Lesson video

Hello there.

My name is Mr. Robertson.

Thank you ever so much for coming to this lesson, and I look forward to learning with you.

Today's lesson is in our unit about freedom, and it asks the question, "How far should governments go to protect freedom of religion or belief?

" And in today's lesson, we're looking at freedom of religion or belief: what does it look like now?

We're going to be looking at a case study internationally and nationally to think about settlement of freedom of religion or belief and what they tell us about the societies in which we live.

By the end of this lesson, you will be able to explain and analyze real-world situations in which the right is being protected, promoted, or violated.

We have a number of keywords today.

I'm gonna explain the definitions of these keywords, and I think by the end of this lesson, you will confidently be able to use them.

So the word "freedom" means being able to believe what you want or not believe at all and be respected for that choice.

The word "violation:" human rights violations occur when fundamental freedoms and rights are disregarded, restricted, or denied.

We use the word "settlement," and by that we mean a binding agreement or arrangement that resolves disputes or conflicts in a political context.

And finally, the word "discrimination," which means treating someone less favorably or putting them at a disadvantage because of their religion or belief.

In this lesson, we've got two parts to it, and in the first part of the lesson, we're going to be looking at freedom of religion or belief in other countries.

So let's start by being really clear about what we mean by freedom of religion or belief.

So the heart of freedom of religion or belief is the right to have or change your religion or belief without coercion.

In other words, without somebody forcing you to do that or putting pressure on you.

The question is, does freedom of religion or belief look the same everywhere?

And how do different governments deal with it?

This is what we're going to be thinking about in this lesson today.

And to do that, we're gonna be looking at two case studies.

Now, case studies are really important because examining case studies can help us understand how people try to resolve questions about freedom of religion or belief and create a settlement.

So freedom of religion or belief protects everyone who identifies with, believes in, or practices a religion or belief.

It does not protect the religion itself.

So that's a really, really important thing to keep in our minds.

It's about the individual, the person, not the religion or the belief.

Governments make decisions regarding how they balance the rights of different religions and beliefs in the societies they create.

These decisions are known as a settlement, and we're going to be looking at this lesson in two different settlements.

Alex and Sofia discuss freedom of religion or belief settlements.

Alex says, "During al-Andalus," which was a time in the 15th, 14th centuries, when Muslims ruled Spain, Portugal, "Muslim rulers offered Jews and Christians Dhimmi status.

They had freedom to have and manifest their religion, but they had to pay a special tax and were not quite equal.

" Sofia says, "That was an interesting settlement.

You could say it recognized diversity and tried to accommodate it.

I wonder how settlements enable people to live today.

" So this whole idea of a settlement is about how a society deals with the presence of different religions or beliefs.

And in that particular example, in the past, we saw how Muslim rulers allowed Jews and Christians to practice their faith, but they had to pay a special tax to do that, and they couldn't access all the equality of jobs in that society.

I wonder whether you think freedom of religion or belief settlements will be similar or different now.

What do you think might be out there in the world in terms of freedom of religion or belief?

And I wonder what evidence you might have for your opinion.

You might want to pause the video now and speak to somebody next to you.

Thanks for sharing those really interesting discussions.

So reflecting on what we've learned so far, which of these statements is not true?

A, freedom of religion or belief protects the individual.

B, all governments agree the same settlement.

C, settlement on religion and belief will vary.

You may want to pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's B.

We know from the past that there were different settlements, so not all governments will reach the same settlement of freedom of religion or belief.

Now, examining a case study is going to be really helpful because that will help us answer questions about freedom of religion or belief and understand the settlement in a particular country.

We're going to look at a case study now, and I'm going to read this case study in a bit more detail to you.

I haven't named the country, but it is a country in West Africa.

And this case study is all about being a humanist in this country.

This country is a large country in West Africa.

It has a population of over 237 million.

It's also a deeply religious country with over 97% of people identifying with a religion.

Of these, approximately 50% are Muslim, and 40% are Christian.

And broadly, most Muslims live in the north, while most Christians live in the south.

Now, the country has a constitution, and that provides for freedom of religion.

It states that everyone has the right to have or change their religion.

Now, sadly, there's been a lot of tension in this country between Muslims and Christians, and that means that acts of violence are common.

In some parts of the country, militias aligned to particular religions have massacred men, women, and children as part of their conflict with the government.

We're going to meet Yusef Sala.

He was born in the north of the country, and he was the son of a Muslim scholar.

But at the age of 16, he decided he did not believe in God and was an atheist.

His family were angered by this decision, and he was forcibly sent to a psychiatric hospital.

Whilst there, he was treated as though his atheism was a personality disorder.

Despite this, Yusef refused to give up his atheist beliefs.

He was later released.

Upon his release, Yusef returned home.

He continued with his beliefs.

Yusef argues that his atheism comes from the way he perceives religion is used to justify violence and corruption in his country.

He was elected president of his country's humanist association, but it's really difficult to live as a humanist in this country.

It took 17 years for the Humanist Association to be officially recognized by the government.

Humanists talk of being forced from their jobs or intimidated for their beliefs.

Many have had to flee their homes because of death threats.

Soon after Yusef was arrested, a petition had been circulating saying that he had converted from Islam to atheism and had made comments on an online social media site that were offensive to Muslims.

He was charged with blasphemy.

This country has a number of different laws relating to this.

He was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

After serving four years of his sentence, Yusef was released.

So let's think about what we've been learning about.

Which of these statements best describes the context of the country in this case study?

A, it is a deeply religious country.

B, religion is quite important in people's lives.

C, religion is not important in people's lives.

You may want to pause the video and reflect on this.

Excellent.

It's A.

It was a deeply religious country, wasn't it?

50% were Muslim and 40% Christian.

True or false?

Yusef Sala lives in a country where the settlement allows him to live as a humanist?

Think back to his story.

What do you think?

Is that true or false?

Again, you may wish to pause the video.

It's false, isn't it?

And why?

Because although the constitution of the country allows freedom of religion or belief, actually Yusef was prosecuted as a result of his beliefs, wasn't he?

He was put in prison.

So the settlement does not allow him to live as a humanist.

Excellent if you got that right.

Okay, we're going to do a task now.

On screen, you will see the text of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is the article that relates to freedom of religion or belief.

I'll read it to you now.

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

This right shall include the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching.

" So this is the detailed text of the article.

Using that text, and also the case study which we read together about Yusef Sala, I'd like you to try and answer the following questions.

Which elements of Yusef's right to freedom of religion or belief were violated, and by who?

You might want to look back through his story.

Can you find some examples of where his rights were violated and who was responsible for them?

Really good luck with that, and I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

So you might have said that as a teenager, Yusef's right to change his religion or belief was violated by his parents and doctors when they committed him to a psychiatric hospital.

So he wasn't free to become an atheist.

And part of Article 18 is about the freedom to change your religion.

You might also mention that as president of the country's humanist association, Yusef could see that living as a humanist was very difficult, so people's right to freely manifest their beliefs were violated because they were forced out of their jobs or intimidated.

And finally, you might have said that his right to manifest his religion in public was violated when he was imprisoned on a charge of blasphemy despite having freedom of religion or belief under the country's constitution.

So there were a number of instances and examples in his life story where his rights were violated, and you may, as well, have found some others.

So brilliant work if you managed to do that.

For the second part of the lesson, I'd like you to.

For the second task, I'd like you to consider this statement.

Yusef's country has produced a settlement which protects the individual's freedom of religion or belief.

Thinking about his biography, I'd like you to say how free you think his society is based on the settlement that exists there.

So on one hand, we might say, yes, that country guarantees freedom of religion or belief.

That would be 10, meaning it was really, really free, or we might say down the other end, towards zero and one, that it's a settlement to which there's lots and lots of discrimination.

I wonder where you would mark your society based on his life story, and also, I wonder what reasons you might have for doing that.

Look forward to seeing what you come up with.

So I've put an example on that I've decided that I would mark this as zero because the settlement in Yusef's country does not protect people from discrimination.

Although the constitution guarantees religious freedom, in reality, people can lose their jobs, face harassment, or even prison if they profess non-religious beliefs.

I wonder where you decided to put this and the reasons that you gave.

For the next part of this lesson, we're going to be looking at freedom of religion or belief settlement in the UK.

Alex and Sofia continue their discussion of freedom of religion or belief settlements.

