In a landmark case, four Christians have taken discrimination cases to the European Court of Human Rights, while Prime Minister David Cameron faces a charge of hypocrisy for telling his lawyers to oppose them months after calling for a Christian ‘fightback’.
The case came before the court in Strasbourg after British workers complained that they had been forced out of their jobs for maintaining their Christian convictions. (Read the Press Association report. and the helpful BBC analysis)
The court has reserved its decision. Our prayer is that it will uphold freedom of religious expression in Britain.
What will be a landmark decision from Europe’s highest court will have huge implications for religious liberty in Britain and in all of Europe. A negative ruling could have the effect of pushing Christians increasingly to the margins of public life, while a positive one will have discrimination departments rewriting their rule-books.
The lawyer for the United Kingdom argued that the Christians’ rights had not been violated. He argued that religious freedoms are only protected in private and not in public and that each of the four could get another job.
It will be difficult after this for the Prime Minister to avoid a charge of hypocrisy after instructing the Governments’ legal team to oppose the case. Last December he commented that he would welcome a Christian ‘fightback’ against the creeping secularism. He said further that “The values of the Bible, the values of Christianity, are the values that we need.” Only two months ago the Prime Minister added that Christians should be allowed to display symbols of their belief and pledged to protect religious freedoms. At best, the Governments’ thinking is not joined up.
The case was brought forward by the following four Christians:
Gary McFarlane is a Christian counsellor who was sacked from his job with Relate in 2008 because he confided that he would not be comfortable counselling homosexual couples about sexual problems. Even after Relate conceded that they were wrong to sack Mr McFarlane without giving him notice, they still didn‘t give him his job back.
Lilian Ladele was a Christian Registrar for the London Borough of Islington, appointed before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 changed the law. Originally she was allowed to swap shifts with colleagues so she would not have to compromise her convictions. However, in March 2006 two homosexual registrars complained about Ladele’s refusal to perform gay unions. The local authority changed its rules in December 2007 and she was dismissed. Even though she initially won her case against Islington Council in July 2008, the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled against her later that year.
Shirley Chaplin is a nurse from Devon. She was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after they changed the uniform code to a v-neck, exposing the necklace bearing a cross she had been wearing. Chaplin’s employers suggested that her cross on a chain might get caught on somebody. There was no evidence it ever had. At the same time, however, the employers allowed two Muslim doctors to wear a close-fitting hijab. Nurse Chaplin’s appeal was rejected.
Nadia Eweida from Twickenham, south-west London, was a British Airways worker who refused in 2006 to remove a necklace with a cross or to hide it from view. Even though the airline changed its uniform policy after the case to allow all religious symbols, including crosses, although Ms Eweida never received justice.
The case for these workers is based on articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit religious discrimination and allow “freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
Former archbishop Lord Carey has supported the Christians, arguing that believers are being treated as ‘bigots’, while many face being fired from their jobs simply for expressing their Christian beliefs. He blamed this on a ‘secular conformity of belief and conduct’ which is resulting in the Christian faith being effectively ‘banned’ from public.
Lord Carey also pointed out that “In a country where Christians can be sacked for manifesting their faith, are vilified by state bodies, are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong….”
“Christians are excluded from many sectors of employment simply because of their beliefs; beliefs which are not contrary to the public good”.
READ: Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
PRAY for righteousness to prevail and for the European Court to uphold the right of Christians to live by their faith. Pray for our brother and sisters and those representing them to have found favour with the Court. Cry to the Lord for our land where truth is fallen and the people of Christ have to go to a foreign power for justice.
WRITE to your MP and ask him why Mr Cameron has instructed lawyers to oppose these Christians when he has himself encouraged Christians not to hide their faith and has even welcomed a Christian ‘fightback.’ Point out that Christians cannot leave their faith at home.
