Updated
The Government has proposed a new definition of when “Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion”.
Here it is:
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if—
(a) the employment is as a minister of religion, or
(b) the employment is in another post that exists (or, where the post has not previously been filled, that would exist) to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion (whether to followers of the religion or to others).
This would replace the current wording found in Schedule 9, Paragraph 2(8).
Update
In order to evaluate this, it may be helpful to recall that this clause is designed to cover a variety of issues, not only sexual orientation.
25 Comments(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;
(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;
(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;
(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a living former spouse or civil partner;
(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil partnership came to an end;
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
The House of Lords continued its examination of the Equality Bill yesterday. Amendments discussed covered clauses 10 to 29. Here is the news page with links.
The Hansard record can be found starting here, or the PDF file is over here.
Two of the amendments I had previously listed as interesting were debated.
Amendment 20 (Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris) which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”, was debated, follow that from here.
At the end of the evening, Lord MacKay of Clashfern proposed Amendment 57A:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Read the debate on that from here.
Also, yesterday there was a change in the list of peers sponsoring the amendment to delete Sch 9 Clause 2 Para 8. Baroness Varsi’s name was removed, and was replaced by Baroness Butler-Sloss. Lady Butler-Sloss also added her name to those sponsoring the amendment to delete the word “proportionate” in in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2.
5 CommentsThis week in the Church Times there is a report on this topic. The original is subscriber-only until Friday but meanwhile is copied below.
TAC members mostly in India by Simon Sarmiento
NINETY per cent of the membership of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) resides in India and Africa, information received by the Church Times shows.
The TAC was formed in 1990, and now includes former Anglicans in six continents. Its current Primate, Archbishop John Hepworth, is based in South Australia. Dialogue between the TAC and the Vatican, after a formal petition made by the TAC in October 2007, was cited as a significant factor in the decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to issue the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus (News, 13 November).
The secretary to the College of Bishops of the TAC, Cheryl Woodman, supplied the figures shown on the left. She said that they were “based on about 60 per cent of our communicant membership attending every Sunday”, and that “this would easily bring the [membership] figure to around the 400,000 that is regularly quoted.”
In India, the TAC is represented by the Anglican Church of India (ACI). The ACI was formed in 1964 by Anglicans who withdrew from the Churches of North and South India. It now has 15 dioceses. The Traditional Anglican Church in Britain lists about 20 parishes on its website.
|
Territory |
Attendance |
Proportion |
|
India |
130,000 |
54% |
|
Southern Africa (including Zimbabwe, Mozambique, |
65,000 |
27% |
|
Central Africa (including Kenya, Cameroon, Eastern |
26,000 |
11% |
|
UK and Europe |
1,800 |
0.7% |
|
Canada |
2,000 |
0.8% |
|
USA |
2,500 |
1.0% |
|
Central America |
7,000 |
2.3% |
|
Australia (inc Torres Straights), New Zealand, and |
6,500 |
2.7% |
|
|
240,800 |
|
See earlier article here which includes a list of some of the amendments of interest.
Yesterday’s committee hearings dealt with Clauses 1 to 9. No amendments were agreed. The Hansard record begins here. The Parliament website has this news report with links.
Amendments considered included one from the Bishop of Chester on gender reassignment. (The Bishop of Chichester spoke on his behalf.)
The latest (Tuesday morning) list of the remaining marshalled amendments (excludes those considered yesterday) can be found here. Committee hearings resume on Wednesday.
The Bishop of Winchester’s amendment relating to marriages and gender reassignment discrimination has now reappeared in much shorter form then before:
58A* Page 143, line 2, at end insert—
GENDER REASSIGNMENT
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in reliance on section 5B of the Marriage Act 1949 (solemnisation of marriages involving person of acquired gender).”
Baroness Noakes and Baroness Neuberger have added their names to Lord Alli’s amendment relating to the venues for civil partnerships.
Meanwhile in the House of Commons, two questions were asked relating to the EU “reasoned opinion”.
5 CommentsEpiscopal Café has drawn attention in ABC’s visitors to Canada on “aberrations south of the border” to a report in the Anglican Journal on the recent visit to Canada of “two pastoral visitors from the U.K. who were deputized by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams”. They were Bishop Chad Gandiya of Harare, Zimbabwe, and Bishop Colin Bennetts, the retired bishop of Coventry.
