Freedom of Religious Expression (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Freedom of Religious Expression
Christian approaches to religious freedom
Different views about the Church's role in the world lead to different approaches to religious freedom. Christians generally take one of two main positions: the evangelical approach focused on personal commitment, and the social transformation approach focused on promoting Christian values in society.
Understanding these two approaches is fundamental to understanding modern debates about religious freedom. While they may seem contradictory, both perspectives are found within Christianity and influence how Christians respond to questions of religious expression in public life.
The evangelical approach: Personal commitment
Evangelical Christians emphasise:
- The importance of personal commitment to Christ
- The need to be 'born again'
- Becoming part of the Church as the Body of Christ on Earth
This approach is rooted in biblical teaching, particularly John 18:36, which states that Christ's kingdom is not of this world. From this perspective:
- Secular rules have no relevance to personal salvation
- Salvation comes entirely through grace and faith in Christ
- Personal choice is key to faith
- The government has no role in the process of salvation
- Following secular rules, even if they align with Christian morality, is not the same as having a personal relationship with God
Key implications:
- Preference for separation of Church and State
- Support for greater freedom of religious expression (often primarily for their own religion)
- May claim freedom to strongly oppose actions they see as contrary to their faith, such as abortion
The social transformation approach: Promoting Christian values
Other Christians believe they are called to work for the transformation of society. This view holds that:
- Christians should contribute to moral and social debate from their distinctive perspective
- They should promote civic order because it contributes to the common good
- It is a Christian responsibility to promote Christian values within society for the benefit of all
This approach has generally prevailed in western society since the seventeenth century.
Freedom of expression in modern Britain
Most Christians now agree that individual freedom to practise any religion, or none, is an essential feature of society. Such freedom is necessary for genuine moral choice.
The legal framework
Key legislation:
- Human Rights Act 1998: Provides protection from discrimination on grounds of 'religion and belief'
- Equality Act 2010: Further strengthens protection against religious discrimination
- Together, these laws changed the situation from passive tolerance to active promotion of religious freedom
International standards: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
In 2011, Pope Benedict XVI emphasised the importance of religious freedom:
"Respect for essential elements of human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm."
This statement highlights that religious freedom is not merely a preference, but a fundamental requirement for any legitimate legal system.
From both Catholic and evangelical perspectives, freedom from imposed religious conformity and freedom to make personal choices are necessary for both morality and personal commitment.
The Christian theological basis
Christians understand people as created in the image of God. A person's relationship with God is an essential part of who they are. Therefore:
- Any attempt to restrict Christian religious expression is a restriction on the person themselves
- It prevents them from being fully human
- Religious identity is not separate from personal identity
Why this matters: This theological understanding means that for Christians, religious expression is not simply a lifestyle choice or hobby that can be easily separated from other aspects of life. It is integral to their identity and personhood. This explains why restrictions on religious expression can feel like attacks on the person themselves.
Limitations on religious expression
While religious freedom is protected, there are situations where the general social good can override the right to express religious convictions publicly:
- Speech that incites violence is not permitted
- Racial hatred is prohibited by law
- Certain practices claimed as religious (such as FGM and forced marriages) are illegal
The challenge of offence: It is harder to protect people from being offended, as offence is subjective and different people are offended by different things.
Conflicts between religious freedom and equality
A key question arises when free expression of religious views appears to conflict with equality legislation. Several examples illustrate this tension in practice.
Examples of tension
Bed-and-breakfast case: Should a Christian running a bed-and-breakfast be free to object to a homosexual couple renting a room, on the grounds that their religion considers homosexuality a sin? Equality legislation has been interpreted as favouring the rights of the gay couple and their right to be treated equally, but this appears to conflict with the religious conscience of those running the establishment.
Registrar case: A Christian registrar refused to conduct a civil partnership ceremony, arguing that the Church's teaching on marriage was a core feature of her faith. The counter-argument was that requiring her to conduct the ceremony as part of her job did not interfere with the core of her faith or her right to worship as she wished.
Case study: Wearing a cross
Two significant cases were decided by the European Court in 2012:
Case Study: Nadia Eweida (British Airways employee)
Background: Eweida was told she could not wear a lapel cross on her uniform while at work.
The secularist argument: Displays of religious affiliation should not intrude into the workplace.
The religious response: It was an indication of the person's religion that would cause no harm.
Outcome: The European Court overturned BA's ban, allowing Eweida to wear her cross.
Case Study: Shirley Chaplin (NHS nurse)
Background: Chaplin wished to wear a cross on a chain, which was prohibited by the NHS Trust.
The NHS argument: Wearing any necklace was a health risk in hospital (a secular health and safety reason, not a religious objection).
Outcome: The European Court supported the NHS ban on health and safety grounds.
Christian perspective: Christians might argue that wearing a cross is not an attempt to make converts or push religion on others, but simply an expression of who they are and what they value.
Secularist concern: In a multi-faith secular society, there is fear that religious symbols of any sort may be divisive.
The key difference between these cases: The Eweida case was decided in her favour because BA's ban was based purely on company policy about religious expression. The Chaplin case was decided against her because the NHS had a legitimate secular health and safety reason (preventing infection risk from necklaces) that applied to all staff regardless of religion.
