INTRODUCTION

• Begin this session by providing an example of a controversial case* for the sake of better understanding of the delicate balances required on a case-by-case basis. See the Resources tab for examples.
• *Note: This activity is not meant to debate a case, but to present a situation for discussion. This activity could be utilized to prepare a group for further discussion and debate over a selected case.
• Allow participants a few moments to think of examples of their own experiences.

ACTIVITY

• Participants should be encouraged to share their own lived experiences. The following are ideas for implementing the activity: 

1. 1. Participants can be invited to write key words or longer comments regarding how they would describe the relationship between secularism and the free manifestation of religions and beliefs in secular states. This could be done on a whiteboard if in-person, in a personal notebook, or on a shared digital resource such as shared google slides or jamboard.
   2. Participant contributions could be divided into positive and negative sides, so participants are able to express whether they believe the current situation in their context is conducive to religious or belief pluralism in practice.

CONCLUSION

• Participants should record their thoughts as they complete this activity. 

• What connections can be made between secularism and the free manifestation of religion and belief in secular states? 

The Faith for Rights Annex contains a variety of hypothetical scenarios that could be used in absence of a locally-based example. 

Loi sur la laïécite de l’État” in  Quebec   An example of a controversial case (French language)

• 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) ​