Scandinavian Thread

[grumbler]

Certainly not an EU competence, no idea about the rest of your question with regards to Denmark. But as I know the German rules I can confidently state that it will be different across the EU.

I guess the most simple case is similar to a tax exemption claim with the IRS.

But any organization can make the tax exemption case in the US.  Anyone can declare their group to be a tax-exempt part of The Church of the FSM provided they meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3)e.  To be tax-exempt, all churches must be non-profits under IRC Section 501(c)(3)e, and the "religious exemption" is a purely optional designation signifying nothing in law.

[grumbler]

I think I mistranslated the term in my post - it should be "registered religious community" and is an administrative term to describe a temple, church, or association formally recognized by the Church Ministry as serving religious function. I think Zanza's analogy of a church (or other group) getting tax exempt status in the US is pretty good, though the consequences of the status in Denmark are different.

This may or may not affect any points about whether and how much the state should be involved in recognizing religious communities (or not), but our conversation will be based on a slightly a more accurate reflection of what's actually happening.

I was unaware of the existence of a Church Ministry that gatekeeps religious registration (and thus recognition) in Denmark.  I thought all of that stuff disappeared with the Enlightenment.

[Jacob]

I was unaware of the existence of a Church Ministry that gatekeeps religious registration (and thus recognition) in Denmark.  I thought all of that stuff disappeared with the Enlightenment.

Oh no, not at all. In a Lutheran state, religion is subjected to the power of the state. That was one of the sticking points of the Reformation, after all.

Denmark has a state religion - or rather an Established Church (Evangelical Lutheran). Therefore the state has a ministry dedicated to administering the Established Church, which has - since the advent of religious freedom (in the Danish Constitution since 1849) - grown to take on administrative functions related to all religions in the country.

I genuinely don't know if it is more onerous to become a recognized religious community in Denmark than to get tax free status as a church in the US. I expect it may be.

By default - unless you belong to another religious community - you are a member of the state church and thus pay a certain amount of tax which is used to pay for upkeep of churches, pay for priests, and so on. Other religious communities similarly receive the church tax money collected from their members. It is possible - and fairly trivial - to leave the state church and thus not pay the (slight) church tax.

There's even a registered Asatru religious community.

Definitely not the American way

[Admiral Yi]

Any idea how much people pay a year?

And I suppose they've done away with the offering plate?

[Jacob]

Any idea how much people pay a year?

I looked it up - it depends on your municipality (as I think the various churches etc are administered at that level). It ranges from 0.43% to 1.3% of your income, with a national average of 0.88%... which I guess may or may not be slight depending on your perspective.

And I suppose they've done away with the offering plate?

I expect so. As I understand it, it's also fundamentally free to be baptized, confirmed, or married in a church (but you'll probably pay extra for additional things like flowers or music or whatnot). If/when you're baptized in a state church you automatically become a member of the church... I assume it's something similar for the other religious communities.

[crazy canuck]

What is innate about choosing religious belief?  Are you suggesting the dominant culture is something that is innate to an individual?

If you're in a community where everyone wears a pointy hat and your parents raise you to always wear a pointy hat or else a giant elephant will be angry and stomp on your soul, then stopping wearing a pointy hat isn't an easy decision to make.

Yes.  But that is not an innate human quality.  You are describing cultural values.  Which was the point I was awkwardly trying to make. If a certain type of religious belief was innate to our species, the vast majority of us would follow it.

[crazy canuck]

Certainly not an EU competence, no idea about the rest of your question with regards to Denmark. But as I know the German rules I can confidently state that it will be different across the EU.

I guess the most simple case is similar to a tax exemption claim with the IRS.

But any organization can make the tax exemption case in the US.  Anyone can declare their group to be a tax-exempt part of The Church of the FSM provided they meet the requirements of IRC Section 501(c)(3)e.  To be tax-exempt, all churches must be non-profits under IRC Section 501(c)(3)e, and the "religious exemption" is a purely optional designation signifying nothing in law.

Oh, I did not know that.  Thanks.

In Canada it is a bit different.  Religious groups are usually registered as charitable organizations.  To qualify as a charity the money received, after expenses, must be used for charitable purposes.   

[Barrister]

You mention a pasta strainer.  I think there is no problem is saying that before a religious accommodation is made it needs to be a "seriously held" religious belief.  And again while I think there might be some discussions around the edges, I don't think a belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster would ever count as a serious religious belief.

How do you determine if a belief is seriously held? There is a fundamental unseriousness to these accommodation demands.

Also I believe this reading of history is wrong:

It was finally in the 17th-19th century where we, as a human society, decided to follow a belief of "live and let live" - that people of different religious beliefs should just accept people of other beliefs.

The West decided during the Enlightenment to separate church and state, and more generally for organized religions to have less and less say in public policies. It was not a kumbaya moment where folks in Florence decided to accept muslims as they are, it was a recognition that religion hampers progress and should have no weight in stately matters.