FURTHER READING
- British Christians are being ‘Vilified’, Lord Carey Warns
- The Persecution of Christians in Britain (Part 2)
Find out how to join Christian Voice here (clicking the link does not commit you):
The four cases have all been lumped together in press coverage, with persecuted Christianity as a common theme, but there are entirely different principles at stake in each of the cases, and the principles are not of equal importance.
I am particularly concerned about Gary McFarlane’s case. I have less sympathy with the other three claimants, though I still have some sympathy for them.
I’d be outside my comfort zone giving sex therapy to any couple, gay or straight, or receiving sex therapy for that matter. But, if I was in need of sex therapy, I wouldn’t appreciate being assigned by Relate to a sex therapist who, for whatever reason, was operating outside his or comfort zone, under duress.
There is no reason to assume that the most talented sex therapists for gay couples are likely to be people who are also comfortable delivering sex therapy to straight couples, or (in Gary’s case) vice versa. So there is no need to filter the intake into that profession, blocking access to the profession to any who would not display equal talent, and feel equally comfortable, in either scenario.
To me, the news reports all point to Gary McFarlane having been fired because of his private thoughts and feelings, and for no other reason.
I don’t think any sex therapist should be obliged to deliver sex therapy to a couple to whom he felt uncomfortable delivering sex therapy, regardless of the reason for this. I do not think that there is anything unlawful about “discriminating against” certain types of sex therapy clients, by specialising in delivering sex therapy to that class of clients to whom one felt most equipped to deliver sex therapy, and leaving other clients to colleagues.
The only way forward, if Gary McFarlane lost his case, is to argue, when the next case arises, would be to plead that “homophobia” – manifesting as an aversion to delivering sex therapy to homosexual couples – amounted to a “disability” that deserves reasonable accommodation (perhaps one caused by religion, but not necessarily so), rather than a manifestation of religion, as Mr Diamond doubtless argued. If he’d argued Gary’s case that way, his client would have been home and dry long before now. I do not think that it would have been dishonourable to plead Gary McFarlane’s case that way, just an example of “being all things to all men”, to quote the apostle Paul, who also used tactically his Roman citizenship to get justice, thereby in no way endorsing the corrupt Roman world-view that accorded different human rights to different classes of human being. But Paul Diamond has his own agenda. He should have kept that for the media, and used winnable arguments in the courts.
You cannot use the argument of ‘homophobia’ as a disability for three reasons. One) There is no such clinical disorder. Homosexuality is considered a sin in the Bible. Two) It would require the advocate and the defendant to lie i.e. perjure themselves after swearing on said Bible. Three) It gives credibility to the nonsensical notion of homophobia and thence of the acceptability of homosexuality.
Are you an agent provocateur or a troll?
Actually, he is a person who believes in mind-control weapons!! Click on his name and folow the links, if you have nothing better to do.
Corin, I am not ashamed to be “a person who believes in mind-control weapons”, as you put it (though I’d have chosen to word that description of myself rather less sensationally), and am willing to make myself accountable to you, or anybody else, over this perceived eccentricity of mine. However, out of respect for Christian Voice, and to keep this discussion as focussed as it ought to remain, might you please be kind enough to raise this topic with me elsewhere, for example in any of the several different places in which you could have done so, by following the links that you have invited others to follow? Those others are equally welcome to have their say too.
Are we not told, in scripture, that Noah, a righteous man, found the unrighteousness of his subsequently drowned contemporaries tormenting? Since we live in a culture that makes an official policy of the widely asserted “acceptability of homosexuality” that we dispute, and seeks to re-educate or to ostracise any who find this to be a torment akin to brother Noah’s, would it not, tongue-in-cheek, be lawful for us to satirise in this manner the long and ignoble history of psychiatry in pathologising perceivedly politically incorrect dissidence (for example in the former Soviet Union)? Would this really be “perjury”, or would it be a wholly apt rhetoric to deploy, in today’s culture war? If we are thus tormented, and have already volunteered to be “fools for Christ” the moment we first believed the gospel, why may we not further volunteer to embrace joyfully the description of “nutcases for Christ” (so-to-speak)? For that is how we are already being portrayed, by our enemies, I can assure you.
