Policy on Freedom of Life-Stances and Equality
Flourishing, a humanist life-stance association, supports a secular society in which laws and state authority neither favor nor operate under the banner of particular life-stance or religious groups. The state should support the right of all citizens to discuss, adopt, or practice different religions and life-stances, so long as their practice does not infringe upon the same freedom of others or cause them harm.
Freedom of Religion and Life-Stance as Human Rights
Freedom of thought, opinion, and religion is among the fundamental human rights guaranteed in international agreements, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, and in the constitutions of many states, including the Constitution of the Republic of Iceland. These rights play a key role in democratic societies and form the foundation of a secular (worldly) order in which all individuals enjoy personal liberty, the right to determine their own lives, and the right to influence the constitutional order of their nation through political participation or the exercise of the right to vote.
The laws and rights of such democratic states do not bear the labels of particular groups or movements; rather, they are secular and apply to all, regardless of origin or other distinguishing characteristics.
Freedom of Expression, Blasphemy, and Hate Speech
Flourishing holds that criminal provisions concerning expression defined as blasphemy have no place in law and that it is important to contribute to the struggle against such provisions at the international level. Blasphemy occurs when a person expresses, criticizes, or mocks the religious beliefs of others or the imagined being or object of their worship (a concept of God or otherwise), without engaging in violence, personal humiliation, or threats.
Blasphemy laws were (and in some places still are) used to suppress all criticism of religion. They were also used to restrict people’s freedom to engage publicly in activities other than those belonging to religious observance on its holy days—for example, public entertainment on Easter Sunday. Although a person who believes that their religion (or life-stance) has been insulted may experience distress as a result, this is not sufficient grounds for deeming such expression criminal under law, since in many cases such experience is personal or relative. Human susceptibility to offense as such—or sanctimony—is not an objective standard by which to determine whether another person’s expression or remarks are wrongful or harmful. Judgments should instead be based on the content of the expression in relation to the secular value-basis of law or international conventions.
The same applies to so-called “hate speech.” It is not hate speech unless its content targets people on the basis of their personal characteristics or background without a substantive moral reference.[1] Reasoned criticism of people’s views or of religious systems is not hate speech.
Humor or satire may be directed at people’s arguments and systems of ideas as a form of social critique, or it may be improperly directed at personal characteristics and thus become part of hate speech, depending on the circumstances. Such matters must therefore be judged based on content and context in relation to their intended purpose.
It is well known that blasphemy laws have led to improper prosecutions and unjust punishment of individuals, thereby restricting freedom of expression and causing significant harm. Constitutional provisions protect people from discrimination or injustice, and legitimate laws against hate speech are directed against dehumanization, humiliation, or incitement to harmful conduct, loss of rights, or violence against individuals or groups on the basis of characteristics that do not concern their moral conduct but rather their identity. Flourishing holds that such provisions and laws must be interpreted according to objectively determined moral standards so that they do not become, in the hands of the executive authority, disguised blasphemy laws. Groups that cannot tolerate reasoned criticism should not be able to use legitimate laws to silence discussion or restrict the freedom of expression of critics.
The Demand for Equality and Equal Treatment — Separation of Church and State
Flourishing considers it fundamental that no life-stance association, whether secular or religious, should enjoy privileges from the Icelandic state in the form of special financial support, legal rights, holy days, access to public facilities, or in any other way. The association considers it important to establish equality in the treatment of all associations by the state and that the shared framework of public affairs for the nation should not be labeled with or serve exclusively to promote or honor any one or a few of them.
Legislation concerning public holidays should be revised so that such days serve the secular interests of the nation rather than the special interests of particular religious or life-stance groups.
Constitutional Provisions on Equal Treatment and State Neutrality
Flourishing maintains that constitutional provisions should ensure equal legal, social, and financial rights among life-stance associations and equal treatment by the state. The constitution should not contain provisions that grant special privileges or a special status to particular groups.
Public Registration of Life-Stances
Flourishing considers it inappropriate for the state to maintain the parish-fee system (since it is not based on the collection of a fee but rather on a state subsidy per member aged 16 or older). However, the state may support facilities for funerals that serve all life-stance associations as well as people outside them.
Flourishing also maintains that as long as the state maintains the parish-fee system and registers individuals in religious or life-stance associations, such registration should apply only to legally competent individuals (18 years and older). Automatic registration of newborns—whose parents belong to the same religious or life-stance association—into their parents’ association should therefore be abolished. Children do not possess sufficient maturity to make decisions about life-stances, and their autonomy (and their right to remain children) should be protected until they reach the legal age to decide whether to register or remain outside such associations.
Ceremonies at Family Life Milestones — Equality and Professionalism
Ceremonies such as name-giving, weddings, and funerals have secular social value, and by law all religious and life-stance associations must offer such ceremonies to their members. In light of the fact that the state has for centuries favored a single religious organization with regard to facilities for such ceremonies, Flourishing holds that the state should provide neutral (symbol-free) ceremonial spaces for all life-stance associations in order to conduct funerals. This is a ceremony that all citizens should be able to perform with dignity regardless of economic status, social position, or association membership.
In the case of the divorce of married couples, the state should provide legally mandated counseling with the assistance of professional marriage counselors rather than requiring this from religious or life-stance associations, which could then instead offer optional additional counseling according to their capacity and circumstances.
Equality in Public Access and Facilities for Life-Stance Associations
Flourishing opposes the situation in which one religious organization has special access to public institutions beyond others, such as within the health-care system, the educational system, or other public spaces. Likewise, no single life-stance association should exclusively participate in public events such as the opening of the Althing (Iceland’s parliament) or the inauguration of the President of Iceland.
It is important that public broadcasters do not promote a single life-stance association but instead address cultural diversity in a religiously neutral manner or ensure equal representation of different life-stance associations.
Public services such as the operation of morgues and cemeteries should, in Flourishing’s view, be provided on a religiously neutral basis.
Flourishing advocates abolishing state privileges concerning land allocation and property for the construction of ceremonial spaces that suit only a single religious group, while encouraging public authorities instead to develop neutral spaces suitable for ceremonies—especially funerals—marking important milestones in the lives of people from diverse backgrounds.
The Educational System Should Treat All Equally
Flourishing holds that legislation concerning primary schools should not assume that school practices be shaped by a particular (labeled) life-stance or the heritage of one—or a few—traditions, but rather by professional, independent, and secular educational policies free from the labels of religious or life-stance associations.
Children should receive education about different religions and life-stances in a professional and neutral manner.
Children should be free from life-stance preaching within the school system and should never be required to disclose or express their own life-stance or that of their parents. Religious celebrations should not be practiced in schools, or at a minimum they should not be mandatory or used as preaching or indoctrinating activities within schools. If they are included as part of cultural or educational activities, children should never be placed in a position where they must participate in ceremonies that conflict with their own life-stance or that of their parents.
Higher education should not serve a particular life-stance through specialized departments devoted to training graduates for service within specific religious organizations.
Assistance from Representatives of Religious or Life-Stance Associations in Difficult Circumstances
Services within the health-care system should be provided entirely on a neutral basis. If a patient requests assistance from a representative of a religious or life-stance association for counseling or conversation, access should be ensured in an impartial manner when health-care professionals determine that such assistance does not conflict with other considerations important for the patient’s health. Spaces for such assistance should be neutral in their basic design, though symbols of the relevant life-stance may temporarily be placed there if requested.
The same principle applies in all public systems where such assistance might be relevant, such as in the prison system or in the provision of social services.
[1] See the United Nations definition of hate speech:
https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech
