Trevor Phillips, Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph last week in which he spoke about the vexed issue of religion, discrimination and exemption from legislation.
Two things stood out in what he said. First, the law does not and should not tell religious organisations how to run their internal affairs: “the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque”. Second, the law does and must instruct religious groups on how to conduct themselves in public: “[if] you’re offering a public service and you’re a charity… there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules.”
Phillips’ intent was clearly to be even-handed but both points are contentious. In the first instance, there have been examples recently in which anti-discrimination law did cross the religious threshold, such as the case between John Reaney and the
In the second instance, the idea that religion or belief has no public consequences or obligations is, at best, misguided. Such a separation may work, more or less well, with other strands of the EHRC’s work, such as race, gender, age or disability, where the issue under discussion is not a matter of choice and makes no difference to the manner in which you conduct yourself in everyday life.
Religion, however, does not work like that. An individual’s religious beliefs are open to suasion and can, do and, many would argue, must impact the way she conducts herself in public. If, for example, our late-Christian society were suddenly to adopt pre-Christian ethics and legalise infanticide – not as absurd a suggestion as it may appear for those familiar with Peter Singer’s arguments – Christian doctors, among others, could not but seek exemption from the legislation on the basis of their religious beliefs. It is not enough to say, as Phillips did, “we can’t have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it’s right.” That is precisely what you must have if you place any genuine value on freedom of conscience.
This does not mean, contrary to what some will claim, that religious people are necessarily entitled to ‘exemptions’ on any and every matter they choose. What it does mean is that you cannot claim, as Phillips did, that “faith identity is part of what makes life richer and more meaningful for the individual,” if you then insist that same individual must shed that richness and meaning when it does not fully comply with legally-embedded current social norms.
Nick Spencer is Research Director at Theos