Alex says, "Settlements clearly vary around the world.

In Yusef's country, because most people were very religious, there was not true freedom for people with non-religious beliefs.

" Sofia says, "I wonder what the UK has as a settlement.

I do feel that Yusef would have quite a different experience if he lived here.

" I'd like you to think about what Alex and Sofia have said, and I'd like you to think about your own experience living in this country and what you know already about freedom and human rights.

Where do you think you would place the UK on this continuum regarding its settlement for religion or belief?

And I wonder what reasons you might have for that choice.

It would probably be a really good idea to pause video now and think a little bit about where on this continuum you would put the UK and why.

And you may want to talk to some people around you about this as well.

I hope you had an interesting discussion.

We're going to look at a case study now, and I wonder how much that case study will influence your thoughts.

Now the right to freedom of religion or belief has been incorporated into UK law.

The UK government passed the Human Rights Act in 1998, and this made Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights law.

So it is part of our constitution, and also we have the Equality Act of 2010, which contains provisions for religion or belief freedom.

So these rights have been incorporated and interwoven into our laws.

Look at a photograph here.

I wonder what you might think is going on here.

It looks like a wedding, doesn't it?

We could see the bride in the wedding dress and the bridegroom as well.

I wonder why people choose to get married.

And I wonder whether you think everyone has the freedom to a legal marriage connected to their religion or belief.

Again, you may want to pause the video here and reflect on that.

So I wonder what you thought, why do people choose to get married, and do you think everyone has this freedom to have a marriage connected to their religion or belief?

Now, under our settlement in England, the Church of England is the established church.

This is Robert.

He's a priest in the Church of England.

He says, "Anyone who wishes to can have a legal wedding in their local parish church.

This is a religious wedding, but is also legally binding.

As a priest, I'm authorized to marry a couple and can also legally register their wedding.

" So there are two parts to the marriage.

In England, there is a religious bit and a legal bit.

And in the Church of England, if you get married in church, both these things happen at once.

Let's meet Niamh.

She says, "As a Roman Catholic, my church is authorized, and my priest registers the marriage.

So my wedding was both religious and legally binding.

" And this is Daniel.

He says, "Being Jewish, my synagogue is authorized, and my rabbi registers the wedding.

So my wedding was both religious and legally binding.

" I wonder what's similar about Niamh's and Daniel's experience.

So you may have noticed that both of their religious buildings are authorized, and their priest or rabbi could register the marriage so they can have a marriage which is religiously and legally binding.

So they're very similar, although they take place in a church and a synagogue, and the ceremonies themselves might look quite different.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

True or false?

Under the settlement in England and Wales, people can marry in a religious wedding that is also legally registered if they are Christian?

It's true, isn't it?

That's right.

Okay, we're going to be looking at another case study now, and this time we're going to look at the example of humanist marriage in England and Wales.

So as we said, in the United Kingdom, marriage has two possible elements.

People may choose to have a ceremony of marriage that reflects their religion or beliefs.

And there's also a legal aspect to the marriage, which recognizes the couple's wedding as having a legal status.

This aspect requires the marriage to be registered with the state.

Under the current settlement, as we've seen, the Church of England is the established church.

All churches and priests are automatically authorized.

In a Church of England wedding, couples will have a religious element and register their marriage legally, as part of the service.

Church of England weddings automatically have a legal status.

This option is also open to people of other religions.

It's not quite the same.

Buildings and celebrants have to register and be authorized, but this means that other Christians, Jews, and religious groups, there's an opportunity for a religious ceremony with a legal element.

People don't have to have a separate legal wedding.

Humanists are people with a non-religious worldview.

However, many humanists want to have their wedding ceremony to celebrate their marriage and make promises and commitments to each other.

We can see in a photograph here a humanist couple getting married with a humanist celebrant.

Humanists UK authorizes people to act as celebrants who will conduct the wedding, as is happening in the photograph you can see.

However, currently, humanist celebrants cannot be authorized to take the legal element of a marriage ceremony.

This means that humanist weddings do not have automatic legal status.

Instead, humanist couples must have a separate civil ceremony to be legally married.

In Scotland, humanist weddings are legally recognized.

Many humanists in England and Wales are campaigning for this same right.

