Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are in the Jakswan world of hypotheticals.

Effectively what you are saying is - if humanist or atheist schools existed (hypothetical 1), noting that this may require a change in the law to allow them to be formed (hypothetical 2) or even if allowed in principle to be approved in practice by government (hypothetical 3), that the courts may consider them to be 'schools of a religious character' (hypothetical 4) or the Equality Act 2010 might be amended (hypothetical 5) to allow these schools to discriminate in the manner of faith schools.

Back in the real world there are adverts out there right now for jobs in faith schools which ban atheists from being considered.

That there are no atheist or humanist schools is due to humanists and atheists not exercising their rights NOT because of religious privilege.

That is the reality. I'm almost moved to quit the forum on the grounds of Monstrous humbug on the part of atheists who it seems not only express an OCD over a religion free HOL but gross bullshitting over the question of religious 'privilege' in education......we got there in the end.

Therefore whenever you talk about religious schools can do this and religious schools do that. That too would apply to Humanist and atheist schools which are prevented by humanists who want to carry on complaining about religious privilege.

As it happens non religious character single sex schools have exemptions under the Equality Act 2010!!!

[ProfessorDavey]

Worth noting too that Catholic schools often require all governors to be practising catholics. Again from the Catholic Education Service official documentation indicating suggested words to be included in application forms for governors:

‘I am a practising Catholic in full communion with the See of Rome, and I am not the subject of any canonical censure or penalty; my appointment places a duty upon me to ensure that the religious character of the school is preserved and developed and that the school is conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Deed of the Diocese of........................; my appointment requires me to comply with the provisions of Canon Law, the teachings of the Catholic Church and such directives made by the Bishop and his Trustees and their agent in respect of the school or other schools situated in the Diocese’

In many schools this will apply to all 'classes' of Governor, including parent and staff. So in effect if you are a non catholic parent of a child in a catholic school you are banned from becoming a governor - likewise if you a non catholic member of staff you cannot become a staff governor. That is in spite of the fact that both those categories are supposed to be democratically elected by the relevant electorate (all parents and all staff).

[ProfessorDavey]

That there are no atheist or humanist schools is due to humanists and atheists not exercising their rights NOT because of religious privilege.

Can you prove that please - can you provide me with evidence that the setting up of atheist or humanist schools is permitted under the current legislation on setting up of schools in principle, and also that in practice a proposal would be approved by the DfE and/or regional schools commissioner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are in the Jakswan world of hypotheticals.

Effectively what you are saying is - if humanist or atheist schools existed (hypothetical 1), noting that this may require a change in the law to allow them to be formed (hypothetical 2) or even if allowed in principle to be approved in practice by government (hypothetical 3), that the courts may consider them to be 'schools of a religious character' (hypothetical 4) or the Equality Act 2010 might be amended (hypothetical 5) to allow these schools to discriminate in the manner of faith schools.

Looking at the Government definitions in the equality act 2010
No change in law would be required.
They come under the definitons
Courts would only be involved if the act was challenged
No amendment seems necessary since humanists are included in definitions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Looking at the Government definitions in the equality act 2010
No change in law would be required.
They come under the definitons
Courts would only be involved if the act was challenged
No amendment seems necessary since humanists are included in definitions.

Where is humanism included in the definition of 'school with a religious character' in the Equality Act 2010.

Actually looking at the info on setting up a free school (which is presumably the only way theoretically that a humanist or atheist school could be set up), it is clear that it would be completely impossible to set up a humanist free school that functions in the manner of (for example) a RCC school, in other words being able to discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of religion or belief.

In fact it is de facto impossible full stop as a humanist or atheist free school would be required to hold a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature by law - that is somewhat incompatible with the premise of a humanist or atheist school, don't you think.

[ProfessorDavey]

As it happens non religious character single sex schools have exemptions under the Equality Act 2010!!!

Not in relation to employment they don't. A girl's school cannot discriminate against men when recruiting staff. They cannot advertise for a female Head teacher, or a female Deputy head. They cannot indicate in the job description that being female is an essential or even desirable requirement for the post.