Rather surprisingly, the visitors appear to have included remarks in their report about a country they were not visiting, the USA. According to the Journal:
The visitors said they were also reminded frequently by bishops that “Canada is not the USA.” While the United States is seen as a melting pot culture where religious and ethnic groups are synthesized into “Americans,” Canadians “genuinely value and seek to live with diversity.” Differences between the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church were underscored, including the area of Christology. “We sensed that in Canada there was a general consensus on the nature of orthodoxy, with fewer extreme views of the kind that have led to some of the aberrations south of the border,” the report said. “Even the bishops who were strongly progressive in the matter of same-sex blessings insisted that they stood firmly within the creedal mainstream.” This, the report said, is “an encouraging sign that it allows for a more obviously Christ-centred approach to issues that currently divide the Communion, to say nothing of the wider church.”
Now read this article about the skills of Bishop Bennetts as a “bridge-builder”, Conflict resolution expert sent to observe at HOB.
198 CommentsAlthough he is now Hunkering down in the snow? Alan Wilson wrote last Sunday about the Rule of St Benedict, see It’s not what you say….
Giles Fraser wrote in the Church Times about Football in the wilds of Yemen.
John Cottingham writes in The Times that Our restless quest for God is a search for home.
David Bryant writes in the Guardian that A religion that is based on a code of moral injunctions should be approached warily.
Cif belief asked What are you frightened of this year? to which David Walker replied Spiders and authoritarianism and Mark Dowd replied The Pope’s visit.
Fulcrum published a sermon by Graham Kings on The Holy Spirit and the Magi.
12 CommentsAmended again Monday afternoon
My report in last week’s Church Times on the December debate in the House of Lords, can be now be read at Religion is more than this, say peers.
The consideration of the Equality Bill will resume next week, when the House of Lords considers the bill in Committee. The following five dates have been allocated: Monday 11 Jan, Wednesday 13 Jan, Tuesday 19 Jan, Monday 25 Jan, Wednesday 27 January.
Numerous amendments have been proposed, see the new marshalled list of amendments to be moved in committee, starting here.
Monday And now this revised marshalled list starting here.
The Conservative party spokesperson, Baroness Varsi, together with Baroness O’Cathain, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and the Bishop of Winchester have put down an amendment to strike out the whole of the new definition of the purposes of organised religion. Amendment 100. The latter three have also put down an amendment to remove the word “proportionate” in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 9 clause 2. Amendments 98, 99
Baroness Varsi and Baroness Morris have also put down an amendment which would remove the word “philosophical” from the definition of “belief”. Amendment 20
The Bishop of Winchester had put down an amendment dealing with religious marriages and gender reassignment discrimination. This is not in the current list because it has been withdrawn for redrafting.I am told it will be resubmitted shortly.
The Bishop of Chester has put down an amendment to insert the words “under medical supervision” into the definition of gender reassignment. Amendment 10
Baroness Turner of Camden has put down amendments to ensure that the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 will have to be read in light of Schedule 9 (3). Amendments 124, 125 and 137
She has also put down amendments:
– to modify paragraph 8 so that it reads (addition in bold):
Employment is for the purposes of an organised religion only if the purpose of the employment wholly or mainly involves—
Amendment 100
– to qualify Clause 3 of Schedule 9 (Other requirements relating to religion or belief) to add:
(d) A is not operating as a public authority, on behalf of a public authority or operating in relation to a contract with public authorities.”
Amendment 101A
Lord Alli has put down amendments:
– to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises Amendment 119A
– to delete the clause in Schedule 9 paragraph 2(4) which reads “(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.” i.e. the transposition of the 2003 SO Regulations paragraph 7(3). Amendment 97E
Lord MacKay of Clashfern has put down this amendment:
“Conscientious objection
Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring a person (A) to provide a good or service to a person (B) when doing so has the effect of making A complicit with an action to which A has a genuine conscientious objection.”
Amendment 57A
Michael Foster MP Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities has today announced that the Government will propose an amendment:
16 CommentsContrary to some reports over the weekend, the Equality Bill will still allow churches to hire only male clergy and will let faith-based charities continue to recruit people of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job, such as care staff who may also be asked to pray with the people they look after. We have been absolutely clear on this throughout the Bill’s passage, but as there has been some misunderstanding around our intentions we will amend the Bill to make this clear beyond doubt.
