A Comparative Case Study of Religious Identities and Civic Rights in Three Multi-Religious Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religious diversity is increasing in many societies around the world. As more countries become multi-religious, there are growing challenges in how religious identities are defined and civic rights of religious groups are protected. This research examined approaches adopted in three diverse multi-religious societies – India, Nigeria and Canada – to balance religious identities and civic participation. Through analysis of government policies, court rulings and interviews with religious leaders, the study identified sources of tension between religious communities and evaluated different models employed. The findings suggested that while the separation of religion and State helps protect against religious domination, it does not adequately accommodate religious practices or minority rights. Equal treatment policies are valuable but may not sufficiently recognize cultural differences. Accommodation of religious norms provides inclusiveness but risks endorsing certain beliefs over others. Additionally, collective rights need to be balanced with individual freedoms to ensure full civic participation across communities. The research contributes new insights into conceptualizing and operationalizing inclusive models that harness religious diversity’s positive role in democratic societies. Keywords: Religious Identities, Civic Rights, Civic Community, Religious Freedom, Religious Diversity, Inclusive Institutions, Religious Tolerance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".