|
|
 |
| |
It’s up to believers to sort out conflicts with society
• THE Rev Dr Jeremy Hobson’s article raises the question of conscientious objection (Why we must protect rights of this modern-day ‘conchie’, July 25). Abortion and refusal to take life by participation in warfare issues, cited by the author, are matters of life and death. They are of grave concern to all mankind.To marry or not marry same-sex couples in a civil partnership does not qualify as a right within the confines of conscientious objection. If every person was allowed to live his or her life according only to those factors to which he or she did not take objection, society would be so fragmented as to make government an impossibility.Lillian Ladele is entitled to her prejudice against same-sex marriage regardless of whether the basis of that prejudice is religious or not. She is not entitled to practise her religious beliefs so that others are unfairly discriminated against.
Demanding that her religious beliefs be put first in the organising and running of the office of births, deaths and marriages is to claim more favourable treatment, thereby discriminating against the other personnel. Whether or not other personnel are willing to accept such treatment does not matter.It is the principle of fair treatment for all. What if the other employees decided that they too did not wish to conduct same-sex marriages? It would be impossible for the registry office to carry out its legal duty.Religious beliefs are a matter of private concern to the person who holds them. If there is a conflict between these beliefs and relationships with other facets of society then it is for the person concerned to organise his or her life so as to eliminate that conflict.It is not for others to have to accommodate their lives to suit someone else’s religious beliefs.
SHEILA MOBERLY
Packington Street, N1
• “DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this company, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church…” So begins the order of service for a solemnisation of marriage in the Anglican Church.It is clear that this is a religious ceremony. The same cannot be said of civil partnerships. Indeed, the law is quite explicit: “any civil ceremony, including any readings or music, must not contain any religious references”. Clearly, any town hall wedding has nothing to do with holy matrimony.There can be no case for introducing a question of religious conviction, however deeply held, into such a civil ceremony.Islington Council may have been insensitive in its handling of the case of Lillian Ladele’s refusal to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies; that is something we cannot judge without knowing all the facts. But what must be clear is that the council and its officers have an obligation to uphold the civil law and to apply it impartially to all.The civil law is not a “pick-n-mix” option, it is the very cornerstone of our society and the means by which we try to ensure equal and fair treatment for all citizens. In these days, when we have a multicultural and multi-religious society, it is more important than ever that the principles of our civil law are scrupulously followed.
RICHARD ROSSER
Highbury New Park, N5
• WAS Lillian Ladele not in contravention of the council’s equality and diversity policy, which she must have subscribed to in her contract of employment? If she had objections to supporting this policy, she should have terminated her contract and found a job where her principles are consistent with the ethos of the organisation.Remembering that this was a civil ceremony she was required to perform, it does not constitute a religious covenant which could make her feel blasphemous in terms of her interpretation of Christian belief.
Upholding one’s beliefs involves sacrifice. If Lillian Ladele was refusing to fulfil a duty which was within reasonable scope of her contract, it would be reasonable for the council to regard her as being in breach of this contract and take appropriate action.
HOLDEN MUTEVERA
Platt’s Lane, NW3
• DISCERNING readers of the Tribune can indeed be thankful to your correspondent the Rev PD Johnson for once again reminding us of the crucial importance of humane tolerance and religious enlightenment (Tolerance for everyone but orthodox Christians, July 25). His fundamentalist diatribes and attacks on progressive religion clearly show the perils of ignoring those virtues so valued by liberal-minded and liberal-hearted humanists and religious believers alike.
Mr Johnson resorts to the well-established forensic maxim, “When you’ve got no case abuse the plaintiff’s attorney!” It is noticeable how, after the sanctimonious tone of his opening paragraphs extolling the “apostolic precept of ‘speaking the truth in love’”, he goes on not only to attack me personally but to insult my religion. He refers, inter alia, to the “poisoned spring from which all the other muddied streams of Unitarianism flow”.
I think the history of Unitarianism, the religion not only of Thomas Jefferson and four other US presidents but many distinguished and enlightened humanitarians like the founder of the US Red Cross and progressive thinkers like Emerson, certainly does not suffer by comparison with the fundamentalist brand espoused by Mr Johnson.
It was Charles Dickens, a regular attender at Unitarian services, who referred to Unitarianism as “that religion which has sympathy for men of every creed and ventures to pass judgment on none”. Dickens himself sensibly made an exception in the case of the joyless hellfire fundamentalists of his time, whom he ridiculed for their Pharisaism and self-righteousness.