Updated Friday morning
Malcolm whose earlier article at Simple Massing Priest The Anglican Covenant and Democratic Centralism was listed only in the comments on my previous roundup, has written again, this one is titled Rowan and the real revisionists.
Neal Michell has written Is the Anglican Covenant Non-Anglican? at Covenant.
Leander Harding has written Commentary on the Anglican Covenant 2009.
Ruth Gledhill has interviewed Gregory Cameron, see Confidence in the Covenant? at Religious Intelligence and also Church of England to consider communion with conservatives in US at The Times together with General Synod to be asked to recognise ACNA.
Retired archbishop Moses Tay doesn’t think much of the Covenant, see Anglican Covenant ‘Whitewashes’ Denomination’s Immorality: Retired Archbishop exclusively in the Christian Post.
In a related matter, Kenneth Kearon has provided an explanation of the current legal status of the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council. See this article at Episcopal Café Anglican Constitution is what it seems to be and also this note from Lionel Deimel Communion Transparency, Take 3.
Addition
Scott Gunn has published Anglican Communion woes? Be not afraid.
The Private Members’ Motion relating to ACNA can be found here. Scroll up for an explanation of how motions get selected for debate.
57 CommentsUpdated Saturday morning
John Denham announced yesterday the names of 13 new faith advisers who “will act as a ‘sounding board’ to advise on effective engagement with faith communities, and the impact of Communities and Local Government policy on faith communities.”
Read the full press release here.
The members of the panel are:
So far, there appear to be no newspaper reports of this.
Update
Heresy Corner has collected biographical information about the panel members, see The God Squad.
1 CommentThe former Bishop of London, Graham Leonard, died on Wednesday.
Telegraph The Rt Rev Mgr Graham Leonard
Guardian Alan Webster Monsignor Graham Leonard obituary
The Times The Right Rev Mgr Graham Leonard: Bishop of London, 1981-91
34 CommentsThe latest text of the Anglican Covenant is linked from this earlier article.
Responses from Provinces to Section 4 of the Ridley Cambridge Draft of the Anglican Covenant are in a PDF, here.
This week’s Church Times summarises the story, see Pat Ashworth Anglican Churches sent final text of Covenant — ‘not a penal code’.
Responses to the final version are varied. Here is a selection:
Living Church
Catholic Voices: Four Responses to the Covenant (Graham Kings, Josiah Idowu-Fearon, Tony Clavier, Richard Kew) and also The Covenant and the Fullness of Time (Peter Carrell). Also Essential Aspects (Christopher Wells) and Editorial: To Arrive Where We Started.
Anglican Communion Institute
Committing to the Anglican Covenant:An analysis by the Anglican Communion Institute and also Ephraim Radner The New Season: The Emerging Shape of Anglican Mission
A.S. Haley Common Sense and the Covenant
Bishop Chris Epting An Improved Anglican Covenant
Bosco Peters Anglican Covenant – partly used
Jim Stockton Bad Fruit from Bad Seed
Adrian Worsfold Anglicanism gives way to Democratic Centralism and also Authority to the Standing Committee!
Mark Harris Coal in your Christmas Stocking? One lump or two?
Tobias Haller Incarnation (?)
Jim Naughton What are the consequences of not signing the covenant?
And, linked earlier, but repeated for convenience, Giles Fraser Covenant fatalism (almost).
118 CommentsWe need social networking, but more of it should be in the real world rather than online, writes Julia Neuberger in the Guardian.
Richard Moth writes in The Times about Serving in Afghanistan with a true spirit of self-giving.
You can read and watch The Archbishop of Canterbury’s New Year Message.
Giles Fraser writes in the Church Times about Covenant fatalism (almost). (TA will have a roundup of reactions to the final Anglican Covenant proposal soon.)
Pat Ashworth wrote in the previous edition of the Church Times about diocesan missioners. See Taking stock and doing something.
In that issue, Peter Thompson wrote that The Noughties live up to their name.
And today Andrew Brown writes in the Guardian about Leicester. See Here, everyone is a minority.
