Should religious beliefs preclude holding public office?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It would be useful to know where there are currently any public offices or public sector (state funded) jobs which religious people are banned from holding purely on the basis of them being religious (rather than any beliefs arising thereof). Perhaps there are, but I cannot think of any.

I don't know of any such jobs.

There are, of course, thousands of public sector jobs which atheists are not permitted to hold, purely on the basis of them being atheist.

I can think of a few Muslims who would want to get in on the public sector jobs when it comes to allowing unstunned halal meat as opposed to pre-stunned halal meat.   

Lancashire council last month became the first local authority to ban unstunned halal meat in school dinners. It may be that some Muslims in that local authority will become more politically active as a result and run for council - whether they succeed in getting elected, who knows.

Apparently the industry body Eblex has estimated the value of the halal meat industry to be around £2.6 billion a year. I don't know how much of that is pre-stunned before slaughter. From what I have read beef is not pre-stunned but most chicken and sheep in this country is.

Eblex's latest report into the halal meat market is Britain also suggests that while Muslims in the UK represent just three per cent of the population, they consume around 20 per cent of all the lamb sold as well as a growing percentage of beef, most of which is halal.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/58447/halal-meat-what-does-it-involve-and-is-it-cruel-to-animals

[SteveH]

No, of course they shouldn't. On the other hand, neither should they guarantee public office, so no Bishops should have guaranteed seats in the Lords, and the C of E and C of S should be disestablished.

[Gordon]

No, of course they shouldn't. On the other hand, neither should they guarantee public office, so no Bishops should have guaranteed seats in the Lords, and the C of E and C of S should be disestablished.

The C of S isn't established: it is just the C of E that is the problem.

[Rhiannon]

I’m spiritual. I propose that I replace a CofE Bishop on the HoL and represent the spiritual.

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.

Hypothetical - as they don't exist.

I am talking about real jobs that actually exist.

There are plenty of those that atheists aren't permitted to hold simply because they are atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hypothetical - as they don't exist.

And why is this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I’m spiritual. I propose that I replace a CofE Bishop on the HoL and represent the spiritual.

And I would support your application.

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably a humanist or atheist foundation school would have exactly the same the same legal status as a church or religious foundation school.

Even if they were to exist they wouldn't be able to ban religious people in the manner that faith schools can ban atheists from employment, as the specific opt out from the Equality Act 2010 that allows faith schools to do this applies only to schools with a 'religious character' - humanist or atheist schools would not meet that criteria so would not have the same legal status.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if they were to exist they wouldn't be able to ban religious people in the manner that faith schools can ban atheists from employment, as the specific opt out from the Equality Act 2010 that allows faith schools to do this applies only to schools with a 'religious character' - humanist or atheist schools would not meet that criteria so would not have the same legal status.

That isn't the reason given by humanist UK who have stated that they choose not to thus putting their anti religious impulses above the founding of schools.

[jeremyp]

I’m spiritual. I propose that I replace a CofE Bishop on the HoL and represent the spiritual.

I would vote for you, except you don't get to vote for HoL members.

[jeremyp]

There are plenty of those that atheists aren't permitted to hold simply because they are atheist.

Can you give some examples?

[ProfessorDavey]

Can you give some examples?

Positions in schools with a religious character which have an exemption from the Equality Act 2010 allowing them to restrict employment to individuals with a religious belief, thereby banning atheists. And that exemption applies to all jobs, not just those where you might claim that having a specific religious belief is a genuine occupational requirement (which you could do anyway).

So a catholic school can refuse to consider an application from an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.

[jeremyp]

Positions in schools with a religious character which have an exemption from the Equality Act 2010 allowing them to restrict employment to individuals with a religious belief, thereby banning atheists. And that exemption applies to all jobs, not just those where you might claim that having a specific religious belief is a genuine occupational requirement (which you could do anyway).

So a catholic school can refuse to consider an application from an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.

I thought we were talking about holders of public office. I wouldn't consider teachers to be holders of public office, although I do agree that there is no justification for the discrimination that can occur legally in faith schools.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought we were talking about holders of public office. I wouldn't consider teachers to be holders of public office, although I do agree that there is no justification for the discrimination that can occur legally in faith schools.

