Human Rights and Secularism
By Paul Richardson, CEN
Informed Vatican correspondent, John Allen, puts the battle with secularism at the top of Pope Benedict’s agenda. This is one reason, he thinks, why the Pope is keen to restore the Latin mass and other distinctive marks of Catholic identity. It is also, he suggests, an important motive for the welcome being given to traditionalist Anglicans. Benedict sees them as allies who will not weaken in the face of a secularist onslaught.
Whether or not Allen is right in his assessment of specific papal policies, there is little doubt that the Vatican is concerned about the way in which human rights are being used to regulate the activities of church organisations or to restrict religious displays in public places. For example, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to order the removal of crucifixes from the walls of state schools in Italy was greeted with dismay by Catholics.
Looming on the horizon are other likely clashes. Carol ser vices and nativity plays in British state schools look doomed. We can expect to see disputes about civil partnerships and the right of those who oppose them to follow their consciences on moral and religious grounds. Already we have had one case of a registrar who claimed the right not to officiate at such ceremonies. What
about organisations that refuse to recognise same-sex partnerships? Should they lose their charitable status or be denied any government funding? Should hate laws be broadened to include speaking against such relationships?
The treatment meted out to Catholic adoption agencies shows which way the wind is blowing. The Church of England concluded it had little choice but to allow its clergy to enter into civil part nerships. The requirement that clergy in such unions give their bishop an assurance they are not involved in sexual activity has yet to be tested in the courts.
Both sides in the kind of disputes that arise have a case. Gay people, whose civil partnerships are not recognised, feel an affront to their dignity. Bed-and-breakfast proprietors forced to accommodate people they consider to be living an immoral life feel their freedom of conscience has been violated.
In the NHS doctors and nurses who object to abortion or contraception on moral or religious grounds have to fight to preserve their right to follow their consciences.
The European Court of Human Rights has shown little readiness to compromise. Churches will dig themselves in and Europe could experience its own version of the culture wars. Is a compromise possible? Liberal minded Christians (many of them Roman Catholics) certainly hope so. What needs to be identified is what is most important for each side in the conflict. For one side it is access to services, for the other the right to preserve freedom of conscience and moral integrity. The rights of minorities do need to be upheld. If the state recognises civil partnerships it must ensure those who have entered into such partnerships can receive the goods and services they need. But over-aggressive imposition of non-discrimination laws can backfire by hardening
attitudes and fostering resentments.
An important consideration lying behind current disputes is how far intermediate bodies, whether churches, mosques, or NGOs, should have the right to operate according to their own ethos and in the light of their own principles. Often it is their ethos that gives these organisations their strength and effectiveness.
The Conservatives led by David Cameron are saying they want to give voluntary bodies a greater role in delivering public services but they have shown little signs of being prepared to defend such bodies when they come under attack, as the Catholic adoption agencies did.
In the case of the adoption agencies the argument was used that they were in receipt of public support so they should follow government guidelines. This is the kind of argument that fuels the case of those on the political right who argue that big government is bad for personal freedom. Government grants to voluntary bodies should certainly depend on their efficiency and the service they offer but they should not be used as an excuse to impose a moral agenda which a significant proportion of the population opposes. Otherwise we will find ourselves in the American situation where many Christians oppose ‘big government’.
A Jewish high school in North London is fighting a significant battle at the moment over the issue of who has the right to decide who is or is not a Jew. Is it the courts? Or does a religion have the right to decide for itself who is a member?
A century ago the Anglican theologian and political thinker, John Neville Figgis, foresaw increasing clashes between an all-powerful state and intermediate bodies like churches that claim the right to regulate the lives of those who of their own free will chose to belong to them. He wondered how long it would be before someone who was excommunicated took a church to court for libel.
There is still time to negotiate. After all, the very idea of human rights has its origins in Christian teaching. It is not a concept to which most Christians are opposed. It is how rights are understood and enforced that is the problem.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