A Catholic school can (and does) advertise for a Head teacher or deputy where being a practicing catholic is an essential requirement in the job description.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you prove that please - can you provide me with evidence that the setting up of atheist or humanist schools is permitted under the current legislation on setting up of schools in principle, and also that in practice a proposal would be approved by the DfE and/or regional schools commissioner.

My two evidences are:
https://humanism.org.uk/education/education-policy/humanist-schools-why-not/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is humanism included in the definition of 'school with a religious character' in the Equality Act 2010.

Actually looking at the info on setting up a free school (which is presumably the only way theoretically that a humanist or atheist school could be set up), it is clear that it would be completely impossible to set up a humanist free school that functions in the manner of (for example) a RCC school, in other words being able to discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of religion or belief.

In fact it is de facto impossible full stop as a humanist or atheist free school would be required to hold a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature by law - that is somewhat incompatible with the premise of a humanist or atheist school, don't you think.

That is not the only way and yes it is a way.
The other way would be to set up an independent Humanist and atheist school and then opt into the state system.
That is how church schools started.

According to Government definitions Humanism is a religion or belief.

Would a daily act of broadly Christian worship change the whole character of a humanist or atheist school? No.
The way round it would be to have a reading from the KJV as recommended and supported by Richard Dawkins himself.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/19/richard-dawkins-king-james-bible

[ProfessorDavey]

According to Government definitions Humanism is a religion or belief.

Link please.

But that isn't sufficient - for schools it isn't religion or belief to gain the exemptions under the Equality Act 2010, it is a further sub category, that of a school with a religious character.

The information on setting up free schools, makes it absolutely clear that having a specific ethos isn't enough to gain the exemptions, nor even just being a faith school, so the exemptions are only for schools with a religious character, formally designated as such by government. So the government might well consider humanism to be a belief (so they should as belief included non religious) I cannot see how it could possibly define a humanist school, let alone an atheist school, as a school with a religious character - therefore the exemptions will not apply.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Link please.

But that isn't sufficient - for schools it isn't religion or belief to gain the exemptions under the Equality Act 2010, it is a further sub category, that of a school with a religious character.

The information on setting up free schools, makes it absolutely clear that having a specific ethos isn't enough to gain the exemptions, nor even just being a faith school, so the exemptions are only for schools with a religious character. So the government might well consider humanism to be a belief (so they should as belief included non religious) I cannot see how it cold possibly define a humanist school, let alone an atheist school, as a school with a religious character - therefore the exemptions will not apply.

I have provided numerous links.
What is the governments definition of a religion?

[ProfessorDavey]

My two evidences are:
https://humanism.org.uk/education/education-policy/humanist-schools-why-not/

Indeed that is pretty well what I said upthread, about not compounding inequality with further inequality.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315587/Equality_Act_Advice_Final.pdf

Yup read it - hence all the stuff about schools designated by government as having a religious character.

But you might want to read this too:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/579906/Info-How_to_apply_to_set_up_a_free_school_guidance.pdf

Particularly the sections at the end which clearly delineate between schools with a specific ethos (humanist may well be OK there), Faith ethos schools and the sub-set of schools specifically designated to have a religious character. Only the last category (which would not include humanist schools) gains all the special privileges, including but not limited to exemptions under the Equality Act, ability to discriminate by faith in admissions etc.

[SteveH]

Worth noting too that Catholic schools often require all governors to be practising catholics...

I'm a practising Anglican. I hope to get the hang of it one day.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the governments definition of a religion?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561516/Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief_Toolkit_-_2016.pdf

Religion:
'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'

Clearly neither humanism nor atheism is a religion under that definition in the government document. They do however fall under the definition of 'belief' - see below:

Belief
'The term “belief” does not necessarily involve a divine being; it denotes a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. So not all beliefs are covered by this protection. For example, if someone believed that the moon was made of cheese, this belief would not be likely to meet the test above. But in general a very wide meaning is given to this term. The following are examples of beliefs considered to fall within the protection of this freedom: druidism, veganism, pacifism, the divine light mission, Krishna Consciousness Movement, humanism, atheism and agnosticism.'

Humanism is a belief, it is not a religion, likewise atheism.