The question though is whether an atheist school or a humanist school could be classed as a faith school.

[Robbie]

I too wouldn't consider a teacher to be a holder of public office; however, in reality, how many schools do you know of that put the particular ("an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.'), ideal into practise - I know of none. The important thing would be how they do their job and any religio/non-rel would be secondary as long as they keep it private.

[jeremyp]

I too wouldn't consider a teacher to be a holder of public office; however, in reality, how many schools do you know of that put the particular ("an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.'), ideal into practise - I know of none. The important thing would be how they do their job and any religio/non-rel would be secondary as long as they keep it private.

Of course they wouldn't. You don't need to be an atheist to teach maths - or any subject. Neither do you need to be a religious person, unless part of the job is to indoctrinate the children into a religion.

[SteveH]

The C of S isn't established: it is just the C of E that is the problem.

I stand corrected.

[ProfessorDavey]

I too wouldn't consider a teacher to be a holder of public office; however, in reality, how many schools do you know of that put the particular ("an atheist for a main scale maths teacher role, or even to be a lunchtime assistant.'), ideal into practise - I know of none. The important thing would be how they do their job and any religio/non-rel would be secondary as long as they keep it private.

Not true - many adverts for vacancies in RCC schools indicate specifically that the candidate should be a practising catholic, and while in lower level positions there may be some flexibility it is clear that a candidate who is a practising catholic will be preferred.

For lower level positions there is usually a statement about being a practising catholic or upholding the ethos of the school, which all seems fine and innocuous (because of the 'or'), except this is considered to apply not just during the performance of their duties in the school, but also in their private lives.

So from the Catholic Education Service's own official documentation:

Employment of teachers in Catholic schools
“There are also substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which may be detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of a Catholic school. Some examples of these would be:
• formal apostasy from the Catholic Church ...
• a Catholic contracting a marriage in a non-Catholic church, registry office or any other place without dispensation from canonical form;110 or contracting a marriage where one or both of the parties have been previously married (and whose former spouse is[are] living) without the former marriage(s) being annulled or declared invalid by the Church;
• maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship; and, where such a presumption in the public forum is not repudiated by the parties within the relationship.”

So in effect even if someone is not a practising catholic, thinks they are OK under 'upholding the ethos of the school' the way that ethos is defined extends to their private life and specifically excludes atheists.

So you can have your contract revoked if you get divorced for example. Or (a real case I know about) have a job offer withdrawn because the applicant was separated from his wife.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not true - many adverts for vacancies in RCC schools indicate specifically that the candidate should be a practising catholic, and while in lower level positions there may be some flexibility it is clear that a candidate who is a practising catholic will be preferred.

For lower level positions there is usually a statement about being a practising catholic or upholding the ethos of the school, which all seems fine and innocuous (because of the 'or'), except this is considered to apply not just during the performance of their duties in the school, but also in their private lives.

So from the Catholic Education Service's own official documentation:

Employment of teachers in Catholic schools
“There are also substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which may be detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of a Catholic school. Some examples of these would be:
• formal apostasy from the Catholic Church ...
• a Catholic contracting a marriage in a non-Catholic church, registry office or any other place without dispensation from canonical form;110 or contracting a marriage where one or both of the parties have been previously married (and whose former spouse is[are] living) without the former marriage(s) being annulled or declared invalid by the Church;
• maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship; and, where such a presumption in the public forum is not repudiated by the parties within the relationship.”

So in effect even if someone is not a practising catholic, thinks they are OK under 'upholding the ethos of the school' the way that ethos is defined extends to their private life and specifically excludes atheists.

So you can have your contract revoked if you get divorced for example. Or (a real case I know about) have a job offer withdrawn because the applicant was separated from his wife.

But wouldn't humanist and atheist schools (which are allowed) have the same rights to insist on protecting their ethos?

As far as I know there is no barrier to Humanists and atheists founding state funded schools. That they do not seems to me to preserve a ridiculous circularity of not having schools enables them to moan about the religious having schools!

[ProfessorDavey]

But wouldn't humanist and atheist schools (which are allowed) have the same rights to insist on protecting their ethos?