This illustrates an important principle: religious freedom can be protected when restrictions are based solely on religious grounds, but legitimate secular concerns (like health and safety) can override religious expression.
Determining what is essential to faith
An important consideration in legal cases is whether a particular action or belief is central to the practice of Christian faith, or only peripheral.
The central vs peripheral distinction
Clear examples:
- If Christians were banned from meeting for worship, this would clearly attack a fundamental feature of the faith
- Requiring someone to eat pork when their religion forbids it would violate a core religious practice
Disputed areas:
- Is wearing a cross as jewellery a fundamental feature of the faith?
- Is requiring a Christian registrar to conduct a civil partnership against her convictions about marriage an attack on a fundamental feature of her faith?
The difficulty lies in deciding what constitutes an essential expression of Christian faith and what does not. In the registrar case:
- She argued that the Church's teaching on marriage was a core feature of her faith
- The counter-argument was that conducting the ceremony as part of her job did not interfere with her right to worship as she wished
Understanding the distinction: Courts must distinguish between practices that are absolutely central to a faith (like worship, prayer, or dietary laws) and those that are expressions of faith but not required by religious teaching. For example:
- Central: Attending church services, prayer, sacraments
- Potentially peripheral: Wearing religious jewellery, refusing to serve certain customers
This distinction is often difficult and controversial, as what one person sees as essential to their faith, another may see as optional.
Broader implications
This distinction raises many questions across different areas:
- Should religious dietary rules be treated differently from secular dietary choices?
- In France, secular society insists that pork should be on school menus, even though it goes against the religion of Muslim and Jewish children
- Should everyone be forced to eat all types of meat if that is the majority view in society?
Religion in public life
At the heart of these debates is whether religion should be a purely personal matter, or upheld by public attitudes and institutions.
The British context today
Secular assumptions: In general, there is an assumption today that British society is secular. However, politicians continue to claim that Britain is 'a Christian country' (for example, David Cameron's Christmas message, 2015). This language is sometimes used to coerce immigrants to accept social practices that may have Christian origins.
Liberal and plural society: Society in Britain today is generally both liberal and plural. People have a right in law to be treated with equal respect, whatever their:
- Race
- Gender
- Religion
- Sexual orientation
Tensions with Christian teaching: Some Christian principles and moral teachings appear to go against the assumption of equality. This may be:
- For historical reasons
- Because they are based on particular interpretations of the Bible
For example, many Churches disapprove of homosexual acts. While the status of LGBT community members varies greatly among Churches, and many are welcomed into Christian fellowship, it remains difficult for some Christians to work with the assumption of equality expected in secular society.
Finding balance
A balance is required between religious freedom and equality. This might be achieved by:
- Not attempting to impose one specific set of religious beliefs on others
- Not limiting or subverting others' religious rights in any way
- Not behaving in ways that put others at risk
- Not preventing the normal exercise of others' work
Freedom of religious expression also includes: The right to express opposition to views or practices that some people justify on the basis of religious faith, such as views on:
- Abortion
- Euthanasia
- FGM
- Forced marriage
- Homosexuality
Key terms
Ecumenism: Initiatives to develop relationships between Christian Churches to promote Christian unity.
Evangelism: Spreading Christianity by preaching or by personal witness. (Note: This is different from Evangelicalism, which is a branch of Christianity that sees spreading the gospel as a primary responsibility.)
Exclusivism: The view that one religion is the only true one, and that other religions are wrong.
Inclusivism: The view that although one religion is true, other religions may show aspects of the one true religion.
Interdenominational relations: Relationships between different Christian churches, for example, between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.
Interfaith relations: Relationships between different faiths, and between worshipping communities of different faiths, for example, between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.
Religious pluralism: A situation where people of many faiths live in the same society without conflict, respecting one another's views.
Secular state: A country where the government, legislature and society are not controlled by, or dependent on, the teachings of a religion.
Universalism: The view that all humans will be saved by God, whatever their religion.
Exam tips
- Be prepared to discuss both evangelical and social transformation approaches to religious freedom
- Understand the legal framework: Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010
- Know specific case studies (Eweida and Chaplin) and be able to analyse them
- Consider both sides of conflicts between religious freedom and equality
- Apply the distinction between central and peripheral aspects of faith
- Evaluate whether religious freedom should be absolute or balanced with other rights
- Consider the role of religion in a secular, plural society
Key Points to Remember:
-
Two main Christian approaches: Evangelical Christians emphasise personal commitment and separation of Church and State, while others advocate for promoting Christian values in society for the common good.
-
Legal protection: The Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 changed the situation from passive tolerance to active promotion of religious freedom in Britain.
-
Theological basis: Christians see people as created in the image of God, making religious expression essential to being fully human and not merely a lifestyle choice.
-
Central vs peripheral: Courts must determine whether a religious practice is central to faith (like worship) or peripheral (like wearing jewellery), which affects legal protection.
-
Balance needed: Modern Britain seeks to balance religious freedom with equality rights, recognising that both are essential for a liberal, plural society, though tensions inevitably arise.