滕彪文集
[主页]->[独立中文笔会]->[滕彪文集]->[The Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion]
滕彪文集
·法治中国需要中国法律人的良知及责任—致世界法律大会中国代表的公开信
·从上书到公开信
·是谁在“严重威胁社会秩序”?—关于游行示威权利的行政复议申请书
·致陈光诚的一封信
·用微笑来面对那些制造恐惧的人——和高智晟在一起的一个下午
·2+2=4的自由
·推倒「新闻柏林围墙」——透视中国新闻自由的前景
·恢复收容遣送制度等于开历史倒车
·陈光诚案凸显中国法治的困局
·暗夜里的光明之舞
·中国维权运动往何处去?
·陈光诚是如何被定罪的?(补充版)
·Crusader in a legal wilderness
·China’s blind Justice
·China's Political Courts
·以公民的姿态挺身而出/闵家桥
·“最可贵的是她有健康的公民意识”——关于公民王淑荣的对话
·“阳光宪政”的护卫者/民主与法制杂志
·要让好人走到一起,才能合力纠错——奥美定事件亲历者访谈录/南方周末
·李卫平: 被迫走出书斋的维权者——著名维权律师滕彪访谈录
·太阳城:写在第三期“名家说法”被命令取消之后
·滕彪印象/法制日报
·Rule of Law requires our consciousness and responsibility
·临沂野蛮计生与陈光诚事件维权大事记(2006-11-7)
·耻为盛世添顺骨
·中国时报专访:盼与政府互动 和平维权
·滕彪博士:精神家园的守望者/刘爽
·司法改良和公民维权——学而思沙龙的网谈
·学术、政治与生活——2006年12月17日做客沧海论坛在线交流记录
·黎明前的见证
·看看我们的朋友——致受难中的高智晟和他的妻子和孩子
·临沂警匪暴行录
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(五——七)
·中国当代宪政主义者的困境和选择/林泽波
·通过汉语改变中国
·茶人滕彪/萧瀚
·崔英杰案:“慎杀时代”的第一个考验
·死刑、司法与中国人权
·废除死刑的中国语境——在第三届世界反死刑大会上的发言
·司法独立,和谐中国——2007年“两会”之际的公民呼吁/许志永 滕彪
·彻底改革司法才能避免滥用死刑
·崔英杰案,在多重反思中寻找契机
·从“两会”看赎回选票运动
·关于尽快将青岛市四方区政府违法拆迁行为纳入法制轨道的法律意见书
·青岛野蛮拆迁:袁薪玉被控放火和妨害公务案一审的当庭辩护意见
·维权书简·戴脚镣的舞者
·被遗忘的谎言——就《成都晚报》事件致中宣部长和教育部长的一封信
·滕彪:可怕的“冤案递增律”
·不是我不明白
·张敏:滕彪律师访美谈中国司法现状与维权
·萧洵:纸包子案记者被判刑引发强烈质疑
·自由亚洲电台:拾荒者遇上联防离奇死亡 孙志刚式悲剧首都重现?
·何亚福 王鑫海 杨支柱等:放开二胎倡议书
·临沂野蛮计生事件及陈光诚案维权大事记(八--九)
·一个案件的真相与两个案件的正义(附:“聂树斌案”到了最危急时刻!)
·滕彪、胡佳:奥运前的中国真相
·郑筱萸案扇了死刑复核程序一记耳光/滕彪 李方平
·“杀害自己孩子的民族没有未来!”
·关于李和平律师被绑架殴打致国务院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部的公开信(签名中)
·NO FIGHTS,NO RIGHTS——接受博闻社采访谈中国人权现状
·挽包遵信先生
·香港电台铿锵集:扣着脚镣跳舞的中国律师
·那些陌生的人们在我们心底哭泣——推荐一个短片
·关于邮箱被盗用的声明
·《律师法》37条:为律师准备的新陷阱
·保护维权律师,实现法治——采访法学博士滕彪律师/张程
·Six Attorneys Openly Defend Falun Gong in Chinese Court
·李和平 滕彪等:为法轮功学员辩护-宪法至上 信仰自由
·面对暴力的思考与记忆——致李和平
·专访滕彪律师:《律师法》2007修订与维权/RFA张敏
·The Real China before the Olympics/Teng Biao,Hu jia
·我们不能坐等美好的社会到来
·律师:维权人士胡佳将受到起诉
·胡佳被捕 顯示中國要在奧運之前大清場
·人权的价值与正义的利益
·抓捕胡佳意味着什么?
·关于《奥运前的中国真相》一文的说明——声援胡佳之一
·邮箱作废声明
·关于审查和改变《互联网视听节目服务管理规定》部分不适当条款的建议
·胡佳的大爱与大勇
·后极权时代的公民美德与公民责任
·狱中致爱人
·奥运和乞丐不能并存?
·滕彪李苏滨关于青岛于建利涉嫌诽谤罪案的辩护意见
·纽约时报社评:中国的爱国小将们
·回网友四书
·我们都来关注滕彪博士/王天成
·暴力带不来和平,恐怖建不成和谐——就滕彪、李和平事件感言/王德邦
·让滕彪回家、追究国保撞车肇事的法律责任、还被监控公民自由/维权网
·刘晓波:黑暗权力的颠狂——有感于滕彪被绑架
·Article 37 of the PRC Law on Lawyers: A New Trap Set for Lawyers
·Chinese lawyer missing after criticising human rights record
·Chinese Lawyer Says He Was Detained and Warned on Activism
·For Chinese activists, stakes are raised ahead of the Olympics
·To my wife, from jail/Teng Biao
·Beijing Suspends Licenses of 2 Lawyers Who Offered to Defend Tibetans in Court
·National Endowment for Democracy 2008 Democracy Awards
·获奖感言
·司法与民意——镜城突围
·Rewards and risks of a career in the legal system
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
The Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion

The Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion
   -- Joint Defence Plea in the Case of Wang Bo, Wang Xinzhong and Liu Shuqin
   
   By Li Heping, Teng Biao, et. al.
   

   We are the lawyers Li Heping and Li Xiongbing of the Beijing Globe (Gaobo Longhua) Law Firm, Zhang Lihui and Li Shunzhang of the Beijing Giant & Goal (Guogang) Law Firm, Teng Biao of the Beijing Huayi Law Firm, and Wu Hongwei of the Beijing Humane (Haiming) Law Firm. We were engaged by Ms. Han Lingrong to serve as defence counsel for Han Lingrong's granddaughter, Wang Fu, her son-in-law, Wang Xinzhong, and her daughter, Liu Shuqin. In view of the fact that we share the same client, and that the three defendants are three members of the same family and all are believers in Falun Gong; and given that, moreover, they have been charged and sentenced for the same crime under the same set of facts; and that the defence counsel all acknowledge the extreme importance of religious freedom to politics and morality and in maintaining human freedom and happiness; and in view of defence counsels' hope that consideration of the topic of religious freedom should be shifted from the dangerous and sensitive domains of religion and politics to a more circumspect and rational legal forum; and, moreover, in view of our conviction that the Republic's bank of justice will not be bankrupted by honouring its cheque of Constitutional rights, we submit the following joint defence plea:
   
   Part One: Reaffirming the universal principles involved in this case
   
   1) We reaffirm the universal principle of freedom of religion involved in this case
   
   Taken as a group, human beings are distinguished by society and culture; as individuals, human beings need psychological, emotional and mental solace and a spiritual life. Different living environments, historical opportunity, cultural nurturing and life experience have given rise to different forms of religious faith. We believe that religious freedom is in inalienable right of all human beings, and that it is an important factor in preserving human development and improvement of character. The right to religious beliefs is like the right to life: it is self-evident. The citizen's right to religious freedom was first affirmed in law in the year 313 AD under the Edict of Toleration (Edict of Milan) jointly signed by the Roman rulers Constantine the Great and Licinius I. This edict stipulated for the first time that all religious beliefs enjoyed the same freedom without discrimination. However, humanity underwent extremely arduous struggle and grievous sacrifice until religious freedom was finally established as a universal rule. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly stipulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
   
   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 and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
   
   In November 1987, the UN General Assembly passed the "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief," which states in part:
   
   No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice. Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
   
   Article 36 of the PRC Constitution also explicitly safeguards religious freedom.
   
