Defining religious belief
Merry whatever
Judges struggle to define religious belief
Dec 21st 2013 | From the print edition
IT HAD been a reasonable request, the woman told a tribunal. She had arranged with her Sikh bosses in the shop where she worked to swap shifts so as to avoid clocking in on Halloween. The date mattered to her as a Wiccan who practised ancient nature-based beliefs. As she recounts the story, her manager said: “You have got to be a Christian surely.” In September the tribunal accepted her claim of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination, helping her win £15,000 ($24,500) in damages.
Religious studies may be losing ground in schools, but a course could soon be required for bosses as court rulings continue to widen the range of beliefs they must accommodate. That does not necessarily mean things are becoming more favourable for sensitive believers, just more confusing. In 2009 a man successfully asserted that his belief in man-made climate change, which had led to a terminal row with his boss, deserved protection. As long as a belief had “cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance” it should be protected, a judge ruled.
Believers in many things have taken note. An ex-producer of Asian-language broadcasts for the BBC was taken seriously (although his claim failed) when he said he was victimised for believing in public-service broadcasting. A Cornish man fired by a government agency after standing in an election without asking his bosses says his belief in “democratic socialism” deserves protection. His case is being considered.
Meanwhile the legal definition of religion and worship expands in other ways. On December 11th the Supreme Court agreed that a couple could marry in a Church of Scientology chapel because it was a “place of meeting for religious worship”. This overturned a 1970 ruling which barred such weddings on the ground that Scientology does not worship a god.
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21591893-judges-struggle-define-religious-belief-merry-whatever