Module 4: Religious or belief pluralism

Full text of commitment IV

Context

The notion of “State religion” is often misused, leading to discrimination notably against religious minorities and political dissenters. The parameters of freedom of religion or belief and its content are not always respected, and this is also the case in terms of the relationship between States and religious institutions. On the other hand, despite its importance, secularism is occasionally misunderstood. Recent social tensions around women’s dress in public spaces --  including in democracies --  are a case in point. Another example is artistic expression in relation to religious topics, which can lead to social tensions and eventually undue restrictions of freedom of expression. The demarcation line between genuine religious pluralism and static doctrinal secularism is at times hard to establish. A case-by-case approach to reconcile competing legitimate interests is vital, especially in multi-cultural societies. The human rights standards in the area of the freedom of religion or belief, in their various manifestations, provideguidance in this respect. Faith actors need to be part of this rebalancing exercise. Secularism is essential for inclusion, equality and freedom for all.

Additional supporting documents

In support of this module on commitment IV, the learning file should include the 2018 report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, in which Ahmed Shaheed analyses the relationships between State and religion and their impact on freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur explicitly refers to commitment IV in the chapter on international legal standards, implying that the Beirut Declaration on “Faith for Rights” is part of soft law and concluding in paragraph 89: “Finally, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate commitment IV of the ‘Faith for Rights’ framework, which warns against the use of the notion of ‘State religion’ to discriminate against any individual or group as well as against the use of ‘doctrinal secularism’, which risks reducing the space for religious or belief pluralism in practice. He stresses that States must satisfy a range of obligations, including to adopt measures that guarantee structural equality and to fully realize freedom of religion or belief. In the light of these obligations, the Special Rapporteur echoes the importance of adopting a model for the relationship between State and religion that is in harmony with the concept of ‘respectful distancing’ — i.e. political and legal, but not social, disentanglement from religion — which rests on a ‘deep grounding of secularity based on human rights’. Such a model ensures ‘that the State does not resort to religious exclusivity or bias in culture, identity, schooling, or even symbolism for short-term ends and for vested interests, but will continually strive to create spaces of inclusiveness for all as an active and ongoing endeavour’.”   

Peer-to-peer learning exercises

Unpacking: Participants break down commitment IV into different elements. They identify action points necessary for its implementation and list the corresponding duty-bearers. The aim of the exercise is twofold: (1) realizing the high risk of discriminatory potential inherently built into the two notions of “state religion” and “doctrinal secularism”, and (2) using these constitutional provisions to highlight the importance of the independent role of faith actors to counter discrimination through positive action within their respective spheres of influence on the ground. (Individual exercise for five minutes, followed by ten minutes discussion on the differences between individual listings).

Critical thinking: A critical discussion on the relationship between the two key elements of commitment IV and their impact on the principle of non-discrimination would be enlightening. Participants could be asked to provide examples of guaranteeing (or denying) equal treatment for all individuals and communities in the manifestation of their religions or beliefs within their own environments. They could also be asked if and why they disagree with the discriminatory risks embodied in the two notions of “State religion” and “doctrinal secularism”. As usual participants should also be asked if they believe that there are missing elements in that commitment, in light of their national and local experiences. (Collective exercise for 20 minutes).

Tweeting: Participants individually summarize this commitment in less than 140 characters and decide what summaries are best articulated. This part of the exercise is intended to de-construct the commitment and reenergise the discussions.  One possible result of this tweeting exercise could be as follows: “We commit to prevent the notions of ‘State religion’ and ‘doctrinal secularism’ from being used to discriminate or reduce the space for diversity of religions and beliefs”.

Translating: Similar to the tweeting exercise, participants could be asked to “translate” this commitment into child-friendly language or into a local dialect. Again the idea is to stimulate discussion about the most important elements and appropriate ways of simplifying the message, without losing the substance of commitment IV.

Storytelling: Participants express their views as to whether either of these two notions, “state religion” and “doctrinal secularism”, is likely to lead to discrimination. They share examples from within their own personal experience at local levels (collective exercise for 15 minutes). In this context, the facilitator could also refer to the following example raised by Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed in his 2019 report: “In 2004, a former bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was sentenced by national courts to imprisonment for having instigated violence against himself and his followers because he had left the predominant Church and created a schism. An opinion by the Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion and Belief of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights expressed concerns about the judgment’s approach, which seemed to suggest that any form of religious activity that effectively challenged the legitimacy and supremacy of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as the dominant religion should be considered an action that promotes religious hatred. Since Bishop Jovan had been the target of a hostile response from opposing believers, it is astonishing that he was found by the first instance court to have instigated religious hatred ‘towards himself and his followers’. Subsequently, the Supreme Court partially accepted his appeal with regard to the freedom to perform religious rites and reduced his prison sentence to eight months.”

