E (CCPR General Comment No. 23: Report 27 (Rights of Minorities) 1994, p. two). These are not cumulative specifications. In assuming minority status, the group may well then highlight its vulnerabilities plus the will need for greater protection of its identity, which could consist of its religious identity. In this regard, I will highlight three ways in which a focus on minority protection might contribute to a richer and expanded understanding for the protection on the rights and religious freedom of minorities. 4.1. Intersection of Culture, Language, and Religion: A More Wholistic View of Religious Freedom Very first, by focusing on the collective interests, 1 can draw greater focus to religious culture and the intersections amongst language, culture, and religion, and bring about a additional holistic and contextualized view of religion and religious practice. This might be especially critical for minorities within religious majorities who might adopt distinct practices, even even though subscribing to the exact same religious tradition. Pluralistic practices within major religious traditions have often been overlooked in religious freedomReligions 2021, 12,9 ofadjudication. Courts have applied dominant interpretations to YM511 Protocol exclude minority practices from religious freedom protection. In an earlier article, I’ve argued that legal definitions of religion can flatten out religious pluralism in its insistence on drawing clear categories for protection (Neo 2018b). Legal definitions normally wind up reflecting “dominant social and cultural attitudes toward preferred religions (irrespective of whether consciously or unconsciously)”, therefore overlooking the truth that religious communities are “not homogenous” (Jamal 2015, p. 93). This disadvantages new or distinct creeds, also as disfavored religions that are noticed as not religions, not genuine religions, or as pseudo-religions (Gunn 2003, p. 195). Minority protection may perhaps add towards the legal discourse by providing voice to minority religions at the same time as minorities inside majorities, drawing attention to “internal interpretational diversity” (Neo 2018b, p. 578). This means that a a lot more robust notion of religious minorities would call for us to view that even global religions could be heterogenous and may be shaped by “local VUF-5574 Biological Activity particularities” (Neo 2018b, p. 578; see also Zucca 2015, p. 3882 ). In highlighting some groups as minorities, even inside majority religions, one particular is recognizing that “religious traditions are living traditions”, “subject towards the influence of neighborhood practices” and is often much more syncretic than sometimes assumed (Neo 2018b, p. 578). Inside religious freedom adjudication, a single may possibly often uncover a distinction drawn in between culture and religion, in between cultural practice and religious practice. This distinction is then employed to justify not extending constitutional protection to a certain practice for becoming “cultural” rather than “religious”. Nonetheless, the distinction among the two is just not so very easily determined, and in actual fact, religious adherents don’t always subjectively see a distinction amongst the two. In practice, religion and culture are usually enmeshed. As an instance, a single may possibly point for the 1994 Malaysian case of Hjh Halimatussaadiah bte Hj Kamaruddin v Public Solutions Commission, Malaysia and Anor, exactly where a religious practice was excluded from constitutional protection soon after efficiently being characterized as `cultural’. This case concerned the best of a Muslim woman to wear the face veil. The applicant had been dismissed from her public s.