I am definitely not an “agent provocateur”, Corin. The entirely subjective term “troll”, on the other hand, is one that is bandied about often these days, as an insult almost devoid of meaning, by anybody who dislikes another’s contribution to an online discussion. One man’s troll is another man’s visionary. Objectively, I am not claiming to be either.
I agree with you about trolls. I have been branded as a “troll” too. But the relevant definition of this in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is “a provocative email or posting [not person !] intended to incite an angry respsonse”. There is no objective distinction between this and “ a thought-provoking posting intended to inspire an interesting and passionate discussion”, which is what forums are all about, not about people all agreeing placidly with each other. It is subjective, as you say.
Of course, we hope that the judges decide in favour of these persecuted Christians. However, I do wonder if appealing for fairness from the European Court is similar to appealing for fairness from Nero. Both being ant-Christian.
No doubt militant secularists rejoice at the persecution of Christians but in eternity it is the Christians who “will have the last laugh”.
I can confirm, having taken quite an interest in all of these cases using the Google Alerts service ever since I first learnt about them, that many militant secularists ARE INDEED “rejoicing” at what I agree amounts to “persecution of Christians”. And so too are some of the “gay” community.
The line I take with both groups in online debate, has typically been to mention the spirit of Niemoller’s well-known quotation, “First they came …” As I see it, the freedoms being curtailed for Christians first, are freedoms that they ought to want for themselves, and which they are likely to lose too.
Regarding “Nero”, I do not know who was emperor, whether Nero or another, when the apostle Paul wrote Romans 13, especially verses 3 and 4, which read (in the New King James Version) “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.” I consider it likely that the apostle knew that his correspondence was likely to be intercepted and read by the Roman authorities, and that he was as much sending a message from God to the emperor with these words, as he was to the saints he was actually writing to.
as a fellow brother in CHRIST i do not consider your assertion regarding mind control weapons as ” conspiracy theory ” but fact [ for the spiritual battlefield is our mind ]
the first weapopn which has successfully destroyed the minds of GOD’s people is television with it’s worldy distorted propagandic view of the truth of this world in the political domain and historic one
even GOD’s creations [ both nature and the creatures] are constantly paraded under the banner of that satanic lie called evolution that people worshiip in order to feel accepted in society [ which is NOT socialable ]
the question i ask is ” if we are professing christians should we not put our trust in GOD rather than man made institutions ? ”
JESUS tells us to be no part of the world yet i hear many professing christians declare that GOD wants them to have a good job and be happy and seek advancement
scripture [ GOD speaking to us through man ] states we are to trust in HIM explicitly and not lean on our own understanding
i believe these ” persecuted christians ” should be praising GOD for drawing them out of worldy affairs so that they can serve HIM and not seeking recompense and re-instatement
we are in the last days and the beast system is increasing in power so we need to gather together and help each other endure the coming tribulation instead of demanding ” rights ” from this satanic worldly system
we need to soften our hearts so that HIS spirit can enter us and perform ” wonderous works ” for HIS glory
this is why we pray for HIS kingdom to come [ though it should already be evident and awaiting king JESUS’s return ] and HIS will to be done on earth not OUR will based on our reasoning but by rightly dividing scripture with the help of the HOLY spirit when humbling ourselves before HIM
the time of testing our faith and entrering the purifying fire is nearer than most realise
i believe though i may be wrong that it was the emporer domitian in power during paul’s trial
he was part of the successive line of despotic emporers [ including nero and caligula ] that led to rome’s demise as empire [ as fortold by daniel ] although the church [ through constantine ] became the new one [ and it is by no means holy ]
It’s a little more complicated than that. Don’t let your feelings about these particular cases distract you. All that matters is the legal principle involved.
