The papers in this session focus on how members of religiously and racially minoritized groups suffer human rights violations and attempt to claim their rights through legal advocacy, petitioning, interreligious cooperation and in extreme cases, armed resistance. Papers examine the advocacy of Black activists to charge the United States with genocide and the work of leaders and activists in the Global South to expand understandings of genocide; how Buddhist activists work alongside members of other traditions to envision a rights-respecting future for Myanmar in the face of violent Buddhist nationalism; and members of minoritized religious traditions’ battles for legal and social recognition in the face of stereotyping and misinformation. The session brings to light tensions and possibilities as the past and future of religion and human rights come together in the experiences of these religious groups.
In December 2021, Alex Hinton published “70 Years Ago Black Activists Accused the U.S. of Genocide. They Should Have Been Taken Seriously.” Instead, "We Charge Genocide” was not taken seriously, as “The New York Times and Washington Post mentioned the petition in brief stories buried in the back pages. The Chicago Tribune condemned it for ‘shameful lies.’ Raphael Lemkin… publicly disagreed with the whole basis of the petition, saying it confused genocide with discrimination.” The basis of Lemkin's dismissal of "We Charge Genocide" also helped shape the establishment of the UN Genocide Convention. The Global South tried to introduce more progressive and expansive legislation to the Genocide Convention. including forced displacement, Apartheid, and cultural genocide. This paper explores “We Charge Genocide,” the establishment of the UN Genocide Convention, and their contemporary ramifications, including our understandings of structural racism in the United States, ongoing structural genocides, and the erosion of international law.
Western perceptions of Buddhism are often shaped by the Dalai Lama’s version of peace and compassion, a view that warrants critical scrutiny. Such perceptions obscure the political realities of Theravāda Buddhist societies in Southeast Asia. Using Myanmar as a case study, this paper examines how Buddhism has become deeply entangled with civil war and violent nationalist projects targeting ethnic and religious minorities. It shows how the state, sangha, military, and monks collaborated to promote a centralized Buddhist nationalist movement that marginalizes minority rights while civilian resistance has remained largely decentralized. It identifies three distinct forms of resistance: decentralized, interreligious, and diasporic. It examines Buddhism’s paradoxical role: legitimizing exclusionary nationalist politics while also inspiring interreligious solidarity between moral Buddhists and prophetic Christians seeking a democratic future grounded in justice, peace, and respect for human rights. Diasporic mobilization sustains both hidden and public forms of decentralized and interreligious resistance to the regime.
Typically, questioning religious community’s right to fully practice their religious freedoms is preceded by (and resulted in) widespread disinformation and stereotyping: religious community may be widely known yet misunderstood, which calls for empirical clarification. Maintaining a constructive dialogue between religious communities and officials, and the legislative, is more challenging if the religious context is not properly understood in a secular society.
This paper gives a summary why emphasis in strengthening religious literacy is needed in order to secure religious freedoms. The paper analyses recent court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses in Norway and Belgium. The goal of these case studies is to show what specific religious concepts are seen as problematic and what approach the courts have taken in their judgments.