This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/ba-christian-case-judged-rightly
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| The BA Christian case was judged rightly, and a true test of tolerance | The BA Christian case was judged rightly, and a true test of tolerance |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Three of the four cases of alleged religious discrimination that came before the European court of human rights were clearly decided rightly this morning. It was entirely reasonable of Relate to dismiss Gary MacFarlane, a counsellor who refused to work with same-sex couples despite agreeing with the stated policy of the organisation that it did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. He is completely entitled to his mistaken views but he should not try to force them on his employer. | Three of the four cases of alleged religious discrimination that came before the European court of human rights were clearly decided rightly this morning. It was entirely reasonable of Relate to dismiss Gary MacFarlane, a counsellor who refused to work with same-sex couples despite agreeing with the stated policy of the organisation that it did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. He is completely entitled to his mistaken views but he should not try to force them on his employer. |
| It was also quite correct to dismiss the case brought by Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who wanted to wear a dangling cross at work. The NHS policies on jewellery are based on the risk of infection, rather than on theological opinion. Adherents of other religions must also adjust their dress to meet hygiene standards. No discrimination there. The court drew a clear and important distinction between her case and that of Nadia Eweida, whose cross conflicted for a while with BA's uniform policy. | |
| Corporate uniform policy – unlike a hospital's concern for the prevention of disease – is really not as important as sincere religious conviction, and it should not be allowed to trample all over it. | Corporate uniform policy – unlike a hospital's concern for the prevention of disease – is really not as important as sincere religious conviction, and it should not be allowed to trample all over it. |
| There is an added subtlety to Eweida's case: as a Coptic Christian, she comes from a country where Christians are persecuted and sometimes killed for their faith. To wear a cross openly, if discreetly, was on her part a demonstration that she now lives in a country which handles religious differences better than Egypt does. We should be proud of that. | There is an added subtlety to Eweida's case: as a Coptic Christian, she comes from a country where Christians are persecuted and sometimes killed for their faith. To wear a cross openly, if discreetly, was on her part a demonstration that she now lives in a country which handles religious differences better than Egypt does. We should be proud of that. |
| Crosses, headscarves, and so on are easy to tolerate. The hard questions of toleration are those raised by the fourth case: that of Lilian Ladele, a registrar in Islington dismissed because she would have nothing to do with civil partnerships. Her opinions are wrong but they need not have harmed anyone else, and it should have been part of her employers' duties to see that they didn't. When the law changed to allow civil partnerships, other local authorities did not automatically change the jobs of all their previous registrars to require them to register the new relationships. Islington did. | Crosses, headscarves, and so on are easy to tolerate. The hard questions of toleration are those raised by the fourth case: that of Lilian Ladele, a registrar in Islington dismissed because she would have nothing to do with civil partnerships. Her opinions are wrong but they need not have harmed anyone else, and it should have been part of her employers' duties to see that they didn't. When the law changed to allow civil partnerships, other local authorities did not automatically change the jobs of all their previous registrars to require them to register the new relationships. Islington did. |
| The central problem of a diverse and tolerant society like ours has nothing to do with dress codes, or with belief as a lifestyle. It is how to get along with people whose views are wrong, or indeed destructive. In the case of Ladele against Islington council we have a clash of two irreconcilable moral frameworks: one that sees human worth and dignity derived from God and one derives them from the nature of humanity. Neither assertion can be proved, of course. In that sense both are equally faith based. | The central problem of a diverse and tolerant society like ours has nothing to do with dress codes, or with belief as a lifestyle. It is how to get along with people whose views are wrong, or indeed destructive. In the case of Ladele against Islington council we have a clash of two irreconcilable moral frameworks: one that sees human worth and dignity derived from God and one derives them from the nature of humanity. Neither assertion can be proved, of course. In that sense both are equally faith based. |
| What makes a difference is that the belief in human rights has largely supplanted traditional Christianity as our society's explanation of why – and how – people matter. Some Christians experience this as persecution. They are wrong. But it is also wrong to suppose that getting rid of God must make societies more tolerant. | What makes a difference is that the belief in human rights has largely supplanted traditional Christianity as our society's explanation of why – and how – people matter. Some Christians experience this as persecution. They are wrong. But it is also wrong to suppose that getting rid of God must make societies more tolerant. |
| In Ladele's case, her objections to civil partnerships really do not stand up. She would not register them because they were the equivalent of marriage – which is exactly what makes them seem just and attractive to the rest of us. But her wrongness is exactly what tolerance is there to protect. Any fool can be tolerant of opinions which are right. | In Ladele's case, her objections to civil partnerships really do not stand up. She would not register them because they were the equivalent of marriage – which is exactly what makes them seem just and attractive to the rest of us. But her wrongness is exactly what tolerance is there to protect. Any fool can be tolerant of opinions which are right. |
| The dissenting opinion in her case, from a Montenegrin and a Maltese judge, argued in favour of a much greater strengthening of the rights of conscience, as opposed to merely religious freedom. This has to be right. Conscience can be formed and informed by profound beliefs which are entirely atheistical. But the consequence of this greater stress on conscience is paradoxically to give greater protection to obnoxious religious beliefs. Quite right too. | The dissenting opinion in her case, from a Montenegrin and a Maltese judge, argued in favour of a much greater strengthening of the rights of conscience, as opposed to merely religious freedom. This has to be right. Conscience can be formed and informed by profound beliefs which are entirely atheistical. But the consequence of this greater stress on conscience is paradoxically to give greater protection to obnoxious religious beliefs. Quite right too. |
| A genuinely tolerant state will often be called to protect opinions which are both wrong and repugnant to the majority. This is not because their holders are good people. Some people are much nastier in theory than in practice, but most of us – and certainly Islington council – are the other way round. | A genuinely tolerant state will often be called to protect opinions which are both wrong and repugnant to the majority. This is not because their holders are good people. Some people are much nastier in theory than in practice, but most of us – and certainly Islington council – are the other way round. |
| It is a recognition of the uncomfortable fact that conscience can lead us in irreconcilable directions. It is simply not true that if we all sit down and reason about things we will come to the same reasonable, liberal conclusions. A society which places its faith in human reason, as modern Europe does, must take very seriously the possibility that the majority is wrong. That's not a recipe for paralysis. But it does demand tactful and thoughtful respect for defeated minorities, such as Ladele represents. | It is a recognition of the uncomfortable fact that conscience can lead us in irreconcilable directions. It is simply not true that if we all sit down and reason about things we will come to the same reasonable, liberal conclusions. A society which places its faith in human reason, as modern Europe does, must take very seriously the possibility that the majority is wrong. That's not a recipe for paralysis. But it does demand tactful and thoughtful respect for defeated minorities, such as Ladele represents. |
| • This article was amended on 16 January 2013 to remove an incorrect statement that Nadia Eweida was dismissed from British Airways. |