Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun
International Multidisciplinary Journal

Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun – International Multidisciplinary Journal
ISSN: 2338-8617

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{39

Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun
International Multidisciplinary Journal

RELIGION, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE
CHALLENGES OF FREEDOM
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi1
Abstract
All over the world, Religion holds a primal place. Every man is said to believe
in a „god‟. Ordinarily there should be no feud in matter of religion, because
religion is a personal decision. However, in recent times religion has become
an issue and many crimes are committed on the basis of faith. In the 21st
century with the promotion of human rights, this ought not to be so. We must
note that religion has always been a thorny issue, not with the Christian
crusades and the Islamic Jihads. We believe times have changed and each
individual should be able to practice his faith without necessarily the follow
his fellow. With this at the back of our mind we seek to examine religion,
human rights and the challenge of freedom by offering some proposals towards
religious harmony in the 21st century.

‫مستخلص‬

‫ عادة جيب أن يكون‬."‫ وقال كل رجل اىل االعتقاد يف "هللا‬.‫ الدين حيتل مكاان البدائية‬،‫يف مجيع أحناء العامل‬
‫ يف اآلونة األخرية أصبح الدين قضية‬،‫ ومع ذلك‬.‫ ألن الدين هو قرار شخصي‬،‫هناك عداء يف أمور الدين‬
‫ وهذا ال‬،‫ مع تعزيز حقوق اإلنسان‬21
‫ يف القرن ال‬.‫وملتزمون العديد من اجلرائم على أساس من اإلميان‬
‫ وليس مع احلروب الصليبية‬،‫ جيب أن نالحظ أن الدين كان دائما مسألة شائكة‬.‫ينبغي أن تكون كذلك‬
‫ وحنن نعتقد أن الزمن قد تغري وجيب أن يكون كل فرد قادرا على ممارسة‬.‫ادلسيحية واإلسالمية اجلهادية‬
____________
1
Lecturer, Department of Jurisprudence & International Law University of Lagos Nigeria
and Doctoral Candidate Keele University, Keele United Kingdom. Teaching International Human
Rights Law and International Law of the Sea to Law Undergraduates. Solicitor and Advocate of the
Supreme Court of Nigeria. Email: rige@unilag.edu.ng/asikiaige@gmail.com.

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{39

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

‫ وحقوق‬،‫ مع هذا يف اجلزء اخللفي من عقولنا حنن نسعى لدراسة الدين‬.‫إميانه دون ابلضرورة اتباع زمالئه‬
‫ال‬.21
‫اإلنسان وحتد من حرية من خالل تقدمي بعض ادلقرتحات حنو الوائم الديين يف القرن‬
Keywords: Religion, Human Rights, Challenges, Freedom
A. Introduction
Up until the early 1990s there was a clear disparity between the
growing significance of religion on the world stage and the literature one could
read on this score in either scholarly or popular publications.
Historian Scott Applesby states candidly that “Western myopia on
the subject of religious power has been astounding” for a long time scholars
predicted that as religions were assumed to be carriers of “tradition” they
would enter into decline because of secularization and privatization.
Because use of these blinkers or blinders, scholars and observers missed the
religious roots of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States and
misread the surge of the Iranian revolution (Hackett, 2005: 76).
This paper seeks to contribute to the debate by arguing that
implementation of Human rights principles at the international, national
and individual levels will tackle the war of religion. Furthermore the key
to peaceful co-existence in the global world rests on religious tolerance at all
levels of human interaction.
In setting out this vision section A of the paper examines the
idea of religion, section B states a brief history of the rights discourse.
Section C discusses the concept of religion vis-à-vis rights. Section D
examines religion and the challenge of freedom. Section E proffers
solutions on how to achieve religious harmony in the 21st century.
B. The Idea of Religion
The concept of “religion” connotes a belief in a supreme being and
his worship through a specified ritual. Religion is based on a moralistic
outlook or way of life. In its doctrinal perspective, it may be defined as a
system of general truths which has the effect of transforming characters
when they are sincerely held and vividly apprehended.
40}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

There are more earthy explanations of religion, though Karl Max
described it as the opium of the masses, the implication being that it makes
people insensitive to the pressing problems of survival. Another view is that
religion is “merely an instrument to contain man’s primordial fears- fear of
the present, fear of the future, fear of life and death (Akin Ibidapo-Obe
2005:143). The connection between religion and human rights arises as a
problem globally because of diversity of homosapiens.
Religion is often viewed today as having a negative role in world
politics, particularly in cases where a religious revival is perceive to be taking
place. After decades during which religion seemed to be largely and
effectively relegated to the private realm, religious activists are staking out a
new claim for religion as a central feature of public life. The wish to restore
religion to what is considered its rightful place at the heart of society is the
most notable common denominator of today’s religious fundamentalist
movements. In order to achieve their aim, members of such movements may
employ several tactics, including violent ones. They justify their use of
violence by reason, often referring to a perception that we are not living in
normal times, and that exceptional circumstances ask for exceptional
measures. As a result, an unusual alliance has been forged in many cases
between religion and politics.
The emergence of certain interest groups that do not shun violence
and seem to be inspired by a particular religious ideology has tempted many
observers, notably in the West, to assume an intrinsic connection between
religion and violence. Hence, it is common today to consider religion as a
source of conflict rather than a resource for peace. The logical conclusion then
is to try and reduce the influence of the religious factor in the political arena.
Typically in such a view, religion is deemed to be a private affair, something
between individual believes and their god’s), a relation that should not spill
over into the public domain. Whereas religion is expected to limit it self
exclusively to regulating human relations between the visible and invisible
words, it is politics, on the other hand, which is deemed solely responsible for
regulating their relations with the state that they live in. the formal separation
between the fields of religion and politics has been the hallmark of Western
democracies for centuries and was introduced to other parts of the world,
notably those which were colonized by Europe, and by extension, countries
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{41

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

that were long under the influence of Western Europe and North-America.
The worldwide resurgence of religion is increasingly seen as challenging the
basis of secular state.
Many commentators, at least in the West, have lamented the fact that
religion is reassuming a public role, bringing together again two fields of
operation that in the Western tradition of the enlightenment have long be
kept apart.
Due to recent conflicts in which religion also played a role, and notably
after the events of September 2001, religion is often associated in the West with
violence. The question is, however, are we simply dealing here with religious
conflict, as is so often suggested, or has religion become a suitable instrument
for political mobilization, providing a resource that-like any other- can be
effectively exploited for rather mundane purposes.
For anybody to answer that question, it is of vital importance to
analyze the role of religion in society, and to do so from a historical
perspective. This is important, first to be able to understand today’s
world better, and second, in order to analyze the specific properties,
and therefore the potential of religion (Haar 2005:303-306).
C. The Human Rights Discourse
The Atrocities and Depravities of the Second World War underlined the
need to take international action to protect and promote Human Rights. They
were no longer to be consigned to the domestic jurisdiction of states. The UN
charter aptly contained in its preamble and in a few substantive provisions
references to human rights. The few references were so tense that the first
assignment given to the UN commission when it was constituted in 1946 was to
elaborate on those provisions. These encouraged studies on different aspects and
the issue of cultural relativism reared up its head. Could these be common
standard for all or are standards related to the culture, traditions and
circumstance of each people. The universality approach won the day and
human rights standards are now for all people despite their cultural
background. The inevitable differences among people compel the admission of
peculiarities and specificities in human rights even in the context of universality,
(Umozurike, 2001:1). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prepared by
the UN commission on Human Rights became an embodiment of the standards
42}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

of human rights, an achievement for some but an aspiration for others. It became
the bottom line for elaborating different aspects of human rights.
Human Rights are said to be inherent in man, arising from the
very nature of man as a social animal (Ajomo, 1989:1). Dowric viewed
Human Rights as those claims made by men, for themselves or on behalf of
other men, supported by some theory which concentrates on the humanity of
man, or man as a human being, member of human kind. These include claims,
demands or aspirations of human being to attain a better life irrespective of
their colour, race, religion and status (Ibrahim 2003:11-12).
Obaseki J.S.C. (as be then was) described Human Rights as
rights of men which should be legally recognized and protected to secure for
each individual the fullest and freest development of personality and spiritual,
moral, unobstructed independent life (supra).
According to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-General Human
rights are what make us human. They are the principles by which we create
the sacred home for human dignity.
Man has successfully struggled for and has gotten human rights on
the understanding of them being entrenched into their constitutions and the
political traditions of their respective societies (Ajomo, 1989: 42). The
development of human rights at both national and international levels has
resulted in a modern concept of human right quite different from the
philosophy of natural law of the past 16th and 17th century.
The conceptual forerunners to what are now described as
human rights were referred to as natural rights. The concept of natural
rights was first developed by the stoics (Roman philosophers) and
were regarded as having universal application (although it needs to be
pointed out that this was only to the free born as Roman laws did not
regard slaves as human being). They, that is, the rights were regarded
as superior to any possible law and embodied in the fundamental
principles of justice which were apparent to reason.
The first documents which enshrine some kind of Bill of rights were
the English Magna Carta of 1215 and the English Bill of Rights (1688). These
documents however, had severely restricted scope in terms of the objectives
covered and subjects protected. The French Declaration on the Rights of Man
(1789) is describable as the first real Bill of Rights, in which individual rights
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{43

