INTRODUCTION

• Begin this activity by sharing the following story: 

“In 2004, a former bishop of the Macedonian Orthodox Church was sentenced by national courts to imprisonment for having instigated violence against himself and his followers because he had left the predominant Church and created a schism. An opinion by the Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion and Belief of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights expressed concerns about the judgment’s approach, which seemed to suggest that any form of religious activity that effectively challenged the legitimacy and supremacy of the Macedonian Orthodox Church as the dominant religion should be considered an action that promotes religious hatred. Since Bishop Jovan had been the target of a hostile response from opposing believers, it is astonishing that he was found by the first instance court to have instigated religious hatred ‘towards himself and his followers’. Subsequently, the Supreme Court partially accepted his appeal with regard to the freedom to perform religious rites and reduced his prison sentence to eight months.”

DISCUSSION

• Begin a discussion to explore Commitment IV. The following is a list of potential questions that facilitators can pick and choose from to help guide discussion:
• Does this commitment imply that States should not constitutionally “adopt” a religion? 
• What are the benefits and limits of secularism? 
• What are the international standards in this area? Are these standards in harmony with religious thinking or there are different perspectives? 
• Are participants witnessing a de-secularization in their countries? How and why? 
• Can religious signs be worn in the public space in their respective countries? Does the State fund religious institutions, none of them or only some? 
• Should the term “religion” be defined in the constitution? 
• What should be the reaction of a religious actors when facing a situation of apparent discrimination on religious grounds against a group or an individual? What if the apparent discrimination was committed by a State agent? 

CONCLUSION

• Encourage participants to confidently conduct an independent remedial action within their respective spheres even when constitutional or legal parameters are not conducive to equal treatment. 
• Ask participants to write down their ideas for conducting their own remedial action.

• Does this commitment imply that States should not constitutionally “adopt” a religion? 
• What are the benefits and limits of secularism? 
• What are the international standards in this area? Are these standards in harmony with religious thinking or there are different perspectives? 
• Are participants witnessing a de-secularization in their countries? How and why? 
• Can religious signs be worn in the public space in their respective countries? Does the State fund religious institutions, none of them or only some? 
• Should the term “religion” be defined in the constitution? 
• What should be the reaction of a religious actors when facing a situation of apparent discrimination on religious grounds against a group or an individual? What if the apparent discrimination was committed by a State agent? 

2019 Report of the Special Rapporteur for an example of where state religion or doctrinal secularism is likely to lead to discrimination

• The #Faith4Rights modules are flexible and require adaptation by the facilitators before their use. Case studies related to peer-to-peer exercises in the 18 modules need to be selected by the facilitators from within the environment where the learning takes place. The #Faith4Rights toolkit is a prototype methodology that requires contextualization, based on the text of the 18 commitments, context and additional supporting documents.
• Not all issues raised need to be resolved. This would be an impossible and even a counterproductive target. The aim is rather to enhance critical thinking and communication skills, admitting that some questions could receive many answers, depending on numerous factors.
• Tensions may occur during discussions related to “faith” and “rights”. Most of these tensions are due to human interpretations. Learning sessions are spaces for constructive dialogue in a dynamic process where tensions can be reduced with the help of clear methodologies, including pre-emptive situation analysis and evidence of positive results in areas of intersectionality between faith and rights.
• When preparing the sessions, facilitators need to factor in the profile, age and backgrounds of participants. Focused attention on the learning objectives can transform tensions into constructive exploration of new ideas.
• Meaningful engagement requires democratically pre-established rules. Facilitators should dedicate time with participants to elaborate these rules together at the outset and acting all along the training as their custodians.
• The time frames suggested in this #Faith4Rights toolkit are merely indicative. Facilitators may adapt them freely to suit the needs of their group of participants. The key balance is between respecting the overall timeframe while not cutting short a positive exchange momentum.
• To ensure optimal and sustainable benefit, facilitators may create a “training notebook” for participants during their peer-to-peer learning sessions. It would contain a compilation of templates to help participants keep track of what they have learned throughout the programme and eventually use this notebook as their personalised follow-up tool.
• When technically feasible, facilitators are also advised to project the module under discussion on screen in order to alternate between discussions thereon and showing the audio-visual materials listed in each module or any other items selected by the facilitator themselves.

“Then Peter began to speak: ‘I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism.’” (Acts 10:34) ​