And what is that legal principle? Are you saying that any employee (of whatever faith) can refuse to do something at work, something that is legal and also clearly part of the duties that go with his job, because he has a moral objection against it? If your answer is yes, then you’ll be creating legal chaos because anyone can make claims of this kind.
I am struggling to see how wearing a little chain around the neck could conflict with someone’s duties at work. On the other two cases, Lilian Ladele started work under one set of conditions and her employers then changed them specifically to dismiss her. The law of the land also changed in the interim, to approve what had previously been illegal, that is, acts of sodomy, in 2003, and civil partnerships in 2004. As to Gary McFarlane, Relate should have been more sensitive to his beliefs. This is after all constitionally a Christian country, something Lord Justice Laws conveniently overlooked in his tirade of a judgment.
Employers should always be sensitive to employees’ beliefs, and that way you can often resolve such difficulties informally. But what happens when people can’t or won’t compromise? That’s why I said that it’s the legal principle that matters.
What should happen if a marital counsellor refuses to deal with divorced or remarried people because the Bible prohobits divorce (in most cases)? Or if a university lecturer refuses to teach evolution or astronomy becuse he believes they contradict the Bible? Or a hairdresser refuses to deal with men with long hair or women with short hair because he takes Paul’s instructions in this area very seriously?
These examples may seem silly, but the law is a very blunt instrument and has to apply across the board.
Your three examples:
1 The counsellor would be unable to put that forward as a unique Christian position because the Bible is not as cut and dried there as it is on the practise of sodomy.
2 This already happens. University biology departments only accept lecturers who toe the evolutionist party line.
3 I happen to believe that in business you should have the right to turn custom away. A hairdresser can choose to ruin his own business. The four cases brought were about employment discrimination in public sector or big business jobs.
I think it would be a very poor argument that an aversion to giving some kind of therapy was a disability. Care workers are expected to deal with revolting things such as suppurating wounds. To class a moral or religious conviction as a disability would open a proverbial can of worms.
There seems to be an idea that the apostle Paul was trying to get justice when he appealed to Caesar.
According to Agrippa’s comment (Acts 26:32), if Paul had not appealed to Caesar he would have had justice OK, then been murdered by his enemies. Possibly Paul was aware of that. As it was he had his free ticket to Rome.
What seems so strange to me is that so little concern is being shown to the fact that these able, conscientious people’s service is lost to the public. To the best of my knowledge they have all served the public honourably and for many years. A dictatorship of thought and word is being subtly introduced into this country by those who themselves show the most intolerant attitude to others, caring for nothing but to get their own minority way regardless of everyone else.
I have written to my local MP Chris Evans with quotes from the Bible regarding these issues. He has passed on my letters to Lynne Featherstone and I have several replies from both MP’s.. I know they are listening to a certain extent, but avoiding some important facts which have resulted in contradictions. As a reult of these letters, I have made a new challenge recently to the Home Office about statements made in letters I have received from both Chris Evans and Lynne Featherstone. Lynne has said, and I quote:- ”People in this country have the complete freedom to hold any religious beliefs they choose, and to practice and manifest their religion, and this government fully supports their right to do so” End quote from Lynne Featherstone MP Minister for Equalities.. On the matter of SSM .. (Same sex marriages) .. Lynne had this to say:- ”The consultation has provided an opportunity to gather all views on this issue and we are grateful for the full and considered responses from the churches on our proposals” That statement sounds ‘on the face of it’ as commendable and fair… Yet, in another statement contained in the same letter, Lynne has this to say:- ”I do not believe the State should stop people getting married unless there are very good reasons – and being lesbian , gay. bisexual. or transgender are not good enough reasons” Unquote. Now from those two statements it can be seen a contradiction inasmuch as a decision has already been made by saying ‘These are not good reasons’ However, for those who have had their cases taken up by the European Court, these are the ones who have not had the promise of the government to:- ”PRACTICE AND MANIFEST THEIR RELIGION IN COMPLETE FREEDOM AND RECEIVE FULL SUPPORT FROM THIS GOVERNMENT”.. This government therefore are liars and deceivers.
