“The former Archbishop of Canterbury and other church leaders will urge senior judges to stand down from Court of Appeal hearings involving religious discrimination because of ‘disturbing’ and ‘dangerous’ rulings handed down in recent cases, it has emerged. Lord Carey and other senior church figures are said to want them replaced with a panel of five judges who have a proven understanding of religious issues”.

There’s been a rash of late of stories about Christians claiming to be persecuted in the UK. Notwithstanding the irony of the one religion which has a (for the time being, at least) constitutionally guaranteed right to take part in shaping the law of the land claiming persecution, it’s a curious usage of the term ‘persecution’ – to my mind, ‘persecution’ is having bricks thrown through one’s windows, being beaten up in the street, and being hauled off to jail for years on end. Not being told you can’t wear your cross on a dingly-dangly chain in an environment where wearing chains is considered hazardous. By claiming persecution, these people degrade those elsewhere who are genuinely persecuted for their religious and political beliefs.

But in truth, it’s not Christians generically who are claiming persecution – just one, rather small, subset of Christianity – the evangelical wing. This demonstrates the supreme arrogance of evangelicalism, a theologically bankrupt form of religion which claims that their and their alone interpretation of religious text is the one true way, and that other forms of that religion which don’t follow them are as set for hell as people who follow other religions or none. More so, in fact.

The event which has prompted this call for judges to stand aside is the upcoming Court of Appeal hearing of a relationship counsellor who refuses to give relationship counselling to gay couples, together with the previous ruling against a registrar who refused to register the civil partnerships of gay people.

The evangelicals claim this means their right to express their religion is being undermined by rights protecting gay people from discrimination.

Well, these evangelicals do have a simple choice – they can choose not to do jobs in which they might be required to do something which goes against their religious convictions.

Maybe I as a Quaker should join the army, and then bring about a discrimination case against them on the grounds that being a soldier would require me to kill people?

I agree with the spokesperson representing ‘the Churches’ inasmuch as hospital chaplains provide a valuable service – to those who make use of them.

But I fully agree with the position of the National Secular Society when they say it’s far more important for the NHS to be using its funds to pay for doctors, nurses, cleaners, drugs, and equipment.

And it’s not just a matter of cash, but equality. Why should ‘big churches’ get to get their hireling ministers into hospitals at taxpayers’ expense, but not smaller ones?

And where might we draw the line on what constitutes a ‘valid’ chaplain anyway? If the taxpayer pays for a Church of England or Roman Catholic priest, why shouldn’t it also pay for a Mormon pastor? Or a Jehovah’s Witness? Or a Moonie or a Scientologist?

I’ve never been able to understand how certain sections of Christian
believers, including some politicians, can be so little worried by
people killing each other, but so exercised by people loving each
other.