After the basic acceptance of the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) at the UN in 1981, different states announced reservations. These reservations were associated with applying the provisions of the document in their respective states on the grounds that they broke the states and communities’ right to FORB (Freedom of Religion or Belief). The US issues some regulations that form exceptions into the provisions of the Affordable Care Act that needed employers and insurers to offer contraceptive coverage for women. These rules significantly open up the range in which employers and insurers can avoid offering this coverage under the basis that it doesn’t match their moral or religious beliefs. This also highlights a recognized contention between women’s rights and FORB.
Where Does The Expected Contention Come From?
In the primary phases of identifying this problem, the most potent issue appears to be a basic misunderstanding of the rights managed by FORB. FORB does not safeguard religions but empowers human beings as in a community with others and individuals. Hence, like any other right, FORB is a human right considered to an individual that in no way safeguards or offers immunity to laws, religious institutions, or states.
The basic antagonism between the right to women’s equality and the right to freedom of belief or religion comes from the fact that the sources which consider the 2 rights were created from different constituencies and lobbying and ignore each other. Human rights doctrines, treating, and conventions that hold up the right to FORB usually don’t mention the rights of women.
The rights of women can get empowerment by differentiating the religious elements from those of conventional norms. Not every assertion of FORB is accepted as an instance of belief or religion. This does not change these violations’ gravity, but it offers an understanding of the fact of risky practices incorporating honor killings, forced marriage, and genital mutilation. Although these diminishing practices are made in the name of religious belief, they are generally points of significant controversy even in the religious conventions that are used for making justifications.
What Impacts Does the Antagonism Have?
This antagonism between the rights of women and FORM is extensively exaggerated because of a misunderstanding of the rights themselves and the declarations of culture vs. religion. Moreover, this hostility can be very dangerous to some people that the 2 sides are trying to safeguard. It has the impact of virtually pressurizing women for selecting between components of their identities; they can enjoy either equality as a woman or freedom of belief, but not both.
This is particularly evident for women of religious minorities, some of whom experience intersectional or multiple differentiation or other kinds of human rights violations on the basis of both their belief or religion and their gender.
Conclusion
Freedom of belief identifies the right to change somebody’s religion, to believe or not to believe, to act and speak on those beliefs. This empowers women to make their own decisions and to challenge and recreate existing religious practices that they find risky and oppressive to fundamental women’s rights.