Some might see irony in the way that Pope Benedict XVI, in launching his attack on Britain’s equality legislation, grounds his argument in the just case for religious liberty.
The Pope appeals to Lockean tradition, without citing the philosopher directly. In A Letter Concerning Toleration John Locke described the need “to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other”.
The question the Pope seems to skate over is whether religious communities can legitimately choose for themselves their own constitutional arrangements. The Pope’s view is a misunderstanding of that principle. Religious toleration involves not passing laws that aid a religion or elevate one religion over others. Laws that subject religion to the same responsibilities on discrimination as civil society are not a violation of religious liberty because they do not penalise religion.
Is it just that she didn’t understand a single word of what the Pope said?
What part of “natural law” didn’t she understand?
RE: “Religious toleration involves not passing laws that aid a religion or elevate one religion over others.”
But there’s no need to pass laws that aid a religion, etc. Simply don’t pass laws that force organizations to hire people whom they believe are behaving immorally. The Heavens Gate Cult couldn’t have hired me, for instance, because by their standards I behave immorally. Why force organizations to hire people who don’t fit their moral standards?
Sadly out of touch with the common mood Oh dear. This kind of hand-wringing really does give the impression that Ruth Gledhill lacks seriousness as a religious affairs correspondent. I can imagine her writing a dispatch from the ancient Roman province of Palestine lamenting the poor public relations skills of the firebrand Yeshua ben Yahweh. Entirely missing the point – which in this case is that the law amounted to the government threatening the churches (and Islam, for that matter). Only three weeks ago a leading government minister admonished the churches that, as a result of this legislation, they should prepare for lots and lots of expensive court cases as people brought discrimination suits against them. All that has been scuppered – although you would never guess it by reading Ruth Gledhill here.
[blockquote]Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England show themselves sadly out of touch with the public mood.[/blockquote]
Well, yes, I would hope so. Isn’t that part of the point about being in the world and not of it? The Spirit of the Age can change. And as someone once said ( I forget who said it but it may have been Chesterton but I don’t know for sure), “Those who marry the Spirit of the Age will find themselves widowed.”
I believe evidenced by Scripture, that God Himself is usually very much out of touch with public mood.
Ross (#4),
I believe that the delightful quip you mention was actually by William Stanley Inge, Dean of St. Paul’s, London, in the early 20th century. Alas, he was much more liberal than his greater contemporary, G. K. Chesterton. But the maxim retains its punch, whoever said it.
Fr. Tee (#3) and Sarah (#2),
You’re both right. I think this is one of the weakest, silliest pieces I’ve ever read by Ruth Gledhill. She’s the one who ought to be embarrassed, not the pope.
David Handy+
“…Ruth Gledhill lacks seriousness as a religious affairs correspondent…”
A distinct understatement. Nevertheless, with this article, she [i]does[/i] show a remarkable ability with [i]petitio principii[/i]:
[blockquote]”Religious toleration involves not passing laws that aid a religion or elevate one religion over others.”[/blockquote]
Why is that? Because Ruth says so. Her definition of ‘religious toleration’ seems to be quite limited. Anywho, apparently ‘religious toleration’ does include forcing churches to hire those who disagree with a church’s teachings, and who teach and work against its mission.
[blockquote]”Laws that subject religion to the same responsibilities on discrimination as civil society are not a violation of religious liberty because they do not penalise religion.”[/blockquote]
Why is that? Because Ruth says so.
[blockquote]”… intention is merely to clarify what is and is not a religious job,…”[/blockquote]
Which she and Harriet Harman are able to determine because, unlike a church, they are fair, honest, and do not discriminate.
🙄
Silly and weak is right.
Thanks, David. You are right about Dean Inge being the source of the quip as a little research has turned up although his middle name looks like it was Ralph, at least according to Wikipedia. But then he may have had more than one middle name. I found a fuller quote on another web-page that makes the point even more strongly:
[blockquote]He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower. As with great art, faith that lasts is faith that answers to higher standards than today’s trends.[/blockquote]
Ross
You’re welcome, Ross (#8).
And you’re right about Dean Inge’s middle name, it was indeed Ralph. A memory lapse on my part. And you’re also right that the longer quote is even better and more powerful.
David Handy+
Ruth Gledhill is not only rather a dim bulb, she is also increasingly bigoted against Roman Catholics. I think it’s starting to become a problem since it skews her reporting so. That she is the Times lead religion reporter reveals how far that newspaper has declined and how unimportant it considers the religion beat.