Religion is a private matter. We should not be carving out exceptions.

I think you my friend have the misreading of history.

During the enlightenment European countries certainly did not decide to separate church and state - many/most European countries continue to have official state religions to this day.  I always like to bring up that the pre-amble to the Canadian constitution recognizes the "supremacy of God".

However, after the various wars of religion in Europe, it eventually was decided that trying to enforce one's religion on others was doomed, and instead that a general policy of religious toleration would be agreed to.  Now yes in Florence (or wherever) that was more about Protestants vs Catholics, and not Islam (never mind Sikhism or whatever) but the principle none the less stands.

And since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

[crazy canuck]

There is an interesting argument coming from the Evangelical community in Canada that our nation does not have a separation of Church and State.  As BB points out, there is wording in the preamble of our Constitution Act of 1982 which recognizes both the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Which God in particular is also an interesting question not addressed in the Constitution. 

The courts have not given any weight to the language in the preamble and so, for at least the present, the separation of Church and State is well recognized in Canada, and particularly in the Freedom of Religion jurisprudence which recognizes freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

So for example, laws prohibiting Sunday shopping were struck down.  Also, the State cannot endorse any particular religious belief in Canada.     

[Admiral Yi]

Just because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

[Barrister]

There is an interesting argument coming from the Evangelical community in Canada that our nation does not have a separation of Church and State.  As BB points out, there is wording in the preamble of our Constitution Act of 1982 which recognizes both the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Which God in particular is also an interesting question not addressed in the Constitution. 

The courts have not given any weight to the language in the preamble and so, for at least the present, the separation of Church and State is well recognized in Canada, and particularly in the Freedom of Religion jurisprudence which recognizes freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

So for example, laws prohibiting Sunday shopping were struck down.  Also, the State cannot endorse any particular religious belief in Canada.     

Oh I'm 100% sure that the vagueness of "God" was deliberate.

And while the "supremacy of God" in the preamble has never been a deciding issue on a decision that I'm aware of, the Courts have never said that the preamble itself is without meaning, either.

So I'm unfamiliar with the specific argument from the "Evangelical community" you're referencing, but it is true that we don't have the same language that the US does about about the separation of church and state.  In particular the rights of Catholics is enshrined in the Quebec Act, and the rights to religious education is guaranteed in the Constitution.

[crazy canuck]

There is an interesting argument coming from the Evangelical community in Canada that our nation does not have a separation of Church and State.  As BB points out, there is wording in the preamble of our Constitution Act of 1982 which recognizes both the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

Which God in particular is also an interesting question not addressed in the Constitution. 

The courts have not given any weight to the language in the preamble and so, for at least the present, the separation of Church and State is well recognized in Canada, and particularly in the Freedom of Religion jurisprudence which recognizes freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

So for example, laws prohibiting Sunday shopping were struck down.  Also, the State cannot endorse any particular religious belief in Canada.     

Oh I'm 100% sure that the vagueness of "God" was deliberate.

And while the "supremacy of God" in the preamble has never been a deciding issue on a decision that I'm aware of, the Courts have never said that the preamble itself is without meaning, either.

So I'm unfamiliar with the specific argument from the "Evangelical community" you're referencing, but it is true that we don't have the same language that the US does about about the separation of church and state.  In particular the rights of Catholics is enshrined in the Quebec Act, and the rights to religious education is guaranteed in the Constitution.

There was an interesting anecdote shared by my constitutional prof back in the day. Trudeau was convinced to include the wording when someone from his caucus pointed out all the churches in swing ridings.

If you want to see the arguments, look up the arguments made by the Appellants in the Servatius case decided by the BC Court of Appeal last year.  It was essentially based on the textual analysis you posed in the last paragraph of your post - that we don't have the same language therefore there is no formal separation.  The court rejected the argument and pointed to the SCC cases which have decided there is a clear separation.

[Barrister]

If you want to see the arguments, look up the arguments made by the Appellants in the Servatius case decided by the BC Court of Appeal last year.  It was essentially based on the textual analysis you posed in the last paragraph of your post - that we don't have the same language therefore there is no formal separation.  The court rejected the argument and pointed to the SCC cases which have decided there is a clear separation.

So I wasn't familiar with the case but looked it up:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2022/2022bcca421/2022bcca421.html

Here's the relevant portion:

State Neutrality
[65]      I turn to the second aspect of freedom of religion: the duty of state neutrality. The Charter does not expressly impose a duty of religious neutrality on the state. This duty arises from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion: Saguenay at paras. 71–72.

[66]      Our understanding of freedom of religion includes separation of church and state, and includes the obligation of the state to remain neutral. This is not because the state has hostility towards religion but, rather, because religion occupies a separate sphere than the state. Religious leaders interfering with or dictating state policy is viewed as undemocratic. In this regard, see Jeroen Temperman, State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law: Towards a Right to Religiously Neutral Governance, (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2010) at 136–37.

