A recent case before a Civil Court of appeals—where a man who worked for a marriage counseling service refused to counsel homosexual couples when it came to sexual relationships because of his religion (Christianity)—was dismissed and the judge made some astounding and frankly unexpected comments on Religion. According to the Court Decision, the applicant said he “believes that it follows from Biblical teaching that same sex sexual activity is sinful and that he should do nothing which endorses such activity”
It is exactly this sort of prejudice that makes the UK, and US alike, a worse, more dangerous and cantankerous place than it would be without two thousand year old moral codes.
But more importantly the Judge said some very important things about Law and Religion and where the two should stand in relation to each other.
The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian’s right (and every other person’s right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.
Bingo. He his the nail on the head. We should have freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. Another fantastic quote of his on proof of religious ideas: “… in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence”
I can’t wait for a judge in the US to come out and say the things this British judge has said. We necessarily need true separation fo church and state and not a theocracy as it seems the Christian fundamentalists seem to prefer over an objective, sensible, Democratic Republic like we kind of have.
I’ll leave you with another great quote.
The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
Related posts:
- Redding atheist sues against forced participation in religious rehab program
- The Islamization of Iran
- Activist Rob Sherman sues Illinois for $2.3 billion re: separation of church and state
In the UK a General Practitioner (doctor) can decline to give advice or treatment on abortion but a therapist cannot decline to give sex advice?
There is something wrong here isn’t there?
Before anyone jumps to a blind conclusion that I must be an American Christian Evangelist or Muslim fundamentalist, I am neither. I am a Brit and like most Brits, Christians and Muslims, I believe sexual choice and abortion are the individual’s choice.
The question here is about the individual getting the best advice. If the therapist, like the doctor, feel a personal moral dilemma then the therapist, like every professional adviser, should acknowledge personal conflicts of interest and say “Sorry I cannot advise you but I know someone who can.” Every adviser should recognise their personal and professional limitations and not try to give advice they are unable to give impartially.
The court was wrong. It acted on a belief - commonly called political correctness. Expect this case to come back to court. if the therapist can afford to do it, or the issue to come back to a court in another case. Expect it to go to the highest court in the UK - The House of Lords, and expect the House of Lords to rule that all advisor’s not only can but must act by conscience. Not for the professionals protection, but the client’s protection. The client is entitled to impartial advice.
The therapist in this case was honest, principled and correct in his actions, even if I personally utterely disagree with his reasons for his actions. I would prefer such a therapist to one who privately belevied I was wrong to be gay or seeking an abortion but then gave me partial advice.