|
ARCHIVE: [[Talk:Freedom of religion - History 1]]
This article was originally based upon a POV memory base in which references were made to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but no quotations or direct links were provided. Consequently the article was based upon error. Two other points although I have now added a lot of new text and attempted to restructure the article, I do not claim ownership of the article or that I have completed the edits - far from it. I have embedded various notes within the hidden text suggesting work for other editors. Also, the expressions "freedom of religion"; "freedom of worship" and "religious toleration" have been previously used as though they are interchangeable. They are not. I have attempted a first phase of straightening out this mess, but much of the original text is still as it was. Where obvious glaring errors or ambiguous information had been previously included, I have either rewritten the section or removed it. However, much of the original text still remains that needs further work. As a result of this additional information a partially completed structure exists which requires a lot of further editing work. When possible I will return to assist. I have also created an archive history of this page. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 17:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
==US POV VERSUS SAUDI POV AND UK POV==
Part of the recent edits on this page had the text "However, this statement is merely a reflection of the official [[British]] position with regards to the [[United Kingdom]] which is by law a [[Christian]] country and which has repeatedly refused to extend the law of blasphemy to cover religions other than the official State religion.". This was refering to a report from the US State department and the Saudi response to it. This edit seems to add a POV to a paragraph that previously just stated the views/actions of both sides. Also, I don't understand the relevance of UK policies to a report from the US government involving Saudi Arabia. I have removed this line from the article. [[User:Kenj0418|Kenj0418]] 20:52, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Kenj0418|Kenj0418]] - Hi. I inserted the text to balance the previous text about Islam. The UK has repeatedly (since at least 1989) refused to place any other religion on a level with Christianity which is covered by the British laws on blasphemy (still on the books), even though Moslems have repeatedly and quite recently (2005) asked for this protection to be extended to them. If you can find a better place to insert this same text please do so, but to leave a lop-sided prior text means that there is no NPOV balance. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 22:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:I somehow doubt that the British blasphemy laws would be unforceable, since they are very probably in contradiction with the free speech provisions of the [[EEuropean Convention on Human Rights]]. It is thus understandable that these laws should, a fortiori, not be extended to include Islam. (The matter may be more complex since the UK, contrary to France, the United States and other countries, formally functions on a regime of parliamentary supremacy – i.e., traditionally, if the [[British Parliament]] votes a law, then the law cannot be overturned by judges. However, recent developments seem to have changed that state of affairs.) [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 09:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::That is not the issue at all. The USA is a secular nation. The UK is a Christian country by law and by history. Its Monarch is the Head of the Church of England and since the Crown which the Monarch represents is the supreme Head of the entire structure of the Kingdom of England, only Christianity has the formal standing of supremacy in law. This is very similar to the structure in Saudi Arabia, where their supreme religion is Islam. To lean on Saudi Arabia without addressing the same but reversed situation as in the UK, is hypocritical. The issue of blasphemy has repeatedly come up since the 1980s in the UK and it has repeatedly been reserved to protecting only Christianity - by law. As for the European Declaration, that story is still ongoing and the UK has still to decide whether it will or will not accept the European Constitution. Until that happens all European legislation must be independently incorporated into each member states national laws. There may be a contradiction in UK laws but as of this moment in time the entire structure of the UK rests about the status of the Crown and its derived authority from the Church of England. So I believe that if you don't want the issue of blasphemy as it applies to Islam to be addressed, then the lopsided POV comment citing a news source about Saudi Arabia and Islam - should come out of the article. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 16:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Ahem. First, the [[European Convention on Human Rights]] is ''not'' a [[European Union]] legal text, but a [[Council of Europe]] legal text and ''was'' adopted by the United Kingdom in 1950. It is enforced by the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECHR), and the United Kingdom accepts the rulings of that court. Repeat, this has nothing, nothing to do with the proposed European Constitution. Furthermore, your statement about "all European legislation must be independently incorporated into each member states national laws", pertaining to European Union legislation, only applies to [[European Union directive|directives]] and not [[European Union regulation|regulations]].
:::No, back to the original matter. It seems to me that almost any conviction for "blasphemy" would be later ruled illegal by the ECHR. Has there even been a conviction for blasphemy in the last 30 years in the UK? Also, what are the penalties imposed? How about Saudi Arabia? [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 06:51, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===Problem text===
The following statements were part of the earlier and unmodified text of this article:
:*There are several current annually-revised assessments of freedom of religion in the world's nations. For example, the [[United States Department of State]] maintains a list of "countries of particular concern" (CPCs) that engage in "particularly severe violations" of freedom of religion. The list released September 15, 2004, included, for the first time [[Saudi Arabia]]: the report stated that freedom of religion does not exist in that officially [[Islam]]ic kingdom. A designation as a CPC requires the State Department to take whatever steps are necessary — up to the level of [[economic sanctions|sanctions]] — to increase religious tolerance in the designated country. Also joining the list of CPCs for the first time in 2004 were [[Eritrea]] and [[Vietnam]]; countries redesignated as CPCs include the [[People's Republic of China]], [[Iran]], [[Myanmar]], [[North Korea]], and [[Sudan]] [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/15/]. The following day, September 16, prominent Saudis rejected the declaration as politically motivated. One Saudi, [[Abdulaziz al-Fayez]], a member of the country's [[Shura Council]], states that "all Saudis are [[Islam|Muslims]] and this is a Muslim state." [http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6255999 (Reuters)].
