It is a view widely held amongst psychologists that human beings have a basic need to create a positive social identity for themselves, either as individuals or as members of a group. In this regard, choice of dress is likely to be particularly important. A person's clothes can reveal much about their identity, in relation to their gender, class, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs. Yet what an individual wears can also attract great controversy, as evidenced by the fact that, in Europe of late, there have been few issues more controversial than that of religious dress.Today in towns and cities across Europe a significant proportion of Muslims—in particular Muslim females—have eschewed conventional western clothes in favor of garments (such as veils and headscarves) traditionally associated with Islam. With a new generation of “European Muslims” keen to cultivate a distinct identity for themselves as members of the continent's second largest religion, Islamic dress often has an “emblematic status” as a “powerful and overdetermined marker of difference.” Yet the right to wear religious dress varies significantly in Europe. In some countries there are clear restrictions on what can (or cannot) be worn in public (e.g., France and Turkey), whereas in other parts of the continent (e.g., the U.K.) young people are relatively free to wear the religious dress of their choice. Mindful of this state of affairs, the European Court of Human Rights has chosen to tread warily, letting governments retain considerable discretion in the field of religious dress. Consequently, states enjoy a wide “margin of appreciation” when determining whether their curbs on religious symbols or related garments are compatible with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
2 This definition of empathy is offered by Eisenberg and Strayer, 'Critical issues in the study of empathy' in Eisenberg and Strayer (eds) Empathy and its Development (Cambridge University Press,1990) 5.
This is the era of human rights and religious litigation. Recent years have witnessed an unprecedented rise in the number of cases where the principles of non-discrimination and equality have been pitted against the right to freedom of religion or belief. This article seeks to examine this development with regard to an issue that is particularly synonymous with controversy-legal conflicts between conservative religious believers and people from LGBTIQ+ communities. The article's primary focus is on the adverse consequences of excessive litigation in this field. In order to tackle the problem of conservative faith/ LGBTIQ+ disputes it is suggested that a more holistic approach is needed, based on the principles of compromise, dignity and empathy. The proposed mechanism by which such an approach might be effected is that of 'meaningful engagement', a dispute resolution strategy that has been recognised by the South African Constitutional Court. 8. Robin Bradley Kar, 'Transformational Marriage: How to end the Culture Wars over Same-Sex marriage' in Robin Fretwell Wilson (ed) The Contested Place of Religion in Family Life (Cambridge University Press 2018) 12, forthcoming
Although sex education lessons have been provided in our schools for many years, concerns about the sexual health and practices of the nation's youth remain centre stage. In recent years, a number of initiatives have been introduced, with varying degrees of success, to increase young people's awareness of sexual matters and to reduce the high number of unplanned teenage pregnancies. One particularly controversial idea is that parents should be divested of the right to withdraw their children from sex education classes. In this paper, I consider the implications of this proposal, paying special attention to the response of those conservative religious organisations most likely to oppose it. My central thesis is that, while the state should be careful not to ride rough‐shod over the wishes of parents in what is an extremely emotive area, the interests of the child are paramount and all young people in maintained secondary schools should have access to comprehensive sex education programmes.
inconsequential aims. Accordingly, there exists something of a disconnect within the judicial discourse on freedom of religion and belief under Article 9. Although judges say that the manifestation of a person's faith or beliefs is of crucial importance to religious claimants, their words appear not always to be matched by their actions, for the 'public good' grounds on which the courts permit such manifestations to be restricted are, on occasion, incongruously slender. As a result, the courts risk appearing disingenuous, and a religious believer may ask, 'If the court really accepted that this manifestation of my belief is as significant to me as it maintains, why restrict it on such flimsy grounds?' One particularly credible explanation for this disconnect is the fact that the courts, when adjudicating religious rights claims, are obliged to employ only neutral reasons that are accessible to, and graspable by, everyone. This judicial obligation is rooted in one of deepest strands of liberal thought, going back to the religious conflicts of the seventeenth century and the philosophy of Locke and Spinoza: the need for a separation of church and state, so as to ensure respect for the conscience of individuals, and to avoid the suppression of minorities. 2 An important part of this principle is that, in a democracy, people with particular religious beliefs-which are not understood, still less held, by others-should not be able to influence the formulation of coercive law and public policy solely on the basis of these same beliefs. As Thomas Nagel has put it: … it must be possible to present to others the basis of your own beliefs, so that once you have done so, they have what you have, and can arrive at a judgment on the same basis. That is not possible if part of the source of your conviction is personal faith or revelation-because to report your faith or revelation to someone else is not to give him what you have, as you do when you show him your evidence or give him your arguments. 3 2
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.