Toleration, Understanding and Respect

REPORT OF A CONCURRENT SESSION

OSLO CONFERENCE ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

August 1998

Moderator:
Ms. Barbara Foster. Chair, Tandem Project

Rapporteur:
Mr. Babu R R Gogineni. Executive Director, Intl. Humanist & Ethical Union

Session Objective:
Develop a Strategy for co-operation between the U.N., governments, religions or beliefs and non-governmental organisations and academic institutions to promote tolerance, understanding and respect for freedom of religion or belief, as part of the strategic plan of action.

 

Session Plan:
6 hours spread over 3 days, 6 Main speakers; 18 subsidiary speakers, average of 40 participants everyday, 60 interventions from the unscheduled speakers.

Report:
This is not a "he said - she said" report: ideas expressed in the sessions are woven together to give a coherent account of the contributions, while giving a sense of the mood of the session. Where appropriate, the words of the session participants have been used in writing the report.

________________________________________________________________________________________
Report

Human beings possess a natural instinct and ability both to appreciate the beauty and wonder of life, and to explore identity and consciousness. In varying degrees, all religious and non-religious belief systems are engaged in the common endeavour to liberate, and to encourage people in pursuing this natural instinct. Not only is the pursuit of this instinct deeply meaningful and satisfying, it is also a fundamental human right.

Nations, ethnic groupings and religions are responding to the immense strains of globalisation by a retreat into the apparent certainties of their roots and fundamentals. The encounter between different religious or
non-religious belief systems thanks to increased access to mass media, large-scale migration of peoples, growing free trade etc. raises questions and problems relating to freedom of religion or belief, which need to be addressed. Lack of knowledge about the other can lead to fear, suspicion or hatred and cultures respond to this fear by defending their boundaries and asserting their integrity aggressively. Dialogue provides a specific opportunity to acquire knowledge of the other as the other; paving the way for peaceful co-existence between people of different persuasions. However, dialogue will be successful only if the interlocutors meet on terms that are equal and mutually respectful, and if the participants are open with each other. It is important to tell the other party what the conflict or disagreement is about- often, trans-national and inter-cultural dialogue is a victim of well meaning politeness. Accommodation in communication need not mean losing one's critical faculties; questions will be, and need to be asked - but the right of the other to his or her own opinion should be respected at all times. The spirit of dialogue must be that of openness rather than disrespect - where disrespect or polemic enters, dialogue is blocked. Tolerance is a precondition for dialogue and co-operation. All the parties involved - be they researchers, politicians, members of faith communities or states - must commit themselves to tolerance as a minimum ethical standard. In the least, tolerance implies understanding and acceptance of the diversity of beliefs, and interaction among the diverse belief systems in a spirit of good will, rather than that of conflict. Sensitivity to freedom of religion and belief should inform all multi-religious co-operation. Religious communities themselves must be active participants and engines for the promotion of tolerance - they should begin by asking themselves what it is in their tradition that most advances tolerance and what it is that most hinders? Human Rights have not always been inherent in religious or political systems, but these issues cut across traditional boundaries, and provide the crossroads where diverse religious and non-religious communities can interact and co-operate with each other. Tolerance is a value that ought to manifest at two levels: individual and societal. On an individual level, a person's particular worldview excludes a neutral attitude to the other party's ideas. However, respect - or even reverence - for the forms of worship and/or means of seeking personal fulfilment is important.

For states, however, their obligation to secure freedom of religion or belief to all translates into neutrality towards, and equal treatment of all belief systems. Only authentic democracies guaranteeing strict
separation of religion and state can create institutional structures that permit the free exercise of the freedom of belief or religion.

Religions ought not to have the protection of states to assert their truths. Beliefs that cannot flourish on the strength of their inherent appeal are not worth preserving; values that are upheld by state-imposed coercion rather than by personal conviction forfeit their ethical quality. Many religions represented in the Oslo Conference enjoy state protection in one country or the other - in those very states there is discrimination against minority religions. Life stance communities must therefore take the lead in renouncing privileges: they must stop looking at themselves as merely subjects of the right to religion or belief, and rise to be the wardens of such freedoms.

