Some such activities can cause problems in an open society when they run against the very strong thread of tolerance which values individual autonomy and equal treatment of women.

I agree that a vibrant civil society is essential and is the best way of obviating the tendency for religious groups to seek political platforms, which can lead to a polarisation of our communities.

The strongest safeguard for our liberty is that laws are general and not specific to a certain group and certainly we need to avoid situations where theological interpretations are used as a pretext for exclusions from our common law, where more often than not it is women who suffer the consequences.

Neither the orientation nor the religious conviction should be prevented from expressing itself. The example of doctors refusing to carry out an abortion shows how a public body facilitates a woman’s right to abort her child as well as respecting the values of the medical professional who does not believe in the procedure.

The serious philosophical question would arise if the state said that in future do not plan on training to be a doctor unless you are prepared to carry out abortions or don’t be a registrar if you don’t agree with the idea of gay relationships.

First, as a Christian my core belief informs me that the God I believe in is interested in all aspects of life. Therefore, there is no secular/sacred divide. Everything falls within the sphere of a God who creates and sustains life.

Second, Christians generally believe that there is such a thing as objective and knowable truth. The very title of this blog (and a great start to the work, by the way!) ‘This is my truth’, therefore, presents a problem While there may be ‘truths’, we believe there is also ‘truth’. This ‘truth’ not only informs our ‘religious’ life, but also our lifestyle in general.

Third, before the Emperor Constantine was converted in 312 AD Christians did not have (or want to have) their hands on political power. Since then church and state have often gone hand in hand. Many of us today believe that to be wrong. Indeed we would say that political power has corrupted the church in many ways. We would want to see the disestablishment of the Church of England in England (as happened in Wales in 1920), which would lead to there being no bishops in the House of Lords (at least as bishops). (But then as someone who believes in having a fully elected H o L you could well have bishops there if they had been elected!) That does not mean that as Christians we belive we should stay out of the political realm or do not have anything worth saying to it.

4. Christian fundementalism has skewed many peoples’ view of the faith. But there is a growing reform movement seeking change. Fundementalism seeks to control politcal power in order to change society from above. Reformers seek to change from below through their values.

On the particulars of the post let me make this point:
Civil ceremonies are non-religious in their very nature. That’s the whole point of the system! So a registrar should not be bringing their own personal beliefs into the situation. Some Chrisrtains (and I’m not one of them) believe that divorcees should not remarry. Should a registrar with this view be allowed to refuse to marry them? Of course not.

To use the long-standing example of abortion: Yes, it is right that a woman can get an abortion on the NHS, but that it is also right that an individual within the NHS should be allowed to opt out of taking part in an abortion. The organization can use its other staff to perform the procedure.

In this case of this registrar the Council is obliged to offer a civil partnership ceremony (sadly it is not yet possible for gay couples to marry in the UK) but if a registrar believes that such partnerships are wrong, s/he should have the right to decline to perform such a ceremony if the organization has other registrars willing and able to perform it instead.

In the case of an adoption agency: Yes, it is right that all couples, including gay couples, should have the right to use a publicly regulated service. But if an individual does not believe in gay adoption, it is right that they should be able to opt out of dealing with those particular cases, provided that the organization is still able to offer the service.

This brings up the question of scale. The Catholic agency, as an organization, should not be allowed to opt out of providing a service to gay couples. That’s clear enough. But even if, as an organization, it changed it’s rules the large majority of its staff would be likely to opt out, to the extent that the gay couple would in fact be disadvantaged. That would be wrong. So the best option seemed to be for the Catholic agency to merge with a larger organization so that case workers who had no such objections would be readily available to gay couples.

Under this principle, the only potential conflict arises in very small organizations. In Northern Ireland a year or so ago, there was an issue over whether someone offering B&B accommodation could refuse a room to a gay couple. In this instance, it would be wrong for the B&B to refuse, because that would unfairly inconvenience the gay couple. The same would apply in a Council which had only one registrar. However most organizations are large enough for no conflict of interest to arise.

In all four examples, the principle is that the organization is obliged to provide the service, but an individual in an organization should be able to opt out.

-

If we believe in an inclusive and pluralistic society, this must surely mean that we accept that people have a right to their religious, ethical, political and personal beliefs; even if we disagree with them. As a society we should not seek to outlaw beliefs; even if a large majority of us might disagree with them. Such a society cannot claim to be inclusive.

So if we claim to respect the individuality of others, it would be wrong to exclude those with beliefs that differ those of the majority from various occupations where a potential conflict of interest arises only on some occasions. Do we ever want to say to a prospective doctor that s/he cannot be employed in the NHS unless they agree to carry out abortions?

In a tolerant society, our public organizations should respect the beliefs of others and offer the flexibility to work round people’s preferences whenever that is practically possible. Sometimes it won’t be possible … but not often.

I have to agree with Simon. As an atheist, I think ultimately we need a complete separation of church (of any creed) and state. This will, in fact, be the only way to treat all religions fairly.

As for State and religion, the Church was disestablished in Wales at the beginning of the last century. It’s about time the Church was disestablished in Westminster too..