|
|
 |
| |
Religious beliefs cannot overrule rights of others
• THE outcome is not yet known, but the comments of presiding justice, Sir Patrick Elias, at the appeal hearing of December 10 offer hope that justice and common sense will yet prevail in the dispute between Islington Council and Lillian Ladele, the registrar and council employee who refuses to register same-sex civil partnerships.
Justice Elias hinted at the potential danger of the precedent that the tribunal’s ruling could set when he offered a hypothetical example involving an employee with a sincere belief that impels him to “go around blowing things up”. Can an employer not forbid such behaviour without being guilty of discrimination?
Clearly, sincere religious beliefs must not be allowed to overrule good sense, public safety or the right of all citizens to be free from discrimination. As a Unitarian minister, I am open to a wide range of beliefs, religious and otherwise. I respect them and welcome them and the people who hold them in my congregation. Nonetheless, I would never consent to having these beliefs trump the legitimate rights of others.
Another important consideration was raised at the appeal hearing: we are to understand that Ms Ladele sincerely holds to a variety of principles taught by Christianity – many of which could pertain to her work as a registrar. Specifically, she believes that marriage is meant to be between one man and one woman for a lifetime and that this commitment is not to be broken. Why then has she raised no objection to registering weddings for divorced people? What about adulterers? What are we to make of such an inconsistent application of her sincere beliefs?
And if it is so difficult for Ms Ladele, why does she simply not get a job that does not involve work she finds abhorrent? One must wonder if the issue is not in fact more political than sincerely religious.
The fact that Ms Ladele’s case is being funded by Christian Concern for Our Nation is an important clue in this regard. This group – founded by religious fundamentalists – manages to ignore the Bible’s emphasis on justice and compassion to focus on fighting abortion, gay rights and sex before marriage – issues that feature much less prominently, if at all, in scripture.
Its goal seems to be to legally impose fundamentalist Christian morality on the rest of us – a situation that we must never allow to come to pass.
ANDREW PAKULA
Minister of Newington Green and Islington Unitarians
• I HAVE carefully followed the debate concerning the practices and stance of Lillian Ladele. I believe the debate has lacked any clear definition of the word “Christian”.
What is the correct definition of the word? In the New Testament a verse – 1 Peter, chapter 4, verse 16 – states: “But if as a Christian let him not be ashamed, but let him Glorify God in this name.”
The classic and outstanding 20th-century Recovery Version New Testament has an expository study footnote which I believe presents a vindication concerning the stance of Lillian Ladele: “Greek. Christianos, a word formed from Latin. The ending ianos, denoting an adherent of someone, was applied to slaves belonging to the great families in the Roman Empire. One who worshipped the emperor, the Caesar or Kaisar, was called Kaisarianos, which means an adherent of Kaisar, a person who belongs to Kaisar. When people believed in Christ and became His Followers, some in the Empire came to consider Christ a rival of their Kaisar. Then, at Antioch (Acts 11:26) they began to call the followers of Christ Christianoi (Christians), adherents of Christ, as a nickname, a term of reproach. Hence, this verse says ‘as a Christian, let him not be ashamed’; that is, if any believer suffers at the hands of the persecutors who contemptuously call him a Christian, he should not feel ashamed but should glorify God in this name.
“Today, the term Christian should bear a positive meaning, that is, a man of Christ, one who is one with Christ, not only belonging to Him but also having His life and nature in an organic union with Him, and who is living by Him, even living Him, in his daily life. If we suffer for being such a person, we should not feel ashamed but should be bold to magnify Christ in our confession by our holy and excellent manner of life to glorify (express) God in this name.”
CHRIS LAMBERT
EC1
• IN the case of the Islington registrar, has consideration been given to the nature of marriage? The form of words used in church is obviously different from a civil ceremony, but underpins what we understand marriage to be. It’s for “bringing up children... hallowing the union between man and woman... help and comfort...”
The prayer book states that if it’s otherwise than God’s Word allows, the marriage is not lawful.
It seems this lady’s job description has changed (massively) from when she began. It isn’t she who has changed.
We’re all sinners. Her beef isn’t with the sinners but with the procedure she is expected to follow.
The judge’s remarks are inappropriate. Comparison with anarchism is not relevant. The reverse argument would be that if Islington were to require her to commit any fraudulent, indecent or immoral act she should do so, if the law was changed to make it allowable.
And for a judge to trivialise deeply held religious convictions, comparing them with homemakers, which isn’t a “belief” matter, borders sadly on the frivolous.
Perhaps all employers should consider the need to provide flexibility and tolerance for employees of all religious persuasions, so everyone can be treated with the respect they deserve.
PHILIP WATKINS
Address supplied
• LILLIAN Ladele has to represent the entire community, be it black, white, gay, straight or otherwise. Would a registrar with right-wing, racist views refusing, because of his or her beliefs, to marry a mixed-race couple be tolerated. Medics in Iraq and Afghanistan treat people regardless of whether they are fighting for the Taliban or the Coalition.
The lady should change her stance or resign. Under no circumstances should taxpayers reward her outdated beliefs with compensation.
JOHN HANLEY
Via email
• AS someone who has occasion to pass through Islington and read the Tribune, I write, based only on what I know about the case, to say how sorry I feel for Lillian Ladele.
I go along with what she believes and commend her for the stance she has taken.
C KNIGHT
SE20
|
 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
|
