The State should not interfere in the practices of religious communities even if they discriminate

Transcription

1 Sutton Grammar School for Boys Year 10 Essay Topic: The State should not interfere in the practices of religious communities even if they discriminate 1

2 Joseph Al-Khalili Interference with religious communities has been a topical and problematic occurrence throughout most countries in the world over the past few centuries. Developed, or developing, religious freedom, as with many other civil liberties, have been contentious and debatable, and is still the cause of may conflict s and other major crises across the globe. Interference in ethnic, socio-political and religious affiliations by the state is often frowned upon, protesters arguing that fundamental rights are being jeopardized, but many also believe that the state should have the capacity to intervene when it is necessary to do so. In the UK, the Church of England is established, nominally, and many laws prohibit senior officials from holding certain posts if they are from a particular religious denomination. For example, the monarch cannot be a Catholic, although, if a situation where the heir to the throne was Catholic arose, the law would most probably be changed. Religion is arguably an outdated trend which does not serve social cohesion in society, and religious freedoms are treated similarly to others, even in a notionally religious country like the United Kingdom. Although we have not yet disestablished the Church of England, Anglicans in this country are given no more rights than, say, a Shi a Muslim in Iran, which is very much an Islamic Republic. However, in order to serve social cohesion, many argue that harmless religious freedoms, such as allow people to pray and worship, allowing the wearing of religious garments and symbols where appropriate, should not be interfered with: the people who m the laws affect are happier, and society benefits. But this argument falls down when religious garments interfere with state practices, such as crucifixes worn by nurses dangling on patients, and the niqab being banned in courtrooms. France has gone one step further to ban the niqab in public altogether, so that faces can be seen at all times, and I think that this is fair, because the state, and welfare of the people in it, are more important than religious liberty. All of the above examples have been taken to court, and in the end, the scenario is a conflict of rights. It is not important whether they are religious or not, if they jeopardise a more important right, they should not be permitted. In developing countries, religion is in many parts a negative influence. The human population of the world has recently reached 7 billion, and predominantly Catholic nations such as the Philippines and Brazil have religion to blame, in part, for this. But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went into his brother s wife he spilled the sperm on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slow him also The Bible, Genesis 38:9-10 This quotation forms part of the basis for the Vatican s prohibition against contraception. This outdated and fundamentally dangerous law has seen a steady population growth to slightly less than 100 million, which is similar to many South American countries. Campaigns have been made to provide women with various methods of contraception, and this has naturally been vilified by religious Catholics. In this instance, I feel it is very clear that the state should (and does) interfere with the practices of religious communities, because this exponential increase in population is detrimental for the environment, economy and the human race. However, state intervention is unlikely to change 2000 years of fixed opinion which has been etched into the fabric of Catholic tradition. 2

3 I also feel that if nobody is being harmed, and nobody outside the religious body is being affected, then state intervention is not necessary if it means that a community can live happily and peacefully, it is good for society. Davender Ghai, a devout Hindu, won the right to be cremated on a funeral pyre when he died, and I feel that this is fair, because nobody is being harmed through his doing so, and his religion is a central part of this life. With regards to institutional discrimination, such as the inability for women to sit in the House of Lords as bishops, I feel that this needs to be reconsidered. If gender discrimination were to occur at a small church, then it would not be significant, because those who did not agree with the decision for women not to be bishops could simply leave and join another church. But the House of Lords is part of British society, and it affects everybody in this country. Firstly it is peculiar that only religious officials in the Church of England can sit in parliament, but then it is stranger that women cannot do so either. This is blatant misogynistic behaviour which has no place in the twenty-first century, and it is absurd that this can be allowed, under the guise of a text written two thousand years ago. In conclusion, I think that religion should be treated like any other freedom. Just because the divine is included and consulted throughout all faiths, it does not mean that they should be given any extra liberties, although they should not be interfered with unnecessarily, when nobody is being harmed. In the United Kingdom, in 2014, our society is becoming increasingly secular, but religious communities, no matter how small or insignificant, should never be allowed their rights to supersede more important ones. Live and let live, except for when it is necessary to interfere. Samuel Arnett I am a Christian so I personally believe that most churches do not show major discrimination towards others, yet I have heard of some cases where racism and sexism has gone slightly too far. With the example of the Evangelical church where a man named Phil Robertson made a homophobic statement, in which he affirmed his evangelical belief that homosexuality is a sin, but went even further, comparing gay people s sexual behaviour to bestiality, and declaring emphatically that they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. I believe that this is an outrageous announcement and in this situation maybe the government should get involved. I also believe people have rights and I understand that people have the right for freedom of speech. However, the first two human rights are all about everyone being equal with the same dignity no matter what sex, religion, colour or race. These rights are breached in this situation. On a smaller scale, the example of women not being able to become priests in Catholic churches, I believe is acceptable. This is because I see it as more them just following tradition. Churches are all very traditional and they rarely change their beliefs. One could argue that they don t allow women to be priests because Jesus was male and so were all his disciples who were all teachers/priests. I don t believe this is the case, this is only a minor factor compared to the tradition that churches like to stay strong too. So in my opinion I do not see the necessity of the government interfering at all. 3

