Speaking Up

As you can see, blogging has been light for a bit. However, the lack of reaction from certain church leaders to the dangerous legislation in Nigeria, and actual support from some others, calls for comment. Please consider signing the petition urging the Archbishop of Canterbury to follow up on his earlier protestations against "homophobia." If anything fits the bill, the Nigerian legislation does.

I urge signing this petition fully cognizant of the fact that both England and the US are themselves only recently emerged from a time in which same-sexuality was criminalized. But I don't think either state criminalized mere advocacy for gay rights, as the Nigerian legislation does. This is a violation of the fundamental rights of free speech and association. Even those opposed to normalization of same-sex relations should see the prohibition of advocacy as a human rights issue. And the Archbishop should feel quite comfortable saying so, and speaking out against both the legislation and the bishops who have supported it.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

UPDATE: Pleased to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury has found his voice.

On the Ranking of Rights

Thinking Anglicans has a very thorough round-up of reports (including the full statement of the court) concerning the European Court of Human Rights decision on some alleged infringements of religious rights on the part of employers.

The principle upon which the court bases its decision should come as no surprise to those familiar with human rights, that is: that one's exercise of a right should not constitute an infringement of another's exercise of a right — whether the same right or a different one. In particular, it is abundantly clear that the right to one's religious beliefs and practices does not include the right to deny others a public accommodation or service simply on the basis of one’s religious objection to the manner of life or behavior of that other person — including his or her own religious beliefs.

The court found that the employer who said an employee could not wear a cross because it conflicted with brand identity had indeed infringed upon her rights; but in the case of an employee who was offered an alternative way to express her religion because the means she chose to express it constituted a possible hazard (offered a pin instead of a cross on a necklace), the court found that the offer was reasonable. The other two cases involved people whose employers required them to provide services to mixed-sex and same-sex couples alike, and the court ruled that their refusal on the basis religious objection infringed upon the rights of those to whom they wished to deny service.

This decision, taken as a whole, provides a good balance in addressing the hierarchy of rights. If we accept one legal definition of a right as not simply a freedom to carry out a given activity, but as placing an obligation upon others (whether individuals or society as a whole) it is perhaps easier to see the issue in terms of a ranking of obligations: those who provide public accommodations are obliged to provide them without discrimination; employers are obliged to protect their customers and clients, and provide services without discriminating; a religious believer who feels an obligation to profess his or her faith through the wearing of some visible symbol, or to profess a given belief, has a right to do so unless it conflicts with some other duty which they are also obliged to carry out in reference to someone else.

It is earnestly to be hoped that a similar clarity of thought can be applied to the issue of the provision of health insurance.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Going Courting

A collection of cases is heading to the European Court of Human Rights concerning alleged infringements on religious liberty by people forbidden to wear crosses in the workplace and being required to perform civil partnership registrations for same-sex couples, among other related matters.

The thing that strikes me in this is the question of how deeply Christian it is to be concerned about articles of religious clothing or decoration, and the ability to make determinations about the moral status of other parties, refusing to have anything to do with them. WWJD? Perhaps more directly, WDJS (what did Jesus say?) about such matters. Critique of broad phylacteries and fellowship with outcasts seems rather to have been his metier.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
hat-tip to Thinking Anglicans

Read carefully

The Archbishop of Canterbury has made an important but typically dense speech to the World Council of Churches. In it he rightfully calls for the legal protection of sexual minorities. He then, however, gets off track with his reflections on law as a means to culture change. This is most evident in his passing reference to same-sex marriage. (I have to contest the Daily Mail's headlining this as if it were the primary point of his essay!)

The real problem in paragraph 14 is that he speaks of categories of marginalization or stigma, which is far from the reason some are advocating for marriage equality. The issue is that marriage is a fundamental human right. It has nothing to do with GLBT persons wanting "acceptance" but their wanting free access to rights and responsibilities to which they are entitled by virtue of their being human. Same-sex couples are seeking marriage equality — not the removal of some stigma.

By bringing these issues together — along with the even more remotely connected issue of assisted suicide — the Archbishop loses focus and ultimately mars what could have been a very helpful reflection on human rights and the laws meant to protect them. Simply to assert that law often steps out ahead of culture is mind-numblingly obvious. This is precisely why declarations of human rights have to be made from time to time: because the culture hasn't yet reached that level of understanding and tolerance. Rights have to be declared because some in the culture — sometimes the majority — are denying them.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Nature of a Freedom

The right to freedom of religion is the right to believe as one chooses, and practice those beliefs. It is not the right to insist that others conform to those beliefs.

On this distinction hangs some of the tension in the DADT Repeal vs. Some Army Chaplains, and much of the pressure from religious groups against same-sex marriage, and in the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
with h/ts to Episcopal Café and Thinking Anglicans

A Follow-Up Thought

Following up on the thought from the 23rd...,

To grant special exemptions (from the need to obey laws that protect other human rights) on the basis of religion creates a hierarchy of rights in which religion trumps everything else. This is, precisely, a form of establishment of religion.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Thought for 02.23.09

When ideology interferes with human rights we tread on dangerous ground — covered, sadly, with many footprints.

— Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG,
in response to this post on Episcopal Café