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

were generally and clearly postulated. The declaration reflected the nature of
human rights as an inherent part of man and so inalienable.
Many modern states acknowledge a wide variety of civil rights
on the part of their citizens. These rights are usually secured in a
sovereign document, which is the constitution or basic law of that
polity. One of man’s most cherished rights is the freedom of the
individual to practise a religion of his choice (Ibidapo-Obe, 2005:145).
D. Religion vs. Rights
Religious belief and practice by an individual most often takes place
within a community of fellow believers. Religious practices posses a strong
communitarian nature. As put by Professor Robert Wilken of the University of
Virginia:
Religion, like culture, does not flat free of institutions. Without the
discipline of law and the structure of institutional life, our energies are
dissipated and our lives impoverished… nor are institutions simply
instrumental. They tutor our affections and life us beyond ourselves. As
Cardinal Newman once remarked, we need objects on which our “holier
and more generous feelings may rest … Human nature is not republican,
(Brown, 2000:575).
Freedom of conscience is of course the basis of freedom of
religion and no person can be penalized or discriminated against
because of their religious views, but this does not prevent government
from either requiring the doing of some act for forbidding the doing of
some act merely because religious beliefs underlie the conduct in
question. In this case the Government would not be interfering with
religious belief but with conduct (Akande, 1982: 35).
Peace and security constitute the primary limit to religious freedom.
For instance, the majority in R.V Gruenke (1991)3 S.C.R 263 refused to recognize
a priest penitent privilege in common law because they maintained the state’s
right to search for truth in the judicial process. While all the justices rejected the
appellant’s claim that her communications were confessional in nature (even
according to her own religion) the majority also found on basis for such a
privilege in common law:
The existence of a limited statutory religious privilege in some jurisdictions
does not indicate that a common law privilege exists; rat her, it indicates that
44}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

the common law did not protect religious communications and that the
statutory protection was accordingly necessary.
In Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 (1996)1 S.C.A 825
religious freedom can be limited by values such as tolerance. This case
involved a teacher who made anti-semitic statements, which preempted a
Jewish man, David Attis, to sue a school board in lieu Brunswick’s
maramichi region. The court ruled that Ross religious freedoms under S. 2 (a)
could be limited by a S.1 test. It argued that his demeaning statements
actually undermined religious freedom by making it difficult for others to
enjoy religious freedom and individual autonomy.
It is commonplace for scholars and judges to regard Canada and
modern society in general, as secular. For example, in addition to former
Chief Justice Lamer, one federal court judges argued that Canada is a secular
state and although many of its laws reflect religious tradition, culture and values,
they are nonetheless secular or positivistic in nature. A commentator now on the
Canadian Human Rights Commission argues that secularization requires
that religion be defined as individual conscience: This emphasis on individual
autonomy may require further elaboration in other contents, but it is a convincing
way to justify the expansion of freedom of religion in a relatively secular change.
The Canadian courts while recognizing religious practices in a
communal nature did not fail to address the issue of individual rights. The
Supreme Court defined religious freedom, under S. 2(a) of the charter in two
cases R. v. Big M Drugmart and R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. In them, the
court explicitly upheld individual rights where freedom of religion is
protected against state intrusion. These two cases show that the court
understood itself as a secularizing force in society, while mutedly
recognizing, then neglecting, the importance of religion.
In Nigeria, section 10 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria states:
The Government of the federation or of a state shall not adopt any
religion as state religion.
Section 38 provides: Every person shall be entitled to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion including change his religion or belief, and
freedom to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching,
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{45

