How much religious liberty can a liberal society afford? That was the question examined by panellists at last night’s Theos debate at the Commonwealth Club in central London.
The debate followed the publication of a report launched by Theos in March which argued that human beings are naturally religious animals and have a prima facie natural right to freely exercise their religion, which should not simply be equated with the right to free speech. The report came at a time of growing concern about restrictions of religious liberties in the UK. In an opinion poll, conducted by ComRes earlier in the year, nearly a third of people (32%) said they believed religious freedoms had been restricted in the UK over the last ten years.
The Theos debate was chaired by Joshua Rozenberg (pictured), Britain’s best-known commentator on the law. Mr Rozenberg was the BBC’s legal correspondent for 15 years and edited The Daily Telegraph’s legal coverage for 8 years. On the panel were the philosophers Dr. Julian Baggini, Prof. Dallas Willard, and Prof. Roger Trigg, and Inayat Bunglawala.
In a wide ranging discussion, panellists debated the extent to which religious freedom should be considered a primary human right. Roger Trigg expressed concern about increasing restrictions on religious liberty which he argued were principally driven by European legislation. The right to freedom of religious expression was often considered a lower right compared with other rights, he argued. Inayat Bunglawala said that there was evidence that anti-Muslim prejudice in the UK was increasing but argued that, overall, tolerance towards minorities in the UK was greater today than it was 30 years ago. Controversially, however, he cited the failed attempt by the UK government to deport Abid Naseer, described by a judge as a serious threat to national security, as evidence of significant religious intolerance. In a reference to the case of Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar who was dismissed for refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies on religious grounds, Dr Baggini argued that the challenges confronting a religious believer at work were, philosophically, no different from those confronting an atheist who was required to act against his or her conscience. Individuals were required to take a decision as to whether or not they could continue working for an organisation where there was a conflict between the values of the employer and employee.
There was an interesting discussion on the role of the law courts and the extent to which they were qualified to rule on religious issues, specifically what was and was not essential to a particular religious belief. Roger Trigg expressed concern about courts overstepping their authority and acting outside of their expertise. Dallas Willard suggested that only secular courts could rule on these matters in relation to the acceptable outworking of religious faith in the public space.
To read Inayat Bunglawala's Guardian commentary on the debate, click here.
