Abstract
The introduction attempts to demonstrate that philosophers do have a distinctive contribution to make to the study of the role of religious symbols in the law of human rights. Court judgments often explicitly or implicitly make significant assertions concerning the role of religious symbols, for example that religious symbols exist merely to express antecedent religious beliefs. These assertions are properly philosophical rather than legal, and therefore should be subjected to philosophical scrutiny. Philosophers have the necessary training and knowledge of the discussion of assertions like these in order properly to evaluate them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Kokkinakis v Greece (1993) 17 EHRR 397 (App no 14307/88, 25 May 1993); Judge Pettiti’s partly concurring opinion. See further, Martínez-Torrón, J. (2001) ‘The European Court of Human Rights and Religion’ in R. O’Dair and A. Lewis (eds) Law and Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 188; and McGoldrick’s comments, ‘There was no substantive jurisprudence on freedom of religion until 1993 but since then it has become a torrent’
(D. McGoldrick, ‘Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life — Crucifixes in the Classroom?’, European Law Review, 11.3, p. 499).
See M. Hill and R. Sandberg (2007) ‘Is Nothing Sacred? Clashing Symbols in a Secular World’, Public Law, p. 488.
R (Watkins-Singh) v Aberdare Girls’ High School Governors [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin), [2008] 3 FCR 203.
R (Playfoot) v Millais School Governing Body [2007] EWHC 1698 (Admin), [2007] 3 FCR 754.
Lautsi v Italy [GC] [2011] ECHR 2412, (2012) 54 EHRR 3. (App no 30814/06, 18 March 2011.)
Azmi v Kirklees MBC [2007] UKEAT 0009/07/3003, [2007] ICR 1154.
Dahlab v Switzerland ECHR 2001-V. (App no 42393/98, 15 February 2001.)
Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80, [2010] ICR 890.
Chaplin v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust (ET/1702886/2009, 21 April 2010).
Ladele v Islington LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, [2010] 1 WLR 955.
McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 880, [2010] IRLR 872.
Eweida v UK [2013] ECHR 37, [2013] IRLR 231. (Apps no 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, 15 January 2013.)
In the Conclusion to this book, we provide, significantly, the first sustained analysis of the ECtHR’s judgment in this case.
B. Johnson (2012) ‘It’s a Huge Mistake to Forbid a Tiny Act of Christian Worship’.
D. Cameron (2013) ‘Delighted that principle of wearing religious symbols at work has been upheld — ppl shouldn’t suffer discrimination due to religious beliefs’, Twitter (15 January 2013), https://twitter.com/David_Cameron, date accessed 15 June 2013.
BBC News, (2012) ‘Cardinal Keith O’Brien urges Christians to “proudly” wear the cross’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17611036, date accessed 15 June 2013.
See the statement of facts in Dogru v France [2008] ECHR 1579, (2009) 49 EHRR 8. (App no 27058/05, 4 December 2008.)
Sahin v Turkey [GC] [2005] ECHR 819, (2007) 44 EHRR 5. (App no 44774/98, 10 November 2005.)
R (Begum) v Denbigh High School Governors [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC 100.
A v UK (1984) 6 EHRR 558. (App no 10295/82, 1 January 1984.)
Lord Carey and Others (2010) ‘The Religious Rights of Christians are Treated with Disrespect’, The Daily Telegraph (London, 28 March 2010), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/7528487/The-religious-rights-of-Christians-are-treated-with-disrespect.html, date accessed 15 June 2013.
Christians in Parliament, (2012) Clearing the Ground inquiry: Preliminary report into the freedom of Christians in the UK, http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/publications/upload/Clearing-the-ground.pdf, p. 15, date accessed 15 June 2013.
See N. Squires (2010) ‘Cardinal Drops Out after Calling UK “Third World”’, The Daily Telegraph (London, 15 September 2010), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8004493/Pope-visit-Cardinal-drops-out-after-calling-UK-Third-World.html, date accessed 15 June 2013.
T. Sanderson (2006) ‘Christian Bullies Press Their Advantage’, Editorial of the National Secular Society (24 November 2006), http://www.secularism.org.uk/editorialchristianbulliespressth.html, date accessed 15 June 2013.
Named after Arrowsmith v UK (1981) 3 EHRR 218 (Commission Decision). (App no 7050/75, 12 October 1978.)
Calder, G. and Smith, S. (2011) ‘Differential Treatment and Employability: A UK Case Study of Veil-wearing in Schools’ in G. Calder and E. Ceva (eds) Diversity in Europe: Dilemmas of Differential Treatment in Theory and Practice (London: Routledge), pp. 157–69.
R. Trigg (2007) Religion in Public Life: Must Faith Be Privatized? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
R. Trigg (2012) Equality, Freedom and Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
M. Hill, R. Sandberg, and N. Doe (2011) Religion and Law in the United Kingdom (Alphen: Kluwer), p. 25.
None of the observations that follow will surprise many philosophers of religion, for a glance at any critical volume or essay on the field will show similar remarks. For detailed presentations of what we go on to say, see P. Anderson (1997) A Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell).
B. Clack and B. Clack (2008) Philosophy of Religion: A Critical Introduction, 2nd edn (London: Polity).
Carter, J. and Whistler, D. (2011) ‘At the Intersection of Moral and Religious Philosophy’ in J. Carlisle, J. Carter, and D. Whistler (eds) Moral Powers, Fragile Beliefs: Essays on Moral and Religious Philosophy (London: Continuum).
and, most recently, K. Schilbrack (2013) The Future of the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford: Blackwell).
J. Cottingham (2005) The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 2–3.
R. Le Poidevin (2012) ‘Editorial’, Religious Studies, 48.1, p. 2.
A. Scott-Baumann (2003) ‘Teacher Education for Muslim Women: Intercultural Relationships, Method and Philosophy’, Ethnicities, 3.2, p. 258.
B. Clack (2002) Sex and Death: A Reappraisal of Human Mortality (London: Polity).
M. Wynn (2009), Faith and Place: An Essay in Embodied Religious Epistemology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
For a statement of this approach, see M. Burley (2012) Contemplating Religious Forms of Life (London: Bloomsbury).
For further details on what follows, see the programmatic remarks in C. Baker, J. Reader, and D. Whistler (2012) ‘Speculative Philosophies and Religious Practices’, Political Theology, 13.2, pp. 141–55 (particularly the section ‘The Impact of Philosophy of Religion’). Background for this description of the methodology can be found in the various methodological reviews in Review of Religious Research (for instance).
A full list of those involved is given in the Acknowledgements. As is there pointed out, in many ways they can be considered co-authors of the following.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Daniel J. Hill and Daniel Whistler
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hill, D.J., Whistler, D. (2013). Introduction: Philosophy of Religion Goes to Court. In: The Right to Wear Religious Symbols. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137354174_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137354174_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-46990-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-35417-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)