I certainly think that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, raises profound questions to which I do not have profound answers. One problem is that in our delightful, flexible and unwritten constitution, we have never properly defined the relationship between Church and state and separated them in the absolute way that is done, for example, in the United States. As people have read in newspapers, and as I have done in documents here, the Supreme Court in the United States has to decide whether bringing the Ten Commandments into a court house or on to the highway is or is not a violation of Church and state. Its reasoning is fascinating and some day, some judge may have to do something similar.
My problem is that when the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred to the Christian Church—a point which I entirely understand, because we have an established Church that is well represented in this House by people more competent than I to speak about—we are looking at the matter from a Christian or a Judeo-Christian point of view.
All of us feel that there are some contexts where proselytising is wholly inappropriate and should not be permitted. All of us feel that there are some religious contexts where there is nothing remotely offensive or improper in religious objects or instruments of religion being present. But the amendment refers to,"““religious objects, books, practices and observances””."
Those words could apply equally to the Koran or to the works of Ron Hubbard—the Scientology books. The Scientologists claim to be a religion—and there is no definition of religion—and we who are not Scientologists or Muslims might find it a little odd, maybe strange or even offensive, if the religious objects that we were talking about out of context were in place, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Trying to find a way of distinguishing between improper and inappropriate proselytising and appropriate deference to religious diversity is a difficult problem. This is another reason why I regret that we are dealing with this in Part 2 of the Bill, rather than looking at it over a much longer period.
I shall finally retreat, and sit down, by reminding myself of the last words of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s great work:"““Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent””."
Equality Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 13 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Equality Bill (HL).
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c1127-8 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:57:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261413
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261413
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261413