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

practice and observance. The same section provides for religious
education and for place of worship. The right to freedom of religion is
not an absolute right. It is a right curtailed by the general public
interest, as well as the individual rights and freedom of other persons.
Thus in Agbai v. Okagbue (1991)7 NWLR (Pt. 204) 391 one of the
issues for determination was whether the respondent who objected to
membership of an age grade association on religious grounds could be
compelled to do so or could be deemed to be a member willy-nilly.
The appellants who were members of the Umuskalu age grade of
Amankalu Alayi had seized the respondent’s sewing machine for his
refusal to pay age grade levies for purposes of building a health centre
in the village. The respondent sued for return of his sewing machine
and damages. The appellants contended that as a native of Amankalu
Alayi, the respondent was obliged by custom to belong to the agegrade and to pay all levies. The respondent maintained that he was not
a member of the age-grade and that his religion as a Jehovah-Witness
forbade him to join. At the Chief Magistrate’s Court judgment was
entered in favour of the respondent. The High Court an appeal
reversed the judgment. The respondent’s appeal to the Court of
Appeal restored the judgment of the Chief Magistrate. The appellants
then appealed to the Supreme Court. Dismissing the appeal, the
Supreme Court per WALI J.S.C. held:
The 1963 Constitution, Section 24(1) guaranteed all Nigerian citizens freedom
of conscience, thought and religion. The respondent is entitled to hold to the
tenet of his religion, thought and conscience which prohibit him from joining
the age grade. Any custom that holds otherwise is contrary to the Constitution
and therefore null and void to that extent.
However, in the recent cases of Safiya Tungar and Amina Lawal in
which the two women were sentenced to death by stoning on account of
adultery. The two sentences were quashed on appeal as it violated their rights
to life, right to human dignity and right to fair hearing.
The appeal court in coming to their decision are adverted their
mind to public interest. Since the pronouncements of the verdict by
Sharia Court, the Nigerian people from all walks of life cum
International community condemned the Judgment(s).
46}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

Nigeria, may lay claim to secularity, but she is secular? Consider the
instance, the interest taken by the Federal and State Governments in the
organization, implementation, and even sponsorship of religious activities and
events such as pilgrimages, Quranic recitations, building of churches and
mosques, unofficial bill deliberate appointment of government offices on the
basis of faith, and most recently, the inclusion of sharia in the constitution.
What comes to the fore in the Canadian and Nigerian cases
examined is the balance of religious practices with rights (whether
communal or individual).
It is ironic to think that religion can be divorced completely from
society. What we need is a reunderstanding and redefinition of the word
secular and a broader understanding of faith of that both religion and conscience
can be adequately protected, nurtured, and encouraged in society.
Religion and the challenge of Freedom Believers with different
opinions and convictions are necessary to each other … we cannot
afford to waiver in our determination that the whole humanity shall
remain a united people, where Muslims and Christians, Buddist and
Hindu shall stand together, bound by a common devotion not to
something behind but to something ahead, not to a radical past or a
geographical unit, but to a great dream of a work society with a
universal religion of which the historical faiths are but branches. (S.
Rddhakrisnon-Kindu Philosopher).
The issue germane to us in this part is to examine whether
religious claimant has a sincere belief that behavior conflicting with
state regulation is required of him by his religion, not whether the
religious belief in question is somehow within acceptable boundaries.
In Zaheeruddin v. State 26.S.C.M.R.(s. CT) 1718 (1993) Pakistan, a decision
of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The case involved a challenge to an ordinance
forbidding Ahmadis from using the symbols of Islam and claiming to be
Muslim. The Ahmadis are an offshoot of Islam but they are regarded by most
Muslims as heretical because of their belief that ascertain person after the time of
the Prophet Muhammad was also a prophet. As a result, they have been the
target of considerable persecution in Pakistan. The court upheld; the ordinance:
The court acknowledged that religious freedom is not confined to religious
beliefs, but rather extends to “essential” and “integral” religious practices. It
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{47

