What is Secularism?

[PaliRichard]

So how do you back it up and at what point do you make the decision that somebody's right to 'practice' their religion doesn't trump somebody else's non religious human right.....or should it?

 

I suppose the only way to back up my claiming to believe what I believe is part of the religion is going to the texts of that religion.

 

I don't think the right to practice should trump another human right, this is the point of the thread to encourage such debate, what exactly is the line?

 

I don't know? I think regarding the law it's pretty clear, you can practice your religion 'subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'. But what about the scenarios of getting priveledges at work? These are somewhat greyer areas and it's these I'm interested in from the secular point of view.

[quisquose]

I suppose the only way to back up my claiming to believe what I believe is part of the religion is going to the texts of that religion.

 

I don't think the right to practice should trump another human right, this is the point of the thread to encourage such debate, what exactly is the line?

 

I don't know? I think regarding the law it's pretty clear, you can practice your religion 'subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others'. But what about the scenarios of getting priveledges at work? These are somewhat greyer areas and it's these I'm interested in from the secular point of view.

 

Mmmm, just compiling the texts of my religion now. What shall I put? Work, that's it, my religious texts forbid me from working!

 

How's that?

 

[PaliRichard]

Essentially, those of quisquose.

 

For a UK Judge asked this question/quandary of yours, the expression you are looking for is "contract law" (to the extent permitted by the complementary legal fields that are employment law and ECHR).

 

The employment contract has relevant covenant(s) (e.g. uniform/no jewel/no prayer time/no head-dress/no veil/etc. - whetever, as the case may be)?

 

The employee signed the employment contract of his/her own free will?

 

Then he/she accepted, and is contractually bound by, the relevant covenant(s).

 

So any religious ornamentation/prayer time/etc. = breach of contract.

 

'State' 1 / Religion 0.

 

If you want to see a 'more secular' State in action (as in, 'more than the UK'), glance over the Channel. France has been a secular country (constitutionally, no less) since the Revolution. Ferociously so.

 

and quisquose,

 

Yep, I get that L00b, and I did make an earlier remark about the type of job being more important than the rights within that job.

 

OK, let us take away the idea that the contract says specifically no jewellary, let's imagine that a uniform is required by the company, and there is no mention of a clause that says no jewellary (which was kind of the point I was trying to make) but most people as a matter of course don't wear it, and one religious person wears the crucifix and claims it is her religious right to do so, and the employer takes umbridge to that and decides to discipline her/him, and it goes to court (which I know it wouldn't but imagine it did), if you were the Judge, how would you establish what was her right to practice?

 

My word, I'm not even trying to argue, I just want an opinion on a matter that could come up, is that so difficult?

[quisquose]

and quisquose,

 

Yep, I get that L00b, and I did make an earlier remark about the type of job being more important than the rights within that job.

 

OK, let us take away the idea that the contract says specifically no jewellary, let's imagine that a uniform is required by the company, and there is no mention of a clause that says no jewellary (which was kind of the point I was trying to make) but most people as a matter of course don't wear it, and one religious person wears the crucifix and claims it is her religious right to do so, and the employer takes umbridge to that and decides to discipline her/him, and it goes to court (which I know it wouldn't but imagine it did), if you were the Judge, how would you establish what was her right to practice?

 

My word, I'm not even trying to argue, I just want an opinion on a matter that could come up, is that so difficult?

 

I'm looking at an employee wearing a necklace now. If I was to tell her to take it off simply because I didn't like it, I would be a nob.

 

Again, it just seems simple.

[PaliRichard]

I'm looking at an employee wearing a necklace now. If I was to tell her to take it off simply because I didn't like it, I would be a nob.

 

Again, it just seems simple.

 

But people do, and some of the people they do it to claim it has religious significance so they can't, I'm not suggesting all employers would, as we have already established most employers are reasonable, most religions allow for concessions where practice isn't possible, but that's not always the case on both sides of the fence.

 

If you don't want to discuss it that's up to you but you can't just pretend it's not an issue.

[L00b]

Yep, I get that L00b, and I did make an earlier remark about the type of job being more important than the rights within that job.

But the type of job is irrelevant.

 

All that matters is the contract, and the willingness of the employee to be bound by it. Provided of course the clauses are enforceable in light of any other statutes that are relevant to it (e.g. non-discriminatory legislation).

 

To all intents and purposes, you could have an employment contract for a 'surface technician' (street sweeper) that is way more constraining than that for a University Chair, insofar as religious matters and religious expression are concerned.

 

The will/conditions of the employer, as expressed in the contract (and provided it is legal) is what prevails. A lot of that may be guided by H&S considerations, another lot by corporate image diktats/marketing imperatives, and a little (if at all) by the employer's own moral/religious convictions. The employee is free to abide by it, for find another job with more 'religious freedom'.