They feel the current settlement creates discrimination for their beliefs.

Let's meet Richard.

He is a humanist celebrant, and he explains his views on the current settlement in England and Wales.

Richard says, "I love to create meaningful ceremonies for people who want to celebrate their marriage but have a non-religious worldview.

The fact that I cannot be authorized to legally register the marriage feels like discrimination.

I think I should have the same freedom as ministers of religions.

" So we could see here that Richard is drawing out what he feels is discrimination because he could take a service about humanist beliefs, but he isn't allowed to legally marry people.

Let's meet Diane.

Diane is a humanist, and she had a humanist wedding ceremony.

She said, "We had a beautiful day.

I love being able to write the ceremony with Richard.

He helped my husband and I express our beliefs in a way that was unique to us.

But going to the registry office a few days later made me angry.

I think that we humanists should have the same rights as those in Scotland.

" So you could see that Diane felt that there was a real unfairness here, that she could have her beautiful humanist ceremony, but then she had to go and legally register the wedding, and she wouldn't have had to do that if she'd been Christian or Jewish.

Let's just check our understanding so far.

Which of the following statements is true?

A, everyone with a religious or non-religious belief can have a legal marriage with a ceremony of their choice.

B, humanists can have a legal wedding ceremony led by a humanist celebrant.

C, humanists can have a ceremony led by a celebrant, but must have a separate legal ceremony to register the marriage.

You might want to pause the video and have a think.

Excellent.

It's C, isn't it?

Humanists can have a ceremony led by a celebrant, but because that celebrant isn't authorized, they have to have a separate legal registration of the marriage as well.

Okay, let's think about what we've been learning.

Alex and Sofia are continuing this discussion of freedom of religion or belief settlement, and I wonder what you'd say in response to them.

Alex says, "I think the UK has a settlement that allows totally for freedom of religion or belief.

Anyone here can have the beliefs they choose, and they are protected if they want to manifest them.

" Sofia says, "I mostly agree, but I think our settlement here has imbalances.

It's still a work in progress.

A humanist cannot fully manifest their beliefs if they cannot get legally married with a humanist ceremony.

" I wonder what you think about Alex and Sofia is saying.

Are there some ways in which you might agree with them?

Are there some way in which you disagree with them?

Pause the video and think how you would respond to them both.

So you might have said that Alex is correct that many aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief are protected in the UK.

People are free to have or change their religion or belief.

It's not like the situation we saw with Yusef Sala.

People can choose to be humanist, Christian, or Jewish and be protected.

But you might also say that Sofia is correct because there are imbalances in our current settlement.

Humanist weddings are an example there as a group of people with a non-religious belief who can't manifest their beliefs in the same way as other people with different beliefs.

I wonder what you said in response to that.

And secondly, we're going to revisit the continuum line that you thought about earlier.

I'd like you to consider this statement: "The United Kingdom has produced a settlement which protects the individual's freedom of religion or belief.

" I wonder where you put yourself on this continuum when we started, and I wonder if your views have changed from earlier in the lesson.

I'd like you to put your view on the continuum now, thinking about everything you've learned, and I'd like you to explain the reasons for that.

You might want to pause the video now while you do that.

Well, I wonder what you put.

As an example here, we put it onto eight, where we've moved it considerably along from the West African country we looked at earlier.

And we said, "The settlement in the United Kingdom does generally protect people from discrimination.

However, the decision in England and Wales not to allow humanists to have legal marriages conducted by humanist celebrants does create discrimination.

" So it wouldn't be in total freedom.

I wonder where you put this and why.

Okay, let's sum up what we've been learning in this lesson today.

We've learned that a settlement is a name given to how societies have decided on the rights and freedoms of people with different religions and beliefs.

We've learned that in some countries, settlements do not allow for freedom of religion or belief.

And as a result of this, some people have their rights violated and face discrimination or even violence.

And finally, we've learned that in the UK our settlement protects people from violence and guarantees freedom of religion or belief.

However, some people feel there are imbalances or areas where people may still face discrimination.

I really hope you've enjoyed this lesson, looking at different settlements today, and it's made you think a little bit about our country and the world.

And I look forward to seeing you in another lesson soon.

Thank you.