当前位置: X-MOL 学术Indonesia Law Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
RESTRICTIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF FREEDOM OF RELIGIONS: COMPARISON OF LAW BETWEEN INDONESIA AND GERMANY
Indonesia Law Review ( IF 0.1 ) Pub Date : 2018-12-31 , DOI: 10.15742/ilrev.v8n3.510
A. A. A. Nanda Saraswati 1 , Setiawan Wicaksono 1 , Ranitya Ganindha 1 , M. Hidayat 1
Affiliation  

The rights of freedom of religion and beliefs are constitutionally guaranteed, both in Indonesia and Germany. However, the right of freedom of religion is not unlimited. This paper aims to identify and analyze (1) Why there is the right of freedom of religion is restricted; (2) What product of the law is that regulates restriction on the right of freedom of religion in Indonesia and Germany; and (3) What purpose do Indonesia and Germany have in restricting the right of freedom of religion? This paper uses a normative research method that references legislation and takes a historical and comparative approach. The restriction of freedom of religion exists to protect the fundamental right or freedoms for every individual to avoid chaos. The restrictions on freedom of religion in the Indonesian Constitution are stated in Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution; Article 73 of Law No. 39 Year 1999; Article 18 of Law No. 12 Year 2005; and in PNPS No. 1 Year 1965. While Germany does not set explicit restrictions, the environment comes from the level of the Act: namely, Article 166–167 of the Criminal Code. In Indonesia, public order is defined as conformity of justice in consideration of morality, religious values, and security in a democratic society. Meanwhile, Germany defines public order as the protection of society based on the principles of balance and tolerance, in that individual freedoms must be balanced with other people’s fundamental rights, although this also means that a person’s idea of divinity must be excluded.

中文翻译:

宗教自由权的限制:印度尼西亚和德国之间的法律比较

在印度尼西亚和德国,宗教和信仰自由的权利受到宪法保障。但是,宗教自由的权利不是无限的。本文旨在识别和分析(1)宗教自由权为何受到限制;(2) 印度尼西亚和德国规定限制宗教自由权的法律产物是什么;(3)印尼和德国限制宗教自由权的目的是什么?本文采用参考立法的规范性研究方法,并采用历史和比较的方法。限制宗教自由的存在是为了保护每个人的基本权利或自由,以避免混乱。印度尼西亚宪法对宗教自由的限制载于 1945 年宪法第 28 条;1999年第39号法第73条;2005 年第 12 号法第 18 条;和 PNPS No. 1 Year 1965。虽然德国没有设置明确的限制,但环境来自该法案的层面:即《刑法》第 166-167 条。在印度尼西亚,公共秩序被定义为民主社会中考虑到道德、宗教价值观和安全的正义。同时,德国将公共秩序定义为基于平衡和宽容原则的社会保护,个人自由必须与他人的基本权利相平衡,但这也意味着必须排除个人的神性观念。2005 年 12 年;和 PNPS No. 1 Year 1965。虽然德国没有设置明确的限制,但环境来自该法案的层面:即《刑法》第 166-167 条。在印度尼西亚,公共秩序被定义为民主社会中考虑到道德、宗教价值观和安全的正义。同时,德国将公共秩序定义为基于平衡和宽容原则的社会保护,个人自由必须与他人的基本权利相平衡,但这也意味着必须排除个人的神性观念。2005 年 12 年;和 PNPS No. 1 Year 1965。虽然德国没有设置明确的限制,但环境来自该法案的层面:即《刑法》第 166-167 条。在印度尼西亚,公共秩序被定义为民主社会中考虑到道德、宗教价值观和安全的正义。同时,德国将公共秩序定义为基于平衡和宽容原则的社会保护,个人自由必须与他人的基本权利相平衡,但这也意味着必须排除个人的神性观念。公共秩序被定义为考虑到民主社会中的道德、宗教价值观和安全而符合正义。同时,德国将公共秩序定义为基于平衡和宽容原则的社会保护,个人自由必须与他人的基本权利相平衡,但这也意味着必须排除个人的神性观念。公共秩序被定义为考虑到民主社会中的道德、宗教价值观和安全而符合正义。同时,德国将公共秩序定义为基于平衡和宽容原则的社会保护,个人自由必须与他人的基本权利相平衡,但这也意味着必须排除个人的神性观念。
更新日期:2018-12-31
down
wechat
bug