A Christian country

A couple of years ago I posted a message about Spain. I titled it Not a Catholic country. In it I said:

All the evidence is that the [Spanish] Church is in crisis and that its influence over the nation’s life is in free fall. Its attempts to suggest that Catholic councillors should exercise a right to conscientious objection and refuse to conduct gay marriages (as in France, the mayors here are ex officio official registrars and notaries who perform the ceremonies) has got absolutely nowhere; a few weeks ago a PP [conservative] mayor in Galicia performed a gay marriage ceremony for two councillors from his own party. Any refusal by a public official to perform a public duty would be utterly illegal, and the Constitutional Court has refused even to hear a case alleging such a right of conscientious objection.

Now I see in the BBC:

A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.

Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for religious liberty".

The tribunal ruled that Miss Ladele was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs and was harassed.

So, which country is more under the influence of religion: Spain or the UK?

Comments

[Brian Barder]

The BBC report which you quote (rather selectively?) also says that the council concerned is considering an appeal against the tribunal's (to my mind unsustainable) decision, and also quotes a good deal of opposition to it:

>>Councillor John Gilbert, Islington Council's Executive Member for Human Resources, said: "We're clearly disappointed with the result, as we consider our approach was the right one.
"We are now considering the judgment carefully in order to decide whether we should appeal.
"The wider issue of whether councils should be able to expect employees to carry out civil partnerships doesn't seem to have been fully addressed."
He added the ruling could have "wider implications" for local authorities.
'Catastrophic judgement'
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the ruling was a "dangerous subversion" and a "violation of human rights".
"Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate," he said.
"Public servants like registrars have a duty to serve all members of the public without fear or favour. Once society lets some people opt out of upholding the law, where will it end?"
Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."<<

In the light of this rogue judgement, I would be very chary of extrapolating from it any generalisations about the influence of religion in Britain (or anywhere else). I don't think it's possible to give a meaningful answer to your question, although my own intuitive reply would be 'Spain'. However, you know contemporary Spain much better than I do, and I know contemporary Britain rather better than you do, so our respective intuitions may not be worth much .

Brian B.
http://www.barder.com/ephems/

[Brian Barder]

PS Now see today's Observer editorial here and the debate here with all of 648 comments!

Considerable indignation seems to be manifesting itself in the UK over this tribunal's surrender to discrimination based on religious belief. It will be surprising if it's not overturned.

[Peter Harvey]

Brian,

I placed a link to the BBC in my post so that people could read the original article if they wished. I don’t wish to deny that there is opposition to the ruling in Britain; there was opposition to what happened in Spain, but that is not the point.

In Spain the woman who saw herself as being aggrieved went straight to the Constitutional Court – as was her right* – claiming redress. The Court, as was widely expected, saw the issue as being so clear that it did not even consider the matter.

In the UK, where there is no Constitutional Court because there is no Constitution, everything is worked out from first principles every time. And the first application of first principles has ruled in favour of religion, so a long and unnecessary controversy will ensue over a matter that is crystal clear in a country that does have a constitution.

We are not talking a static situation. There is a process of change on both sides: the UK is becoming more religious and Spain is becoming less so. I prefer Spain, where – apart from anything else - there are no bishops in the legislature.

[Peter Harvey]

Brian,

I didn't see your second message before I posted my reply. Other countries started sorting this kind of thing out over 200 years ago. The UK made a constant, conscious cultural and political effort, in both domestic and foreign policy, to deny the modern world that came into existence 219 years ago tomorrow. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

[Brian Barder]

On just a small[-ish] point, Britain does of course have a constitution: it's just that it isn't written down in a single document and some of it is in the form of past practice as interpreted and codified by the courts, as in all common law-based systems. In cases like the one under discussion, the relevant part of the constitution is the Human Rights Act and our anti-discrimination legislation, backed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts will eventually apply their interpretation of these to the present case, exactly as any constitutional court anywhere would have to do. Our constitution has the benefit of flexibility and the disadvantage, sometimes, of uncertainty; countries with a single constitutional law tend to have the opposites.

[Peter Harvey]

I would argue that a constitution that cannot be consulted by the citizens and that can be -- and is -- amended by ad hoc groups of people in ways that are nowhere defined, or at best by a simple majority in Parliament, lacks the transparency that democracy requires. It does, however, leave a lot of power in the hands of the high priests of the constitution.

The fact that the British people have fallen for it is one of the greatest nationalist political con-tricks of all time.