Intellectual Acknowledgement in Favour of Religious Freedom and Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This succinct essay addresses the issue of freedom of religion for Indigenous cultures. Freedom of belief cannot subsist without justice, i.e. equal recognition. By ignoring the intellectual achievements of Indigenous and other non-Western philosophies and non-Christian religions, scholarship (in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in interrelated education in schools, colleges, and universities) constitutes an important reason for the depreciation of freedom of religious beliefs and, thereby, injustice. I argue that the scientific and pedagogical methodology of the comparative history of religions (developed by theorists of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries and continued and elaborated by non-Indigenous and Indigenous scholars and educators) should be included in education at schools, colleges, and universities to combat this structural inequity. A historical consciousness of intellectual culture worldwide would not only have an impact on contemporary Indigenous cultures, but also on cultures with an Indigenous heritage (as, for instance, Latino and Chicano cultures of the United States), and would contest antisemitism and prejudice against Islam. To exemplify the history of intellectual and religious multiplicity and complexity, I mention traditions of (ritual) time, writing and semiotic systems, moral ideas, political principles, and the (constitutional) governance of a few selected Indigenous cultures of the American continent to be further researched by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars, and to be taught in schools and academia. Finally, I offer concrete recommendations for what is to be done for this new historiography.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".