The Equality Minister will decide with Cabinet colleagues whether to allow the controversial amendment to her flagship anti-discrimination bill to stand when it reaches the Commons next week.

If the move to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises becomes law, having been agreed to by peers, it will raise “a number of problems” for faith groups, priests, registrars and civil marriages for men and women.

A Whitehall source said: “It hasn’t been decided yet – it’s possible that the Government will try to remove the amendment in the Commons.”

However, with the general election just weeks away, ministers fear that the entire Equality Bill could fall if peers and MPs argue over the contentious clause.

It is possible that Miss Harman and the Domestic Affairs (Communities & Equalities) Cabinet committee will allow the amendment to be voted through in the Commons and then begin consulting on a series of subsequent changes to regulations on civil partnerships and civil marriages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7368545/Harriet-Harman-could-kill-off-gay-marriages-in-church-plan.html

Senior bishops in the Lords have told The Times that they will support an amendment to the Equality Bill next month that will lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. The amendment would remove the legislative prohibition on blessings of homosexual couples and open the door to the registration of civil partnerships in churches, synagogues, mosques and all other religious premises.

In a letter to The Times a group of Church of England clerics say today that religious denominations should be allowed to register civil partnerships on their premises if they wish.

It would be up to individual denominations whether to offer civil partnership ceremonies.

The Church of England, which along with the wider Anglican Communion is divided over gay ordinations and same-sex blessings, will maintain its official ban. But if the legislative prohibition is lifted, as seems likely, the Church’s own ban is likely to be ignored by some clergy.

Story continues: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7037062.ece

The Archbishop of Canterbury warned yesterday that damaging infighting over women bishops and gay priests could result in a permanent split in the Anglican Communion.

Dr Rowan Williams stressed that he did not “want or relish” the prospect of division. He called on the Church of England and Anglicans worldwide to step back from a “betrayal” of God’s mission and to put the work of Christ before schism.

But he conceded that, unless Anglicans could find a way to live with their differences over women bishops and homosexual ordination, the Church would change shape and become a multi-tier communion of different levels — a schism in all but name.

In an historic and wide-ranging address to the General Synod — the Church of England’s parliament — he linked his Church’s divisions to similar battles in the secular world, such as the assisted-dying debate and the Equality Bill that is currently going through Parliament.

Story continues at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7021235.ece

Gerald Warner of the Telegraph, who regularly offers his opinion on many matters (for example, as a non climate scientist, on climate science) takes David Cameron to task for offering his opinion of Christian theology, as a non theologian.

Criticising Cameron’s new message of tolerance for gay people with reference to the Equality Bill, Warner wonders why Jesus didn’t pursue that same agenda, after all “Why did he [Jesus], for example, tell the woman taken in adultery to sin no more, instead of taking a laid-back, relaxed view of people’s couplings and uncouplings?” That’s right, being tolerant of other people’s homosexuality is analogous to not caring about adultery.

It was always axiomatic that if Dave Cameron wanted to display unimpeachable credentials as the Heir of Blair, then he would have to demonstrate that he had inherited the hotline to God, the divine inspiration and easy familiarity with the Deity that distinguished his predecessor. Nothing less would prove he was truly the reincarnated Lama. Now Dave has duly manifested his destiny as the anointed successor of Tony, by assuming supreme authority in matters spiritual as well as temporal.

Story continues: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100025336/davewatch-the-reincarnated-blair-lama-puts-christians-right-on-homosexuality/

Churches should be able to determine their own beliefs. But when they approach government to ask for them to be enshrined in law, no one should naively assume that this is the whole theological picture. Christians should be challenged instead to demonstrate how exactly that squares with the other tenets of their faith. How do they reconcile what they are demanding with such ideas as inclusion, equality, service, grace, and honesty, which are all supposed to stem from it? In the case of the equality bill they clearly can’t.

Such an approach may not sit well with some secularists. You can’t fight fire with fire, or mumbo jumbo with more gobbledegook, some will undoubtedly argue. But whilst it may stick in the throats of some to acknowledge it openly, secularists have shown the church how to be more Christian over the equality bill. They have championed the rights of, predominantly Christian people, who want to work for religious organisations and churches, but will find themselves further excluded if the amended bill becomes law. In a strange way they have shown how to love their enemies – albeit with a mix of motives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/01/equality-bill-church-religion

Naomi Phillips - Head of Public Affairs at the BHA

We cannot allow discrimination, under the banner of religious belief, to infringe on other people’s rights in the public square, argues Naomi Phillips

It comes as no surprise to hear yet more uniformed and homophobic remarks from the Pope and, yet again, he is wrong.

Equality laws do not impose unjust restrictions on religious freedom; they do not seek to restrict freedom of expression. Rather, they protect individuals from wide and unjust discrimination by the state, employers, service providers and others, enabling people to be active, full citizens, able to participate in whichever sphere of society they choose, with very limited enforced restrictions.

Our domestic equality law has to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which imports human rights protection from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the UK is a signatory. Freedom of belief and freedom of expression are two of the rights enshrined by the HRA and, as such, are principles that also underpin our equality law.

The right to freedom of belief is a fundamental, unqualified right — people’s right to believe what they want is absolute. But believing is not the same as doing, and in a civilised society people cannot just do what they want, when their actions infringe on other people’s rights. Whether that action is inspired by their beliefs is — and should be — in most cases largely irrelevant to that principle. In other words, the right to manifest beliefs is sometimes necessarily restricted in order to protect the rights of others, such as the right to equal treatment in employment.

Looking specifically at the Equality Bill and claims of unjust restrictions on freedom of religious expression, what is it that has got not only the Church of England Bishops in our parliament but now God’s own “representative on Earth” so riled? The Equality Bill basically imports and slightly redefines the law that is already in effect, and guarantees equality and protection against discrimination on a number of grounds, including religion or belief and sexual orientation. There are some limited exceptions from the law to permit discrimination when that is legitimate and justified, so for example restricting a caseworker post in a women’s refuge to women-only, or restricting a job as a Catholic priest to a heterosexual man (and contrary to popular misinformation, the Equality bill is not in any way trying to stop that).

In fact, of all the so-called “protected characteristics”, i.e. those which are give special protection under equality law including race, gender and disability, it is the protected characteristic of “religion or belief” which is granted the most and the widest exemptions from equality law. These wide exemptions are often justified on the grounds of protecting freedom of religious expression — religious people should be able to manifest their beliefs (i.e. discriminate and exclude those not in their gang) more so than other people. But generally — and this is the crux of it — the law prevents churches and other religious organisations from discriminating widely against others, such as gay people, especially when those organisations are working in the public sphere as employers or service providers.

Of course, the counterargument is that the legal opt-outs that are given to religion are in fact too wide, and grant undue privileges to religion and permit unjust interference with the rights of others, whether that is barring atheists from involvement in publicly-funded youth activities, to saying only practicing Catholics need apply for a job as a cleaner in a state-maintained “faith school”. In fact, it is this latter position that we should be most interested in if we are concerned about protecting basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom to associate. The rights to be treated equally and with dignity and respect in the job market or as a student also need protection.

Now, let’s return to the Pope. In a modern, liberal democracy, which enshrines principles of equality and human rights, some interference with the “freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs” is necessary — but this should happen only where it is justified so as to protect individual freedom and prevent unjust discrimination by religious employers, registrars, doctors, teachers and so on. What the Pope, together with other religious leaders such as the Church of England bishops, is actually seeking is for religious people to be allowed to discriminate against others in employment, services, education and many other areas, unfettered by the laws that everyone else in society must abide by and respect. In a modern, liberal society, that position should be roundly opposed.

Equality legislation does not restrict individual freedom, it protects, enables and encourages it for all, not just the few.

Naomi Phillips is Head of Public Affairs at the British Humanist Association

This article is also published at Index or Censorship in a head-to-head with Brendan O’Neil.

Pope Benedict XVI marked the announcement of his first papal visit to Britain with an unprecedented attack on the government’s equalitylegislation yesterday, claiming it threatened religious freedom and ran contrary to “natural law”.

Speaking at the Vatican to visiting Catholic bishops of England and Wales, he described changes to the law as unjust and urged them to invoke “missionary zeal” to resist them.

The comments came during a five-yearly trip to the Vatican by the bishops, during which they made presentations on their concerns about the place of religion in an increasingly secular society.

The pope’s broadside appeared to be aimed squarely at recent legislation that prevents Catholic adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples, and the proposed equality bill, which would make it harder for churches to exclude job applications from homosexuals or people who have changed their gender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/02/equality-laws-unjust-pope-uk

The BHA today protested against these comments: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/444

In 2009 the BHA also responded to comments by the Pope on condoms, and called on the government to do likewise.

The BHA also protested the state invitation to the Pope’s upcoming visit as far back as May last year: http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/275

Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia wonders if the bishops in the Lords have brought themselves a step closer to redundancy with last night’s vote on the Equality Bill and says ‘not in my name’!

The Church of England website makes the claim that the bishops in the Lords “are a voice for all people of faith”. Well I am a person of faith and they don’t speak for me. They weren’t speaking for gay people of faith tonight either, who will now legally not be considered for many church jobs or employment with many Christian organisations. Nor were they speaking for the Quakers, who recently backed civil partnerships, the Unitarians or some Jews, who all wanted the Equality Bill amended to permit religious symbols to be used in civil partnership ceremonies. They weren’t speaking for the religious groups involved in the Cutting Edge Consortium set up around the Equality Bill. In fact, one might fairly suggest that whilst they are prominent members of the Church of England, they weren’t speaking for any Christian who believes that the message of the Jesus means a warm welcome for all to join in and be included in the community of God.

So just who do bishops represent? Bishops must be male, from one part of the UK (not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) – a strange thing that even predates Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian Question. They must be from just one denomination, within just one faith.

On many issues they are divided and can not invariably be found voting as both ‘content’ and ‘not content’ on the same issues. It is often only when it comes to the interests of the institutional church that they suddenly seem to join together with one voice.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11101

The British Humanist Association has been working with sympathetic parliamentarians on the Equality Bill which gives “excessive privileges to religious groups to discriminate against not only gay and lesbian people but against the non-religious and those of other religions.” The BHA also campaigns against the bishops who stand as of a right in the House of Lords.

A huge number of teachers work in faith schools. Their salaries are paid entirely by the taxpayer. But without amendments to the equality bill, which is currently passing through the Lords, they will remain uniquelyvulnerable to religious discrimination.

Although a private Christian charity will have to show that a decision to prefer a religious job applicant is “required”, “legitimate” and “proportionate”, the governors of a state-funded faith school can discriminate with no such justification. The consequence is that voluntary aided faith schools – most of them – can require any and every teacher to be religious, not just those who teach RE or are in leadership roles. In reality, that doesn’t mean that every teacher in a faith school practises its religion – there are simply not enough religious teachers to go around. But if a governing body decides to rate religious devotion higher than numerical felicity when appointing a maths teacher, then nothing in the law can stop them.

Continues at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/19/faith-schools-teachers-discrimination

The BHA is a member of Accord. Read more at:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-schools/Accord

Lib Dem candidate Steve Pitt blogs in support of the BHA’s response to Conservative plans which would remove “philosophical” beliefs from equalities legislation.

http://stevepitt.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/why-amendment-would-undermine-equality/