I was really disappointed by the process by which the SORS legislation was propelled through Parliament. Whatever you think of the legislation itself, the process, both here and in Nortern Ireland, certainly seemed lightweight on consultation.
This is legislation that starts to erode the rights of people to exercise their conscience in matters of belief and moralilty. The inclusion agenda, now driven apparently by a secular worldview, has become what it originally sort to undermine: the exercise of raw power of one group over another.
Inclusion is, to some extent, a concept that is in the “eye of the beholder”. It is now obvious what was previously implicit: that the most inclusive agendas can become plainly exclusive. It can feel like a tool of the kind of fundamentalism that we are all working to undermine.
Of course, I am aware that there have been seasons of history when the Church exercised raw power over the powerless – and I certainly would not want a return to those days! However, there is abundant evidence that the faith groups’ concern for the poor and powerless in our world is without question. You might think therefore that our right to stand against issues that are not in line with our conscience and teaching might be carefully considered, before being ridden over roughshod in such a non-consultative way.
I hope we are a long way from “thought police” government. Suddenly it seems a little closer.
March 23, 2007 at 7:43 pm
I was disappointed to hear that in the other parliament debate in the news (elected second house etch.) only 4 of the bishops with seats were present to vote.
Clearly bishops are very busy people, but surely the tremendous privileged and responsibility of having a parliamentary seat should be use. If it is proposed the the number of bishop seats should be reduced what is our argument for keeping them???
March 25, 2007 at 1:16 am
Amen. I am in prayer aboutthis and deeply saden. Thanks for this post. Lets not give up standing for and doing what is right.
March 28, 2007 at 1:00 am
Isn’t this so true that we live in a sad time though, my lord? The Rt. Rev. Fred Henry, Roman Catholic Bishop of Calgary, almost got sanctioned by the Alberta Human “Rights” Commission. Makes the rest of us wonder whether the concept of human rights include the liberty of conscience. Oh well, maybe we do live in an era of all-encompassing government regulation, of thought, word and deed. Maybe the government really care indoctrinating its subjects with, um, the right belief…
April 8, 2007 at 11:16 am
One of the things that has most concerned me about this debate is that the “Christian” side (as if all Christians are agreed on the matter) has been couched in terms which suggest freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs is absolute.
Are we now to see pickets of church-goers preventing the police breaking up Sutti ceremonies, or calling for people accused of honour-killing not to be persecuted, as they’re following their sincerely-held beliefs?
Or is killing too extreme? But an upper-caste Hindu should definitely be allowed to abuse a Dalit if they’re in the same workplace? Should a Moslem man be able to demand that his testimony in court be held at twice the value of a woman’s? After all, it’s prescribed in the Holy Qu’ran.
Or does “religious beliefs” really only mean Christian beliefs? And the speaker’s beliefs at that?
We no longer live in a society where proclaiming – or refuting – the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to extreme punishment, and I relish that fact. People should be able to express their faith freely, even if others find their views objectionable. But causing others to suffer (as opposed to feeling hurt) is surely where the boundary has to be drawn by a neutral state.
April 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I find your remarks about lack of consultation surprising given the recorded heavy response to the consultation for Great Britain and the continued heavy lobbying on all sides, as I understand it, up to the wire.
In the event, the regulations, as might be expected from ones made under the Equality Act, very much follow the form of the provisions in that against discrimination on faith or belief grounds in respect of goods, services, etc., including a provision paralleling the protection of faith or belief organisations from having to admit, etc. people with a different position, using however a modified form of the requirements in the Sexual Orientation Employment Regulations for permissible exclusion or discrimination, and with some activities, of course, outside the scope or potentially outside the scope of the exemption even if those criteria are satisfied.
The exemption seems to me much broader than that in the Employment Regulations in several respects and is expressly intended, if you look at the Regulatory Impact Assessment, to enable groups to maintain discrimination in respect of venues and, indeed, providing services, such as toddler and youth groups, where they (deplorably, to my mind) wish to do so. It is therefore difficult to see what there is from your point of view to lament, unless it is the “unpleasantness” and fuss of having to make a collective mind about what degree of discrimination is or is not doctrinally required or, if not required, should be continued in deference to the contrary convictions of co-religionists (in the diocese? in England? taking in the (alleged) Global South?).
October 1, 2007 at 9:10 am
Couldn’t agree more – I’m glad I’m not the only one that feels this way.
January 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm
My is there some in depth thoughts here – however i agree with most of it.
January 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I’m sorry to say this discussion is completely out of my depth.
September 21, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Nice one keep them coming
November 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
[...] to go a long way before you get one better than that of Bishop Mike Hill, the Bishop of Bristol. Check out his blog here. All Saints Church Serving the communities of Wooldands and Highfields Listen, Love, Go! Filed [...]