| |
|
|
|||||||||||||
| |
|||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documents
Reports and Statements Statement
on behalf of the International Religious Liberty Association The contentious issue of religious symbols and clothing that clearly express the faith of the wearer represents another clash of ideologies that has implications for religious freedom. While it is well understood that any government would wish to minimize the risk of disruption and disorder to the educational process, and to counter any attempts at religious intimidation; the planned action to ban the display of religious identity in any place may be viewed as a contravention of fundamental human rights. The rights of freedom of expression, freedom of speech, as well as the freedom to profess and practice religion are clearly identified in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights. As Article 18 of the Declaration states, this includes the right of “freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief…” It is hard to see how a ban on the wearing of religious clothing or symbols in congruent with the “freedom… in public… to manifest… religion.” Such a ban that targets Muslim headscarves, as well as Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, and Christian crosses (though apparently this only applies to large-size crosses) surely offends fundamental freedoms and the Declaration of Human Rights in particular. As a side note, the ban also applies to “religious beards,” though secular beards will be allowed. The state, by such an action, places itself in the unenviable position of determining the religiosity or otherwise of a beard… In such a situation, however, one also must not ignore the issue of compulsion on the other side. If the state is “compelling” the non-use of religious clothing and symbols, those who compel their use can also be seen as denying freedom of conscience. There have already been cases of violence by their co-religionists against Muslim girls who choose not to wear the headscarf. In all matters, freedom of individual conscience must be paramount, and there should be “no coercion in religion.” (Al Baqara, verse 256). Implementing the Golden Rule, accepted by all religions, the IRLA calls on all people of good faith to work together for peace and mutual respect. We strive for harmony that will allow all faiths and none to live together, and to achieve the wider good of mutual understanding and education at the highest level. The alternative is discrimination and intolerance of the worst kind, with all sides of the religious spectrum viewing each other with fear and disdain. Only through practical measures to educate, inform and appreciate those of other beliefs can there be a truly stable society. The imposition of religious restrictions by a state committed to liberty, equality and fraternity can only be counterproductive. Dr. Jonathan Gallagher |
|