Dr Rowan Williams is a difficult man to disagree with. His calm and measured contributions are nearly always a welcome addition to any debate and his evident profundity always gives me pause for thought. So finding myself at odds with him on a particular issue always tests the tenacity of my opinions and the current row over religious exemptions from the Sexual Orientation regulations is one such instance.In the letter released yesterday written by Dr Williams and Archbishop of York John Sentamu, they take refuge in the idea of 'freedom of conscience':
In legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights to have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk. The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.The surprising thing however is that nowhere in the letter (full text here) or during his media appearances yesterday did Dr Williams explain how these regulations present any threat whatsoever to freedom of conscience. Worse still for a man usually known for his lucidity he appears to be misrepresenting both the notion of conscience and the requirements of the legislation. First the notion of 'freedom of conscience'.
As always the semantics are important - 'freedom of conscience' refers to an individual's right to hold and express particular beliefs, not necessarily to be given licence to act on them. Nothing in this legislation requires someone who disapproves of homosexuality to revise their opinion and so the notion that conscience is under threat is misleading. Conscience is not being "made subject to legislation", behaviour is. Getting this distinction right is important - if we 'blur' the boundary between belief and behaviour then most of the anti-discrimination legislation over the last 40 years would be subject to challenge on those grounds. I'm free under the law to believe in the superiority of one race over another, one gender over another etc. but I'm not entitled to act on those beliefs - conscience is completely free of censure, behaviour is subject to it. The one qualification to this idea is 'does the law actually compel anyone to act against their conscience' and this is where the second misrepresentation arises.
The law prevents adoption agencies from discriminating on the grounds of sexuality. In other words it looks to proscribe certain behaviours - it sets out 'what you may not do' and doesn't compel anyone to do anything. Again this is semantics but it goes to the heart of this issue since religious groups are claiming, quite wrongly, that they would be 'forced' to act against their beliefs by placing children with lesbian and gay couples. Compulsion can't be said to exist if the decision to get involved in adoption and fostering services is in itself a matter of free choice. Via a legitimate democratic process Parliament has decided that you may not discriminate on the grounds of sexuality - if that presents anyone with an issue of conscience they must resolve that privately. The demand for an exemption under threat of withdrawing their full service is, as Tom Freeman points out, moral blackmail.
In the past I've taken issue with the trend towards militant secularism and the overtly hostile attitudes of the likes of Dawkins and Grayling and their attempts to banish all religion from the public sphere. In that respect I'm happy to say that we could do with more men like Rowan Williams and fewer like Richard Dawkins. But it would be wrong to label the row over an exemption from this legislation as part of that trend.
2 Comments:
An excellent post which articulates much of what I've failed to express in my posts on this subject.
While we may disagree over other issues surrounding religion and the state, I do think you've hit the nail on the head here.
It does take over your life somewhat. Those goals you mentioned I am familiar with. Its like being an internet junkie. Needing the daily fix. Today, I broke my previous record of 1,370 hits in a day and managed 2,225! I know it is just the McCann fever. The last one was Cash for Honours. Otherwise its between 200-300 a day. Unlike you I don't have the other commitments. Good Luck.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home