4 The Westboro Baptist church takes discrimination to an extreme level and protests and interrupts funerals of war veterans, homosexuals and people with other ethnicities and religions. This is an example where the state should stop this from occurring due to the hurt it can cause. In conclusion, I believe that on the whole small scale discrimination such as not allowing women to be priests should be simply accepted and left alone, nonetheless, if discrimination reaches astonishing levels and is seen as very offensive and has intention of hurting people, then I think that the state should take action and interfere. Jake Aruliah There are a few different factors that could change whether or not the state should be able to intervene, and different people will obviously have different views on this statement. This makes it difficult to come to a fixed conclusion on this statement. Many people, who are more likely non-religious, would disagree with this on the basis that discrimination cannot be allowed to happen just because it is part of a religion. They may think it unfair that certain rules do not apply to people because of their religious beliefs. It is also very likely that people who are being discriminated against in religious practices will support the idea of the State being able to intervene and support them if they need it. On the other hand, it may not be right for the state to get involved at all in such matters. The people who are part of the practices could find the state s actions offensive and disrespectful, especially if a group of people from outside their practices come in and start changing up laws and traditions they have kept for a long time. I personally think the State should be able to intervene in religious practices, but only in extreme cases of discrimination. If it is something as small as women not being allowed to become priests, then I think the State has no right or responsibility to try to change the traditions of that religion. If people who are a part of that religion have a problem with it they should find a new set of beliefs or ask the heads of the religious group to do something about it. With a problem of this level, the church should be fully responsible for making its own changes and sorting out the problem. However, if there is a high level of discrimination of ethnicity or sexuality etc., and the church is not doing anything about it, then I believe the State has all the right to intervene and try and fix the situation. I don t think there is any excuse, even religious beliefs, for a high level of discrimination that causes a significant amount of harm to the victims. Furthermore, most religious groups beliefs involve ideas of equality and being good to everyone around you. If this is the case and that group is discriminating in their practices, then they are most likely swaying from their true beliefs. Even if the members of that group oppose the idea of the State intervening, there should always be someone to get them back on track, if nothing else. To conclude, I mostly agree with this statement, but the State should be allowed to intervene only when there is a fairly extreme case of discrimination in religious practices. Churches and other religious groups should be almost completely independent, but should not be allowed to hide away discrimination, and the fact that they are possibly harming people mentally or even physically, by keeping it inside their places of worship and claiming it is part of their beliefs. 4

5 George Ayers States should not interfere in the practices of the religious communities even if they discriminate as the members of each community should be allowed to express their opinions to the same extent to which an atheist should, as interfering with religious communities police would be discrimination in itself. In addition to this, to interfere when a discriminatory opinion is expressed would be violating the human rights of that member of the religious community as stated in Article 18 of the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion and belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. The state should however interfere with the actions of the religious community if the beliefs pose a threat to the welfare and safety of other citizens in the country. For example, Article 3 of the UDHR states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. The right to life is inalienable and therefore cannot be taken away from anybody. This fact alone means that the government has the right to interfere if there is a chance that the religious activity could result in the death of others. The state should only interfere if the inalienable human rights are taken away from the citizens of the country that the government has authority in. The state should also interfere if the discriminatory beliefs of one religious community clash with the beliefs of another religious community in that country as the state should use its power to stop war taking place. If necessary, the government should aim to reduce tension between groups but should not interfere unless intervention is crucial as unnecessary intervention would be violating Article 7 of the UDHR which states: All are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. The state should however treat all religious communities with the same respect and to act in the same manner if any religious group acts in a discriminatory way. Article 1 of the UDHR states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Failing to treat all religious and ethnic communities equally would be breaking another human right therefore I believe that the state should interfere if they feel that religious group is breaking the law or human rights as the government's main priority should be the welfare and safety of the citizens of that country. Daniel Ball It is a debate that has been discussed for centuries across the world, in many nations put in different scenarios. How much control should the state/government have over 5