The text above reflects the POV of the US government which is obviously not the opinion of the Saudi government which shares exactly the same POV with the UK government regarding religion. While the defacto application and interpretation of freedom of religion may be different in Saudi Arabia and the UK, the fact remains that the laws of both nations are based upon the same sort of theory. The USA is not being even handed because while the USA is a secular nation, if it wants to address the secular and position of governments, it should be blasting the UK at the same time - or it should keep quiet. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 16:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:This indeed reflects the point of view of the US government. As per [[WP:NPOV|official Wikipedia policy]], we should report the point of view of important parties to an issue. Certainly, the US government is a major player and its diplomatic opinion should be reported, as long as it is properly attributed. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 06:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::Using your logic it is important on two counts that the violation of religious equality by the UK should also be added to this text to a) give neutrality towards the topic of Islam and b) show an even handed approach (NPOV) in this article by including the fact that just as the Saudi government places Islam above all other religions, so too the UK by its very power structure places Christianity above all other religions and has repeatedly refused to either secularize its system or treat all religions equally when it repeatedly refused to extend its law of blasphemy to cover Islam. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 19:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:::Repeat question: in Saudi Arabia, the laws on blasphemy are actually enforced, and heavy punishment (by Western standards, at least), is meted out. Are the UK laws enforced? What is the punishment?
:::You just '''cannot''' compare countries where blasphemy is punishable by imprisonment, severe flogging, or even death, and these penalties are regularly enforced, with countries where blasphemy is, at most, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine which is never applied anyway. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 07:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::::This article is about a legal (not religious) concept. Unfortunately the kitchen sink had been thrown in to the article before I came along so that freedom of religion and [[freedom of worship]] and [[religious toleration]] were all included in a long, rambling article without real references and with some misquotations. I have put in many hours cleaning up this article and separating out material that belonged in other related articles ([[freedom of worship]] and [[religious toleration]].)
::::In specific answer to your point: by both language dictionary and legal dictionary definitions, freedom is that state of being free. So freedom of religion when applied to this subject is the opposite of [[religious toleration]]. Religious toleration is the system employed by both Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. Both are theocratic states. It is the degree to which their respective state theology is applied (or enforced) that you are addressing.
::::The United States makes acknowledgement in the Declaration of Independence to "Nature's God" (not an Islamic or Christian or Jewish or Hindi, etc. God) as being the foundation of the "Laws of Nature" upon which all US laws (including the Constitution) have been built. It is the foundation. Other countries may be able to show a similar foundation. But the USA went one step further and before the Constitution could be ratified the First Amendment was inserted to '''prevent''' the US government from setting up a US religion (like the United Kingdom or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Israel.) So I believe that the USA is unique but other nations may have done something similar.
::::I am not trying to debate degrees of enforcement of state religion (Saudi Arabia vs. United Kingdom), I am merely showing that the actions of both countries are similiar because both have similar systems and both need to protect their systems and they do this by degrees of [[religious toleration]]. In neither country is there '''true''' (in the legal sense) freedom of religion, because their state religions prevent this from happening. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 17:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
MPLX, You're wrong about US history here. It isn't the case that "before the Constitution could be ratified the First Amendment was inserted...." The ratification came first, THEN the First Congress under that constitution proposed the Bill of Rights to the states. --[[User:Christofurio|Christofurio]] 20:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
:You are absolutely correct and I have taken a hob nail boot and kicked myself up the bottom in true Monty Python fashion. I will correct the error of my ways if you have not already done so. What I intended to write in contracted format was that the Constitution was ratified with an understanding that the rider called the First Amendment would be added. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 21:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
----
Again, I think that you are (deliberately) mixing things up. ''By tradition'', the United Kingdom is a Christian state and its government is founded on its own branch of Christianity (i.e. [[Anglicanism]]). ''In practice'', this amounts to very little.
Since you cite the United States, I may point out that while, ''in theory'', the United States is not founded upon the Christian religion, ''in practice'', the Christian religion and its prohibitions permeate the discourse of many politicians and have motivated laws (e.g. [[sodomy law]]s).
So I think that you are overplaying similarities of little consequence, and overlooking far more striking differences. I'll just state the obvious: the United Kingdom is a treaty signatory of a convention (the ECHR) that enforces religious freedom; in contrast, Saudi Arabia actively restricts religious freedom.
