And to show just how persecuted they are, they chose to launch their campaign from outside the House of Lords (one of only two legislative assemblies in the world – the other being in Iran – where religious leaders get guaranteed statutory representation), by bringing up again old stories about people being told that due to health and safety considerations they are not allowed to wear jewellery in the workplace:

“Their campaign highlights a series of cases involving Christians who have lost claims for discrimination.

They include Nadia Eweida – a British Airways worker from London – and Shirley Chaplin – an NHS nurse from Kenn, Exeter – who both lost high-profile discrimination claims over wearing crosses at work.

Lydia Playfoot, 19, from Horsham, West Sussex, was told by her school three years ago to remove her purity ring – symbolising chastity – or face expulsion. She took her case to the High Court but it ruled that her human rights were not breached by the school’s ban on jewellery”.

Now, notwithstanding the cross-wearing cases being cases where what was banned was the wearing of jewellery rather than the wearing of crosses, at least in those instances the people might have had reasonable grounds to put together some kind of case that they might have been able to argue for some kind of exception, similar to the ones Sikhs have argued in respect of turbans, bangles, and ceremonial daggers in certain circumstances.

But since when has it been a Christian duty to wear a ring to symbolise a teenager’s intention (rarely actually kept to, in fact) to not have sex before they get married? On that basis, practically anybody could make up any silly religious obligation – maybe that every Wednesday morning they are obliged at 10am to stand up and sing a certain hymn, wherever they happen to be, and cry ‘persecution’ when they are told by their manager to stop!

The fact is, the organisers of the ‘not ashamed’ campaign represent a certain minority strand of Christianity.

For them, as evangelicals, what constitutes being persecuted is not being stoned to death, being imprisoned, being spat at in the street, being prevented from taking an active role in civic life (as really does happen to Christians in certain middle-eastern societies). The evangelical world view has themselves as being entirely right, and anybody who doesn’t agree with them entirely as being entirely wrong – and anybody who stands in their way of proclaiming how entirely right they are and everybody else should be like them is a persecutor.

So thus, in my workplace – a local council building – where there is a very active Christian Fellowship group which meets fortnightly, and where my best friend wears a discrete but still quite visible cross to work each day, that isn’t enough for the evangelicals. For them, I suspect the likelihood that they would be prevented from placing evangelical Christian literature on everybody’s desk on a weekly basis would constitute ‘persecution’.

God help them if they ever did find themselves living and working in Yemen, for example.

Of course, there are some cases where Christians are discriminated agaist:

“We should not of course overlook those Christians in this country who do face discrimination. But the people discriminating against them are often other Christians.

For example, when certain groups lobbied successfully for religious exemptions from this year’s Equality Act, they effectively ensured that Christian organisations will be allowed to practice homophobia when recruiting staff. As most people applying for jobs with such organisations are Christians, those who are most likely to lose out as a result will be gay, lesbian and bisexual Christians. Christian Concern are certainly not standing up for the rights of those Christians”.

Indeed.

“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.