Freedom of religion or belief includes the freedom not to have a belief. However, a non-religious state does not promote non-belief, it assures neutrality. However, states have the moral duty to foster positive values, which may imply an interventionist role in reforming certain societies and practices. For example, in the hierarchical Hindu society, or where exploitation occurs, mere neutrality will not help - the state must play a constructive role, offer positive discrimination to the disadvantaged or remedy the wrongs.

However, it is beyond a state's competence to judge the truth claims of any religion, and states are obliged to protect the free exercise of the freedom of conscience. This freedom implies the right to express one self freely without hindrance, and to persuade the other to one's own point of view through peaceable means. When persuasion passes from change of opinion to change of religion, we leave the realm of Article 19 and enter that of Article 18, and come to the contentious subject of proselytism. Due to colonial history (Christianity), and conquest by sword (Islam), proselytising is perceived not merely as communication of a religious message, to be accepted or rejected on its own terms, but as hegemonic. For
some, proselytising is offensive, and an affront to, or invasion of one's privacy. Others prefer the word "mission" which has less negative connotations.

How missionary work can be reconciled with the principle that everyone's culture should flourish and be respected is an interesting question, and can be addressed partially by recourse to the principle of
self-determination. Many societies look at proselytising on their soil as destabilising. There is general disapproval of inducements offered for change of faith, since this violates the principle of self-determination. Some religious texts too have constructive principles against proselytising by inducement or force. However, many proselytisers look at the provision of daily necessities of life to the poor not as an inducement, but rather as a legitimate exercise of their religious and human duty.

Not all religions depend on proselytising however: Judaism, Hinduism and the present day form of Buddhism are non-proselytising. While bureaucratic hurdles exist as regards opting out of Christianity in west European countries wherever it is a state religion - there is no law against proselytising in general, except in Islamic societies where opting out of Islam is impossible.

In many Islamic countries, the right to change religion is not accepted as a necessary corollary of freedom of religion - while it is easy to opt into Islam, repudiation of faith by a Muslim may be punished by death. Similar treatment is reserved for heretics and apostates too. Even when not punished by death, the civil consequences of apostacy are problematic – as for example in Egypt. Some interesting questions remain unanswered though: to what extent is it legitimate for religions (as corporate bodies) to defend themselves against subversive beliefs within their fold? Are religions allowed to excommunicate members in order to preserve the integrity of the religious community's belief?

It is clear that Freedom of religion or belief has to be secured not just against the state but also against organised religion and/or society. Many present in the Oslo Conference do not represent the majority view of their communities or the official policy of their states: those from China or Tibet or the Islamic countries could, in particular, face legal or social action on return. This is possible because in some cases national legislation and jurisprudence do not reflect the international commitments of their regimes. In order to monitor the situation properly, in addition to, and on the lines of pioneering works like Arcot Krishnaswamy's Study of Discrimination in the matter of Religious Rights and Practices and Kevin Boyle's World Report on Freedom of Religion and Belief, information resources must be made available on detailed case laws in national jurisprudence and the Oslo Conference itself must take an initiative in
ensuring the safety of the Conference participants.

A random sampling of violations of freedom of religion or belief demonstrates the need for such continuous monitoring: in Europe, blasphemy laws are in force in Germany (Section 166), Austria, Scandinavian countries and in the UK. In countries like India and Bangladesh there are regulations which relate to 'disrespecting religious sentiments': such legislation has often been deployed to infringe on the right to legitimate criticism, free inquiry or artistic expression. In Indonesia, belief in God is constitutionally required. More barbaric are the blasphemy laws in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan (Article 295 C) or in other Islamic countries, where the 'offence' is punishable by death. In Iran, religious minorities like Bahais are executed on account of their religion, while the government frames charges of spying on them to justify executions. Positive discriminatory provisions that are applicable to lower caste Hindus in India are denied to nearly 20 million people from the lower castes who have converted to Christianity, even though their social and economic backwardness continues. All too often governments deny domestic violations of the freedom of religion or belief. In the case of communal riots, governments can hardly be relied upon to provide accurate information or even authentic lists of people killed or missing.

External pressure is likely to change some domestic situations, but sadly - because of commercial considerations - European countries do not have a consistently principled stand. For example, the EU had welcomed Saudi Arabia's policy to permit private worship but ban its public expression for non-Muslims, even if this policy is violative of International norms.