6 religious communities and their practices, particularly if they discriminate against certain groups? Many groups voice their voice under the Freedom of Speech Human Right; however their actions are often muted by the government if it is deemed discriminatory. In this essay I will discuss the pros and cons of state interference in religious communities, giving real life examples of where the ruling government has or hasn t intervened in the practices of the certain religion. The first example of possible state intervention comes in the controversial right to inheritance subject. In common Islamic practice, a daughter s inheritance is only half of that of a son. So if a wealthy Muslim died without a will, having only had a son and a daughter with no living wife, Muslims would argue that the son should receive twice as much through inheritance money than the daughter. Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females However in the UK, Inheritance laws state that if there is no legal will, the estate is worth over 250,000 and there is no living partner but descending children, then: If there are two or more children, the children will inherit in equal shares This means that the son and daughter of the deceased Muslim would receive an equal share of their father s inheritance, contradictory to Islamic teachings. This is therefore an example of the state over-ruling ancient religious beliefs to settle the inheritance of the man s estate, partly due to the fact that the daughter is receiving less than the son, simply because of her gender, which could be considered as sexist and therefore discrimination. In my opinion the state has made the correct choice to intervene as the law should apply in the same way to everyone and not be different depending on the person(s) religious views. This inheritance law uniformly applies to all members of the population and is made to settle any disputes over who receives what in the absence of a will. However, I believe that if our unnamed Muslim evidently stated his wishes for his son to receive more money than his daughter in accordance with Islamic law, and this can be sufficiently proven, then the money should be split according to his wishes. If it is not then this could upset other Islamic friends and relatives he may have, who would feel their religious views are controversially being neglected in this important matter. My next example of state intervention comes in faith schools, which are common in the UK. Christian and Islamic schools exist in the country and often teach a curriculum highly biased with their religious views. They are often funded by the state and cover the topics set out by the national curriculum, but often give priority to pupils of the same faith of the school, which can be classed as discrimination as they are choosing who to admit based on their religious views rather than other factors. An example of a faith school that the government interfered with is the Al-Madinah free school. Following an Ofsted inspection, it was revealed that the school made boys and girls eat lunch in separate sittings, and most of the teaching standards were poor. Ofsted described it as dysfunctional in their report, and stated it was performing at an inadequate standard. Following the damning report, the government stated it would stop funding the secondary school (the primary school remained open), which taught the curriculum in a very biased way to pupils. It was also believed the school acted in a corrupt way, only hiring Islamic teachers to work at their school and not paying for sufficient 6