18 CommentsThe following article from the 21 November edition of The Tablet is reproduced by kind permission of the Editor.
Swords crossed over a crucifix by Aidan O’Neill
The Italian Government is seeking to appeal against a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that could lead to the removal of crucifixes from state school classrooms. A leading human-rights lawyer looks at a case that goes to the heart arguments about the relationship between Church and State.
12 CommentsThe Ecclesiastical Committee recently met, and a report of its proceedings is available on the Parliament website. As it says here,
The Ecclesiastical Committee is not a committee of Parliament, but its reports and their associated Measures are, for convenience, made available here. Papers in these categories are printed by order of both Houses.
Members of the Ecclesiastical Committee are appointed by the Speaker and the Lord Chancellor under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. Reports on proposed Church of England Measures are made by the Committee under the provisions of section 4 of that Act.
The terms of reference and the current membership of the committee are listed here.
Ecclesiastical Committee – Two Hundred and Twenty Eighth Report
This page has further links to:
The Crown Benefices (Parish Representatives) Measure
Ecclesiastical Committee – Minutes of Evidence leading finally to:
Deliberation – Wednesday 25 November 2009 (this transcript is the most interesting part)
There is also a report about this in Private Eye but that is not available online. However, it makes the point that:
Desmond Swayne MP, who objected strongly – and revealed that David Cameron did too. “As the leader of the opposition’s PPS, I did ask him about this today and he is not content that this should be done.” Although the prime minister has always chosen the first of two names submitted to him, “that does not mean that the choice was automatic”.
And Mr Swayne is reported to have voted against the measure.
6 CommentsAdditional material added
I wrote earlier about the attacks being made upon this bill. Time now to comment on some of them.
First of all, there were two reports, in the Catholic Herald and in the Telegraph, which tried to put words into the mouth of Michael Foster MP, the Minister of State at the Government Equalities Office.
These were published under strong headlines: Get ready to be sued, Minister tells Christians and Minister predicts legal battles between churches and atheists over Equality Bill were used. In one article it was claimed that
[Foster] admitted that the legislation would open the floodgates to a tide of sexual and religious discrimination cases.
The other version was only slightly less sensational:
[Foster] admitted that the controversial legislation could trigger the launch of religious and sexual discrimination cases against Christian denominations.
I was present at this press conference, the day after the Lords First Reading, and I know that he didn’t say either of those things. The purpose of the conference, limited to the religious press, was to encourage churches to support the bill.
Following a lengthy discussion with all the journalists present about the new definition of the “purposes of an organised religion” in Schedule 9, Clause 2, Paragraph 8, he showed no inclination at all to accept any modification to the existing wording – several suggestions for that were made. He was then asked if he thought it likely that, if the bill passed with the current wording, there would be a challenge to it in the courts.
Here’s what he actually said in reply:
“Both sides will want to be lining up, no doubt. Government is used to the fact that its legislation will be challenged and if we could find the holy grail of avoiding challenge outside of an authoritarian state which says ‘you can’t’, we would. But I think that people feel strongly about these issues. We can’t do anything about that and neither would we want to.”
After which, as reported by the Telegraph, he added:
“I would like to see the churches being more bold. I would like to see the faith groups stand up and be counted for what they think and to challenge secularism, if that’s what they want to challenge. The secularists should have the right to challenge the Church and if the Church’s argument is good enough – which I believe it is – then the Church should win through.”
The Catholic Herald went on to say:
He declined to offer a solution to how conflicting rights of religious freedom of employers and sexual expression of employees, for instance, could be resolved.
Nor did he deny claims made by the Catholic bishops that the Bill would allow non-Christians who work in church premises to sue for victimisation if they were offended by crucifixes on walls. Instead, he said he thought such a scenario “unlikely”, even though an atheist last month successfully sued the Italian government over its policy of having crucifixes in schools.
But in the paper handout issued at the meeting, it says this about the crucifixes issue:
MYTH: Religious organisations that display holy images in the workplace are vulnerable under the Equality Bill.
RESPONSE: Religious organisations are free to display holy images. Some people have suggested that the Equality Bill willl mean that workers will be able to sue religious organisations for harassment because they are offended by religious images ih the workplace. This is just mischief-making.