However, freedom of religion or belief is not secured through mere legislative or judicial exercises, and cannot be imposed from abroad either. Societies need to consciously cultivate the positive value of
tolerance - this requires reflection, education and internalisation. Education is not for the child alone, societies too need to learn from the experiences of other societies. The relative success of Tunisia in reconciling Islam to modernity, and assuring human rights even when terrorism was rife, or the historic example of Mughal Emperor Akbar may be instructive for many societies. It must however be noted that Liberty is an undivided whole, and must be treated as such. Denial of religious freedom is difficult to isolate from denial of political and economic liberties. Religious tolerance will thrive only in an atmosphere of popular understanding and acceptance of the totality of human rights.

Given the situation, re-schooling society in the positive values of co-operative living is a stupendous task. The work involves re-educating adults to dispel prejudice - memories of former enemies that children learn of at the mother's knee need to be counteracted. Journalists need training to improve their sensitivity to issues concerning religion. Domestic legislation must be brought in line with international norms, and courses on Human Rights in academic institutions need a big boost. Religious leaders as well as politicians have to play a positive role and create this atmosphere where rights and freedoms can thrive.

Western Europe, which saw the influx of immigrant and refugee population of nearly 25 million people in recent decades, has been the crucible for such experimentation and there has been a partial and relative success. Though the immigrants came largely from varying Christian traditions, a significant number had a Muslim background, and some were Hindu. In the context of such a multicultural society, the European states faced the dual task of integrating the outsider as well as cherishing cultural diversity. Improving the socio-economic conditions of the immigrants and widening their educational opportunities helped prevent social isolation among people and aided creation of largely harmonious relations. Anti-racist legislation, and the Convention on the Rights of Migrants protect the immigrants. Immigrants have religious rights and the right to retain their culture of origin - it is for the state to create opportunities for worship
and self-fulfilment, this has been done to an extent. Despite the relative success in achieving social cohesion through interfaith dialogue and dialogue between religions and governmental bodies, many dilemmas remain, and problems crop up frequently. Recent issues have been extra-territorial loyalty to the home land, equality of men and women, polygamy, female circumcision, cruel abattoir practices, whether states should make it possible to have alternative ceremonies for legally binding rites of passage, or the head-scarf in the public school.

The public school has been the arena where battles concerning the freedom of religion or belief have been fought, to the accompaniment of much emotion and controversy. Education is preparation for society, and the school education system must prepare children for their complex responsibilities in a multicultural and pluralist world. Apart from instruction in the sciences and the arts, children should also receive moral education which sensitises them to issues in society. But, should schools take up the task of teaching religion as well, or should that be the private task of parents? If schools were to teach religion, which religion should it be? What about the rights of parents who do not wish their children to receive any religious education? What of religious minorities who do not want their children to be taught the religion of the majority? Are they allowed to withdraw their children from these classes? Can the state always decide what is in the best interests of children? Do children have a choice or say in this?

The Conference host country Norway itself has not been free from controversy in this matter. The government recently introduced a new compulsory syllabus for schools where children are educated about Lutheran Christianity, for 85% of Norwegians are Christian. This has been challenged by non-christian minorities, who maintain that schools are meant for education, not indoctrination in the majority culture. The Norwegian humanists who picketed the Conference venue in protest against the policy claim that both parents and children have the right to non-denominational alternative education.

A way out of this complex situation - not unique to Norway - is to begin by undertaking a detailed survey on what states are teaching in schools – and to assess whether these schools are preparing children for their tasks and obligations as adults? The U.N.'s Special Rapporteur must be empowered to obtain this crucial information. This should be followed up by a conference and / or network on religious education to compare the various national experiments. The aim of such interaction should be the creation of a more equitable curriculum in the relevant field.

It is true that schools have a clear duty to provide moral and values education, but this does not mean that schools have to teach religion. A multi-traditional and open approach which can contribute to a culture of
tolerance implies that schools evolve non-confessional and impartial educational syllabus, and teach about religion, providing children with objective information and empowering them to make their own choices. Children should also receive instruction about International Declarations which protect their own rights.