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

claimed, however, that the appellants (the Ahmaddis challenges the ordinance)
had not explained how the prohibited epithets and public rituals were an
essential part of their religion.
By limiting religious freedom to essential and integral religious
practices, the Pakistan Supreme Court opened a door to the substantial
limitation of religious freedom, and any rule leaving it. Open to the
courts to determine what types of religious practice qualify to be
protected could have a similar effect.
The German constitutional court used similar language, which
indicated that it might reserve to itself the power to restrict freedom of religion
to those religious ideas and practices it deemed acceptable. In rejecting a free
exercise claim by a prisoner to whom parole was defined because he tried to
persuade fellow inmates to give up their Christian faith by offering them
tobacco, the court stated: one who violates limitations erected by the basic law‟s
general order of values cannot claim freedom of belief. The Basic Law does not
protect everyman festation of belief but only those historically developed
among civilized people on the basis of certain fundamental moral opinions.
Tobacco Atheist case 12, BVerf GE, 4-5 (1960).
However, the court backed away form that statement in
subsequent cases, thus in Religious Oath Case, 33 BVerf GE 23(19762)
upholding the evangelical pastor’s right not to take the oath required
of witnesses in court., the court noted that the dissident pastor’s
refusal to take the oath found some support in the Bible and “is
espoused by a school of newer theology”, but it also stated that the
state may not evaluate its citizen‟s religious convictions or characterize these
beliefs as right or wrong.
Of course, the courts must be convinced of the sincerity of the religious
liberty claimant, but the test of sincerity must not be deformed into a test of
what religious beliefs and practices are acceptable.
The United States Supreme Court took its earliest approach on this
issue in the case of Reynolds v. United States 98 U.S. 145 (1879) a case that took
place against the backdrop of rather savage persecution of the mormons in the
nineteenth century and their sometimes violent response. In Reynolds, the court
upheld the bigamy conviction of a leading mormon. Under the Reynolds
approach, the state could not tell a person what their religious beliefs should
48}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

be, but the state could regulate action, even action thought to be required by
one’s religion, as the mormons then regarded polygamy to be.
By the middle of the twentieth century, the Reynolds approach
had been soundly repudiated in favour of the strict scrutiny standard.
Thus in Employment Division v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990) two members
of the Native American Church, which incorporates certain native
American religious practices, were fired from their jobs with a private
organization providing drug rehabilitation service sin the state of
Oregon because they had ingested peyote in religious services within
the church. Especially because they were in the business of helping
rehabilitate drug users, their use of a proscribed drug was regarded as
work related misconduct and they were therefore denied unemployment
compensation by the state of Oregon. Peyote is a hallucinogenic drug
and its use is generally proscribed by both federal and state law.
Adherents of the Native American Church believe that the peyote plant
embodies their deity and that eating it is an act of worship and communion.
Federal drug law and the drug laws of 23 other states at that time made an
exception for the sacramental use of peyote, but the Oregon statute did not and
the Oregon Supreme Court had ruled that it would not read such an exception
to the statute. In these circumstances, is the state’s denial of unemployment
compensation an impermissible restriction on the free exercise of religion? The
courts in the states have always adopted two modes of reasoning:
1) “Minimum scrutiny” which means no further review under principles of
freedom of religion. Once the statute in question is non-discriminatory,
statutory distinctions are also subject to general regulation by the Equal
Protection Clause of the fourteenth Amendment.
2) We also find as other level of religious freedom called “strict scrutiny” because
it adds to review for non-discrimination the requirement that the reviewing
court invalidate the challenged law unless it is narrowly tailored to achieve a
compelling state interest strict scrutiny applies to equal protection cases, to
review laws which involve fundamental constitutional rights, or “suspect
classifications” like race, religion, or national origin, which have historically
been used for invidious discriminatory purposes.
In between Reynolds and Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court had seemed
to settle on the “compelling state interest” test as the appropriate standard for
judging statutes of general applicability challenged by free exercise claims.
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{49

