Two news sources from Nigeria report this story.
Sunday Trust Anglican Primate urges Nigeria to withdraw from the UN
Weekend Observer Homosexuality:Pull Out Of United Nations … Anglican Primate Urges FG
The Primate, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Most Rev. Nicholas Okoh, last Thursday called on Nigeria to quit the UN, over the latter’s support for homosexuality.
Okoh said that it was regrettable that the UN was currently using human rights bodies and non-governmental organisations to ensure the entrenchment of homosexuality globally. The cleric made the call in Lagos at a reception held for him by the Ecclesiastical Province of Lagos at the Cathedral Church of Christ, Marina, Lagos.
“If the UN has made itself an agent for the propagation of homosexuality globally, then it is time for us (Nigeria) to pull out of the organisation.
“This is because the UN has no right to determine for or impose moral standards on us (Nigeria). Let us stand firm and refuse to be bought over by the West,’’ he said.
Okoh promised to continue the fight against homosexuality and urge the Anglican Church to support him…
Hat Tip, Lionel Deimel.
20 CommentsUpdated Sunday afternoon
Church Times Dr Williams makes first strike against erring provinces
Telegraph Archbishop of Canterbury imposes first sanctions on Anglican provinces over gay bishops dispute
Episcopal News Service Canterbury proposes resignation of ecumenical commission members
BBC Archbishop calls for action against rebel Anglicans
CNN Archbishop of Canterbury slaps Episcopal Church for openly gay bishops
From the blogs:
Cif belief Mark Vernon The Anglican Communion falters, again
Mark Harris Thoughts on the ABC’s Pentecost Letter.
Also, Who is on the Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order?
Fr Jake Canterbury’s Pentecost Punishments
Tony Clavier PENTECOST LETTER
Updates
Episcopal Café What kind of Pentecost?
Wounded Bird THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY’S PENTECOST LETTER
Caminante Twenty-four hours later
20 CommentsUpdated 3 June
See earlier reports here.
The full judgment is available in English here (PDF also available there), or as a Word file, downloadable here.
Neil Addison notes that a relevant bit of history is contained in paragraph 16, see here.
The next hearing in the case will be at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 30 June.
The Italian Government has submitted a brief (PDF), which is so far only available in French.
Several other parties have filed Amicus Curiae briefs in this case. Here are links to some of them.
The European Centre for Law and Justice has filed a brief (PDF).
See their press release: The ECLJ Admitted as Amicus Curiae in the Italian Crucifix Case Before the European Court of Human Rights.
The American-based Alliance Defense Fund has submitted a brief (PDF) on behalf of 32 members of the European Parliament.
See their press release: Court grants ADF request to allow 32 members of European Parliament to defend Italy in cross case.
Another American-based group, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has also filed a brief (PDF) prepared by a team of 37 law professors.
See their press release: 37 Law Professors Urge European Court to Reject Ruling Banning Cross from Italian Classrooms.
Also, the European Humanist Federation has filed this brief (PDF). More from the EHF available here. Update This organisation has had its application to intervene rejected.
Update
There are also reports that ten European states have joined Italy in petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to overturn its decision. They are reported to be:
As there are a number of people, even bishops, who have expressed criticism of this event, it may be helpful to link to the Order of Service that was followed.
It is in a PDF file, available here.
Direct links to the video recordings are also available from this page.
54 CommentsArchbishop welcomes bishops’ statement on Malawi sentencing
8 CommentsThursday 27 May 2010
The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomes the statement made by the Anglican Bishops in Southern Africa regarding the sentencing of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga to 14 years of hard labour.
The Imprisonment of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga
This Statement from the Anglican Bishops in Southern African on the Imprisonment of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga…
The Archbishop of Canterbury has written his Pentecost letter to the Anglican Communion.
The press release about it, together with Notes to Editors is reproduced in full below the fold.
Read the full text of the letter by going here. Another copy here (scroll down).