   Religious freedom undoubtedly encompasses three safeguards: First, the principle of religious freedom; that is, the object of a citizen's beliefs, the religion itself, has the right to exist and develop. Second, the principle of freedom of conscience; that is, every citizen is free to choose whether or not to believe in any particular religion, and has the freedom to practice religion or engage in religious activity in whatever form. Third, the principle of separation of church and state; no group, party, organisation or individual, including any religion, can use violence or any other rights-infringing means to interfere with the right of a religion to survive and develop, nor can violence or other rights-infringing means be used to interfere with a citizen's belief in any religion, his freedom to believe or not, or his freedom to practice religion in any form or to participate in religious activities. None of these three are indispensable or inseparable from the others. "Freedom of religious belief," "religious freedom," "freedom of conscience" -- these three phrases are interchangeable in everyday parlance.
   
   We believe that religious freedom means allowing each individual the freedom to choose among various forms of religious belief, whether a large, established religion or a relatively small and developing religion; whether an existing denomination or a newly-created belief system; whether atheistic, theistic, polytheistic or agnostic. Whether one believes in the "truth, virtue and tolerance" of Falun Gong, or in God or Allah, these beliefs, like those relating to Guan Gong or the Buddhist concept of Emptiness, fall under the religious freedom of which no one can be deprived. At the same time, a citizen's practicing of all forms of religion and participation in all kinds of religious activities is safeguarded within religious freedom; if a citizen is deprived of the freedom to practice religion or participate in religious activities, religious freedom is nothing more than empty words on paper.
   
   2) We reaffirm the principle of separation of church and state involved in this case
   
   In world history, in the benighted era before politics became civilised, a complex relationship existed between religion and state power. Some religions were established as orthodox, while others were disparaged as heresies or cults; some were established as state religions, while others suffered brutal suppression and bans; and some religions were simply merged into the ruling regime, with all other religions being exterminated. With the development of political civilisation, freedom of belief was ultimately established. The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom drafted by Thomas Jefferson affirms the inalienable and God-given right to believe any religion without persecution, and asserts that allowing government power to extend into the religious domain will quickly lead to the forfeiture of all freedom of religion and conscience. Jefferson criticised the unification of church and state in history:
   
   The impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time.
   
   Jefferson proposed and perfected the theory of separation of church and state, and applied it to practical politics. The separation of church and state means that all religions are equal before the law, and that none are predominant over or subservient to others. It can be divided theoretically into two parts: First is the intrusion of the church into political power; any religion is forbidden to seize secular power through establishment as a state religion. Second is the intrusion of secular power into religion; rulers are forbidden to use the church to interfere in the religious freedom of the people, or to use religious beliefs to increase the political legitimacy and stability of the regime. The posing of the principle of separation of church and state represented a liberation of thought in human history. Its ultimate implementation established a dividing wall between politics and religion. It means that religious belief is a matter of individual choice and free will, that there is no crime in propagating religion, and that no power has the right to interfere in a voluntary act of faith. In the final analysis, it means that people have the freedom to believe in a "cult," or at the very least that they will not be deprived of their personal freedom because of this belief. It can be said that "cults" make up the majority in this world on the basis of the exclusivity of religious doctrines: every denomination and faith proclaims itself to be the one true faith, which by implication reduces the rest to "cults" or "heresies." In the eyes of an atheist, all beliefs in any kind of god are cults.

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场