Like this? Share it on social media. Join our monthly e-newsletter to keep up to date with our latest research and events. And check out our Friends Programme to find out how you can help our work.
This morning the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) released its long-awaited judgment on four cases involving British Christians. All had claimed their employers had violated their rights to freedom of religion. The Court ruled in favour of one of the complainants, but against the other three. There are many things to be encouraged about here, but also some points for concern.
First, the Court recognised the importance of freedom of religion, including the freedom to manifest one’s religion. Nadia Eweida was sent home from her job at British Airways for breaking their uniform rules by visibly displaying a piece of jewellery – a cross necklace. The Court ruled in her favour, arguing that BA’s reasons for its uniform policy (protecting its brand image) was not sufficient to justify stopping its employees from displaying their religious faith. Some have pointed out that visibly wearing a cross is not a requirement of Christianity, only a personal choice. But the Court rejected this as irrelevant – wearing the cross was a way for Ms Eweida to display her faith, and that is what mattered.
Second, the Court ruled that freedom of religion could be legitimately restricted. Shirley Chaplin also complained against her employer, the NHS, for not allowing her to wear a crucifix necklace. The hospital where she worked as a nurse pointed out that the necklace could cause injury if a patient pulled on it or if it came into contact with an open wound. The Court agreed – the protection of health and safety on a hospital ward is vitally important. Staff can be prevented from manifesting their faith if doing so conflicts with this.
I think as Christians we can welcome both of these aspects of the ruling. It is encouraging that the ECHR recognises a strong right to freedom of religious practice. But we can also recognise that concerns like health and safety must sometimes take priority.
However, the third thing to note is a cause for concern. The Court ruled against Lilian Ladele, a registrar who lost her job at Islington Council because she refused to conduct civil partnerships. Ms Ladele believed that conducting civil partnerships would condone homosexual relationships, something she was not willing to do. The Court ruled against her because Islington Council was acting to protect the rights of same-sex couples.
This ruling worries me, but not because the Court was concerned to prevent discrimination against same-sex couples. No matter how clear we take the Bible to be on this issue, Christians do not have a monopoly on defining the law in our pluralistic culture.
Instead, what worries me is that the Court appears to prioritise the right of same-sex couples not to face discrimination over the right of Ms Ladele to act on her religious beliefs. The Court states that a balance must be struck between these, yet the balance it favours seems to simply allow religious freedoms to be completely overridden. Ms Ladele’s beliefs could have been accommodated by her being permitted to only conduct heterosexual marriages, while other registrars covered civil partnerships. Islington Council had enough registrars that this would not lead to any same-sex couples being inconvenienced. The Court’s ruling here follows recent precedent in the UK Courts to allow other rights to be prioritised over religious freedoms. This is a legitimate cause for concern.
But whatever our concerns, let’s be clear: this does not in any way amount to persecution, or deliberate discrimination against Christians. This ruling, and others like it, do not prevent us from living as faithful followers of Christ. What they do mean is that some Christians will face difficult choices about whether to obey the rules of their employers or to defy them so as to not act against their consciences. Although that’s clearly a difficult situation to be in, Christians have always faced such situations, and indeed many face much more dangerous, even life-threatening, choices as they seek to live for Jesus.
Paul Billingham is a guest blogger and a former Theos intern
This blog first appeared for Nexus
For analysis of the issues behind the ECHR judgements from a variety of legal experts see Religion and Law
The issue of religious freedom will be debated at a parliamentary event on 6th February in the Theos debate Courts and Conscience. Click here for more details.
Image by bobbi vie from flickr.com available under this Creative Commons Licence.