Because they couldn't under the law.

The law only permits exemptions from the Equalities Act 2010 (which is what allows RCC schools to have these 'rights' to discriminate in employment) for schools with a 'religious character'. Humanist or atheist schools would clearly not be considered to be schools with a 'religious character' and would therefore not have these rights to discriminate.

[Nearly Sane]

Not true - many adverts for vacancies in RCC schools indicate specifically that the candidate should be a practising catholic, and while in lower level positions there may be some flexibility it is clear that a candidate who is a practising catholic will be preferred.

For lower level positions there is usually a statement about being a practising catholic or upholding the ethos of the school, which all seems fine and innocuous (because of the 'or'), except this is considered to apply not just during the performance of their duties in the school, but also in their private lives.

So from the Catholic Education Service's own official documentation:

Employment of teachers in Catholic schools
“There are also substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which may be detrimental or prejudicial to the religious ethos and character of a Catholic school. Some examples of these would be:
• formal apostasy from the Catholic Church ...
• a Catholic contracting a marriage in a non-Catholic church, registry office or any other place without dispensation from canonical form;110 or contracting a marriage where one or both of the parties have been previously married (and whose former spouse is[are] living) without the former marriage(s) being annulled or declared invalid by the Church;
• maintaining a partnership of intimacy with another person, outside a form of marriage approved by the Church and which would, at least in the public forum, carry the presumption from their public behaviour of this being a non-chaste relationship; and, where such a presumption in the public forum is not repudiated by the parties within the relationship.”

So in effect even if someone is not a practising catholic, thinks they are OK under 'upholding the ethos of the school' the way that ethos is defined extends to their private life and specifically excludes atheists.

So you can have your contract revoked if you get divorced for example. Or (a real case I know about) have a job offer withdrawn because the applicant was separated from his wife.

Is this meant to be underlined and not strikethrough?

[Robbie]

I wasn't thinking of Catholic schools Prof which seem to be a law unto themselves, as do the very Orthodox Jewish schools and the private Islamic ones.

A friend of mine was a head teacher of a state Catholic primary school somewhere outside London; her marriage broke up (husband left for a new model) & I remember her telling me that a divorced teacher would not be employed as a head teacher in another Catholic school which would have applied to her had she wanted to move somewhere else and apply for work at the same grade.  Seemed harsh.

A good Catholic comprehensive, not in my area but not that far away & I know a teacher there, plus a very good sixth form college, do not seem to apply such restrictions even if they are in the rules. They also take pupils who aren't Catholic.

[ProfessorDavey]

A friend of mine was a head teacher of a state Catholic primary school somewhere outside London; her marriage broke up (husband left for a new model) & I remember her telling me that a divorced teacher would not be employed as a head teacher in another Catholic school which would have applied to her had she wanted to move somewhere else and apply for work at the same grade.  Seemed harsh.

Yes that seem right and is commonplace.

My example involved appointment of a Headteacher to a catholic secondary. A highly experienced person who had been a head teacher at another catholic school was appointed. He was a practising catholic. Between appointment and taking up the post the school became aware that he had recently separated from his wife (they weren't divorced, just separated). The school revoked the appointment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because they couldn't under the law.

The law only permits exemptions from the Equalities Act 2010 (which is what allows RCC schools to have these 'rights' to discriminate in employment) for schools with a 'religious character'. Humanist or atheist schools would clearly not be considered to be schools with a 'religious character' and would therefore not have these rights to discriminate.

But since Humanist and atheist groups desist from founding schools has this been tested? It seems to me that the reasons Humanists and atheists groups don't found schools and campaign for equal status in terms of ethos is that they would no longer have anything to complain about and they would need to find another weapon with which to introduce and enforce the atheist paradigm.

Also just checked Government guidance on education and the equalities act Humanism apparently comes under the term religion and belief in the definitions section. They have, then surely, the same exemptions.

[ProfessorDavey]

But since Humanist and atheist groups desist from founding schools has this been tested? It seems to me that the reasons Humanists and atheists groups don't found schools and campaign for equal status in terms of ethos is that they would no longer have anything to complain about and they would need to find another weapon with which to introduce and enforce the atheist paradigm.

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.