 

A contract may not ever cover every last possible religion-based conflict of interests between employer and employee, but there is a remedy for that - see below.

OK, let us take away the idea that the contract says specifically no jewellary, let's imagine that a uniform is required by the company, and there is no mention of a clause that says no jewellary (which was kind of the point I was trying to make) but most people as a matter of course don't wear it, and one religious person wears the crucifix and claims it is her religious right to do so, and the employer takes umbridge to that and decides to discipline her/him, and it goes to court (which I know it wouldn't but imagine it did), if you were the Judge, how would you establish what was her right to practice?

It's still not a 'right to practice' question. The employee may consider it to be, quite incorrectly: it is still a question of contract law, first and foremost, and also of employment law. Nothing to do with religion (but for the employee's militating vociferations )

 

There is no relevant clause in the contract, so there is no breach of contract.

 

If the employer wants to "do something about it", then they will need a new contract to replace the current one, with clause forbidding jewelry, and obtain from the employee that they sign it (subject to all applicable employment law provisions).

If you don't want to discuss it that's up to you but you can't just pretend it's not an issue.

I really don't think quisquose doesn't want to discuss it - it's simply a matter of [within the context of the thread, secularism] providing you with a 'secularist' point of view: religion has nothing to do with the State or its workings (expressed as statutes governing e.g. the sub-topic at hand, employment).

 

It's only ever an "issue" because the person of faith considers it to be, and considers their freedom of religious expression impinged.

[PaliRichard]

But the type of job is irrelevant.

 

All that matters is the contract, and the willingness of the employee to be bound by it. Provided of course the clauses are enforceable in light of any other statutes that are relevant to it (e.g. non-discriminatory legislation).

 

To all intents and purposes, you could have an employment contract for a 'surface technician' (street sweeper) that is way more constraining than that for a University Chair, insofar as religious matters and religious expression are concerned.

 

The will/conditions of the employer, as expressed in the contract (and provided it is legal) is what prevails. A lot of that may be guided by H&S considerations, another lot by corporate image diktats/marketing imperatives, and a little (if at all) by the employer's own cmortal/religious convictions. The employee is free to abide by it, for find another job with more 'religious freedom'.

 

A contract may not ever cover every last possible religion-based conflict of interests between employer and employee, but there is a remedy for that - see below.

It's still not a 'right to practice' question.

 

There is no relevant clause in the contract, so there is no breach of contract.

 

If the employer wants to "do something about it", then they will need a new contract to replace the current one, with clause forbidding jewelry, and obtain from the employee that they sign it (subject to all applicable employment law provisions).

 

My word, I'll tell you what let's just forget it, let's pretend there are never any tribunals and even if there are the person in the right always wins because that's obviously how the real world works isn't it.

 

Why is it so difficult to answer a simple, theoretical question?

[L00b]

Why is it so difficult to answer a simple, theoretical question?

Why don't you get that teddy back in your pram, and consider my belated edit instead?

[Number Six]

... I think politics and religion should be kept seperate, solely on the grounds of our multicultural faith ...

 

What multicultural faith?

 

What I want to know, or try to ascertain, is how far that secularism goes.

 

Obviously I think that religious people should be able to practice their religion within the law, but should they be allowed to practice certain aspects that give them what others may consider priviledges in the work place? Should they be allowed to wear clothing or jewellery that identifies them with a certain faith?

 

Do you think that "people should be able to practice their religion within the law?" You seem to be implying that people should not be able to wear clothing or jewellery that identifies them as part of a religion.

 

I'm just trying to ascertain if there is a uniform view or if different secularists have different levels of acceptance.

 

It surely won't surprise you that the views of 'secularists' are as varied as those of the general population?

 

I note that you keep saying people haven't answered your question, but it seems to me they have. Perhaps you ought to restate it?

[PaliRichard]

Why don't you get that teddy back in your pram, and consider my belated edit instead?

 

Because the point of the thread is to try and establish what the views are of secularists when these things do come up.

 

You can't just say they only ever come up when the person of faith considers there freedom of expression has been impinged as though it's a non issue.

 

That's like saying cases of murder only ever come up when someone has been killed, it doesn't make it any less important when the issue does come up.

 

So as a secularist (religious or otherwise) these things should be considered, I'm assuming most secularists have opinions on Bishops in the house of lords etc, so if they have opinions on the black and white issues like that I would have thought they would have given more aspects of the clash between secularism and priveledge thought too.

 

Or is that just me. Is it really a case that some people really do just look at things in a black and white way?

 

Thankyou to those of you have contributed by the way