종교의 자유와 명상에 관한 헌법적 해석

Abstract

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It is doubtful whether meditation is included in the protection of religious freedom. Traditionally, meditation has been used as a means to achieve religious goals. Modern meditation is losing its religiosity. In other words, modern meditation is changing into secularity, popularity, and industrialization. The secularization of meditation calls for a reinterpretation of the concept of religion. The concept of meditation is no longer limited to religion. Meditation is an expansion of an open concept in which the religious dimension and the secular dimension correspond or separate. Meditation cannot be embraced as a religion and set as a uniform protection area for religious freedom. The state should consider the scope of religion to protect religious freedom. There is no agreed upon constitutional definition. A constitutional answer to this is required. This is because a new interpretation is needed for peaceful coexistence between the two different concepts under the constitutional order. The constitutional issues regarding meditation are largely organized into three categories. First, is meditation a religion? Second, what is the concept of meditation in the constitution? Third, what is the relationship between freedom of religion and meditation? It is possible to try an effective constitutional interpretation of religious freedom by dividing it into religious meditation and secular meditation. In the case of religious meditation, it is a means to the only end pursued by religion. Unlike this, in the case of secular meditation, a reasonable constitutional interpretation must be premised in that it is a practice of life to internally experience the various purposes of each person. This study considers whether it is legitimate to regard meditation with religiousness as the realm of freedom of religion, but in the case of meditation with secularity, as the realm of freedom from religion. To prove this, the concept of religion and meditation, and freedom of religion and freedom from religion in the Constitution were distinguished and explored. The specific content of freedom from religion was reviewed by grafting the concept of meditation on the freedom of unbelief, freedom of non-religious activities, freedom of non-religious assembly and assembly, and the limits of freedom from religion. And, tentatively named 'freedom of religious meditation' and 'freedom of secular meditation' derived from freedom of religion and freedom from religion are presented. The purpose of this study is to suggest the direction of legal interests by setting the concept of religion and meditation in the Constitution and the scope of protection of the basic rights of religious meditation and secular meditation that may conflict through the interpretation of the Constitution.