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

The 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedom (ECHR) uses a standard similar to
strict scrutiny. Article 9 states:
1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone
or in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or
belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2) Freedom to manifest one‟s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such
limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to a democratic society
in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or
morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
This article came to force in Kokkinakis v. Greece 17 E.H.R.R. 387 (1993)
involved a Jehovah’s Witness who had been imprisoned several times for
violating Greek law which criminalized “proselytism” by a six-to-three
decision the European Court of Human Rights ruled that by his conviction
Greece violated Mr. Kokkinkis’s religious freedom. The ECEHR had no
trouble finding that the criminal sanctions interfered with his freedom to
manifest his religion or belief. The court stated Bearing witness in words and deeds is
bound up with the existence of religious convictions.
The foregoing discussion has revealed a surprising degree of
consensus among the legal regimes surveyed with respect to issues of
religious freedom (Reitz, 2005: 196, 198).
E. Achieving Religious Harmony in the 21st Century
No one living in the 21st century will feign ignorance of the diversity of
the human race. The Telecommunication Industry has made the world a global
village and open vistas never dreamt off by generations gone by. Beyond the
diversity of the human race also lie the conflicts ranging in many regions
especially as a result of religion. It will be foolhardy to pretend that religion has
not been a source of major conflicts in centuries past, however religious
intolerance has raised it’s ugly head in the early part of the 21st century. Ever
since the event of September 11, 2001 a new chapter opened in the religious turf.
The reality of the human rights situation in the world today is a
picture of stark contrast, on the one hand, undeniable progress on the other,
the painful reality of widespread violations. Over the last few years amazing
changes have taken place in many parts of the world (Martenson, 1993: 927).
50}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

We must be quick to add that the said changes that have taken
place n the world have not affected human relations. Difference is
perceived as inferiority and in-equality, and an avenue to perpetuate
actions detrimental to human race and relations.
The theory of Race Relations have always pointed out that
there is no scientific proof and backing on some of the assumptions
peddled by the dominant group. The question is: How do we achieve
religious harmony in the 21st century? To this we now turn.
Achieving religious harmony in the 21st century is the job of all;
beginning with the state, institutions and individuals.
1. The Role of the State in Achieving Religious Harmony
The state is the political system of a body of people who are
politically organized from the definition of a state, we construe a state
to be that organ of government which is responsible to people but
locally and internationally (Black, 2000: 1137).
Many modern states have signed and ratified Human Rights
instruments such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention on
the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW),
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) e.t.c. What is important is the
implementation of all these instruments.
Religious harmony cannot be devoid of human rights, it is the
respect for human rights that will curb religious disharmony. State
must ensure that these principles are part of National Laws and their
citizens must be educated on the importance of adhering to rights
principles in human relations.
2. The Role of Institutions in achieving Religious Harmony
The United Nations through its various arms such United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, are saddled with the responsibilities of seeing to the
implementation of human rights in various regions of the world.
The United Nations must maintain and reinforce existing international
machinery for the protection of human rights. The UN must ensure that all states
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{51

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

irrespective of their economic and social systems, to work for the basis of
humane order based on freedom, justice and peace, correcting inequalities,
redressing injustices, and accelerating economic and social development would
help to eliminate wrong notions and ideas about society, and expectations.
It should be noted in today‟s world many situations involving gross
violations of human rights are marked by emotions and expressions of deep
ethnic, national, racial and religious conflict (Boven, 1993: 1944).
Under international law there is clearly a duty on the part of states to
prevent violations of human rights. The most forceful legal declaration to this
effect can be found in the judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights in the Velasquez Rodrightz Cases, July 29, 1988 which concerned the
disappearance of Angel Manfredo Velasquez Rodriguez in Honduras. The
court was requested to determine whether Honduras had violated Articles 4
(right to life), 5(right to humane treatment) and 7(right to personal liberty) of
the American Convention on Human Rights, and to rule that the consequences of
the situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that
fair compensation be paid to the inured party or parties.
The court went further to state:
An illegal act which violates human rights and which is initially not directly
imputable to a state (for example, because it is the act of a private person or because
the person responsible has not been identified) can lead to international
responsibility of the state not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due
diligence to prevent the violation or to respond as it as required by the convention.
While, the United Nations need to hold states accountable for
the acts of private persons especially when it relates to religious
intolerance, it is pertinent that the UN and its various agencies must
develop capacity to identify human rights violations at an early stage
and act swiftly and effectively to bring them to an end.
3. The Role of Individuals in Achieving Religious Harmony
The society and the state is made up of individual, it is the individual
who gives effect to laws and polices. Every individuals mirror his society. In
tackling religious intolerance, a concerted effort must be geared towards
individual enlightenment on the imperative of religious harmony. Violations
of human rights often start with individual before it becomes a collective
phenomenon. When individuals accept the norms of both democratic and
52}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

