Constitutions and Religion

[Brimshack]

Since we Americans have been boring everybody else to tears over the Constitutionality of our Pledge (sorry Kiwimac), I thought I'd ask how other Nations have approached this issue. I am particularly interested in what other written Constitutions have to say about this subject?

 

[Gerry]

Gee Brim, are you THAT bored? Bummer!

 

[Mallory Knox]

We're pretty much the same thing.

<B>Fundamental Freedoms</B>

<B>2 </B>Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of cmmunication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

&nbsp;

But then, we also have laws like:

<B>Minority Language Education Rights</B>

<B>23(1) </B>Citizens of Canada

• (a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
  
  (b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,

have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.

&nbsp;

Which is completely retarded.

&nbsp;

 

[Brimshack]

Not bored Gerry, just boring. This is just the sort of thing I'd love to know more about. (I know, that pretty much makes me a geek doesn't it?)

Mallory, is there anything comparable to the establishment clause in there? …I'm guessing not, and that the C of E still enjoys a technical endorsement from the state, right? Are there any interesting recurrent spats over religiious freedoms, or is that something peculiar to your Southern neighbors?

 

[kiwimac]

Brim,

The NZ Bill of Rights says:

13. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion---

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference

And

15. Manifestation of religion and belief---

Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others,
and either in public or in private.

Thats about it but as an addendum, Maori, as well as English are the official languages here. To help folk to learn Maori, "Language Nests", (Kura Kaupapa Maori) have been set up which take pre-schoolers, of any nationality, and begin the training process.

Kiwimac

 

[Brimshack]

Interesting Kiwimac. I like the fact that it mentions practice in addition to belief. In America freedom of religion has at times been reduced to the freedom to believe (which would already be covered by the free speech clause) without any corresponding rite to practce. Still curious about an establishment clause, or is the C of E the official state church after all?

I'll bet Maori is an interesting language.

 

[RedBurn]

Brimshack,
The relevant part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is; freedom of conscience and religion
This particular bit of our constitution has been used to prevent the recitation of the Lord's Prayer in Schools, Town Hall meetings, Parliament etc.
Kind of like the establishment clause i imagine. Prevents state endorsement of religion.
There is no official religion in Canada.

 

[Brimshack]

Thanks Red. It's interesting that non-establishment principles can be derived from that phrase. In America that would hardly be enough to garuntee free exercise, much less prevent establishment. I'm glad i was wrong about the C of E being officially sanctaioned.

 

[Mallory Knox]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Not bored Gerry, just boring. This is just the sort of thing I'd love to know more about. (I know, that pretty much makes me a geek doesn't it?)

Mallory, is there anything comparable to the establishment clause in there? …I'm guessing not, and that the C of E still enjoys a technical endorsement from the state, right? Are there any interesting recurrent spats over religiious freedoms, or is that something peculiar to your Southern neighbors?

No, we're too busy fighting over the language laws.

 

[TheBear]

John Adams -U. S. Constitution Made For Moral People

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

---- John Adams, October 11, 1798, Address to the military

 

[Brimshack]

That's interesting Bear, and it doesn't quite amount to an unequvocal position on the issue we've all been fighting over. So, I guess I won't treat it as such. there is another problem here though in that it flies in the face of all the careful planning done to assure there were checks and balances, not to mention the effort to play factions off against one another through the shear size of the Republic. The Founding Fathers may have wanted moral citizens, but their genius was if anything that they built a government based on the assumptions that people would bring thwe worst of human nature into government. This statement strikes me as the kind of fluff you make in a speach to make people feel good about their government. When the founding fathers actualy sat down to plan the framework of government, it is to our own good fortune that they were not so naieve.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Israel does not have a constitution per se. Rather, we have 11 "Basic Laws" (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00h50) which are, in effect, Israel's de facto constitution.

While our 1948 Declaration of Independence (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hb0) does establish Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, it also guarantees freedom of religion for all.