29 CommentsThe Bishop of Durham has addressed his last diocesan synod. He had a lot to say about women bishops and about Anglican Communion matters. Read the full text at Diocese of Durham: Diocesan Synod, May 21 2010. Two extracts follow:
On women bishops:
…It therefore doesn’t surprise me that the discussion over women bishops has run into such difficulty. As you know, I have argued strongly and scripturally for the propriety of ordaining women to each order of ministry; my colours have been nailed to that mast for a long time. And I have argued, again and again, in line with successive Lambeth resolutions, that this is something the whole church has said it can live with but need not impose on everyone – though I am very well aware of the particular problem this poses. In other words, this has not been an innovation, carried out by rogue provinces who declare on their own local authority that this is adiaphora and can therefore be decided by them alone. It has been debated and decided by the whole church meeting in solemn conclave. That doesn’t, of course, make it any easier when the decision is passed down from Lambeth to Canterbury and York, which is where we now are. But it does tell us that the church as a whole has said that this matter is adiaphora: that it ought not to be something over which the church needs to divide.
I know, very well, that for some the issue is that Lambeth cannot decide such a thing while Rome, and perhaps also Constantinople, remains uninvolved. The obvious reply is that while Rome still officially treats Anglican orders as ‘absolutely null and utterly void’ it is hard to give them a veto on what we do with those orders, and that if we went that route we should have to return to the celibate priesthood and embrace the Papal dogmas. These are just as mandatory in Rome as male-only ordination, and I don’t know of a sustained argument as to why Anglicans who insist that only when Rome changes will we be allowed to do the same should be allowed to disagree with Rome on these other points. If there is an implicit hierarchy of truths there, I have yet to hear it articulated. However, like many bishops who are in principle committed to the ordination of women to the episcopate I do not think I have yet seen the scheme which would enable us to proceed as one body, without further and deepening division, without straining one another’s consciences. All ministry, according to St Paul, is given to serve the unity of the church, not to divide it. That is especially true of the ministry of Bishops. I hope and pray we will be able to square that circle, and I would rather get the right answer in two or three years’ time than the wrong one tomorrow. I really do believe that ordaining women is the right thing to do; but St Paul’s insistence on how adiaphora works prohibits me from forcing it on those who in conscience are not ready for it. And the answer here, I believe, is a proper theological argument, which we have not yet had. The Rochester report has never been properly discussed.
My hope and plea, then, is that this summer in General Synod, and in the months that follow whatever happens there, we will observe restraint and patience with one another, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. As followers of Jesus, invoking his Spirit at Pentecost, we should expect to have demands made on our charity, our forgiveness and our patience; not on our conscience. That is the key to how adiaphora works in the church.
And on TEC and the Anglican Covenant:
…And that, too, is why recent events in America are placing an ever greater strain on the Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury is, I believe, in the process of writing a pastoral letter to all the churches, and I don’t want to pre-empt what he will say. But the point is this. Unlike the situation with children and Communion; unlike the situation with the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate; in the case of sexual relations outside the marriage of a man and a woman, the church as a whole, in all its global meetings not least the Lambeth Conference, has solidly and consistently reaffirmed the clear and unambiguous teaching of the New Testament. But the substantive issue isn’t the point here. The point is that the Church as a whole has never declared these matters to be adiaphora. This isn’t something a Bishop, a parish, a diocese, or a province can declare on its own authority. You can’t simply say that you have decided that this is something we can all agree to differ on. Nobody can just ‘declare’ that. The step from mandatory to optional can never itself be a local option, and the Church as a whole has declared that the case for that step has not been made. By all means let us have the debate. But, as before, it must be a proper theological debate, not a postmodern exchange of prejudices.
