King Henry VIII Redivivus

A Manifestly Ill-founded Case

In the UK, the government has decided it has the divine authority to declare and define and proscribe the Christian faith.  Its argument runs something like this:

The official statements of the churches define the Christian faith to be "x".
Adherents of the faith are practising "x" and "y".
"Y" is not defined or confessed in the official statements.
Therefore "y" is not part of the Christian faith.

One wonders what has happened to the principles of liberty of conscience and freedom of religion in this UK government position. 

The occasion is a court case being brought at the European Court of Human Rights by Christians against the UK government because it has refused to allow its employees to wear or display a cross whilst at work.  This from The Telegraph:

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.  It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.

A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.

Far be it from us to pre-judge how the European Court will decide the case, but our expectations are lower than a limbo bar.  Let's assume for a moment that the case taken by the two British women is thrown out.  It would override completely an individual's liberty of conscience and personal freedom of religion if that person were a Christian.  All those known historically as non-Conformists (with the state-established church) would be declared thereby to be non-authentic in their beliefs and faith.  Their beliefs and practices would be placed beyond the pale of legitimate religious expression.  Consequently, they would not enjoy the protections of the law.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

If the court were to approbate the argument of the British government, Article 9 of the European Convention would need to be amended to "Everyone has a right to freedom of though, conscience, and religion except Christians . . ."  

Here is the lawyers' case for the women:

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.  Last year it emerged that Mrs Eweida, a British Airways worker, and Mrs Chaplin, a nurse, had taken their fight to the European Court in Strasbourg after both faced disciplinary action for wearing a cross at work.

Mrs Eweida’s case dates from 2006 when she was suspended for refusing to take off the cross which her employers claimed breached BA’s uniform code. The 61 year-old, from Twickenham, is a Coptic Christian who argued that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious garments and symbols.

BA later changed its uniform policy but Mrs Eweida lost her challenge against an earlier employment tribunal decision at the Court of Appeal and in May 2010 was refused permission to go to the Supreme Court.  Mrs Chaplin, 56, from Exeter, was barred from working on wards by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust after she refused to hide the cross she wore on a necklace chain, ending 31 years of nursing.

The government's case:

The Government claims the two women’s application to the Strasbourg court is “manifestly ill-founded”.

Its response states: “The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.” 

The response, prepared by the Foreign Office, adds: “In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

So here is the UK government asserting a right to tell people what is legitimate and authentic Christian faith, and what is not.  The doctrine of the divine right of kings is making a comeback, suitably amended for the twenty-first century.  The UK is now claiming the divine right of civil government over Christ and His Church.  The outcome of the faux-claim will be as disastrous as its progenitor. 

Now we will see whether human religious rights in Europe are truly regarded as a freedom right, or as a cloak to favour and promote all other religious apart from Christianity and its adherents.

Meanwhile, we trust that all professing Christians working as government functionaries in any organ of the state will turn up at work from this day forward with a cross displayed on their persons--for the principle of the matter.