Empowerment of children is important for they are more than the objects of the religious rights of parents. Children are often the victims of religious abuse. Parents have rights, but these rights are intended to neutralise the intrusive power of the state, and for preservation of the family, rather than against the child. There must be respect for the views of the child, its identity preserved, its education assured, and it must receive parental guidance. Children have the right to appropriate information, to be protected from indoctrination and brainwashing, (from the state, or from sects or from their own parents) and to grow up into mature and responsible adults. The right of children to adopt a religion of their choice is explicit in Article 14 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (signed by all countries except the USA and Somalia). However, several Muslim States have made reservations - fearing proselytising by missionaries, and in the case of Bangladesh it was an 'infringement upon the standard practice of child rearing in the religion of his parents'. Moroccan legislation stipulates that the child shall follow its father's religion; and the child cannot choose his religion since the state religion is Islam. These are clear infringements of the child's freedom of religion or belief, and do not help the child to be an agent of tolerance when it grows up.

Why is it difficult to agree on what tolerance is, and on what freedom of religion actually means and implies? It took 19 years for the 1981 Declaration to be voted on by the UN General Assembly.

The reasons are complex: but broadly it is the encounter of closed and open societies that creates problems. Freedom of religion or belief is often misunderstood as freedom to agree rather than to disagree. a technical reason for lack of agreement could be that we have international declarations which are interpreted differently by several countries. To overcome this problem, words like religion and belief need to be clarified. The words in the UN system need to be made more precise - for example, should one be content with 'belief' or adopt the French word conviction?

Tolerance is also misunderstood: we all have a responsibility to respect a person's right to hold opinions or beliefs, but that respect need not extend to the belief itself. While it is a crime to claim superiority on
the basis of race; it is perfectly legitimate to claim the superiority of one's beliefs and attempt to convince the other. This is unacceptable to those who come from closed societies.

The mass media could make a positive contribution in improving global understanding of human rights issues by bridging the gap between the closed and the open societies. However, the current situation is alarming: press coverage of religion shows absence of specialist knowledge, and even insensitivity to international norms. There is wide spread 'dumbing down' of the media, and commercialisation has transferred control of the media to a few trans-national corporations.

Also, in addressing issues and problems that arise, there is a tendency to over simplify: we need, therefore, to problematise accurately the issues through a multi-disciplinary approach, and by increasing information flow. The ROBIN network could be revived; NGOs working in the field of Religion should network more actively among themselves and also support the Special Rapporteur, and the Special Rapporteur could increase his contacts with the religious bodies as well as with professional and Academic milieux. The Academic milieux should work with the state to clarify concepts and aid decision-making.

An example of where clarity ought to emerge with the help of Academic input is with the distinction between Religions and Sects. Even open and liberal societies are yet to evolve satisfactory and fair procedures when dealing with alternative religions (including cults, sects etc.). Sociologists contend that religions are but successful cults, but many new cults and sects are described as criminal and undesirable in government documents. In Belgium, France and Russia lists of 'dangerous' cults are published, despite a 1992 European Parliament recommendation that no lists of sects and cults be published as it could feed intolerance and justify discrimination. In popular perception too, cults are linked with financial skulduggery, suicides and murders, and there is a demand to have such lists published so that danger could be avoided and children protected. The way out would be for International Bodies to publish reliable and accurate information about alternative religions. This will help the lay person to stay away from the dangerous ones, and help lessen the polarisation, prejudice and antagonism that all alternative faiths indiscriminately encounter now.

It is important for liberal societies and states to decide where to draw the line as regards tolerance. What constitutes the intolerable? Surely, the limit of tolerance ends where human rights are violated. Freedom of religion or belief is one of the achievements of recent times along with several other precious freedoms, and in the name of this freedom, other freedoms cannot be infringed upon. The balance of freedoms is an ongoing project and challenge.

However, we must note that today there exist more liberties than ever in the past, an achievement that is largely due to the secularisation of society. When religions and belief systems encountered each other in the past, it was for conquest and war: at the Oslo Conference, representatives of religion acknowledged each others beliefs with respect and the evaluation that 'no religion was holier than the other'. Also, two evocative metaphors - indicative of the flavour that our future cooperation will take - were offered in the Session: that all faith and non-belief systems were islands in a universal sea; and that we were all different flowers in a unique garden.

The metaphor of the unique garden is most appropriate, for it makes us think with gratitude of one of humanity's heroes and the most ardent champion of tolerance - Voltaire -, who commended us to fulfil our chosen task by the exhortation "il faut cultiver son jardin".