Actually, if you want to know about the present state of the church in America you ought to watch the video of last Saturday’s service in Los Angeles, which is readily available on the web. The problems, shall we say, are not about one issue only. But my point for today is this. In November the newly elected General Synod will be asked to approve the Anglican Covenant, which has been through a long and thorough process of drafting, debate, redrafting, polishing and refining. Synod will be asked to send the Covenant to the Dioceses for approval, and all being well it should be with you, the Synod of this Diocese, by the end of the year, and you will be asked to think wisely and clearly about it. No doubt it isn’t perfect. But it is designed, not (as some have suggested) to close down debate or squash people into a corner, but precisely to create the appropriate space for appropriate debate in which issues of all sorts can be handled without pre-emptive strikes on the one hand or closed-minded defensiveness on the other. The Covenant is designed to recognise and work with the principle of adiaphora; and that requires that it should create a framework within which the church can be the church even as it wrestles with difficult issues, and through which the church can be united even as it is battered by forces that threaten to tear it apart. Some of the voices raised against the Covenant today are, in my judgment, voices raised against the biblical vision of how unity is accomplished and sustained, the vision which enables us to discern what is adiaphora and what is not. I hope and pray that this diocese at least will appreciate where the real issues lie, and think and live wisely and cheerfully in relation to them.
Also Martin Beckford reports in the Telegraph that
The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Tom Wright, called repeated demands for Criminal Records Bureau checks a “waste of time” and claimed they are solely designed to create a “paper trail” rather than safeguarding the vulnerable.
He also condemned the weight of legislation created by the recent Labour government, saying that new rules and regulations do not make for a better society…
Read the full report at Bishop of Durham criticises ‘time-wasting paper trail’ of Criminal Record Bureau checks.
16 CommentsThe Bishops of the Church of Southern Africa have responded to the recent events in Malawi.
We, the Bishops of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa call upon the Government of South Africa to seek the release of Stephen Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, who were recently sentenced in Malawi to 14 years imprisonment with hard labour, after they shared in a traditional ceremony of engagement.
As we have previously stated, though there is a breadth of theological views among us on matters of human sexuality, we are united in opposing the criminalisation of homosexual people. We see the sentence that has been handed down to these two individuals as a gross violation of human rights and we therefore strongly condemn such sentences and behaviour towards other human beings. We emphasize the teachings of the Scriptures that all human beings are created in the image of God and therefore must be treated with respect and accorded human dignity…
Read the full text of their statement.
See also their earlier statement about Uganda.
8 CommentsBishop Tom Butler spoke on Radio 4’s Thought for the Day on Tuesday, about how people change their minds on issues such as divorce and remarriage, or homosexuality.
The press has been remarking on Theresa May’s response to a question from a member of the Question Time audience, about the new home secretary’s apparently less than gay-friendly voting record . Her reply: “I’ve changed my mind”.
I don’t think that she’s alone in that. It’s remarkable to observe how, in spite of traditional religious teaching, public opinion in Britain over a period of a decade or so, in a remarkable shift of thinking has mostly changed its mind on the worth and place of gay people in society. The reason is simple: it’s difficult to hold dogmatic views about what is good and desirable behaviour, when some of the often obviously good, loving and responsible people you actually encounter are behaving in an alternative way…
Read the full text here.
17 CommentsToday’s Observer newspaper carries this editorial article:
Homophobia
The church must not be complicit in gay persecution in Africa
with a strapline on the web version:
Anglican influence must be brought to bear to end this vile practice.
The article begins:
Homosexuality is not a sin or a crime. There is no caveat or quibble that should be added. The repression of gay men and women by legal means and public intimidation is an offence against the basic principles of a free and just society. Where it exists, which it does to varying degrees in many countries around the world, it must be confronted and defeated…
And the article ends:
The Anglican hierarchy in Britain has avoided speaking out too frankly on this matter to avoid a schism, but the church’s quiet diplomacy has done nothing to help the victims of homophobic repression. Increasingly, it looks like complicity.
For the background to this, see Love in the dock from Saturday’s Guardian.
18 CommentsI have not so far linked to the detailed Church Times report on the latest judgment, written by Shiranikha Herbert and published on 7 May. Here it is: McFarlane’s appeal is refused.
In the same issue, there was a news report headlined Bishops criticise ‘secular’ judgment.
And Andrew Brown devoted most of the Press column to this: The Lord and the Law Lord.
Even earlier Carl Gardner had written on his own blog, on 30 April Short shrift for Lord Carey.
And the day before, Heresy Corner had published Laying down the Laws.