Dave H.
0nly twenty years ago I was handing out leaflets explaining first the bibles view of Homosuxuality and then warning the homosexual that He was acting in a manner which would send thim to hell. I also explained briefly the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and its outcome. I then explained the saving grace of the Lord Jesus Christ for all who turned away from their sin and asked Him to forgive them would be saved. In those days I only received one rebuke and he came back to rebuke me and threaten me. I then told him that I was simply telling him the truth and it was up to him what he did with it. Noone else ever complained although I gave hundreds out. The world view has now changed and the very people who supposed be offering us a better world are taking the side if the unlawful. This is mentioned in Pauls letters that in the last days such things would happen. I therefore see it as my cross to bare. I rejoice that I can overcome, through the Lord Jesus, anything this world can throw at me. After all we will be the winners in the end and they will be the losers unless they come to the point of changing their views. The Lord said we would be hated by this world for preaching His word and so be it.
Would it be helpful to say that Jesus promised we would suffer persecution on earth as the world hates us because it hated Him first. While ,of course, I have a great of sympathy for these four individuals I cant see where the Bible gives us “rights” as Christians.While Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship it hardly saved him from horrendous persecution.
Phil, God desires justice to be done and right behaviour to be defended, because the civil power:
Rom 13:4 … is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
As much as our Lord warned as that we should be hated if we testify against evil (John 7:7) it is not the will of God that Christians are persecuted. God says to rulers:
Psalm 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
The character of God is that of justice:
Psalm 89:14 Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.
And he looks to civil rulers to rule righteously:
Prov 21:3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.
It may be no surprise that Christians are persecuted as Lot was before them, but the civil power is still under God:
Eccl 5:8 If thou seest the oppression of the poor, and violent perverting of judgment and justice in a province, marvel not at the matter: for he that is higher than the highest regardeth; and there be higher than they.
So it reaches a point here in the UK where good and evil are inverted and the Bible says we should turn sympathy for those caught up in it into prayer and witness to our rulers:
1Tim 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
So believers will have peace and unbelievers will the more be saved when rulers obey God. And that isn’t even something that the Apostle Paul made up. It’s in Jeremiah and Isaiah:
Jer 29:7 And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.
Isa 26:9b … for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.
Stephen, God’s justices emphasizes the needs of the poor, vulnerable, widows and the outcasts of society. Of course God wants justice and civil order. I have no problem at all with the Biblical verses you quote.
The position of the Christian on earth is this. We are in the world but not of it. I dont see where a society will truly adopt Christian values as as by nature all societies are in some way sinful and corrupt.
If you stand up for Christ in this world you will invite trouble. Jesus recognises this and warns His disciples it will be so.
On a different point, there is an irony in Christians taking cases to be heard in a European Court which a lot of conservative Christians are opposed to and want the UK to be taken out of its jurisdiction
Phil, your Para2: If an individual has faith in Christ, he adopts Christian virtues (if he has not listened to antinomian preachers, that is). If a ruler has faith in Christ, the body he leads adopts Christian virtues. Here are just three Biblical examples so you can see that happening in practice and have faith:
2Sam 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
2Kings 11:17 And Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD and the king and the people, that they should be the LORD’S people; between the king also and the people.
2Chr 34:33 And Josiah took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to serve, even to serve the LORD their God. And all his days they departed not from following the LORD, the God of their fathers.
Your Para4: Agreed. Christian Voice prays for the UK to come out of both the EU and the Council of Europe, and we are the only one of the UK’s major prayer-and-lobby groups openly to take that position.
[…] European courts are currently having to navigate through an increasingly complex network of rights, and to adjudicate between competing rights when […]
[…] Christians take cases to Euro-Court (Sep […]
[…] Christians take cases to Euro-Court […]