7 learning materials such as a working school network. This is therefore another example of the government intervening with a discriminating, religious practice. I believe the government were well within their rights to close the school, as they would have closed any other school found to be underperforming regardless of whether they were faith-orientated or not. However, whilst they stopped funding the school, it was entitled to continue running if it could find funding, which I think the government should have dealt more strongly with as it would not be giving pupils a sufficient education, as proven in the Ofsted report. My final example of state interference comes in the topic of same-sex marriage. Historically, many religions such as Christianity and Islam have been against the idea of gay marriage and civil partnerships, and to this day many traditional denominations still do not agree with it. However as civil partnerships are currently legal and acceptance of homosexuals has grown, it is unsurprising that some denominations are changing their views. Yet traditional churches aren t and often prevent gay couples from receiving communion or even attending church completely. A common example of this is the Westboro Baptist Church. The WBC is extremely anti-gay, discriminating against them in the most extreme ways, blaming them for recent crises in America. They often hold violent and offensive protests, which cause great distress to the gay community. They are an exclusive church, not allowing gays to be associated with them in the slightest, and membership is very hard to apply for. Therefore, they are a discriminating religious community, yet the American government in this case does not choose to interfere itself with their practices. I disagree with this decision, since some of the comments they make are hurtful and can be perceived as being no different to that of a racist. But at the same time, I understand that they want the WBC to be given the right to free speech; no matter how controversial their views are, so long as they don t follow up with illegal and dangerous actions. In conclusion, we have seen that in most instances, governments do interfere with the practices of religious communities, often for the right reasons. However we often regard the right to free speech to highly in my opinion, which can lead to some hurtful and derogatory comments from certain groups such as the WBC. To conclude, I think the state has a right to intervene with religious practices when appropriate and when they make hurtful, discriminatory remarks to outside people, but they should not tell the group what to do, as they have a right to privately act how they wish, as long as they are lawful in their ways. Iom Garrett Different religions, although they may share fundamental ideas or concepts, all have different ways of practicing, and all have different beliefs and ideas. However, sometimes these beliefs result in discrimination. Some people feel that if a religious community gets to this point, then the state should step in and intervene. After all, even though the religious group is free to believe what they want, the state has an obligation to interfere if the group imposes itself on others, it could be argued. Religious groups can be just as offensive, manipulative or discriminatory as another group, and being allowed to believe what you want should not stop the state from interfering if it deems it necessary. An example of such a group that might cause interference would be the Westboro Baptist Church a notorious community that not only prohibits different types of people from joining, but also openly protests and 7

8 discriminates. Although the church is generally frowned upon, they seem to be left to practice as they wish, instead of being discouraged. Alternatively, some people feel that the state should not interfere with the practices of religious communities and that religious group should be left to practice what they wish to. There are some people that feel that religious communities should be left to their own devices, to make their own decisions and to sort out their own problems, as a free organisation one separate from the regulations and constraints of the state. There are religious groups that have governed themselves for centuries, adapting and changing their behaviour, solving their own problems. Some people feel that such a self-governing method should be adopted by more religions, instead of being guided and interfered with by the government. My personal view is one fitted towards the state interfering with discriminating religious communities. The feelings of hatred and discrimination are obviously negative and should be discouraged. The need to try and diffuse such a situation should, in my eyes, call of the state to interfere with religious groups if religious groups discriminate against others. There are two general ways to separate the church and the state friendly and hostile. The friendly separation limits the influence both parties have over one another, ensuring that the state can keep tabs on religion, bit not have enough power to muscle in and start calling the shots. The hostile variety almost completely shuts down the religion s freedom, confining it purely to the home or church and limiting the religion s grasp on the public and education. I think that somewhere between these two extremes is where the state should hold power. A quote from American Jim C Hines sums up my beliefs on discrimination against people from religions Your religious beliefs are your business. They are not and should not be the law. If you use them as justification to discriminate against others, don t be upset when others decide you re an a**hole. Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity towards those who are not regarded as members of the herd. Paris Greenfield -- Bertrand Russell There are several reasons why I think this is a legitimate statement. People have the right to believe in what they want and the interference of the state may in face make situations worse as they do not fully understand what is going on due to the circumstances. It is for this reason I think the state should leave established religious communities that are not having a negative effect on society, alone. As long as there are no damaging repercussions from these religious practices there seems to be no reason to remove them. However, discrimination can be seen as one of these repercussions. If these communities are not going out of their way to attack the group they discriminate against and it is more passive, it seems to be as if this can be allowed to remain as these communities, in most cases, will have limited contact with the rest of society. As they discriminate against a group, they are unlikely to be acting upon these views as there is no one around who fits these criteria. In this sense, this kind of discrimination seems to be isolated and harmless. 8