4 CommentsUpdated again Thursday morning
The Anglican Mission in the Americas, which is linked to the Anglican Communion by its affiliation with the Province de l’Eglise Anglicane au Rwanda, has announced an intention to change the form of its relationship with the Anglican Church in North America.
Read the details in Special Report: Anglican Mission’s Structural Relationship within the ACNA.
…As a founding member of the ACNA, the Anglican Mission has invested significant time and energy into its formation and has been strongly supportive of the Province and Archbishop Duncan’s leadership. In light of this support, the Anglican Mission initially chose the jurisdictional option for membership in the ACNA while maintaining its identity as a missionary outreach of Rwanda. This “dual citizenship” approach, however, has resulted in significant confusion within the Anglican Mission and the ACNA regarding membership in two provinces, and more importantly, is inconsistent with the Constitution and Canons of the Province of the Anglican Church in Rwanda. Practically speaking, this jurisdictional/membership status became untenable and non-sustainable.
Given these circumstances, both the Anglican Mission’s Council of Bishops and the Rwanda House of Bishops has unanimously agreed that the Anglican Mission will apply for Ministry Partner status at next month’s ACNA Council meeting. This revised status, if approved in Boston, will allow the Anglican Mission to maintain a level of connection to the North American Province, even though the missionary movement will remain under the spiritual and canonical authority of Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini and the Province of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. It also allows for the Anglican Mission to continue to function as a missionary movement committed to church planting as we have for the last decade. Finally, this decision will serve to overcome the inherent confusion that has arisen, and we view a transition to Ministry Partner status as a positive development for all concerned…
Updates
There are reports elsewhere of an email from ACNA about this. See here. Or over here.
And an interesting conservative analysis in the comments of this report.
A fuller version of the ACNA email can be found here. This notes:
38 CommentsOther Ministry Partners within the Anglican Church in North America include:
- American Anglican Council
- Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans – North America
- Forward in Faith-North America
- Federation of Anglican Churches in America [FACA]
Doug LeBlanc wrote in the Living Church Lambeth Silent after Glasspool Consecration.
Tobias Haller wrote about The Pluperfect Mindset.
Savi Hensman wrote at Cif belief Mary Glasspool is ordained.
Jim Naughton asked at Episcopal Café What if we are asked to dis-invite ourselves again?
31 CommentsThe Christian Post has published a very lengthy article titled New Power Brokers Discuss Future of Anglicanism.
Paul Bagshaw has written about it, in a blog article No clear view of the Covenant from the South. He begins:
Singapore based The Christian Post has kindly set out the views of the Primates at the recent Global South Encounter concerning the Covenant in an article by Edmond Chua entitled New Power Brokers Discuss Future of Anglicanism.
I make the vote:
Yes 1
No 0
Depends on the Covenant / still negotiate 3
No clear statement 5 and (based on the tone of comments) probably no 2, probably yes 3It was clear that the Global South leaders do not agree on the matter, despite a statement prior to the meeting that 20 Provinces would be expected to endorse the Covenant…
Related to these views, Anglican Mainstream has published the views of Chris Sugden from the May issue of Evanglicals Now. This is in an article headed The Covenant, Canterbury and Persecution. The latter is a reference to Nigeria. His comments include this:
14 Comments…The UK website group Fulcrum have now recognized that TEC was dishonest from the beginning. But they are still blinded by the belief that Canterbury remains the key to the unity of the Communion and the integrity of orthodox faith in the Communion.
The real issue is not the Covenant, but the Archbishop of Canterbury. His track record in protecting and including TEC is obvious – namely reneging on the agreements at Dromantine (so that TEC was present at the ACC in Nottingham), inviting the consecrators of Gene Robinson to Lambeth ( in advance of the conclusion of the Dar-es-Salaam timetable), and undermining the debate at the ACC in Jamaica which would have mandated a covenant with sanctions…
Nancy Doyle asks on the Charities_Parliament blog Was Lord Carey right to question ruling made against Christian who refused to treat gay couple?
Tom Chivers at the Telegraph argues that Religious beliefs should not trump the laws of the land.
George Pitcher does not agree.