Tribune readers will have noted that Mr Johnson ended his letter with words of praise for, and an expression of his pleasure at reading an “excellent letter” which disgusted every person I know who read it. It was one of the most uncharitable, homophobic letters I’ve ever read. After invoking the “holy scriptures”, it described Islington Council as “criminally insane” for promoting “such a disordered, dangerous and destructive lifestyle”. Where is the spirit of charity there, Mr Johnson?
Mr Johnson’s letter is also misleading in several places. I did not even use the expression “same-sex marriages”: I was supporting the policy of Islington Council and councils nationwide in their implementation of the law and provision of civil partnerships.
Nor did I criticise “orthodox” Christians. As Tribune readers who read my letter will be aware, my criticisms were directed only at those fundamentalists who use the Bible not as a source of religious wisdom but misuse it as a weapon to stir up prejudice against gay people and other vulnerable minorities.
As Mr Johnson has studiously ignored all the main points in my original letter praising Islington Council for its stand for a diverse and tolerant multi-religious and multiracial community, I feel the need to refer to some of them again and issue a public challenge to him.
Is Mr Johnson, as a fundamentalist reader and rigorous interpreter of the Book of Leviticus, in favour of putting gay people to death?
Was Jesus wrong to condemn those who advocated stoning adulterers to death? Would Mr Johnson volunteer to cast the first stone?
Will he publicly condemn the abomination of shellfish and implement every single dietary and other law prescribed in Leviticus?
I think Tribune readers have a right to know.
THE REV FEARGUS O'CONNOR
Claremont Square, N1
• THERE continues to be a mixture of views expressed on the subject of Lillian Ladele, some of which do not always show a full understanding.
The background for the case was the Employment Equality Regulations 2003, which extended legal protection to workers against unfair or unequal treatment on the grounds of belief or sexuality. Acas produced guidelines for an understanding of the legislation at the time, making it clear that the two things are ultimately irreconcilable and cautioning the employer never to allow a situation of conflict to arise.
Ms Ladele was already an existing employee so these regulations introduced a change in conditions of work that she did not have to accept and she requested exemption from participation in the performance of civil ceremonies, something neighbouring boroughs permit and which Islington Council also could have allowed as it has other adequate resources available to cover this.
In failing to make this sensible, practical compromise it thereby invited the very conflict against which forewarning had been given.
Ms Ladele said that in this matter she had to follow her faith. The council’s reply that she could keep her conscience but not her job was clearly contrary to the above legislation, that now offered the protection of the law.
Given these facts it would appear that the case was correctly decided, which means that the council would be unlikely to win at an appeal stage, but would succeed in losing another large amount of council tax-payers’ money in the process.
The demand that the law be changed to remove the right of someone to follow his or her conscience, especially coming from two MPs of whom one would usually expect better, is misconceived and will also produce no end result.
The Employment Equality Regulations were brought into effect as the result of an EU directive, a measure that has to be implemented in full by each member state and which cannot be amended. This proposal, therefore, that this legislation must simply be rewritten looks to have little chance of success.
JOHN MCPARTLIN
N5
• I AM sure I cannot be alone in expressing considerable surprise at the tone and content of the Rev Feargus O’Connor’s letter concerning the case of Lillian Ladele (Religious liberty? More like a victory for bigotry, July 18).
His letter was a mish-mash of opinion presented as fact, and some of the most uncharitable and un-Christian views I’ve ever seen expressed in print. It would seem Mr O’Connor’s espousal of “unashamedly liberal views” spreads only as far as they coincide with his own. One wonders if he has chosen the right profession.
PETER ROBERTS
N1
|
 |
|
| |
Your comments:
Surely this is a case for human rights court.
Leyla Aslan
It's been interesting to see our clergy discussing the Ladele case.
One fo the questions which has been puzzling me is that status, in religion, of civil marriages between men and women.
It seems to me that such marriages are not Blessed by God and that the couples are not joined together in Holy Matrimony. If this is the case could the couples be at risk of committing a sin such as fornication or adultery in the eyes of the Lord?
As far as I know, divorcees may not marry in Church but can have their civil marriages 'blessed'.
Maybe our clerics could throw some light on the question of whether couples having a civil marriage, as carried out in a Registry Office, could be committing a sin in the eyes of the Lord.
Richard Rosser
Highbury Estate |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