9 Despite saying this, I do not think members of these religious communities should be able to use their beliefs as a shield against the law. As soon as they act on those discriminatory beliefs, they should be able to be prosecuted. That being said, as these are only the practices of the communities being discussed, I see no need for the state to interfere, as these will most likely take place away from the rest of society and therefore have no direct effect on them. Essentially what I have said is that if you choose to be part of society, you must follow our rules on discrimination. I think these religious communities should not be interfered with unless they interfere with our society. Basically I agree with the statement if these views are passive and not acted upon. Haflan Haleem Currently, in the United Kingdom, the Head of State is required to undergo the Coronation Oath (established in 1688) in order to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion and to preserve the established Church of England. Many other countries, most notably India, do not have such strict guidelines. They are known as secular states and they allow religious and non-religious communities to act freely. Through the course of this essay, I will be exploring the advantages and disadvantages secular states have and will also explore whether secularization can be considered acceptable even if it promotes acts of discrimination. To begin with, although in modern, multi-cultural society we work together to achieve a greater aim, every individual has their own set of beliefs e.g. the type of person they should be friends with which they abide by. These set of beliefs separate us but we do not consider them as acts of discrimination. Similarly, all religions, even if they share certain beliefs, are different. Therefore we should accept their practices and not consider the views and decisions as acts of discrimination. Furthermore, many people closely associate religion with their identity and personality. If the state took this way, the concept of a multi-cultural society would no longer be present and we would no longer benefit from the advantages a mixed society has. This would cause much more unrest and concern than a religious community which others believe discriminate. These days, religion is also on the decline with many previously religious people leaving their religion due to certain beliefs. Therefore, the vast majority are not concerned with the beliefs set by discriminating religion as they would rather follow their own set of beliefs. But it can be argued that people can only follow their beliefs if the state interferes with religious practices. A prime example of this is when Churches in England slowly began to accept gay marriage. However, if the state did not interfere at all with different communities, there would be a lot more violence and hatred between different groups. A prime example of this is the 9/11 incident. Almost immediately after this horrific event, slowly but surely, the US population became divided, subconsciously assuming all Muslims held the same beliefs. Even today, this still exists and it can be argued that this is due to the fact that the US is a secular state. The United Kingdom on the other hand have recovered quickly after the 7/7 bombings which is very likely due to its interference with religious practices which in turn maintain low levels of discrimination. In addition to this, politics used to rely heavily on the support of a candidate s own race. This meant that almost any person could merely come to power if their culture was dominant in society. This led to unrest and corruption as people who did not fully 9

10 believe in religious practices could also lie their way to power. Obviously, in such a case, it would be better for the states to intervene to maintain freedom and combat oppression in society. Furthermore, as we are living in a multi-cultural society where we share our conscience and beliefs e.g. the type of food we eat, it only seems fair that religious practices should also be as accepting. For example, a couple should have the right to a civil wedding rather than a religious one even if they are religious. Similarly, as most religions intend to have as many people as possible (shown by Missionary s); it only makes sense that religious practices should not be discriminating. Overall, I personally believe that the state should intervene if religious practices are discriminating. In the multi-cultural society we live in today, we all have the right to be a part of whatever we want and that includes religion. The purpose of religion is also to unite people and as many Holy books have stated, we are all equal. Therefore, there is no reason why religion should be discriminating unless certain people interpret beliefs in a different way. In such a case, I feel the state should intervene in order to maintain peace and promote quality. Thomas Maddock The role of religion in society has been a controversial topic for many years and whilst religion held dominance during medieval times religion now places a small role in our society. This does not mean it plays no role, for many religions Islam, Judaism and Christianity for example play parts in our lives. This could be through a friend believing in that particular religion or believing in it themselves, but whether the state has a handle in the matter is highly controversial to both those believing and not believing in religion. On more than a few occasions has the state not intervened in religious affairs and the results have been catastrophic. For example, on the 11 th September 2001, Muslim terrorists blew up many American buildings killing 2,996 and injuring well over 6000 others. In one day, many Muslims wreaked havoc and some people argue that if the state had had a tighter grip on the more of the community of Islamic Fundamentalists, the 9/11 bombings would not have happened. On the other hand, one example of when the state has intervened in religious affairs when they have discriminated is in Rwanda. The Belgians, who colonized Rwanda, divided the Rwandans into two communities the Tutsis and the Hutus. The Hutus were the majority, but the Belgians had put the Tutsis in power and Hutus began stirring up unrest; the Belgians departed. In spite of the inevitable future events, no nation in the world did anything and merely spectated it. As a result, when the Hutu leader was killed, the Hutus immediately began the extermination of the Tutsis. At least 500,000 are estimate to have died and if the state had not interfered, the crisis would never have happened. However, a simple intervention into religious affairs in Rwanda by the state when the genocide started could have resulted in fewer deaths. Furthermore, in America, many religious denominations discriminate against any people who are different whether they are black, homosexual or disabled. For example, the Ku Klux Klan a majorly racist Christian group in America murdered approximately 6000 people. Whilst the state did intervene eventually, they were slow and inefficient and intervention only occurred when the Ku Klux Klan had raped and murdered many people, pillaged and burnt many homes and nearly ru9ined the image of the Christian community. However, if the state had intervened in the discriminating community, lives would have been saved. 10