From Eastbourne comes Christians warned of increasing marginalisation in the UK, a report on a conference where Bishop Wallace Benn, Oak Hill principal Mike Ovey, and others attacked Lord Justice Laws:
“Lord Laws also believes something, he fails to see that he has a faith too … secularism fails to understand that it is a religion.”
And there is an interview with Bishop Benn over here: Wallace Benn on the marginalisation of Christians in the UK.
But best of all, in today’s Guardian Stephen Bates tells us how Anglican the judge at the centre of this controversy really is. In the Diary column he writes:
24 Comments…So just who is this wicked, secularist judge who doesn’t understand the former archbish’s concept of Christianity? Intriguingly, it turns out that Laws could scarcely be more Anglican if he tried…
Updated twice
Jonathan Wynne-Jones in the Telegraph has another exclusive, this time about traditionalists threatening to leave the Church of England.
Anglican bishops in secret Vatican summit
Bishops’ defection: A major new blow to the Anglican church
Update
Associated Press British bishops in defection talks with Vatican
…Rev. Keith Newton, the bishop of Richborough, said the trip consisted of “nothing more than exploratory talks” and denied a report in The Sunday Telegraph that he and his colleagues had secretly promised the Vatican they were ready to defect to Rome.
…Newton was joined in his most recent trip by Rev. Andrew Burnham, the bishop of Ebbsfleet, and Rev. John Broadhurst, the bishop of Fulham.
Burnham did not immediately return a call seeking comment, but Broadhurst also confirmed that the trip had taken place, although he declined to say what was discussed.
“I don’t want to be drawn on it,” he said, explaining that the issue “can damage both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.”
Monday’s Times has a report by Ruth Gledhill that reports on the forthcoming publication of the proposed legislation at the end of this week.
See Synod to vote on final stage of code to allow women bishops.
99 CommentsThe Church of England is expected to pave the way for the consecration of women bishops when it publishes final proposals this week. The legislation, to be debated by the General Synod in July, will trigger a departure of some traditionalists to the Roman Catholic Church.
Sources told The Times that the legislation for women bishops would include no statutory provision for opponents. Instead, arrangements to allow traditionalist parishes to opt out of the oversight of a woman bishop are expected to be included in a voluntary code of practice. This will not be enough to placate a small number of leading Anglo-Catholics who fear that female bishops will “taint” the historic catholicity of the Church of England.The proposed legislation is to be sent to members of the synod on Friday…
Updated again Wednesday afternoon
May day opinion has links to several articles about this.
The Observer today has three articles on related topics:
First, on the front page, it has Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to ‘cure’ gay people.
Then on page 7, there is Secret Christian donors bankroll Tories.
And on page 38, Henry Porter writes that A little bit of religious bigotry is tolerable in a healthy society.
Update
Andrew Brown writes at Cif belief on Bigotry and homelessness
The New Frontiers church to which Philippa Stroud belongs and where her husband is a major star is the fruit standard of fruit loopiness among English evangelical Christians. It was at a New Frontiers church in Brighton that I once went to hear the New Zealand evangelist Bill Surbritzky, a man who believes that not merely homosexuality but smoking and swearing are caused by demonic infestation. But it is very successful and it is not in the least bit American…
Cif at the polls covered this further, see No anger over Philippa Stroud?
And Cif belief has Feedback on Philippa Stroud
The Twitter aspect was dealt with comprehensively by Benjamin Cohen for Channel 4 News.
Ekklesia has more background on her husband.
Meanwhile, Andrew Brown also wrote about the Citizens UK meeting, see Faith trumps party politics.
7 CommentsLast week, before the McFarlane judgment was issued, the Church Times carried an article by Mark Hill entitled Judges should not be hand-picked.
One might be forgiven for thinking that Lord Carey of Clifton has generated more column-inches since retiring as Archbishop of Canterbury than he did when in office. His latest foray into the nation’s media is more than usually regrettable, as it strikes at the heart of the independence of the judiciary.
