As an atheist but believer in free speech I have no objection to people preaching to those who wish to listen. They can say homosexuality is a sin, drinking is a sin, adultery is a sin or eating pork is a sin. It would be evident to all free thinking individuals that they are talking rubbish. The same would apply to a far right organisation campaigning for repatriation of immigrants. Where the line would be crossed would be if they urged violence to be used against sinners or immigrants.

As for people in politics making decisions based on their religious beliefs, I think this would be a very dangerous idea.

People should be able to hold whatever beliefs they want.

But there is no logical reason that any personal views should gain a particular influence in society on the basis of those views alone.

If someone stands as a political candidate on a clear manifesto based on such views, and wins, then fair enough. But otherwise, no.

In the US, the separation of church and state is inherent to the constitution, as it should be in the UK. The thought of POTUS or the UKPM making decisions based on a conversation with a voice in their head is appalling. This separation appears to have passed by many US voters who continue to hold some remarkable predjudices - it appears you can believe almost what you like as long as you aren't a 'non believer': http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/155282/ ... ups%20.pdf Between now and the 2012 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ ], would you vote for that person? Code: 2012 Jun 7-10         Yes   No Black                 96   4 A woman               95   5 Catholic              94   5 Hispanic              92   7 Jewish                91   6 Mormon                80   18 Gay/lesbian           68   30 Muslim                58   40 An atheist            54   43

In the US, the separation of church and state is inherent to the constitution, as it should be in the UK. The thought of POTUS or the UKPM making decisions based on a conversation with a voice in their head is appalling. This separation appears to have passed by many US voters who continue to hold some remarkable predjudices - it appears you can believe almost what you like as long as you aren't a 'non believer': http://www.gallup.com/file/poll/155282/ ... ups%20.pdf Between now and the 2012 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [ ], would you vote for that person? Code: 2012 Jun 7-10         Yes   No Black                 96   4 A woman               95   5 Catholic              94   5 Hispanic              92   7 Jewish                91   6 Mormon                80   18 Gay/lesbian           68   30 Muslim                58   40 An atheist            54   43

The great workings of the churches/mosques, changing the meaning of words.

^ All the above.

To reverse the question, what grounds are there for suggesting ANY religious organisation should have a voice in governance, education or any other aspect of day to day life?

I fully agree with you.

One of the stories I mentioned in my opening post was that of a Cumbrian street preacher who was harassed and wrongly arrested for exercising his right to free speech and preaching the Gospel. Thankfully, he later received an apology and compensation from the force.



Fair enough.

That example of a street preacher being arrested is plainly wrong, as long as they're not harassing people then they should be allowed to say what they want.

However there was a bit on the page Kirkstaller linked to that mentioned a registrar not wanting to do certain marriages, that's just tough sh|t. You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey, if you feel you can't carry out the job then you need to resign.

Also, this made me giggle just a little -
"Earlier this year Lord Carey warned that Christians in Britain are being treated as “bigots” and sacked for expressing their beliefs.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury also warned of a “drive to remove Judaeo-Christian values from the public square”.

He accused Britain’s courts of consistently applying “equality law to discriminate against Christians”."
Is it their faith that leads to such fecked-up reasoning? Or were they born this thick?

That is an interesting case and I don't quite know where I stand on it.

On one hand the nature of this registrar’s job changed after she had already taken up the role. If she had known that she would be compelled to conduct services between same-sex couple beforehand she might not have taken the job. However on the other hand, her religious convictions do not seem to be compromised when conducting civil ceremonies between men and women.

My own view is that in situations like this is best to act pragmatically. If reasonable adjustments could be made whereby she only conducted civil marriages and that civil partnerships were picked up by other colleagues, then that would be the best course of action. I expect that many of the awkward squad will chirp up and say that this would lead to racists being afforded similar adjustments, but that’s just plain silly. We do not have case upon case of racists asking for their beliefs to be accommodated. A person’s religious beliefs should be respected in a civil society and if a resolution can be reached whereby no one is wronged, then such adjustments are sensible.

Indeed.

The 'harassment' aspect is interesting. What actually counts as harassment?

For instance, if a doctor tells a patient that he'll pray with them – is that harassment or on a par with someone knocking on your door to preach at you?

I don't think either is 'harassment', as such, but one does mean that someone is taking advantage of a position over someone who is in a more vulnerable one.

I tend toward the argument that there is – and should not be – any law against not being 'offended'. That has to work both ways.



The Lilian Ladele case was (is) deeply annoying. What it amounts to – and this was stated at tribunal – is that she wanted to be favoured over her colleagues, in terms of being able to dictate what parts of her job she carried out and what parts she did not.

The last I heard, she was still campaigning (sending letters to each member of the House of Lords) – and funded by a fundamentalist Christian organisation.

There's been at least one subsequent similar case that I am aware of – which does seem to suggest a situation of councils having a poor recruitment policy or people deliberately getting into such jobs disingenuously in order to provoke a situation over the issue of civil partnerships.



Carey is a particular prat. He also claimed, some time ago, that the court judgement in favour of Max Mosely over the News of the Screws 'story' was bad, since such dreadful behaviour as Mosely's should be revealed to the public for all to judge.

It seems to have passed the old cretin by that:

• most people will have bought the paper and read the story for reasons of titilation. Any subsequent moralising will merely be to clear their own consciences of the initial titilation;

• even if they read the story in order to cast a moral judgement, it rather forgets all that stuff about "he who is without sin".

There's been masses of other stuff: wearing a cross, for instance. It has never been a necessary, mandated part of being a Christian.

Not that this is limited to Christianity. There are stories about Muslim shop workers not wanting to touch alcohol or pork at work. While this is not an indicator of any mass situation, it does appear to have occurred.

Similarly, there are reports of increasing numbers of religious pharmacists refusing to provide the morning-after pill to women – on the grounds of their religious beliefs. We've had nurses going to tribunal because they get upset at being near women who have had or are waiting for an abortion (the employer in this case had already put them onto work patterns that didn't mean they were directly involved in any abortion).

There was a whole fuss about whether Muslims in an operating room could actually wear short sleeves.

A few years ago, I was asked to help with a bit of advice when a new ageish cafe in the north of England was feeling its collar was being metaphorically felt by the local evangelical church (with big local business backer).

Let's be clear that all these cases still only represent a minority of religious people in the UK. But it seems that such incidents are either themselves increasing or are being increasingly reported. Yet this is at a time when it is probably fair to say that religious observance has decreased in the country at large.

So what's actually going on?

Did no religious person ever actually complain about such things in the past – or have employers started making staff do things that go against their particular religion only recently?

Is there a heightened religious sensibility developing – and if so, why and why now?

And this is without mentioning the rise of religious protests against, say, Jerry Springer: The Opera or books of poetry or plays – acts not limited to adherents of any one religion.

I don't agree with this statement on any level, but particularly not in cases where those beliefs affect a person's willingness to do the job they are paid to do, or to obey the same laws everyone else obeys.

What if she had said that she didn't wish to officiate in same-sex marriages because she thought that all gay people had AIDS and that she could catch it by being in the same room? There would be absolutely no evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim, but it's no more ridiculous than the belief that there is an all-powerful being who doesn't want two people of the same sex to marry each other. Unsubstantiated religious beliefs shouldn't be afforded any more respect or consideration than any other unsubstantiated belief.