Besides, you are also making a false difference with respect to religious freedom vs toleration. Consider [[freedom of speech]], for instance. In no country there is absolute freedom of speech. The United States pride themselves on having freedom of speech, yet shouting "fire" in a crowded theater may be validly prosecuted; and the law allows for the prosecution of [[libel]], [[slander]], and of those revealing military secrets. By your own criteria, this would probably amount to toleration, and not freedom. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 20:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:On your first point with regards to what politicians do. That is why there is a Supreme Court that refers to the written constitution (the "Bible") and tells these politicians that they are wrong and what they have done in passing laws is wrong and that the laws are null and void. Sometimes it takes years to accomplish this - but it can be accomplished because the mechanism exists. It does not exist in the UK. (I am British by birth by the way and my parents, brother (who worked at executive level for the British government), etc. are still in the UK. However, regardless of its warts I love the USA because of its legal system. I wrote that to dispose comments concerning my own POV. However, like Jack Webb and Wikipedia, I am only interested in the "facts".
:On your second point you are totally in error: you can shout fire in a crowded theatre - if the theatre is on fire! That saying is a popular myth and it is untrue. When you enter a theatre you also enter a contract by buying a ticket and one of the clauses in that purchase is that you will not attempt to interfere with other contracts (ticket holders) which you would do if it was your intent to disrupt a performance by shouting "fire!" when there was no fire. As for the laws of libel and slander, the US has far more protection under the First Amendment for its citizens and residents than the UK. You are on my turf here, so let's stick to the legal facts. [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 22:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
::''As for the laws of libel and slander, the US has far more protection under the First Amendment for its citizens and residents than the UK.'' This is true, and I am well aware of it. Yet, it is also true that the freedom of speech is not absolute in the US, and that you can get successfully prosecuted for saying or publishing certain things. Is that "toleration" or "freedom"? [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 07:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
===The actual text of Article 9===
:Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
::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 or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
::Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be 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.
----
Well now, what we have here is the First Amendment to the US Constitution with a "however" attached to it - just like the good Soviet Constitution which guaranteed freedoms with big "howevers" all over the place. What the USSR gave in one place they took away in another place.
So what does '''''... freedom of thought, conscience''''' mean? I was not aware that anyone could scientifically read minds yet! This is pure bunk. Nonsense. Silly words. How can anyone guarantee freedom of thought or freedom of conscience? Who wrote this rubbish? What does '''''freedom to change his ... belief''''' mean (especially if you are a she!)? If someone wants to change their belief they can change their belief and no one will ever know!
What does this wording mean: '''''Freedom to manifest one's ... beliefs shall be 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'''''? That is drivel!
Now if you add '''''Freedom to manifest one's religion ... shall be 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''''' - then you have something very sinister and very much in keeping with the old constitution of the USSR! What does all that '''however''' stuff mean? It means whatever someone wants it to mean!
Now take a look at the US Delaration of Independence: "'''''... to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them ... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'''''" No Christian God there. In fact Jefferson, in his original draft, slammed the "'''Christian King''' of Great Britain" for trying to use a race war to prevent the declaration from succeeding. Now take a look at the US First Amendment to the US Constitution: "'''''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion''', or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''" That's it. No "howevers" there. The US began with a blank bit of paper - acknowledged "Nature's God" as the supreme creator and placed everything under that. No man-made religion there. It may take time to get unconstitutional laws removed but at least the mechanism is there and at least there is a gold standard to fall back on as far as the foundation of all US law is concerned. That is '''not''' true of the UK with its present '''Christian Queen''' and her divine Crown Establishment! I will grant you that that Blacks were not full citizens and that it also refers to "he" - just like the European Article 9. But we have come a long way since then, baby (pardon the pun) and while corrections have been made to this old document, the European Article 9 is brand new and has no such excuse to fall back on! [[User:MPLX|MPLX/MH]] 00:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Actually, Article 9 makes sense. Imagine, for instance, that somebody's religion prescribes human sacrifices. Such religions have existed in the past, so it's not that far-fetched. If the ECHR decided that proponents of such religion should enjoy freedom of observance, it would follow that human sacrifices should be authorized. Ok, this is a bit far-fetched, since human sacrifices would infringe on the fundamental rights of others. But how about animal sacrifices, possibly by very cruel methods? Should countries make exceptions to their laws banning animal cruelty if somebody claims that their religion compels them to, say, burn live sheep on a pyre?
:"Freedom of thought, conscience", distinguished from questions of manifestations of such faith, makes much sense. It stresses that governments are not allowed to infringe on questions of ''faith'' (theology etc.); but they are allowed, ''in a limited way'', to restrict certain manifestations.
:Again, in the United States, religious freedom is not absolute. While the US Constitution does not spell out an "however", US Courts apply it in practice. You'll find no US court accepting religion as an excuse for theft, robbery or murder, for instance. Nor is, for instance, religion accepted as an excuse to practice [[clitoridectomy]] on one's daughter. [[User:David.Monniaux|David.Monniaux]] 07:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
| 