Freedom of Conscience and the Thought Police

I would like to come out in support of Christians today. Not a popular notion in the current socio-political climate I admit. I would probably get more support arguing against the death penalty being applied to a serial killer, than for a Christian's right to an opinion, or to speak their opinion, especially when that opinion clashes with the current social trend.

Highly topical at the moment is the case of the Magistrate who is being forced out because "he objected to the adoption of children by gay couples and regarded the practice as a social science experiment" (Guardian, 2007). The story goes on to explain that the Magistrate's request to be expempted from proceedings involving adoption by gay couples was rejected. The argument is that this is in effect indirect discrimination because of religion.

The question here is: should religious magistrates be allowed to be exempted from cases in which the application of law would require them to go against their conscience?

It would be helpful if there were some precedent to use as a measure. In fact there is, and it matches pretty closely too. The abortion act of 1967 included provision for Catholic doctors, nurses and other medical staff to be exempted from abortion proceedings.

The question then is, if provision could be made for these medical staff to work within their conscience, why can provision not be made for this Magistrate and others like him?

My own opinion is that it is simply down to prejudice. Prejudice against anyone who dares have the opinion that gays should not adopt children. I could be wrong, but to make provision for one group (doctors) and not the other (magistrates) seems to indicate some inequality at least.

You will have your own opinion, but I ask you to step back for a moment and examine your motivation. What drives your view? Can you think of a rational reason why magistrates cannot be exempted on grounds of conscience but medical staff can? I can't think of one good reason why it cannot be allowed for magistrates. Stripping off all prejudice both should be allowed exemption or neither.

There is no logical reason for denying a magistrate exemption. Cases would still be heard, only by a magistrate with no conscience concerns regarding adoption. The legal rights of gays don't have to trump the legal rights of religious groups, nor vice versa.

So why deny? I think, deep down, many people simply don't like the magistrate's reason for requesting exemption, and they want to see him punished for having that reason. It is a thought police issue.

The thought police are not satisfied with having a legal framework supporting their side, they can't stand the idea that some people still hold an opposing viewpoint. The thought police want everyone to agree with them as well. Failing that, to be forced to act as though they agree, or to say they agree. When that is unobtainable the thought police have to occupy themselves by at the very least making sure that no one with that opposing viewpoint actually dares speak it openly. The thought police are highly intolerant of opposing viewpoints. On issues that affect them, they mistakenly think that laws prohibiting behaviour also prohibit opinions - thoughts that are in opposition to the law. Where the though police are concerned, the free speech that gave them their position of power, should now be denied to their opponents.

In this situation the Magistrate dared oppose the thought police and voiced an opinion that made them feel threatened. This cannot be allowed, and so he will not be afforded the exemptions doctors were once given, he must instead be removed, discredited, silenced.

If that is true, those making the decision to deny exemption hold a prejudiced, biased and discriminatory point of view themselves. And if you agree with them, is it because you are biased too, and think that some opinions should simply not be allowed?

Look don't look. The choice is yours.