Constitutional Interpretation of Religious Freedom and Meditation

Z. Zen
{"title":"Constitutional Interpretation of Religious Freedom and Meditation","authors":"Z. Zen","doi":"10.22397/wlri.2023.39.1.365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":430360,"journal":{"name":"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22397/wlri.2023.39.1.365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
宗教自由和冥想的宪法解释
宪法保障宗教自由。禅修是否包括在宗教自由保护中,值得怀疑。传统上,冥想被用作实现宗教目标的一种手段。现代冥想正在失去它的宗教性。换句话说,现代冥想正在向世俗化、大众化、产业化转变。冥想的世俗化要求重新解释宗教的概念。冥想的概念不再局限于宗教。冥想是一个开放概念的扩展,其中宗教维度和世俗维度对应或分离。不能把冥想当作宗教来接受,也不能把冥想设定为宗教自由的统一保护区域。国家要考虑宗教的范围,保护宗教自由。宪法上没有统一的定义。对此需要一个宪法上的答案。这是因为,为了在宪法秩序下实现两种不同概念的和平共处,需要有新的解释。关于冥想的宪法问题主要分为三类。首先,冥想是一种宗教吗?第二,宪法中冥想的概念是什么?第三,宗教自由和冥想之间的关系是什么?将宗教自由分为宗教冥想和世俗冥想,可以尝试对宗教自由进行有效的宪法解释。就宗教冥想而言,它是达到宗教追求的唯一目的的一种手段。与此不同的是,在世俗冥想的情况下,合理的宪法解释必须以这是一种生活实践为前提,即内在体验每个人的各种目的。本研究考虑是否将宗教冥想视为宗教自由的领域,而将世俗冥想视为宗教自由的领域。为了证明这一点,对宪法中的宗教和冥想的概念、宗教自由和不信仰宗教的自由进行了区分和探讨。通过嫁接对不信教自由、非宗教活动自由、非宗教集会自由、非宗教集会自由、非宗教自由的限制等概念的思考,对宗教自由的具体内容进行了考察。并提出了由宗教自由和宗教自由衍生而来的“宗教冥想自由”和“世俗冥想自由”。本研究的目的是通过对宪法中宗教与冥想概念的设定,以及通过宪法解释可能发生冲突的宗教冥想与世俗冥想基本权利的保护范围,来提示法律利益的方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信