|
|
 |
| |
Tolerance for everyone but orthodox Christians
• HOWEVER ably written in other respects, letters couched in abusive language and penned in a contemptuous spirit carry within themselves the seeds of self-destruction and sooner or later are consigned to oblivion (Religious liberty? More like a victory for bigotry, July 18). This is particularly true if the author is a minister of religion, for Christian people expect him to behave in an unworldly way, give scripture to support what he is going on about, and conform to the apostolic precept of “speaking the truth in love”.
But such abusive letters, especially when they denigrate other sincere believers, serve at least one useful purpose: they illustrate the truth of the old saying that “hypocrisy is the tribute that error pays to truth”.
Try as I may I cannot discover any of the “loving spirit of the Gospels”, of which the Rev Feargus O’Connor speaks, when he denounces Lillian Ladele’s vindication by the employment tribunal as a “victory for self-righteousness and Pharisaical prejudices”, given to a Christian lady of “unenlightened, uncharitable and unpleasantly self-righteous views”.
Mr O’Connor claims to have “a faith, albeit of a more enlightened and tolerant character” but I find that his “light” and “tolerance” extend to everyone, including homosexuals, except orthodox, Bible-believing Christians who he accuses of being guilty of “ugly bigotry and prejudice masquerading under a fundamentalist religious label”.
It was not for nothing that Christ included, in his great Sermon on the Mount, those familiar words about the mote and the beam, designed as a searching warning about hypocrisy.
It does not surprise me that Mr O’Connor condones homosexuality and argues in favour of “same-sex marriages”, for once a person departs from orthodox Christian doctrine and adopts a purely rationalistic approach to the Divine revelation there is no way of knowing where he will end up in matters of doctrine and practice. Well has it been said that the rejection of the Divine Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures is the poisoned spring from which all the other muddied streams of Unitarianism flow.
I join Patrick McKay, whose excellent letter was a pleasure to read after Mr O’Connor’s bitter invectives, in congratulating Ms Ladele on her triumph.
REV PD JOHNSON
Yerbury Road, N19
• WHILE staying in Islington last weekend I read the reports in the Tribune of the controversy surrounding Lillian Ladele and wondered whether those involved realised the picture of Islington they were giving to the wider community.
It is sad to see people in positions of leadership making illiberal and intemperate comments about the case of a woman from an ethnic minority seeking the right to live by her religious belief.
Those criticising Ms Ladele appeared to me to be guilty of the very same authoritarian intolerance which they attributed to Ms Ladele and her co-religionists. Where is the spirit of “live and let live” in a multicultural community?
It is an indictment of Islington Council that the matter ever came before a tribunal for it could and should have been resolved at the outset by an internal administrative decision that same-sex partnerships would be registered but Ms Ladele would not be involved in those cases.
It would be an even greater indictment of the council if it decided to incur the substantial legal costs involved in taking the matter to an appeal. I am sure thousands of residents could identify alternative ways in which this money could be spent with real practical benefit to residents.
Any council tax-payers’ funds wasted in this way would not be recovered for, as the Chancellor has pointed out, people have reached the limit of their tax-paying capacity and there will be no increase in funds from the government. A decade ago Islington was associated with a vision – albeit not fully realised – of a more humane and just society. The vision with which Islington now appears to be associated is one of prejudice and bureaucratic bigotry.
PAUL EDWARDS
Cambridge
• ARTICLE 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. That has not always been the case in this country but it is now and I would fight any attempt to change it.
But does it apply to allowing someone to pick and choose the parts of their job they do? For example, could a practising Jew or Muslim take a job in a general butcher, refuse to handle pork and then claim to have been discriminated against?
The problem is most acute in the public sector. Can a public servant pick and choose the members of the public they will serve? Could a police officer decide that certain laws were not appropriate and refuse to enforce them? Should a librarian be allowed to vet a book before issuing it?
Could a councillor decide to advise only those members of the public who can show they supported the “right” political party?
I think not. We must, as councillors and employees, serve all the people of Islington without fear or favour.
CLLR BARRY EDWARDS
Labour, Holloway ward
• I AM shocked and disappointed by the employment tribunal’s decision regarding Lillian Ladele. The council must challenge it immediately.
Next thing you know people will be using their “genuinely held religious beliefs” as an excuse to beat up gay and lesbian people in the streets; then the hospital attendants will use their “religious beliefs” to refuse gay and lesbian people treatment. Before you know it, the undertakers will be refusing to bury gay and lesbian people. What kind of world would we be living in if that happened?
CAROLINE WALSH
N1
• I SALUTE the many orthodox Christians who work for Islington Council and within the borough who every day work in situations where the people they are helping do not have the same life principles based on the Bible as they do.
To put it bluntly, Lillian Ladele should have resigned from her position as I did when I was asked to deal with funding weapons in the Sudan conflict. The action by her and her solicitors is just out of line.
An appeal in this case would have the vast support of religious and non-religious people.
W BALL
Upper Street, N1
• THE question of how Islington Council could have got it so wrong is possibly because it does not listen when an error on its part is pointed out to it (Registrar row: leader under attack, July 18).
Some while ago I had correspondence with council leader Councillor James Kempton, the then chief executive Helen Bailey and the head of human resources about the council’s equal opportunities monitoring form that is included in every job application pack. This states at the top of it that “it is a requirement that you complete this section”. I pointed out to the council that this is an unlawful instruction as “sensitive personal data” such as were being demanded are governed by the Data Protection Act and may only be collected after a jobseeker had signed a consent form confirming his or her willingness to give them.
When this has not been done, such personal details can only be requested on a voluntary basis, and in his notes on good practice the Information Commissioner states that an employer should “be clear to individuals about the reasons for monitoring, particulary whether they are obliged to provide information. For example, any monitoring form included with a job application pack should state that the applicant does not have to provide this information.”
The replies that I received in the light of this obvious breach thanked me for the expression of my view, noted my comments, stated that the council would not be amending the form in any way and hoped that this addressed my concerns.
With an attitude such as this it is not surprising that the council gets itself into legal trouble.
JOHN MRPARTLIN
Highbury Grove, N5
• THE case involving registrar Lillian Ladele has obviously made front-page news and put Islington in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. It is sad that one person’s religious convictions can tarnish Islington’s image as a tolerant and diverse place to live and work in.
Rather than trying to score cheap political points as usual, why doesn’t Labour leader Councillor Catherine West actually say she applauds the council’s decision to appeal against the recent employment tribunal decision?
Islington will be the first council in Britain to tackle this issue and the outcome will have implications for every local authority in the country. It is a brave decision and not without its risks. But it is the right decision.
As an Islington Council tax-payer, I’m pleased my council is taking such a principled stand.
VAMSI VELAGAPUDI
Drayton Park, N5
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
