{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.809523809523809, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Communal Religious Rights or Majoritarian Oppression

This chapter examines the ways in which the tensions around proselytization and conversion highlight some of the conceptual difficulties of liberal theory formulations of religious freedom and the way in which different cultures and religious groups are reinterpreting the traditional conception of religious freedom to better fit their own cultural context. Using case-studies from India and Malaysia, the chapter demonstrates the way in which the indeterminate and open-ended language of international conventions on religious freedom can be both a strength (allowing for areas of cultural difference in a flexible way) and a weakness (with no strong determinate boundaries around acceptable behaviour). The language of ‘public order’ in particular, generally included in both international law and in domestic constitutions as a legitimate limitation to religious freedom, is often invoked to legitimize a religious/ethnic majoritarian agenda.