Savi Hensman has made a detailed analysis at Ekklesia, see An ill-judged intervention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
…If the EHRC were to succeed, Christianity’s reputation would be further damaged among those who come to associate it with institutionalised prejudice and abuse of power.
Christians too could find themselves on the receiving end of ‘conscientious’ discrimination. For instance, at present, if a church were vandalised, a police officer sent to the scene would be expected to do his job sensitively and diligently. This would be so even if he happened to be an ardent atheist in his private life who believed that religion was the source of most of the world’s evil. But if he believed that his belief could override his duty, he might refuse to go.
What is more, discrimination against Christians might appear increasingly justifiable, especially among those who do not know that – in practice – many churchgoers are reasonably sensible, accepting people, very different from the most vocal campaigners against ‘persecution’…
A rather different view comes from Alasdair Henderson at the UK Human Rights Blog. See A leap of faith?
…The way forward which the Commission proposes is the concept of “reasonable accommodation” for employees’ beliefs (similar to the ‘reasonable adjustments’ duty employers have towards disabled people). This is an idea that was floated by Aidan O’Neill QC on this blog not so long ago. The EHRC gives an example in its press release of how this could work – “If a Jew asks not to have to work on a Saturday for religious reasons, his employer could accommodate this with minimum disruption simply by changing the rota. This would potentially be reasonable and would provide a good outcome for both employee and employer.”
…The EHRC’s announcement has been welcomed by those who felt the Commission had failed to adequately support the right to religious freedom in the past, or even been anti-Christian. However, it has also provoked fierce criticism from some quarters. Some gay rights activists are concerned that this signals a shift in the Commission’s views that might negatively effect gay equality, given the particular difficulties of potential clashes between protection from discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and protection of religious freedom (see our post on this subject here).
…Rather more strangely, the EHRC’s announcement has been heavily criticised by secularist and humanist lobby groups like the British Humanist Association. It is difficult to understand why such groups have any objection, since any argument by the EHRC that there should be accommodation for employees’ beliefs would apply not just to Christians, but equally to people of all faiths, including humanists and atheists.
In any event, it will be interesting to see how these cases, and the EHRC’s involvement, develops in the coming months. There are some important questions that will require significant thought. Is an employee’s religious belief really comparable to disability, such that it can be analysed and approached in the same way? How could employers be helped to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs while at the same time ensuring that there is no discrimination in the provision of services to the public? Whatever the outcome, hopefully this move by the EHRC will produce more light and less heat in a particularly difficult and sensitive area of human rights and equality law.
“It is difficult to understand why such groups have any objection, since any argument by the EHRC that there should be accommodation for employees’ beliefs would apply not just to Christians, but equally to people of all faiths, including humanists and atheists.” Yes, but how often is a humanist or atheist going to come up against a legal requirement that violates their faith (or lack thereof)? I am hard-pressed to even imagine such a circumstance. When, in modern life, is a person without religious faith forced by law to express such faith? In court, one can affirm rather than swear… Read more »
Although one might have sympathy with the claimants’ sense of injustice, I agree with Savi Hensman that Christianity’s reputation suffers. None of these cases seem to relate directly to the Gospels.
Henderson simply does not understand. Some — thankfully, not all — Christians feel they have a religious right, an absolute religious duty, to NOT associate with gay people, to NOT dispense prescribed birth-control pills or other legal contraceptives, to boldly thrust women away from clinics offering abortion, to tell gay students they are perverts and diseased. And to be able to do so without legal constraint or sanction against. They feel it is their Christian duty to behave in the above described manner, and they feel that ANY intrusion or prevention by anybody else in their ability to do so… Read more »
Unlike the US, all pupils at UK State schools are required take part in an act of collective worship, ‘wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character’, but which may accommodate aspects of different faiths. The exceptions are religious (non-Christian) State schools and those for which the Local Education Authority has deemed it inappropriate. Reports show that many schools ignore the collective worship requirement anyway. Parents have the right to exclude their children from collective worship. However, the pupils cannot opt out by themselves. The British Humanist Association has noted possible issues when ‘the worship element is not kept clearly… Read more »
Savi is spot-on, per usual.