11 In conclusion, the state interfering in religious communities whether or not they discriminate will always have good and bad repercussions but, depending on the situation, the repercussions can be better or worse and it is heavily determined by the events going on at the time. During the Rwandan genocide, people were still living in a world where racism was still fairly common so people may not have interpreted the vents as badly as they genuinely were. All in all, the intervention of the state depends heavily upon the mindset of the country at the time. Ben Manuel The state should not interfere in the practices of religious communities in if they discriminate is a highly controversial statement, as many people can be affected by it in very different ways. There are multiple arguments, both for and against, that apply to this. If the state does not get involved in religious practices, it could probably get religious freedoms. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion and belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This is the human right regarding freedom of religion and it directly says that they have to right to practice their religion. It could be argued that by the state intervening, this human right is being taken away from them, despite the fact that it could be discriminating against someone else. Nevertheless, there are still cases where this human right does not apply as a result of directly conflicting with one of the state s laws. For example, marijuana is illegal to sell or use within the UK, however, the Rastafari Movement hold the belief that it helps 'release the soul, and it is used as a form of meditation. Due to current UK restrictions on recreational drugs, it prohibits that Human Right to practice that religion in a certain way (in this instance, it is due to the health and safety risks, as opposed to discrimination). Another more serious example, along the lines of discrimination, is that the COE (Church of England) does not allow women bishops. This is essentially a religious practice, and despite not being harmful towards women directly, it is still ultimately discrimination. Although this fits perfectly with eh human right to freedom of religious practices, it conflicts massively with the Human Right that Everyone has the right to freely participate in the cultural life of the community. This human right specifically claims that everyone can participate in their community, in this instance, the church. By this logic, women are legally obliged by the UDHR to become bishops of they want to, however, it is denied by the COE s religious practice. The UK Government has no confronted this problem until very recently, and up until then it was not fully acknowledged as discrimination. In certain cases, the state may support and even uphold religious beliefs, for example, in Saudi Arabia, where women are considered 2nd class citizens as a direct result of the teachings of their religion. In this instance, it is debated on whether this is acceptable or not, especially as it conflicts with the Human Right All beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Despite this, it could be classed as unfair to religions if they can t practice their beliefs. However, some may argue that the state should have every right to intervene, especially in more serious circumstances where lives are being put at risk. Once again, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of religious beliefs that quite possibly 11

12 lower the quality of life and ultimately discriminate a certain type of person, in this case, women. Many people would prioritise the right to life over the right to religion, and this yet again sparks up another debate, Who has the right to decide what is more important? Since this isn t really a community, and more of a country, it is highly controversial. For example, if it was a small community within another country discriminating, then it is the state s right to uphold laws that deny discrimination, however, since this is an entire country discriminating, it is more difficult to determine the high power. Many people in this case would suggest the UN or the UDHR, except they are enforced to the best of their abilities. An example of where the state doesn t get involved in communities is in Native American land reservations in the USA. Within these reservations, the US government may not intervene in crimes and religious practices unless they breach a more serious US felony (rape, murder, drug trafficking etc.). People would argue that this is fair since the Native Americans have the right to this specific land, and that this system should not be mirrored to religious communities as they have less of a right, as it were. Once again this is an instance of who has the authority to prioritise and distribute certain rights. Consequently, states laws that intervene and conflict with specific beliefs, i.e. gay marriage, are often not directly opposed by specific religions, and they will continue to live on, but just not allow it in their community. Since it is a choice to marry someone of the same gender, it would seem reasonable that this law is not enforced within these smaller communities, as there is no need to. Nevertheless, say a certain religion burnt homosexuals alive at the stake, and then one could argue that the state have the right to intervene as it is against someone s will to be burnt alive at the stake. It is not an uncommon belief that states should only intervene if it directly opposing one s will (this is also controversial as it would be one s will to practice a religion in their own way). In conclusion, I believe that the state has every right to intervene within communities that are discriminating against people, unless people in that community have the ability to leave without consequences that would affect their life negatively. For example within the COE: Since Women have their own well, and ultimately every right to leave the COE and join another church where they can be bishops, it is not unjust that the state refuse to intervene in the circumstances as they are able to leave the community that is discriminating them. I do however believe that the state shouldn t intervene too far that it prevents religions from being practiced completely. Overall, I believe that it is important that religions move with the time, instead of living in the past. Joe McShee This statement can be received and looked at in two major different ways. The first being that they should, people who strongly believe in human rights and I campaigners for the equal rights worldwide would jump at the statement and immediately say that they should as everyone should be treated equally and discrimination should not take place in any society anywhere across the world. The campaigner s main argument would be that it states in the Human Rights that everyone has rights to speech, religion and freedom of movement. They will say that being discriminated against will hamper their rights to speak as they do not have a say in the decision on the community, their mind is made up by the community before they given the chance to express their ideas and attempt to join in with the community. This leads onto my second point, freedom of movement; this could be interpreted, as the people should be free to move around and join in, in every society. The campaigners yet again will say that 12

13 being discriminated against will be a violation of their human rights, as they are not being given the liberty of being able to make self-decisions. The campaigners will also say that the freedom of religion could be compromised as they are being discriminated against, as they may feel pressured by the community into not openly worshipping the God or following religious rites. The alternative view is that some people will say straight away that they should not get involved as it is there perhaps Holy" beliefs or practices and there is no way of avoiding discrimination against others if they follow their religion. They will say that they should leave them to their practices and let them carry them out in peace and quiet when potentially even the state is aware of the discrimination in the community it may not actually be open in the community. Some people will be discriminating against others behind their backs but when they are together they could potentially be friends, it may not be known in the community that there is an element of discrimination going on behind their backs. Also, some will say that if the people live there, surely they would have known if there was discrimination in the community before moving into the area. They will say that it is the people who are being discriminated against fault, as they should be aware of their surroundings before committing to the area and living there. I believe that the state should make their own decision whether to get involved or note, depending on the scale of the discrimination in the community. If there is a minority who are against the majority then they should make the decision not to interfere whereas if the discrimination is against women for example and is completely hampering their option to do anything at all in the community then they should interfere and cut out the discrimination completely and restore the community to an acceptable attitude toward everybody Jack Minas In this essay I will be discussing the statement above and whether what it states should be put in place as a law or intervened with by society as a whole. This statement brings many controversial arguments to light, such as whether outside organisations have the right to accuse a different organisation when there is no pressure to join that particular practice. My first point is that I completely disagree with this statement as it justifies and allows the discriminative behaviour of many individuals to carry on behind closed doors simply because they have an organisation to work within. These discriminative natures of people in the community will carry on as they feel that they are doing nothing wrong or against their morals. If the state did not interfere with religious matters, then communities would be allowed to abuse and exclude people from their groups with no justifiable reason other than their holy scripture instructs them to. However, if the state does not intervene, then society is letting people discriminate against others for no justifiable reason and not doing anything about it to stop the exclusion of these people. Also, for the past decades and perhaps even before that, society has been trying to stamp out discriminative behaviour towards different sexes and races from society as a whole, but we have yet to stamp it out from small and even large communities which exist within our society. There is an argument for this statement which is that these communities should be allowed to do what they wish and continue unaltered by the state because no one is forcing them to attend these groups, and so therefore if you disagree with their opinions, then you can simply walk away. This is in my opinion the only logical and up-to-date reason for why the state should not intervene (by up-to-date I am referring 13

