly organized by the International Religious Freedom Roundtables in Washington, D.C., and Europe; and a one-page overview and purpose statement of the International Religious Freedom Roundtable, which explains what it is and what we are working to achieve.

You will see that 23 organizations and individuals from Israel, Europe and the United States signed this open NGO letter to express our deep concern about the Law Proposal for the Handling of Harmful Cults 2015.
As the letter states, the 23 signers of the letter are a truly multi-faith group, representing a high degree of diversity. While there is very little we agree on theologically, or politically, we all agree on the importance of religious freedom for all faiths and none.
We know you share our views on the importance of religious freedom, so we understand the difficulties Israel faces regarding this issue. Yet, we respectfully urge you to reject this Law Proposal for the Handling of Harmful Cults because of threats it poses to the fundamental human rights and freedoms that are formally recognized in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and protected by the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty, decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel, international human rights covenants—especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—and customary international law.
When evaluated within these legal frameworks, the Law Proposal raises a number of serious problems. Distinguished academic scholars and legal experts from Israel, Europe and the United States have made valid points in voicing great concerns “in view of the manifest violations of the rights of religious organizations, the generalities inherent in the proposed law’s language, and the abuses it would perpetuate in Israeli society.”
The letter lists several such concerns and concludes by expressing our belief that if Israel adopts this Law Proposal, it will have taken a major step backwards in terms of religious freedom, tolerance and the rights of religious minorities. The Law Proposal should be rejected. Thank you for your consideration.
With best regards,
Greg Mitchell
Co-Chair, International Religious Freedom Roundtable
Washington, D.C.

Rédigé par EIFRF le Monday, April 4th 2016 | Comments (0)

מכתב עליו חתומים עשרות מהחוקרים והאקדמאים המובילים בעולם כפי שהוא מוצג באתר המרכז לחקר תנועות דתיות חדשות

המרכז לחקר תנועות דתיות חדשות - CESNUR


hebrew_version.pdf hebrew version.pdf  (4.88 MB)

Rédigé par EIFRF le Wednesday, February 24th 2016 | Comments (0)

פרופסור (פסיכולוגיה) הנרי ניוטון מאלוני חוקר דתות חדשות זה 40 שנה. הוא העיד בבתי משפט בארה״ב כעד מומחה מוסמך בנושא דתות חדשות ונכח בחזית בזמן הסערה סביב תיאוריית ה״מיינד קונטרול״ השנויה במחלוקת של שנות ה-80 בארה״ב - אותה תיאוריה שהוקעה כפסאודו-מדעית על-ידי הממסד הפסיכולוגי כבר לפני שלושה עשורים. מצורף מכתבו המקורי (אנגלית) והתרגום לעברית. המכתב מתמקד במקורות המדעיים-כביכול של ועדת משרד הרווחה בנושא כתות מ-2011 והצעת החוק שמסתמכת עליה

Rédigé par EIFRF le Tuesday, February 23rd 2016 | Comments (0)

1 ... « 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » ... 29