who to hire

Just a reminder of the disaster that was averted on Monday 25th when the House of Lords defeated the government’s attempt to remove the right of churches to employ only people whose lifestyle is consistent with the church’s ethical teachings.

Yet again the government has shown itself oblivious to the significance of such fundamental freedoms as freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion. Yet again the House of Lords has had to spell out things that should be utterly unassailably taken for granted. Thus Dr John Sentamu:

“Noble Lords may believe that Roman Catholics should allow priests to be married; they may think that the Church of England should hurry up and allow women to become bishops; they may feel that many churches and other religious organisations are wrong on matters of sexual ethics. But if religious freedom means anything, it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine in accordance with their own convictions. They are not matters for the law to impose.”

And Baroness O’Cathain, clearly the hero of the hour:

“A belief in freedom of association demands that, even if we do not share the beliefs of an organisation, we must stand up for its liberty to choose its own leaders and representatives. That, in essence, is what this debate is all about.”

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “who to hire

  1. I, for one, am profoundly greatful. I can just imagine the smarminess of some woman in a collar, or the man who has stashed his lover in the rectory, standing at the pulpit to talk to “My Flock” about “forgiveness” and “healing.”

    Like

  2. It would have been an outrage, really. The state simply has no right to interfere with the qualifications for being a minister, or defining what does and does not belong to the role of a minister (pastor, whatever).

    Our gratitude is great. There must be a technical term for it :-)

    Like

  3. Richard, do you have a view on this “two kingdoms” stuff? Which I still don’t understand. Your comment is probably completely unrelated but one of the big objections of the Establishment Principle folk against Voluntaryism was that under the Voluntary system the Church was regarded as little more than a private association. The connection being that I secretly think of the Two Kingdoms view as being rather what I imagine a modernised Voluntaryism would look like, but that may make no sense to you or anyone else!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s