Religion, Human Rights and the Challenges of Freedom
Rhoda Asikia Ige Nee Karibi

human rights principles and strive to live it, then the state and human rights
agencies will have less work to do.
It is trite at this juncture to stress a social disease which has
exacerbates religious crisis in recent times i.e. Racism. Racism is the
theory or idea that there is a causal line between inherited physical
traits and certain traits of personality, intellect or culture and
combined with it, the nation that some races are inherently superior to
others, (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1980: 360).
While, it is accepted that in nearly all the worlds societies, men have
apparently developed pride in the cultural accomplishment of their own
groups and a corresponding derogation of those of their neighbors. However,
the idea that certain groups of people are superior to others because of their
genetic make up does not appear to have been widespread.
The menace of Racism and Religious fundamentalism is a
backlash of colonial expansion and slavery. While, many states have
gained independence, and are not longer subjects of other nations,
what starves us now is reaction to perceived earlier grievance, which
has now metamorphose to terrorism.
Solving the scourge of racism, religious fundamental and terrorism is
the work of all. The whole world must unite in condemning acts inimical to
human rights, but we also must be part of the healing process. No one thinks,
this fight will be easy, but it our belief that Religious Harmony can be achieved
in the 21st century and beyond.
F. Conclusion
Religion occupies a special place in the life of man, so also
human rights has become as accepted way of living. Our problem has
been balancing religious freedom with human rights principles.
In this paper, we examined the idea of religion, we examined the
rights discourse stating its evolution, we discussed religion and rights in
the light of notable cases from two countries (Canada and Nigeria), and we
also examined the limits of religious freedom in several jurisdictions and
suggested means of achieving religious harmony.
It is our submission that Religion and Human Rights can coexist if all and sundry will believe, accept and practice human rights
principles and ideas alongside the tenets of their religion.
JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal

{53

ISSN: 2338-8617
Vol. 3, No. 1, January 2015

Bibliography
Agomo M.A. 1989. Individual Rights and the 1989 Constitution of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria (ed) M.A. Ajomo and Bolaji Owasanoye Nigerian
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Lagos.
Akande, Jadesola. 1982. Introduction to the Nigerian Constitution. Sweet
& Maxwell, London.
Black. 2000. Black‟s Law Dictionary Abridge Seventh Edition. West Group Publishers.
Boven Theo Van. 1993. “Prevention of Human Rights Violations” Human Rights in
the Twenty-first century: A Global Challenge, (ed) Kathleen E. Machoney
and Paul Mahoney Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Netherland.
Brown, David. 2000. “Freedom from or Freedom For?: Religion as a case
study in Defining the content of Charter Rights”. University of
British Columbia Law Review, Vol. 33, Special Edition.
Haar Gerrieter. 2005. “Religion: Source of Conflict or Resource for Peace”,
Comparative Perspective on shariah in Nigeria. (ed) Philip Ostien, Jamila
M. Nasir, Franz Kogelmann; Spectrum Books Limited, London.
Hackett Rosalind I.J. 2005 “Rethinking the Role of Religion in the
public sphere: Local and Global Perspective” Comparative
Perspectives on Shariah in Nigeria (ed) Philip Ostien, Jamila in
Nasir, Franz Kogelmann, Spectrum Books Limited Ibadan.
Ibidapo-Obe Akin. 2005. “The Right to Freedom of Religion in Nigeria” Essays on
Human Rights Law in Nigeria. Concept Publications Limited, Lagos.
Ibrahim Auwal. 2003. “Linking Democracy and Good Governance with
Human Rights”, Paper presented at 39th Annual Law Teachers
Conference of the Nigerian Association of Law Teachers held at
University of Maiduguri, Borno State Nigeria, October 13-17th.
Martenson Jan. 1993. “The United Nations and the Human Rights Today
and Tomorrow” Human Rights in the Twenty-first century. A
Global Challenge (ed) Kathleen E. Mahoney and Paul
Mahoney, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Netherlands.
Reitz John C. 2005. Freedom of Religion and its Limitations: Judicial
standards for Deciding particular cases to maintain the state’s
secular role in Protecting Society’s Religious Commitments.
Umozurike U. O. 2001 “Teaching Human Rights in Law Faculties” paper presented
at a 2 day Workshop for Law Faculties in Nigeria, February 6-7.

*****
54}

JIP-International Multidisciplinary Journal