From The Telegraph: A new intolerance is nudging faith aside

We are not only a Christian country, we are a tolerant one – but it seems the new secularism has no room for toleration

Practicing Christians may be forgiven for feeling like an oppressed minority in this predominantly Christian country.

Yesterday’s judgment by the European Court of Human Rights on people’s right to manifest their religion in the workplace once again leaves them coming off second best to the forces of secularism and political correctness.

In only one case, that of the British Airways employee Nadia Eweida, did the court uphold the individual’s religious rights, in this instance to wear a small cross at work. Miss Eweida was suspended for wearing it on the grounds that it breached BA’s uniform code. But as the ECHR observed, other BA employees had previously been allowed to wear items of religious clothing such as turbans and hijabs “without any negative impact on BA’s brand or image”. The airline has since changed its policy and now allows the wearing of some religious symbols.

But the three other cases in yesterday’s judgment went the other way. Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was prevented on health and safety grounds from wearing a necklace with a cross at work as she had for 31 years; Gary McFarlane, a marriage counsellor who was sacked after saying he might object to counselling gay couples; and Lillian Ladele, a registrar who was disciplined after refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies – all were told that their rights had not been violated by their employers, even though they had acted as they had because of their religious convictions.

When an individual’s sincerely held beliefs come into collision with the demands of their employers in this way, surely it is incumbent on both sides to try to resolve the conflict in a grown-up and sensible way. Yet instead of the application of a little common sense, we have seen protracted and costly legal action, followed by a judgment that severely curtails people’s rights to manifest their faith at work. This is part of a wider trend to nudge religion to the margins of society. People of faith are depicted as being not part of the mainstream, as being quirky and different. Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, spoke out persuasively in this newspaper yesterday about the “intolerance of aggressive secularism” and it is time more voices like his were raised.

We are not only a Christian country, we are a tolerant one – but it seems the new secularism has no room for toleration. When these cases first arose, a number of church leaders warned of “apparent discrimination” against churchgoers where the “religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect”. That claim seems less alarmist than ever.

Several observations. Overall, the point is well taken. If we wish to stress mutual tolerance we need to not just “tolerate,” but accept and respect each individuals’ expression of their belief or non-belief. No one or their beliefs should be marginalized. It is hypocritical to do otherwise.

In relation to the Shirley Chaplin case, the nurse prevented on health and safety grounds from wearing a necklace with a cross at work as she had for 31 years – this makes sense just as doctors have been most recently advised not to wear neckties in patient care. Religion and science should not conflict in such matters.

In relation to people who refuse to do certain things, generally a “job requirement” on the grounds it conflicts with their faith, I give them kudos for sticking to their beliefs and sacrificing for it. It must be remembered however that as Christians we must be prepared to accept persecution for following our faith. We cannot have it both ways. Obviously the martyrs did so, even more so. As with soldiers who refused to go to or fight in Iraq based on their belief in the injustice of the “war,” and were subsequently prosecuted and jailed, or received dishonorable discharges, we must be prepared to accept the consequences of our adherence to our beliefs.

A great point in saying “surely it is incumbent on both sides to try to resolve the conflict in a grown-up and sensible way.” There is always a way to compromise. For example, find the nurse a different job with no patient contact, adjust other work duties, etc. Taking a breath before taking action is the wiser course.