As Prof. Shimon Sheetrit (LB, LLM - Jerusalem; MCL, DCL -University of Chicago; Law Prof. Hebrew University of Jerusalem;
former Minister of Religious Affairs in the Rabin government, 1992-96) has written:

"There is no separation of religion and state in Israel. At the
same time, there is no recognized religion in the accepted sense. Some have argued that the peculiar nature of Judaism, which embodies a pattern of daily life and not merely a set of religious
dogmas, and which intermingles religious and national elements, is not conducive to separation of religion and state. As David Ben-Gurion puts it, 'The convenient solution of separation of church
and state, adopted in America not for reasons which are anti-religious but on the contrary because of deep attachment to religion and the desire to assure every citizen full religious
freedom, this solution, even if it were adopted in Israel, would not answer the problem.'

The State of Israel recognizes the following religions: Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Druze and Baha'i. Within the Christian religion the following denominations are recognized: Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Latin (Roman Catholic), Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholic, Maronite, Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, Chaldaic (Catholic) and Evangelical Episcopal (Anglican).

Three denominations have applied for State recognition: the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Coptic Orthodox and the United Churches Council of Israel, which is the umbrella organization of
Protestant churches in Israel. Their applications are still pending. In the past, three other applications, those of the Druze, the Baha'i and the Evangelical-Episcopal, were accepted."

The upshot of the above is that the 10 Christian denominations Prof. Sheetrit mentions have their own ecclesiastical courts (whose judges are paid by the state & have the same status of civil court judges) with exclusive jurisdiction over their adherents vis-a-vis marriage and divorce, conversion, etc. (See http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00n00 for an article on Israel's various Christian communities.) Each religious community is free, by law and in practice, to exercise its faith, to observe its holidays and weekly day of rest and to administer its internal affairs. There is no civil marriage and divorce in Israel.

The Knesset (our parliament) passed the "Protection of Holy Places Law" (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00kn0) in 1967.

When you swear an oath/take an affirmation in an Israeli court, you may do so on the holy book of your choice.

Questions?

ssv

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Brimshack
That's interesting Bear, and it doesn't quite amount to an unequvocal position on the issue we've all been fighting over. So, I guess I won't treat it as such. there is another problem here though in that it flies in the face of all the careful planning done to assure there were checks and balances, not to mention the effort to play factions off against one another through the shear size of the Republic. The Founding Fathers may have wanted moral citizens, but their genius was if anything that they built a government based on the assumptions that people would bring thwe worst of human nature into government. This statement strikes me as the kind of fluff you make in a speach to make people feel good about their government. When the founding fathers actualy sat down to plan the framework of government, it is to our own good fortune that they were not so naieve.

Interesting, Brimshack. I merely threw in a quote, in the middle of this thread. I have said nothing.

You have really dedicated quite a few words to something that "doesn't quite amount to an unequvocal position on the issue we've all been fighting over."

Hey, I'm just throwing in stuff to keep the discussion interesting.

John

 

[Brimshack]

And you succeded Bear. That was a new angle, and I thought I'd drop a comment or two on it myself. I really couldn't tell if you intended that to further your position on the other issue or not, so I wasn't sure how to respond. But you've seen my extended rants; that was hardly a lot of words for an old windbag like me.

Interesting Voice: Aside from religious courts, and the right to observe holy days (I gather this means a right to take days off work, ect.) are there any other implications of official recognition.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Lessee...

Brimshack posted:

Aside from religious courts, and the right to observe holy days (I gather this means a right to take days off work, ect.) are there any other implications of official recognition.

The only other implication of official recognition that I can think of right now is that senior foreign dignitaries come to Israel on official visits, the heads of the various religious communities (i.e. the 2 Chief Rabbis, this bishop, that bishop, this sheikh/mufti, etc.) are all in the receiving line, are invited to the official functions, etc.

We have a Druze gentleman in my office, as well as an Arab Christian woman (I was invited to her wedding). They have the right to take off work on their religious holydays.

Be well!

ssv