14 to how the laws that govern our society today are a lot different from those which governed people at the time when these scriptures were written). I personally feel that the state should have full control over all communities which exist and that they should be able to govern what rules exist within them. After all, religion is a fairly outdated ideology which existed in much more significance a few hundred years ago, where the government was in many ways controlled by the church due to its massive influence it had on society. However, due to the rise of the number atheists in the world, religion is becoming a small part of people s lives and so therefore should not be allowed to perform actions which go against the law just because it is within their own community. To conclude, I disagree with this statement as it is outdated and only supported by those who take part in discriminative actions and a few others who feel that this should be allowed. I also feel that the state should have full access and constant supervision over religious communities to ensure that discriminative actions are not taking place behind closed doors. There is of course the argument which states that a group should not be interfered with because no one is forcing you into that group and so therefore you disagree with their practices, then there is no need to join the community and try and protest about. Tom Orr This is a very significant issue and has relevance for much of the population. Many would consider the state to be powerful enough to make any form of demand, although those who practice religiously or who follow in the path of religion may even consider that to be blasphemy. Is very hard to find such precedence in history where the State as interfered with religion as typically, particularly throughout British history, the leader of the State has simultaneously been the leader of the Church, and there is been little variation in religion. The Tudor period is renowned for interfering with the religious practices of the country and it resulted in the executions of thousands. With many different religions it is easy for one to seem discriminatory against the other for merely defending the views and traditions that they have held for thousands of years. Therefore this point is very significant for the entire population and currently hotly debated by many. Many people disagree with this statement as they feel that is can help some religions to have guidance from the state. The statement does not limit the States involvement with religious communities to just times during which they discriminate, and so may be able to get involved if safety measures are not being taken seriously enough and there is a risk for human lives. Supposedly people have the freedom of movement and speech, and so it may seem acceptable for those in religious communities to say and act in any way that they please. However in the opinion of many a more important human right is freedom of your own thought. It is possible that discriminatory actions impede the latter right and therefore it would be important for the State to be able to correct the statements and ensure that it was not too harmful. Members of religious communities sometimes require guidance and this can be offered by State. With interference the State can ensure that practices are safe for those involved and do not infringe the rights of those not involved. Many people, particularly those belonging to religious community like the idea of separation from the State. It was declared in America at schools run by the State would not include religious education as a part of the work scheme because it 14

15 was thought that religion and the state should be kept separate. Religion has always been a major part of the lives of many throughout history, as has the State, but in more recent history as two very separate entities. It may be bought by many that it should remain this way and that greater steps should be taken to ensure that religious communities are able to practice in the ways that they desire without the interference from the State that seems to be commonplace today. It is not fair that the government of the State, particularly if not voted in democratically, should be able to dictate the actions of those who wish to practice religiously. Even if such practices may be deemed discriminatory they follow tradition and so many religions feel that they are necessary. Some people may feel that the State is too cautious regarding discrimination and is afraid of the repercussions should they try and enforce regulations on the religious communities. Religious communities dominate so much for the population the government is unwilling to upset them because they are competing for votes, and so in order to get re-elected and needs to appease religious practitioners. The state needs to interfere with the religious practices of certain communities otherwise they will feel like they can discriminate against certain groups because of the inaction facing them. Many people who are religious may feel like they are united not under a current state but under religious leaders or Gods, for instance Muslims feel that it is their duty to serve Allah, and without intervention from the state to correct them they may not listen to the government. This may be verging slightly on the racist side but there is a possibility that religious fanatics feel more inclined to act for their religion against the state if it does not feel like the State is a presence in their communities. When it comes to religion most people will have very personal views attached to it as for everyone religion means something different and everyone has a unique interpretation of whatever religion is. Therefore the idea of the State trying to interfere in the way in which they practice in community may anger or upset them. The idea of the right way in which to practice one s beliefs and religions is strongly rejected by most who want to find a path that is right for them and only them, not a general collaboration on the way in which it will be generally acceptable to practice. It can feel like an intrusion of privacy if the State is aware of the ways in which people practice their religion and if they try to change it then it could feel like a major part of their life is no longer under their control. The State should not try and interfere with the practices of religious communities because it can lead to people clinging to their religion even tighter to the point of obsession, or finding that it is too hard to maintain an interest as practices are no longer conducted in a way that feels natural or comfortable. I personally feel that the State should be able to interfere with the practices of religious communities regardless of the situation, and especially if the said practices are discriminatory. In my view, as unimportant as it may seem on the general scheme of things, is that religious groups are no different to any other and in a modern society all groups and individuals must answer to one State. The State should feel able as a governing power to interfere in the practices where it may seem necessary to ensure the wellbeing and the safety of the general population. I believe that all communities should conform under a common state of government. Ozzie This is a heavily debated topic with many opposing views. Some may say religious communities should be allowed to practice whatever they want, to an extent. On the other hand, others may argue that some religious communities 15