This post will be a bit more personal, as I consider myself a spiritual person. I always have, for as long as I can remember. And luckily, I was fortunate to receive an open-minded education that—within the broader spectrum of knowledge—recognized spirituality as an integrated epistemological element. That is not to point fingers at those who believe solely in science—after all, they believe in something too… Spirituality is part of knowing, and spirituality is not religiosity. It is about your internal journeys between mind and heart, as Gary Zukav would say to Oprah (Zukav, 2014). It is about finding yourself—the truest version of you—and becoming that person, at least for that moment when you do not need to be anyone else. The power of such an adventure can be practiced anywhere. It can be quite easy on coasts and mountain valleys, but the real strength comes from embracing it in places that do not come with stunning sunsets and the ocean as part of the package. After all, it is easy to imagine, write, and paint in Tuscany—much harder near your local gas station. But the latter should not stop you from becoming the person you have always wanted to be. So, you should also be able to freely exercise this ability in a digital domain that is increasingly becoming a spiritual one as well.
This week, I share a few thoughts on ai, digitalization, and spirituality. I had wanted to write about it for a long time, and the first half of April brought a conference I attended where, together with my colleagues from the University of Nebraska, we presented our work on freedom of religion from both philosophical and legal perspectives—including the current contested terrain where such freedom is, and can be, weaponized to challenge other rights—in a nomen omen indivisible universe of human rights, where no single right stands above another.
Freedom of religion is one of the earliest recognized human rights—for example, if we take into account the Cylinder of Cyrus the Great of Persia—a human right proclamation that “freed all slaves, declared religious freedom and established racial equity”. But, as my co-panelist and mentor Ari Kohen argues, human rights do not require theistic justifications, as they can be extrapolated from secular or other philosophical sources. In recent years, we have heard a lot in the U.S. about the clash between religious rights and gender equity, LGBTQIA+ rights, or women’s rights. In Europe, the range of issues is similar, though it is notable that, due to increased migration of mostly non-Christian populations, religious minorities can at times become invisible—their needs may be suppressed either by secularism or by the dominant religion, such as Christianity. On the other hand, they may also experience hyper-visibility when certain elements of their religious attire do not conform to the cultural norms of school settings or swimming pools.
But what about the digital sphere? Spirituality, religiosity, and all faith-connected activities—including those oftentimes overlooked, unorganized belief systems that humanity has practiced for generations—have their space to exist internally within us (forum internum) and in the public digital sphere (forum externum). Justice Kennedy, in the case of Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), referred to this digital space as “the modern public square.”
From a legal standpoint, various legal instruments (listed below) enshrine freedom of religion, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which is legally binding and ratified by the United States. Religious freedom is established in Article 18 of the ICCPR, which mirrors Article 18 of the non-legally binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The freedom of religion, since its inception, has operated within both private and public spheres—and it continues to challenge the boundaries of each. Can a private company refuse to make a cake for someone’s wedding due to their religious beliefs? Can someone wear a garment to school that no other student wears, even if that garment is an expression of their religious identity?
Article 18 of the ICCPR sets out limitations on religious expression in paragraph 3, which must be necessary for the protection of public order, health, or morals, as well as for safeguarding the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 18 of the ICCPR (1966/1976):
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
Here comes the Pandora’s box associated with it—especially when applied to religious minorities, who often operate within a sphere of either invisibility (e.g., access to special dietary needs) or hyper-visibility (e.g., wearing religious attire in a deeply secular society, or opting out of religious education as an atheist in a deeply theistic society).
When considering the digital environment (and not just that), we also need to engage with Article 19 of the ICCPR, which protects freedom of expression—including online. In General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Human Rights Committee clarified that all forms and means of expression (both traditional and digital) are protected (para. 12), and that states must ensure both free access to and the independence of modern digital communication tools (para. 15). I will explore these points in greater depth in a future post.
In the U.S. context, of course, the First Amendment is at stake, along with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content and allows for good-faith content moderation. In the European context, both within the Council of Europe and the European Union, those under their jurisdiction have their religious freedom protected online through Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Within the EU specifically, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantees these protections through Articles 10 and 11, and through lex specialis provisions related to processing personal data that may reveal religious beliefs without consent (Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation, 2016). The Digital Services Act of 2022 also comes with a certain degree of spine and teeth, imposing obligations on online platforms to protect freedom of religion and expression, and requiring transparency in content moderation.
As you have probably noticed, many of these foundational documents were created long before social media. Yet, the laws enshrined in them can still be extended to the digital realm. In many cases, this happens imperfectly—particularly when it comes to questions of liability and content moderation—which may require us to come together to create a new set of human rights stipulations. In doing so, whether we seek to express our inner or external spirituality or our religion, we can do so freely—on our favorite cliff or online.
Legal Documents:
Replica of “Edict of Cyrus” | United Nations Gifts. (n.d.). United Nations.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, Resolution 217 A (III). United Nations General Assembly.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), signed on 4 November 1950, as amended. Council of Europe.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted on 16 December 1966, United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171. United Nations.
Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 230.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012/C 326/02, adopted 26 October 2012. European Union.
General Comment No. 34: Article 19 – Freedoms of Opinion and Expression, United Nations Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/GC/34 (12 September 2011).
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016, Article 9.
Digital Services Act (DSA), Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022.
Case Law:
Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. 98 (2017).
Works Cited:
Aigbomian, F. M., Kohen, A., & Niparko, Ł. W. (n.d.). Religious freedom: Balancing divine and secular—A human rights perspective (Draft manuscript). University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Zukav, G. (2014). The seat of the soul (25th Anniversary ed.). Simon & Schuster.
Digital Kallipolis 