The Laws and Usages of the Realm

I have not blogged for a while, and my first post back is no doubt an ill-informed rant about the misunderstandings of the Law by the Judiciary!

Firstly, I think the answer that the Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson have reached in the case of Eunice and Owen Johns is in danger of creating a legal precedent where what we think about religion can be criminsalised. I have limited objection to the illegality of incitement to violence against a minority, but regulating what we think... I think Winston Smith would like to welcome us to Airstrip One and to remind us to be ready for a visit from the Thought Police later...

One particular part of their judgement has been quoted a lot. The judges said that "the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity , in whatever form". Now according the Government's website, legislation.gov.uk, the Coronation Oath Act 1688 is still part of "the law and usage of the realm" - at least no claim is made that it has been repealed, and last time it was necessary to use it, we did. And said Act contains the following Oath which the Sovereign shall swear at their Coronation: Will You to the utmost of Your power Maintaine the Laws of God the true Profession of the Gospell and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law? And will You Preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this Realme and to the Churches committed to their Charge all such Rights and Priviledges as by Law doe or shall appertaine unto them or any of them.

Yes, that's right, it does indeed call upon the Sovereign to "maintain the Laws of God, the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law". And on the 2nd June 1953, our Sovereign Lady Elizabeth II did so swear. Now m'lords, how exactly does this sit with you assertion that Christianity is not part of the law and usage of the Realm?

Indeed if Christianity has no such part, why then does a Papal (later Parliamentary) title still appear on all our coinage? Look on the head side of any coin issued by the Bank of England, and you shall see around the Queen's head the letters DG REG FD. For those with limited Latin, DG stands for Dei Gratia - "By the Grace of God", REG for Regina - "Queen", FD - fidei defensor - defender of the faith. The latter title was initially issued to King Henry VIII by the Pope for his theological critique of Martin Luther, and following their later dispute, it has been issued by Parliament to each successive British Monarch.

Ignoring the question of whether or not the judges made a correct legaljudgement, I also feel they made the wrong moral judgement. Obviously, we do not have judges to tell us morals, we have bishops, but, as bishops in the Church of England don't usually feel the need to criticise Caesar...

I disagree with the position held by Mr and Mrs Johns that homosexuality is sinful. However, I respect their view as a fair reading of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition and not entirely unreasonable. It is also largely indistinct from the official position of the Established Church - that homosexual sex is sinful but being homosexual is okay. If the State may regulate who is fit to take care of children because of their religious convictions, we are well on the way to Doublethink. I suppose a reasonable argument could be made against extremist views, but when was the last time anyone called the Church of England "extremist"?

It might be a little bit of a jump from prohibiting people from fostering because they hold "unacceptable views" to taking away children from the biological parents because of the parents' views, but in some way that is not my objection - that is a view taken by the more screechy libertarians, but to my mind, it is a far more pressing concern that the State has legal precedent to discriminate against people because of how they think!