[67]      State neutrality is assured "when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever, while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the individuals affected": S.L. at paras. 31–32; Saguenay at para. 71. When the state indicates that it adheres to or favours one set of beliefs, it is creating a "hierarchy of beliefs and casting doubt on the value of those it does not share": Saguenay at para. 73.

[68]      The duty of neutrality applies to government institutions, not individuals, and it helps preserve and promote multiculturalism and diversity. It encourages everyone to participate fully in public life regardless of their beliefs: Saguenay at paras. 74–75.

[69]      The duty of state neutrality does not mean that the state favours atheism or agnosticism by default. It simply means that the state takes no position on questions of religion. This was explained in Saguenay:

[133]   Contrary to the respondents' argument, abstaining does not amount to taking a stand in favour of atheism or agnosticism. The difference, which, although subtle, is important, can be illustrated easily. A practice according to which a municipality's officials, rather than reciting a prayer, solemnly declared that the council's deliberations were based on a denial of God would be just as unacceptable. The state's duty of neutrality would preclude such a position, the effect of which would be to exclude all those who believe in the existence of a deity.

[70]      Saguenay involved a city mayor who started each municipal council meeting with a prayer at a microphone. The mayor and other counsellors would stand and make the sign of the cross when the prayer was said. One citizen asked that the mayor cease this practice which he said interfered with his own freedom of conscience and religion. The mayor refused and then the council passed a by-law incorporating a prayer into the beginning of their meetings. The citizen brought a complaint which made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[71]      In finding that the citizen's complaint must prevail, Gascon J. noted, at para. 64, that state sponsorship of one religious tradition amounts to discrimination against other such traditions.

[72]      Saguenay explains that it is no answer for the state to suggest that its form of expression is merely part of a cultural heritage, if the expression identifies the state with a particular religion: paras. 77–78, 87–88. However, the duty of state neutrality is not breached by every expression of religion in the public sphere. Cultural practices may be intertwined with the religious, and not all cultural expressions will breach the state's duty of neutrality: Saguenay, at paras. 87, 116, 131.

[73]      A complainant seeking to prove that a state practice breaches the duty of neutrality must prove two components:

a)   the state is professing, adopting or favouring one belief to the exclusion of others; and

b)   the exclusion has resulted in interference with the complainant's freedom of conscience and religion.

See Saguenay at paras. 83–85.

[74]      The first component requires the court to consider the circumstances to determine the state actor's intention behind the action at issue, and to consider the actual effect of the state's action: Saguenay at para. 88.

[75]      The second component returns to the test for showing interference with religious freedom. The complainant must establish two components to make out interference: first, that the complainant's religious belief is sincere and, second, that the state's lack of neutrality has interfered with the individual's ability to act in accordance with their own beliefs in a manner that is more than trivial or insubstantial: Saguenay at paras. 85–86, 88.

[76]      This was demonstrated in Saguenay where the complainant was an atheist. The prayer at the start of each council meeting made him feel uncomfortable, and had a "severe exclusionary and isolating impact" on him. The Court found that the circumstances in which the prayer was recited "turned the meetings into a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs": Saguenay at paras. 93, 120–121.

So paragraph 66 does use the phrase "separation of church and state", but that is the only use of that phrase in the entire judgment.  It cites to an article (not caselaw).  Throughout the rest of the section (including the subheading) it instead uses the phrase "religious neutrality" which is I think a much better characterization of the state of law in Canada.

I think it's also useful to look at the facts of the case - kids were observing indigenous cultural practices at school, which included a prayer.  An evangelical parent sued saying that her kids were forced to participate in a religious exercise against their will - a claim which the courts dismissed.  So this was actually a ruing in favour of a religious element to a school event.

[crazy canuck]

No, not at all.  You could not have read the case very carefully in the short time since I told you about it.  I suggest you read it a bit more carefully.  You will find the factual allegation of the parent was rejected by the court. 

Paragraph 66 sums up succinctly what I have been saying.

[Zoupa]

Just because we uphold freedom of religion doesn't mean that we are bound to respect religion.  The same as how freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to respect whatever someone chooses to say.  Someone can say covid is a hoax and I am free to treat that person's speech with great contempt.

As a personal policy I am happy to discuss the manifest failings of whatever religion in the abstract but refrain from insulting a person's religion to their face as a courtesy.

Yes, exactly. This part of Beeb's argument is conflating freedom with respect:

And since I already brought up the Charter of Rights - it too also recognizes the principle of "freedom of conscience and religion".  This is not a novel idea - that we should respect the religious beliefs of others even if we ourselves don't share those beliefs.

Not being a dick is a general good idea in order to live in a harmonious society, hence why I don't go around mocking religious people. It goes both ways though. I don't give a shit what your religion says you have to wear or eat or pray or whatever.