An example often used is that of a cleaner working in a care home who is offended by crucifixes on the walls – it is completely untrue to suggest that the care home would be required by the Bill to take them down. The cleaner should expect to see these images in a religious organisation.
Additional information
This suggestion first appeared in the briefing on the bill issued last June by the RC Bishops, which said this:
9 CommentsHarassment
9. Harassment is defined as ‘unwanted conduct … with the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading or offensive environment’ (clause 24). The burden of proof for this highly subjective definition is reversed in legal proceedings.
10. In relation to religion or belief, the provision is only applicable to employment (clause 37). The practical consequences of this are that a Catholic care home, for example, may have crucifixes and holy pictures on the walls which reflect and support the beliefs of the residents. A cleaner may be an atheist or of very different religious beliefs. Nonetheless if a cleaner found the crucifixes offensive there would be no defence in law against a charge of harassment. To avoid this provision having serious unintended consequences, a test of ‘reasonableness’ is essential.
The Archbishop of Canterbury preached this sermon at Christmas.
The Archbishop of York preached this sermon.
On Christmas Eve, he also spoke out about asylum seekers.
And Ruth Gledhill had a related post, Happy Christmas – and Keep Out!
The Bishop of London wrote for Cif belief about Christmas and climate change.
William Wolf writes in The Times that It is high time that New Year’s Day was reclaimed for faith.
8 CommentsThe BBC Today radio programme interviewed the Archbishop of York this morning. Listen to what he said here:
The death penalty could be introduced in Uganda for acts of gay sex. The proposed bill is due to be voted on in the new year and has attracted international outrage and controversy. The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, who is Ugandan and left the country in the days of former President Idi Amin, discusses reaction to the bill.
He refers to the wording of the Dromantine communiqué. And gives reasons for him and Canterbury not having spoken out.
20 CommentsThere have been some rather odd articles about this bill recently.
Telegraph Simon Caldwell and Martin Beckford Minister predicts legal battles between churches and atheists over Equality Bill and later George Pitcher Equality legislation means our very right to believe is under fire
Catholic Herald Simon Caldwell Get ready to be sued, Minister tells Christians
And various repeats in the blogosphere, of which this is perhaps the most extreme headline: The Equality Bill: Will A New Law Essentially Outlaw Evangelical Christianity And Roman Catholicism In The U.K.?
Leading to items from the lobbying organisations:
Christian Institute MP: Equality Bill will lead to legal action against churches and Equality Bill could drive faith from ‘public sphere’
Christian Concern for our Nation Act to protect employment freedom for Churches
Much of this criticism is unjustified by the facts (I was present at the press briefing with Michael Foster), and I will write more about this soon.
Meanwhile, the BBC has published a helpful reminder of the main objectives of the bill: What the new Equality Bill means for employers
3 CommentsThe Uganda Monitor has an article Museveni will block anti-gay Bill – reports.
The BBC says Uganda fear over gay death penalty plans.
Ecumenical News International reports World church leader concerned about Uganda anti-homosexual bill.
CBS News has Republicans Condemn Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill, and see also Members of U.S. Congress Invoke their Faith to Oppose Ugandan anti-Gay law.
4 CommentsThe Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan has issued a statement, via his press office:
“Whatever one’s standpoint on same sex relationships, the private members motion for an Anti Homosexuality Bill in Uganda is unacceptable. It could lead to the legitimising of violence against gay and lesbian people which is totally against what Lambeth 1.10 agreed in 1998 and its proposal for capital punishment against such people is barbaric.”
On the other hand another report from Wales shows that Stephen Green has a different view.
Warren Throckmorton reports Uganda National Pastors Task Force Against Homosexuality demand apology from Rick Warren. This task force claims to represent among others The Roman Catholic Church in Uganda (but not the [Anglican] Church of Uganda).
Reuters reports Ugandan gay community says prejudice to become law.
New Vision reports Govt defends need to legislate on homosexuality.
Voice of America reports Africa’s Anti-Gay Laws Spark Accusations and Denials in US.
ACNA has issued a statement. Read ACNA speaks out on Uganda anti-homosexuals bill. And also from Episcopal Café read Don Armstrong’s silence, and other news on that anti-homosexuals bill.
7 Comments