When I was at school, one teacher was a secular humanist. She taught English. She was naive about Christian faith (she highly amused the Christian physics teacher, who I happened to know, by bursting into the staff-room declaring she had proved there was no God – she had just discovered the size of space, something he knew rather well). Nearly every lesson, somehow she got on to her beliefs. Nearly every time, she sought my views and then attacked them. I cannot tell you how stressful and painful it was for me to be obliged to stand up to her… Read more »
It’s worth remembering that the case being discussed is with the European Court of Human Rights and therefore any ruling would have immediate impact on all signatory countries. On the policy level it is of course worth looking at the degree to which religious people are accommodated but I think this is best done through Parliament. Too large an accommodation will simply eviscerate legal protections for LGBT people in many parts of Europe and that would be wrong. It’s also wrong (in my view) for the European Court to step beyond the margin of application in allowing countries to strike… Read more »
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-14028167 Michael Lyons, an atheist, was recently sentenced to 7 months imprisonment. While enlisted in the Navy as a medical assistant, he came to believe that the Afghan war was wrong. He had discovered through documents leaked to the media that the level of civilian carnage had been routinely under-reported by officials. He didn’t want to participate in acts of indiscriminate slaughter. He eventually refused a direct order to attend SA80 training and was court-martialled. The SA80 rifle is capable of delivering 700 rounds per minute at a muzzle velocity of 940 m/s. His liberty to believe that the war… Read more »
David: I accept that your first example is one of a humanist/atheist forced to participate in a religious ceremony.
But the second? There is no indication that it is Lyons’ lack of religious belief that led to his refusal to obey an order. There was no “conscientious objection” as the term usually applies.
“This type of Christian that I am referring to doesn’t want reasonable accommodation. They don’t want equality. They want special privilege. A privilege they would freely deny to all others.”
– peterpi –
And this is the problem when Christians like the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, want ‘special arrangements’ for the exclusion of the LGBT community from Church and society. Such ‘rights’ are surely wrong. The injunction of Jesus: “Come to me…” is in no way exclusive.
But it was Lyons set of beliefs that caused his position. Surely belief extends beyond there is/is not a god? He held a particular position, a belief position. It was not logical self interest (‘I might be killed’) but a belief (‘Behaving in this way is morally abhorrent.
Pat, how can you say that Mr. Lyons didn’t have a conscientious objection? How do you know he didn’t? He was a medic. He refused to obey an order ordering him to train on a weapon — from how David Shepherd describes it — not primarily intended for self-defense. He is being punished for that refusal, and is being expelled. I bet he knew these would be the consequences of his actions. Or, … are you implying that only religious folks can be conscientious objectors? Because only religious folks can object conscientiously? WikiLeaks most emphatically is not my cup of… Read more »
Hi Pat, My last comment really wasn’t provided as a second rebuff to anything you wrote. It was prompted by the later caricature of Christians who favour a reasonable accommodation. Conscience can be completely secular and many atheists are also humanists. That would more adequately explain Lyons’ belief that he was acting in conscience than the mere negation of God’s existence. The reality is that beyond the tenets of organised religion, beliefs rarely fit into neat little parcels. Yet, the Act defines belief in terms of recognised philosophy, citing humanism as an example, in order to avoid the endless permutations… Read more »
Peter:
But what “faith” does Lyons point to say his is a conscientious objection? His own conscience, alone? Not tied to any established set of beliefs held by others?
By that measure, any man can disobey any order, any law, and claim “I cannot do this because it violates my conscience” without any way to determine whether or not he is simply refusing to comply for reasons having nothing to do with his conscience.