Only schools with a religious character - not a 'belief' character are permitted exemptions under the Equality Act 2010.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the governments definition of a religion?

Defined also with regard to Charity Law, which again makes the distinction between a religion and a belief:

'When considering whether or not a system of belief constitutes a religion for the purposes of charity law, the courts have identified certain characteristics which describe a religious belief. These characteristics include:

belief in a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses), or supreme being, or divine or transcendental being or entity or spiritual principle (‘supreme being or entity’) which is the object or focus of the religion
a relationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of the supreme being or entity
a degree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance
an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework'

Humanism and atheism clearly do not meet those criteria - they are not a religion as defined under UK Law.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/561516/Freedom_of_Religion_or_Belief_Toolkit_-_2016.pdf

Religion:
'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'

Clearly neither humanism nor atheism is a religion under that definition in the government document. They do however fall under the definition of 'belief' - see below:

Belief
'The term “belief” does not necessarily involve a divine being; it denotes a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. So not all beliefs are covered by this protection. For example, if someone believed that the moon was made of cheese, this belief would not be likely to meet the test above. But in general a very wide meaning is given to this term. The following are examples of beliefs considered to fall within the protection of this freedom: druidism, veganism, pacifism, the divine light mission, Krishna Consciousness Movement, humanism, atheism and agnosticism.'

Humanism is a belief, it is not a religion, likewise atheism.

Only schools with a religious character - not a 'belief' character are permitted exemptions under the Equality Act 2010.

I could not find a glossary of terms here
and your definition contradicts that which you provide for charity law. There is therefore not the clarity you claim.

Given the free school advisory you mention.
There is it seems opportunity to found atheist and humanist schools under the category Free school with a world view schools which are not religious character schools. The latter seems to allow employment discrimination.

[ProfessorDavey]

I could not find a glossary of terms here
and your definition contradicts that which you provide for charity law. There is therefore not the clarity you claim.

Given the free school advisory you mention.
There is it seems opportunity to found atheist and humanist schools under the categories faith free and faith ethos schools which are not religious character schools. The latter seems to allow employment discrimination.

Nope - you are wrong:

'Unlike schools that are faith designated as having a religious character, faith ethos schools, cannot teach religious education and provide collective worship in line with the tenets of their faith. Faith ethos schools are also not permitted to adopt faith-based admission arrangements. Having a faith ethos does not entitle free schools to any additional freedoms other than in making faith a genuine occupational requirement when hiring a senior leader.'

Note that any employer can make a claim that hiring someone with a particular protected characteristic (e.g. gender, race, religion or belief, etc) is a genuine occupational requirement. Therefore what this statement actually means is that 'faith ethos' free school has no exemptions from the standard Equality Act 2010 provisions, which already permit genuine occupational requirement for everyone.

A catholic schools can (due to its exemption) put out an advert indicating that a NQT maths teacher must be a practising catholic or that preference would be given to a practising catholic. That can only be justified under the exemption as it is clearly not a genuine occupational requirement for the job. A humanist 'faith ethos' free school (if one was even allowed to exist) would break the law if it put out an advert requiring a MQT maths teacher to be a humanist, or even to give preference to a humanist.

[ProfessorDavey]

and your definition contradicts that which you provide for charity law.

No it doesn't. The are worded differently but the overall meaning is very similar between:

'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'

And

'belief in a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses), or supreme being, or divine or transcendental being or entity or spiritual principle (‘supreme being or entity’) which is the object or focus of the religion
a relationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of the supreme being or entity
a degree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance
an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework'

What is clear from both is that neither humanism nor atheism are religions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - you are wrong:

'Unlike schools that are faith designated as having a religious character, faith ethos schools, cannot teach religious education and provide collective worship in line with the tenets of their faith. Faith ethos schools are also not permitted to adopt faith-based admission arrangements. Having a faith ethos does not entitle free schools to any additional freedoms other than in making faith a genuine occupational requirement when hiring a senior leader.'

Note that any employer can make a claim that hiring someone with a particular protected characteristic (e.g. gender, race, religion or belief, etc) is a genuine occupational requirement. Therefore what this statement actually means is that 'faith ethos' free school has no exemptions from the standard Equality Act 2010 provisions, which already permit genuine occupational requirement for everyone.