Linking: Commitment IV offers an opportunity to join the dots between secularism and the free manifestation of religions and beliefs in secular states. Controversial examples and cases could be provided by the facilitators for the sake of better understanding of the delicate balances required on a case-by-case basis. This would encourage participants to share their own lived experiences. Participants can come to the board to write key words or longer comments regarding how they would describe this relationship. The board could also be divided into positive and negative sides, so participants are able to express whether they believe the current situation in their context is conducive to religious or belief pluralism in practice. This exercise can be used to prepare for the next one in this module, which is a simulation of a case to debate (collective exercise for 20 minutes).

Simulating: A simulation of an individual complaint to the Human Rights Committee regarding a case related to wearing religious symbols in the public sphere (collective exercise for 1-2 hours, with participants being divided into three groups to simulate the committee session). The didactic aim is to showcase real situations in a manner that strengthens faith actors’ handling of such situations in their daily work. Such an exercise would also familiarize faith actors with international human rights mechanisms (See the OHCHR publication “Reporting to the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies Training Guide”, Manual and Notes for Facilitators).

If facilitators wish, this could even lead to a full-fledged moot court exercise, simulating a fictitious case, inspired by real ones, and to adversarial debate related to State religions or doctrinal secularism. This collective exercise would require anywhere from an hour up to a full day. This depends on the complexity of the case as designed or adapted by the facilitators (see scenarios G, H, I and J). Participants could be divided into three groups to simulate a moot court with applicants, respondents and judges.

Constitution-drafting: The facilitator may also divide participants into small groups and ask them to draft a constitutional provision that defines an ideal relationship between religion and state in the fictitious constitution, assuming they are starting from scratch. The facilitator hands them a list of questions that will help them draft a provision for the fictitious constitution. The facilitator may research examples of related constitutional provisions (see for example the online compilation of pertinent excerpts from more than 190 constitutions).

Exploring: The following additional questions could be explored: Does this commitment imply that States should not constitutionally “adopt” a religion? What are the benefits and limits of secularism? What are the international standards in this area? Are these standards in harmony with religious thinking or are there different perspectives? Are participants witnessing a de-secularization in their countries? How and why? Can religious signs be worn in the public space in their respective countries? Does the State fund religious institutions, none of them or only some? Should the term “religion” be defined in the constitution? What should be the reaction of religious actors when facing a situation of apparent discrimination on religious grounds against a group or an individual? What if the apparent discrimination was committed by a State agent (general discussion for 15 minutes)?

This exercise strengthens participants’ comparative and analytical skills, with the aim of encouraging them to confidently conduct an independent remedial action within their respective spheres even when constitutional or legal parameters are not conducive to equal treatment.

Adding faith quotes: Participants identify additional religious or belief-based quotes for commitment IV on non-discrimination (individual exercise for five minutes, followed by a reading by each participant of his or her added reference). The main aim of this exercise is to enable faith actors to become on-the-ground defenders of a respectful and impartial approach to all religions and beliefs. The didactic aim of this exercise is to widen the cultural and spiritual foundation of modern human rights norms by grounding them in corresponding faith traditions.

Inspiring: Participants are requested to think of an artistic expression from within their local culture that captures aspects of the commitment of equal treatment. Facilitators would have prepared their own examples in advance.

In this vein, please find here the example of a cartoon and calligraphy as well as music.

Learning objectives

• Participants realize the risk that both notions of “State religion” and “doctrinal secularism” could lead to discrimination and the required vigilance by both State and non-State religious actors in this respect.
• Participants value the importance of neutrality and equal treatment by the State towards religions, their institutions and their manifestations as an obligation under international law that should also warrant attention from civil society actors, particularly faith-based organizations.
• Participants realize that secularism is essential to ensure equality for everyone, regardless of their citizenship.
• Participants develop a clear understanding of the difference between “neutrality” and “passivity”.
• Participants appreciate the complementarity between the State’s obligations in virtue of the right to freedom of religion or belief and their own responsibilities as non-State faith actors.
• Through concrete examples and cases for debate, participants fully grasp the logic and criteria of permissible limitations on manifesting freedom of religion or belief and the conditions such limitations should fulfil.

previous module  ¦  overview  ¦  next module >