“any man can disobey any order, any law, and claim “I cannot do this because it violates my conscience” without any way to determine whether or not he is simply refusing to comply for reasons having nothing to do with his conscience.” Pat, I think you’re drawing a false distinction between “reason” and “conscience” (they come from the same human brain!). From the point-of-view of institutions like the military, “It’s against my conscience” is the acceptable way to (alternatively) say “I have my reasons.” All that matters, is that human (brain) in question is emphatic that their actions are going… Read more »
Conscientious objection is a rather different case from those being addressed by the European Court of Human Rights, in that (a) it is generally about refusing to take life oneself, rather than enabling others to make different ethical choices from oneself, (b) it involves withdrawing from an occupation which raises moral concerns – something which those of us not in the armed forces take for granted (in any other job, one simply works out one’s notice and quits). Rosemary Hannah’s experience is an example where an employee’s expression of her own beliefs infringed on someone else’s, in a way that… Read more »
“Assuming the person is not clinically insane, I think it’s best to respect the beliefs, regardless whether they’re called “reasons” or “conscience.”” In a military context, that way lies anarchy. The entire structure is built on following orders because it is assumed a superior officer knows better what is required in a given situation. If the person objecting cannot point to a specific religious belief that prevents following the order, then any soldier could refuse any order only by saying “I have my reasons….” And how would you apply this in the civilian world? “Why did you kill this man?”… Read more »
From the UK Armed Forces Humanist Association Constitution: “In battle, and all other operations, high morale equates to the moral strength which gives true ascendancy over the enemy. The duty of bearing arms, of being prepared to fight, kill and if necessary die in carrying out orders, carries with it the responsibility only to do so in a just cause. All service personnel have direct and unique responsibility for life and death. Individually, all service personnel are subject to international and national law, and must discharge their duties not just according to orders and law, but consciously and clearly for… Read more »
David:
Yes, a soldier has the right (indeed, the duty) to disobey an immoral order…but he has to demonstrate–probably before a court-martial–that the morality in question is more than his own moral judgment, that it is part of a recognized religious or moral code. He can point to its being in violation of international or national law, such as the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights…but it will probably be declared insufficient by any military court for him simply to say, “I thought it would be wrong…”
“. .but it will probably be declared insufficient by any military court for him simply to say, ‘I thought it would be wrong…'” But, if he did – and this is also an important point – he would do so with the full knowledge that he was required to *accept the consequences of having done so*. For many of us – even many of us progressive types – the disgust we feel isn’t so much that there is a danger of someone thrusting their version of their faith on others, but that they want to do what they wish without… Read more »
Pat O’Neill As newspaper reports on Michael Lyons’ case indicate, he clearly thought long and hard about his decision, which was in line with international codes around warfare (and indeed ‘just war’ theology). There may well be occasions when beliefs preclude people working in certain jobs, e.g. a Muslim (or indeed Christian or other person of faith) might not wish to be a debt collector for a loan shark, and a vegan passionate about animal welfare might not accept work in an abattoir. This is different from undertaking to do a job but treating a certain category of clients/customers/service users… Read more »
Mark Brunson @ 5:13am, bravo!
Years ago, a group of anti-abortion Christians trespassed an entrance to an abortion clinic here in Denver, and blocked entrances. They were charged and convicted of trespass. They and their supporters were shocked that a judge sentenced them to jail. They were sincere! They Were Doing The Right Thing! The judge should have just wa(i)ved away the charges!
People conveniently forget that engaging in civil disobedience requires you to be fully aware of what the consequences of your actions are, and that includes doing jail time.
Savi, There is a vast difference between completely avoiding an occupation on ethical grounds and having religious reservations about a newly instituted requirement or prohibition within a role that you’ve carried out to the satisfaction of your employer for several years, I mentioned the Lyons case to highlight the fact that secular belief is more than a series of negations and that it can inform an act of conscience in the workplace. It was to the detriment of his case that the chaplain’s statement recorded Lyons’ refusal as merely inspired by political persuasion, rather than a moral objection. It was… Read more »