Abstract
The international endeavour to afford the right to freedom of religion to all world citizens is essential. This right ensures that people can choose their own religion and freely participate in the practice thereof. Although the conventions on religious freedom prohibit the use of unethical coercion in order to proselytise and retain members, the enforcement of this prohibition is problematic. Underlying psychological processes that induce members in cults to engage in radical behaviour changes cannot be proved without reasonable doubt in any legal action. The conclusion reached in this article is that although – on paper – the right to religious freedom ensures freedom in the sense that people can choose their religion, it cannot ensure that worship in any religion is a voluntary act on the part of the participants. On the one hand, religious freedom has opened the world of religion to people; but at the same time, it has also created a vague, or “grey” area where abuse can flourish under the banner of so-called “freedom”. Freedom that is not clearly defined can lead to anarchism. Abuse in religious cults can be addressed by cultivating public awareness through the gathering and distribution of information on the abusive practices of these groups.
Highlights
As a result of the broad definition of religion, as well as of religious and cultural diversity, the concept of religious freedom has lost its precision and clarity, in that its ambit has become vague
Robinson (2004:xix) reports that, during the Millennium Peace Summit of Religions and Spiritual Leaders which opened on 28 August 2000, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights affirmed the importance of dialogue between the world religions in the pursuit of the fundamental objective of making the world a more peaceful place
The international community needs to guarantee freedom of religion, even for minorities such as new religious movements, it is necessary to guard against invoking religious freedom as a pretext for the furtherance of purposes that are contrary to human rights (Amor 2004:xvi)
Summary
As a result of the broad definition of religion, as well as of religious and cultural diversity, the concept of religious freedom has lost its precision and clarity, in that its ambit has become vague. A negative result of this lack of clarity in the demarcation of the religious domain is that when other rights are infringed or negated as a result of the dynamics or characteristics of a religion, this factor is often ignored. The international community needs to guarantee freedom of religion, even for minorities such as new religious movements, it is necessary to guard against invoking religious freedom as a pretext for the furtherance of purposes that are contrary to human rights (Amor 2004:xvi). This article will attempt to demonstrate that the right to freedom of religion does not necessarily protect people against unethical coercion processes that are applied in religious cults.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
