Safeguarding freedoms: How do civil and religious institutions in Lebanon address issues of freedom. of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression?
Prepared by Valentine Nesser Edited by Elissa Mdawar
The report explores the power dynamics between religious and civil institutions, shedding light on their distinct roles, philosophies, and mechanisms for safeguarding freedoms. It invites a broader reflection on the delicate balance between religious and civil authority in the state, particularly regarding the protection of two essential freedoms—freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief (FoRB).
These freedoms are often interconnected, yet defining clear boundaries between them is complex. Where do these institutions draw the line to avoid violations? What best practices have been put forth by some of them?
To explore this, we interviewed a sample of five civil society institutions and three religious institutions based on their activities and influence, acknowledging that these do not represent all religious movements or the full diversity of civil society perspectives in the country. The civil society institutions included MARCH, The Legal Agenda, Samir Kassir Foundation, Adyan Foundation, and the Forum for Development, Culture and Dialogue (FDCD). The religious institutions included The Catholic Information Center (represented by Father Abdo Abou Kassam), the Supreme Islamic Shia Council (represented by Sheikh Mohammed Hijazi), and Dar al-Fatwa (represented by Sheikh Khaldoun Araymet).
Through detailed questionnaires, we examined each institution’s philosophy on freedom, their mechanisms for responding to violations, and the potential for collaboration between the two sectors. Some institutions value collaboration through dialogue, while others believe the work of religious and civil institutions is fundamentally incompatible due to differing mechanisms and philosophies. While mitigating tensions between these two different perspectives and methods is challenging, it could lead to a reconsideration of the current power dynamics to create more spaces for criticism, respect for dissent in the public sphere, and more inclusive, broadly representative decisions.
Safeguarding freedoms: How do civil and religious institutions in Lebanon address issues of freedom. of religion or belief (FoRB) and freedom of expression?
Prepared by Valentine Nesser
Edited by Elissa Mdawar
The report explores the power dynamics between religious and civil institutions, shedding light on their distinct roles, philosophies, and mechanisms for safeguarding freedoms. It invites a broader reflection on the delicate balance between religious and civil authority in the state, particularly regarding the protection of two essential freedoms—freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief (FoRB).
These freedoms are often interconnected, yet defining clear boundaries between them is complex. Where do these institutions draw the line to avoid violations? What best practices have been put forth by some of them?
To explore this, we interviewed a sample of five civil society institutions and three religious institutions based on their activities and influence, acknowledging that these do not represent all religious movements or the full diversity of civil society perspectives in the country. The civil society institutions included MARCH, The Legal Agenda, Samir Kassir Foundation, Adyan Foundation, and the Forum for Development, Culture and Dialogue (FDCD). The religious institutions included The Catholic Information Center (represented by Father Abdo Abou Kassam), the Supreme Islamic Shia Council (represented by Sheikh Mohammed Hijazi), and Dar al-Fatwa (represented by Sheikh Khaldoun Araymet).
Through detailed questionnaires, we examined each institution’s philosophy on freedom, their mechanisms for responding to violations, and the potential for collaboration between the two sectors. Some institutions value collaboration through dialogue, while others believe the work of religious and civil institutions is fundamentally incompatible due to differing mechanisms and philosophies. While mitigating tensions between these two different perspectives and methods is challenging, it could lead to a reconsideration of the current power dynamics to create more spaces for criticism, respect for dissent in the public sphere, and more inclusive, broadly representative decisions.