Religion, Discrimination and Accommodation: the Role of the State in a Multi-faith Society

一个自由民主国家应该如何看待其公民的宗教信仰？一个可能的答案是：根本没有。国家应该建立一个法律框架，使其公民能够追求他们信奉的任何形式的生活，无论是宗教的还是非宗教的，但国家没有必要，或许也没有理由特别考虑宗教信仰。然而，这种盲目信仰的做法并不能描述大多数当代西方社会的现实。例如，在英国，锡克教徒免于立法要求骑摩托车的人戴头盔，禁止在公共场合携带刀具；允许犹太人和穆斯林进行仪式屠杀；国家资助宗教学校；亵渎和煽动宗教仇恨是犯罪；就业中的宗教歧视现在是非法的。在这个跨学科的研讨会中，我们研究了国家应该考虑到公民的宗教信仰。每个人都同意一个社会应该公平对待它的公民，但对于拥有不同信仰的人和他们的信仰提出非常不同的要求的人，对于什么是公平对待，没有达成共识。一些人建议，国家建立的安排在本质上应该完全是非宗教的，宗教信徒必须符合这些安排；信教的人没有权利得到特殊待遇。其他人则认为，盲目信仰的做法产生了虚假的平等，真正公平的安排要求国家承认并考虑到其人口中存在的不同信仰的不同特征和要求。讲习班讨论了一系列问题，这些问题是国家应如何应对宗教多样性事实这一普遍问题的核心。宗教为什么以及如何具有特殊意义？出于政府和法律目的，宗教信仰相对于其他类型的信仰，例如政治和非宗教道德信仰，有何特殊之处？信仰应该比偏好更重要吗？宗教应该与种族平等地对待吗？宗教信仰是“被选择的”吗？如果是的话，会有什么不同吗？国家是否应该区分“合理”和“不合理”的宗教信仰？2.宗教、歧视和就业基于信仰的歧视与其他形式的歧视一样不可接受吗？我们应该如何解释“正当目的的适当手段”作为对间接歧视的辩护(2003年“就业条例”)？以信仰为基础的组织(如教堂、学校、慈善机构)应该在多大程度上将信仰作为就业的要求？就劳动法而言，谁应该能够声明信仰的要求是什么？3.一般规则和特殊情况在英国，豁免有时被用来避免信仰要求和法律要求之间的冲突。这种豁免是授予特权还是确保平等？如果一般规则对一个宗教团体产生不利影响，这是他们必须忍受的信念的结果，还是规则本身的不公平？一个社会的规则和安排是否应该在不同信仰之间保持完全中立，或者偏向“本土信仰”是否可以接受？4.宗教敏感性和言论自由国家是否应该限制言论自由，以保护宗教人士的利益？如果是，以什么形式，以什么理由(例如，防止冒犯、给予尊重或承认、维持公共秩序、防止集体诽谤)以及在多大程度上？与宗教有关的言论自由有哪些相反的主张？鉴于不同的信仰容易受到不正当表达的影响，我们能否确保在言论自由方面公平对待不同的信仰？

What account should a liberal democratic state take of the religious convictions of its citizens? A possible answer is: none at all. The state should establish a framework of laws that enables its citizens to pursue whatever form of life they embrace, religious or non-religious, but there is no need, and perhaps no justification, for the state's taking any special account of religious convictions. Yet that faith-blind approach does not describe the reality of most contemporary western societies. In Britain, for example, Sikhs are exempted from legislation requiring motorcyclists to wear crash helmets and prohibiting the carrying of knives in public; Jews and Muslims are permitted to practise ritual slaughter; the state funds faith schools; blasphemy and incitement to religious hatred are crimes; religious discrimination in employment is now outlawed.In this interdisciplinary Workshop we examine the account the state should take of its citizens' religious beliefs. Everyone agrees that a society should treat its citizens fairly but there is no consensus on what constitutes fair treatment amongst people who possess different beliefs and whose beliefs make very different demands. Some suggest that the arrangements established by the state should be entirely non-religious in foundation and that religious believers must fall into line with whatever those arrangements happen to be; the religious have no right to special treatment. Others argue that that faith-blind approach yields a phoney equality and that genuinely fair arrangements require the state to recognise and take account of the different characters and demands of the faiths present amongst its population.The Workshop addresses a series of issues that are central to the general question of how the state should respond to the fact of religious diversity.1. Why and how does religion have special significance?What, for governmental and legal purposes, makes religious belief special relative to other kinds of belief, e.g. political and non-religious moral beliefs? Should beliefs have greater weight than preferences? Should religion be treated symmetrically with race? Are religious beliefs 'chosen' and does it make a difference if they are? Should the state discriminate between 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' religious beliefs?2. Religion, discrimination and employmentIs discrimination on grounds of faith as unacceptable as other forms of discrimination? How should we interpret 'proportionate means to a legitimate end' as a defence against indirect discrimination (2003 Employment Regulations)? To what extent should-faith based organisations (e.g. churches, schools, charities) be able to make faith a requirement of employment? Who, for purposes of employment law, should be able to declare what are the requirements of a faith?3. General rules and special casesIn the UK, exemptions are sometimes used to avoid a conflict between the demands of faith and the demands of law. Do such exemptions grant privileges or secure equality? If a general rule affects a religious group adversely, is that a consequence of their belief they must endure, or an unfairness of the rule itself? Should a society's rules and arrangements be entirely neutral amongst faiths or is some bias towards the 'native faith' acceptable?4. Religious sensibilities and free expressionShould freedom of expression be limited by the state to protect the interests of the religious? If so, in what form, with what justification (e.g. to prevent offence, accord respect or recognition, maintain public order, prevent group defamation) and to what extent? What are the countervailing claims of free expression in relation to religion? Can we secure equitable treatment of different faiths with respect to free expression, given that different faiths are differently susceptible to 'wrongful' expression?