Question I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?

Accepted:
July 22, 2010

Comments

Thank you for these questions. Beginning with the last point, the meaning of "secular" has shifted over the years. Today, it is probably mostly used to indicate that someone or something is non-religious, but it used to mean worldly or being in the world as opposed to being in a monastery. Thus, a person might be a Roman Catholic priest serving a church and, so long as he is not part of a monastic order (e.g. a Benedicting) he would have been called a secular priest.

The consitution in the USA forbid the establishment of religion and the freedom to practice one's religion, but when you refer to someone's "premises" and schools I take it you are referring to property and institutions that may be private or public. As for property say a person's home or land presumably the owner can control who is permitted on the property and can set up rules freely, e.g. only allow practicing Muslims access. In the case of schools, matters are more complex. If a school is private (not at least directly supported by the state / taxation) the constitutional freedom to practice one's religion would not prevent a school from specifying that it only serves students and employs faculty of a particular faith (or, changing the example, it only allows stuents and faculty who are secular atheists). But when the school or institution is sponsored by the state, whether it be a state university or the post office, then exclusion based on religious identity is problematic.

The French and banning burqua? I am inclined to think that such a ban does impinge a basic freedom unless one can demonstrate that such a ban is necessary to prevent violence or it is essential for a stable civic culture.

I'm in aggreement with half of Charles' last point. I don't think that your constitutional right is being violated if the government has good reason to believe that the practice of your religion might lead to violence and so the suppression of the rights of others. Also, though the meaning of words is always in flux, I take secular to mean non- religious.