Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom
 | This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. |
 |
The UK, has an open door policy, so religion is a choice of any person in the country. However, there has recently been a development, where Christian's feel like they cannot practice their religion, as it is being portrayed by the press, as a bad thing, or not fair to have more Christian places of worship, than mosques for example. Even though with the majority of the British public being Christian, they feel like they cannot celebrate christmas (a ban on Christmas) as it might be discriminative against other religions.
While the three legal systems of the United Kingdom (see English law, Scots law and Northern Ireland law) do not satisfy the legal definition of freedom of religion[citation needed], the United Kingdom is a signatory to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society".
However, the crime of blasphemy is retained by England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and their respective governments have repeatedly refused to extend that crime to cover any religion other than Christianity. See Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom.
History
The last person to be imprisoned for blasphemy in the UK was John William Gott in 1922, for comparing Jesus Christ to a clown. The next blasphemy case was in 1976, when Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution (Whitehouse v. Lemon) against the editor of Gay News for blasphemous libel after he published a poem by James Kirkup called The Love That Dares Speak Its Name. Denis Lemon was given a nine month suspended sentence and a £500 fine for publishing the "most scurrilous profanity" which portrayed the sexual love of a Roman centurion for the body of Christ on the cross. The sentence was upheld on appeal.
In this appeal case, Lord Scarman held that the modern law of blasphemy was correctly formulated in Article 214 of Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law, 9th edition (1950). This states as follows:
- Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not to the substance of the doctrines themselves.
In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights (case #19/1995/525/611) upheld a ban on Visions of Ecstasy, an erotic video about a 16th century nun, based on the video infringing on the blasphemy law. The Court estimated that a limited ban on vulgar or obscene publications that would be offensive to believers, while keeping legal the criticism of religion, was compatible with the principles of a democratic society.
Act of Settlement
The Act of Settlement 1701 decrees that that the monarch of the United Kingdom "shall join in communion with the Church of England". This act was specifically designed to prevent a Catholic monarch from ascending to the throne, but in effect discriminates against all religions other than Anglicanism.
Adoption agencies
Religious based adoption agencies are prevented from applying their moral codes if they conflict with The Equality Act.[1] The Catholic adoption agencies unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a compromise that would include an exemption for religious-based agencies, which would have allowed them to continue to facilitate adoption for traditional opposite-sex parents only.
Education
Several university student associations have implemented rules that require Christian Unions to allow "anybody, regardless of faith, ethnicity or sexuality, to sit on their ruling committees and to address their meetings."[2] The Christian Unions say they should be allowed to require that their ruling committees share their beliefs.
See also
Footnotes
- ^ No exemption for church adoption, BBC News, 29 January 2007
- ^ Bishops back student fight for religious freedom on campus, TimesOnline, 24 November 2006