Access to places of worship for persons with disabilities in Indonesia: Law and policy completion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with disabilities (PwD) as citizens have the same rights as non-disabled citizens including the right to religion and worship according to their religion and beliefs. In Indonesia, six religions deserve the recognition and protection by the state, i.e. Islam, Christianity, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucius but PwD people still experience discrimination and dangerous access to places of worship in mosques for Muslims, churches for Christians and Catholics, vihara for Hindus, temples for Buddhists, and kelenteng for Confucians. This article aims to review and explore Indonesia’s regulatory and policies on the rights of PwD. The research method used is legal research using legal principles and social approach. PwD in Indonesia are not yet free in religion and it is not easy for them to access places of worship because of social and cultural stigma and unequal standing with other citizens. The findings from this study conclude that the policy paradigm and regulation of the rights of PwD in Indonesia is dominated by a compassionate perspective. Forms of discrimination and dangerous experienced by PwD include: discrimination against places of worship, discrimination against facilities of places of worship, no special services for PwD, the mindset of religious leaders still discriminates against PwD. The completion from law and policy perspective is that the regulatory paradigm of PwD should be based on human rights, among others: making special regulations for places of worship disability-friendly, legal sanctions and awards to managers of places of worship, and work effectiveness of the national commission for disability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".