In a witness statement placed before the Court of Appeal on Thursday of last week, Lord Carey sought to lend his support to an application by Gary McFarlane that his case be heard by a specially constituted Court of Appeal comprising five Lords Justice who had “a proven sensitivity to religious issues”.
By what authority he sought to intervene is far from clear. He gave written evidence that, during his time as 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury, he was “responsible for the spiritual welfare of 70 million Anglicans in the worldwide communion” — a curious assertion in the light of the principle of autonomy underscored by the Lambeth Quadrilateral (See Press) His compulsion to intervene was couched as follows: “I am bound by my commitments as former Archbishop of Canterbury to defend the spiritual requirements of the Anglican Communion and of all sincere Christians. I am also bound to consider the rights of religious minorities.”
He seems to forget that, after he vacated the see of Canterbury, his successor inherited these responsibilities. As Monty Python would put it, he is an ex-Primate…
The same issue had comment on this topic by Andrew Brown in the Press column (scroll down past the pope stuff).
5 CommentsLORD CAREY’s impulse to self-dramatisation as a member of a persecuted Church is not as sinister as Cardinal Castrillón’s. Sorry, that was disrespectful: let me quote his proper dignities, as set out in the preamble to his witness statement: “I was the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury and I was responsible for the spiritual welfare of 70 million Anglicans in the worldwide communion. I was created Lord Carey of Clifton upon retirement. . . Currently, I am Chancellor of the University of Gloucestershire, and I am the recipient of 12 Honorary Degrees. I am the author of 14 books.” Not even Baron Widmerpool could boast as much, and he had the advantage of an Eton education…
Updated twice
James Meikle Guardian Ex-archbishop attacks judges over gay counselling ruling
Independent
Jerome Taylor Church’s call for religious judges is rejected by Court of Appeal and
Robert Verkaik Lord Carey’s proposal is a step back to medieval days and
Steve Clifford If Christians are marginalised, it is not just the fault of secular society
Steve Doughty Daily Mail Judge rules Christians have NO special rights as he throws out case of sex therapist who refused to work with gay couples
Telegraph
John Bingham Gary McFarlane: judge’s assault on ‘irrational’ religious freedom claims in sex therapist case and
Gary McFarlane: the counsellor whose case led to warnings of ‘civil unrest’ and
Michael Nazir-Ali The legal threat to our spiritual tradition
Andrew Brown Cif belief Carey slapped down by senior judge
Neil Addison What is Religious Discrimination ?
Heresy Corner Laying down the Laws
Philip Henson Cif belief Carey’s intervention backfires
And here is an older article by him , written before the judgment, which I failed to link to previously.
The church cannot claim ‘superior right’
Christian Institute Christian counsellor appeal turned down
Letter to The Times (Saturday edition) Christian courts
22 CommentsIn his judgment, Lord Justice Laws said this…
20. …But they do not confront deeper concerns expressed in Lord Carey’s statement and in Mr Diamond’s argument. These are to be found for example in the references to an alleged want of understanding or sensitivity on the part of the courts in relation to the beliefs espoused by Lord Carey and others: “a lack of sensitivity to religious belief” (paragraph 10 of the witness statement).
21. These concerns are formulated at such a level of generality that it is hard to know precisely what Lord Carey has in mind. Broadly, however, the argument must be that the courts ought to be more sympathetic to the substance of the Christian beliefs referred to than appears to be the case, and should be readier than they are to uphold and defend them. The beliefs in question are not specified by Lord Carey. Since his statement is given in support of the applicant’s case, it must be a fair assumption that they include what is expressly stated at paragraph 21 of Mr Diamond’s skeleton argument of 23 December 2009:
“To the religious adherent ‘Religion’ is the route to salvation:-
- The fear of hell is central to the appellant’s religious belief; and individuals ought to be informed of the consequences of hell;
…- The proposition of the appellant’s religious belief is that sin will have eternal consequences. Those who do not repent will go to hell when they die…”
22. In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law’s protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law’s protection of that belief’s substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian’s right (and every other person’s right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
23. The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
24. The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
25. So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief’s content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
You can learn something more about Paul Diamond by reading this interview with him in last week’s Church Times.
7 Comments