A Facebook friend asked for comments on this BBC article Christianophobia warning from MP. (UPDATE 5th December: See this report on the debate; the Evangelical Alliance has sent out this Press Release about it.) Meanwhile Ruth Gledhill reports, both in The Times and on her blog, on an interesting case in which a Christian is taking his Christian employers to an Employment Tribunal to complain that he was forced to discriminate against non-Christians.

I will look at the second issue first, partly because it is perhaps simpler. Mark Sheridan was formerly a manager of Prospects, a Christian charity that supports adults with learning difficulties. It is reported, and (for the benefit of a commenter who doubted Ruth Gledhill’s veracity on another matter) documented with the text of a submission read out at the Tribunal, that Prospects introduced a recruitment policy

not to appoint or promote anyone who was not a practising Christian (other than to the posts of cook, gardener, cleaner and maintenance assistant).

Mr Sheridan found that because of this policy he was unable to recruit the staff he needed, and so (to cut a long story short) he resigned and “presented a claim to the [Employment] Tribunal alleging constructive unfair dismissal”, also claiming that he had been subjected to illegal discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief – not his own religion or belief, but that of third parties.

First I would say that I am very concerned that a Christian is taking his Christian former employers to a secular tribunal – and all the more that in doing so he is accepting the sponsorship of the British Humanist Association. This is a clear breach of the principles the Apostle Paul sets out in 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. In a case like this he should have sought a resolution of his dispute among Christians, or simply found himself another job. But I can’t help wondering if Mr Sheridan has accepted the Humanist sponsorship because his bad treatment at the hands of Christians has caused him to lose his personal faith.

But then, was Prospects justified in changing their recruitment policy? This is an interesting question, which cannot be answered satisfactorily from the information I have to hand. By law, and this is a law I consider entirely reasonable, they can discriminate in this way only if they can show a “Genuine Occupational Requirement” for the support workers in question to be practising Christians. It is hard for them to demonstrate this because they have previously employed non-Christians in similar positions. Now I sympathise with the desire of a Christian charity to employ only Christians, to maintain their Christian ethos, and it may indeed be difficult for them to do this if their support workers are not all Christians. But it seems to me that in all this Prospects has lost sight of some of its own professed values, including

Prospects is committed to respect for the beliefs of all and supports those of religious faith and no specific religious faith. Prospects would never seek to impose a creed or belief on any.

These values should apply to Prospects’ employees and potential employees, and not only to the people with learning disabilities whom they serve. But instead they seem to be showing what I might call “non-Christianophobia”, a fear of their organisation being contaminated by allowing non-Christians into it.

This brings me back to the first issue here, what Mark Pritchard MP has called Christianophobia. The issue will apparently be debated tomorrow (Wednesday) in Westminster – not, however, in the House of Commons as is usually understood by the BBC’s words “Westminster debate”, but in Westminster Hall, as is made clear on Pritchard’s own website.

Doug Chaplin has got in ahead of me with a response to this story, which shows very clearly some of the misunderstandings going around about this subject. The scare story about nativity plays has been grossly overblown, in the press (even by the BBC) and by Pritchard.

Nevertheless there is a real issue here which Doug has written off rather too quickly. Some might be sceptical about the need Pritchard sees to

recognise our nation’s Christian heritage and history.

But when he says that he would

seek to slay the fashionable dragon of political correctness

he touches on a real issue which needs to be dealt with. Those who try to ban public expressions of Christian faith, even at Christmas, usually claim that they are doing so to avoid offending those of other religions. This claim sounds hollow when we read that the same secularist Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, who has welcomed non-traditional nativity plays himself offends Muslims by defending the right to name a teddy bear Mohammed, while also routinely offending Christians, Hindus and no doubt others. So do these secularists in fact ask those of other religions what will offend them? Or are they really using this as an excuse to push an anti-religious agenda?

Here is what one person from another faith group actually had to say on this matter, as reported by the BBC:

Muslim thinker Manzoor Moghal accuses secularists of teaming up with practitioners of what he termed “political correctness” for the decline of the Nativity play.

“I can assure you Muslims do not take offence at Nativity plays,” says Mr Moghal, chairman of the Leicester-based Muslim Forum.

“Britain is a Christian country and the majority of people are Christians. We enjoy your festivities and we like to learn about them.

“This is a mistaken, misguided and misrepresentative policy: we should celebrate the freedom to celebrate our faith.”

Amen!