Freedoms Work Both Ways

First published in the www.dissexpress.co.uk & www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk on Friday, December 6, 2019.

Freedoms Work Both Ways

With Christmas coming, my thoughts are turning to the wider role of religion in our society.

Now, I freely acknowledge the enormous contribution of Christianity in shaping, over centuries upon centuries, many of the laws and traditions of the United Kingdom. 

That said, I also know that the rise of this country, firstly as a mercantile and then as an industrial power, was driven by the intellectual and scientific changes associated with both the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. 

In many cases, the predominant religious authorities of the day were in opposition to these pioneering businesspeople and risk-takers as they challenged the established order of society in opening up new markets and creating new sources of wealth.

Drawing from this wellspring, modern day libertarians such as myself want to maximise individual choice and minimise the coercion of the state and other entities against the individual, including the theological descendants of those earlier organised faith systems.

Therefore, a libertarian-friendly society would be one which is much more relaxed than at present about people holding and articulating whatever views they want, save when their speech directly constitutes an attempt to coerce someone else against their will.

Mere words, including ones that some listeners find offensive for faith-based or indeed anti faith-based reasons, are not a reason for banning and no platforming.

For me, the benefits of this fundamental freedom work both ways. 

That means there should be no legal restraints on when a citizen can appeal to religious reasoning in his/her public discourse on any matter. References to religious texts, of whatever faith system, should always be allowed and readily accessible to others. No religious books should be banned, in other words.

Furthermore, people can wear religious symbols and what they consider to be religiously or culturally appropriate forms of dress, except in those rare cases when the law requires them to be removed for the safety or reassurance of others, including the necessary maintenance of public order. 

This means I have little time for aspects of, for example, French secularism, which dictates what symbols and attire can and cannot be worn in public. That is a disgraceful use of state force and should be resisted.

On the other hand, religious consciences and religious institutions should have no special protections in the law whatsoever. Secular consciences and secular institutions should be placed on a moral par with those of their religious counterparts. 

Thankfully but belatedly, the common law crime of blasphemy was abolished under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) in England and Wales, although it technically remains a crime elsewhere in the UK.

But much more needs to be done to level the playing field between the privileges given to faith systems and the rest of society. 

For example, I believe that all the remaining religious sinecures within the executive and legislature should be abolished. That means getting rid of the 26 places reserved for Church of England bishops in the House of Lords.

It is surely an abuse of power that these spokespeople for a very small minority denomination are given an unfairly elevated platform upon which to promulgate their views?

I could easily argue for the removal of us having any state religion at all, as that enshrines an inherently anti-libertarian view that one particular faith system is superior to all others.

At a more local level, prayers before council meetings should be done away with as once again, they pander to the needs and beliefs of one group at the exclusion of others.

Which only leaves me to wish all of this paper’s readers, regardless of their religious beliefs or none, a Happy Christmas and a New Year that is freer and more liberty-filled than 2019.

Ends