A catholic schools can (due to its exemption) put out an advert indicating that a NQT maths teacher must be a practising catholic or that preference would be given to a practising catholic. That can only be justified under the exemption as it is clearly not a genuine occupational requirement for the job. A humanist 'faith ethos' free school (if one was even allowed to exist) would break the law if it put out an advert requiring a MQT maths teacher to be a humanist, or even to give preference to a humanist.

You are allowed to set up a school with a specific worldview and schools that are not designated as religious can include faith ethos which are able to insist that senior leaders adhere to the faith as an occupational requirement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't. The are worded differently but the overall meaning is very similar between:

'The word “religion” is commonly, but not always, associated with belief in a transcendent deity or deities, i.e. a superhuman power or powers with an interest in human destiny.'

And

'belief in a god (or gods) or goddess (or goddesses), or supreme being, or divine or transcendental being or entity or spiritual principle (‘supreme being or entity’) which is the object or focus of the religion
a relationship between the believer and the supreme being or entity by showing worship of, reverence for or veneration of the supreme being or entity
a degree of cogency, cohesion, seriousness and importance
an identifiable positive, beneficial, moral or ethical framework'

What is clear from both is that neither humanism nor atheism are religions.

It is clear from above that one suggests belief in the transcendent is common but not necessary and the other suggests that it is.

[Nearly Sane]

Many thanks to Prof Davey for his clear outlining of the rights of religions in some cases to discriminate in a large number of public office appointments. Be interested to see if anyone wants to justify this.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is clear from above that one suggests belief in the transcendent is common but not necessary and the other suggests that it is.

Nit picking - humanism couldn't ever be considered to fit with either definition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Many thanks to Prof Davey for his clear outlining of the rights of religions in some cases to discriminate in a large number of public office appointments. Be interested to see if anyone wants to justify this.

what is this number?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nit picking - humanism couldn't ever be considered to fit with either definition.

How does this prevent atheists or humanists from setting up state schools of a '' specific world view''?

[ProfessorDavey]

So perhaps we might want to look at the differences that would exist between a hypothetical humanist school (even if one were permitted to be established by Government) and a current faith school, lets use a catholic one as an example. This is based entirely on current law:

Existing catholic faith school (e.g. an academy)

1. Can discriminate in admissions policies to give preference to catholics or admit only catholics
2. Can advertise all posts with being a practising catholic as an essential job requirement
3. Can require all governors to be practising catholics
4. Can use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse.
5. Can teach an RE curriculum that focussed exclusively on their religious beliefs, in line with the tenets of their faith.
6. Can include daily acts of worship of their faith (if this were a jewish faith school, they could replace basic requirement for christian worship with jewish worship
7. Can have their own separate inspection system established by their church to inspect the ethos and RE/faith aspects of the school, but paid for by the tax payer.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.

Hypothetical humanist school (e.g. a free school)

1. Cannot discriminate whatsoever in admissions policies to give preference to humanists or admit only humanists (to do so would be breaking the law)
2. Cannot advertise all posts with being a humanist as an essential job requirement (to do so would be breaking the law) - the only exception being senior staff under genuine occupational requirement as applies to all employers - would only be permitted to be worded as adherence to ethos, not being (for example) a member of humanist UK
3. Cannot require parent/staff governors to be humanists
4. Cannot use wide ranging 'adherence to ethos' requirements within disciplinary processes for all staff even if activity is a private matter - e.g. a member of staff separates from their spouse. (to do so would be breaking the law)
5. Cannot create a curriculum in line with the tenets of their belief, e.g. by replacing RE with a humanist curriculum.
6. Must include a daily act of worship of a broadly christian nature
7. Cannot have their own separate inspection system established by humanist UK (for example) to inspect the ethos and aspects of the school - inspection entirely by independent Ofsted inspectors.
8. School funded 100% from state funding.

Perhaps you might begin to understand what we mean by special privileges for religion, Vlad.

[ippy]

You're a waste of time Vlad.

ippy