Subject: BHA Job Opportunity: Campaigns Officer
Campaigns Officer
British Humanist Association, London WC1
Permanent full time post, salary in the range £21,000 - £23,000
The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the national organisation supporting and representing the non-religious. Our campaigning work is based on our commitment to human rights, democracy, equality, and mutual respect and we work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech, and for an end to the privileged position of religion in law, education, broadcasting and wherever else it occurs. In recent years the profile of issues to do with religion and belief, equality and human rights has increased and so has the volume of campaigning work we take on. The BHA is now seeking to employ an additional member of staff to work in this area.
You will need to have excellent oral and written communication skills excellent communication, administration and IT skills, and be able to produce press releases, research papers, briefings, and submissions to Government or other external political audiences.
I couldn't resist a comment so I wrote and posted to various lists thus
Interesting job advertised here
But does the title / subject line mean that as a Christian I am not encouraged to apply for this post.. Does the law on religious discrimination allow Muslims, Christians and Hindus to be excluded from consideration? Should it?
It would be really ironic if indeed the BHA campaigning work is based on our commitment to human rights, democracy, equality, and mutual respect and we work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech,
And there were several responses which I distilled and recirculated
Readers of these lists probably realised I wanted to stir a debate... and of course I wouldn't really want to apply for the job with the BHA. I've had several responses from various quarters and the whole issue demands a more considered response.
My question I believe raises an interesting policy issue... both in terms of the law and the practice of Voluntary and Religious organisations.
The reply that came from Ray Thomas who had posted the ad was clear and fair enough
My question I believe raises an interesting policy issue... both in terms of the law and the practice of Voluntary and Religious organisations.
The reply that came from Ray Thomas who had posted the ad was clear and fair enough
No-one is barred. But I imagine that the BHA would assume that applicants had read the job description and would show in their application that they had read it.....If you do subscribe to these values, you have until 5 February to get in an application for this modestly paid job.
Mike Reddin then asked me
If I were resolutely committed to blocking off the Ribble and turning it into a 6 lane motorway would you accept my application for a post as Publicity Officer for 'Save The Ribble'?
It's an interesting point to debate whether Save the Ribble could employ an anti-environementalist but the whole profession of the law is based on the idea you can employ a barrister who doesn't believe in your case...to say nothing of the case of the PR person or professional spin doctor..
Both comments raise a philosophical issue for any value driven organisation (be it religious, anti-religious, political or charitable. Does a person need to be a "Believer" in order to work (in a paid or unpaid capacity) to promote the cause? The short answer of course is "not necessarily" although it sure helps in terms of extra commitment, job satisfaction and integrity of conscience and public perception.
The problem with the original ad is the subject line of the email which implicitly excludes this possibility... and in some ways is to be lauded for its up front honesty..which I know is not always the case for religious organisations advertising posts or seeking funding...
There is a policy issue at stake in terms of the current law.
As Graham Bowpitt wrote
My understanding of the law is that believers cannot be prevented from applying (for the humanist post) because there is nothing in the nature of the post that would render them incapable of performing its duties.
and David Voas helpfully spelled it out thus
Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion or beliefs.
The job specification for this post says that candidates must have 'Humanist beliefs, or an empathy with humanism sufficient to explain and promote humanism, humanist policies, and the aims of the BHA.' I doubt that (as a Christian believer) you'd be a good candidate, but if you felt comfortable promoting the non-religious agenda of the BHA then you're not excluded.
Note that 'employers with an ethos based on a religion or belief' can specify their religion as a job requirement even if it isn't actually necessary to do the work.
In that respect the BHA, the National Secular Society and other campaigning non-religious groups suffer from unequal protection under the law: they could only require job candidates to be non-religious if it's a 'genuine occupational requirement'. Your church, by contrast, could legally refuse to hire a cleaner who didn't share your beliefs.
And Helen Meads gave an example : When Friends (Quakers) advertised for a new Recording Clerk (equivalent to a charity CEO) exemption from the relevant discrimination legislation was obtained on the grounds that one had to understand Quakerism from within in order to be able to do the job.
As I read it then the BHA are within their rights to claim the exemption and specify that candidates shared secular humanist beliefs.. But the irony in that is that they would be admitting that they held a belief system that was in some sense a religious world view... yet if they barred anyone because they held a supernatural world view they would be contracting their values about equality etc... So it is necessary to rely on something more implicit.. the commonsense assumption that potential candidates will have at least an affinity towards the BHA set of beliefs and values..
Yet if a Christian or Muslim organisation advertised a post in, say youth or community work (especially if it had any element of public funding), under the heading "are you a committed Christian/Muslim ?" I suspect the secular fundamentalists would be the first to cry foul and bring a test case under anti-discrimination law. True, they might be a bit more tolerant if the post was that of "preacher" and all the salary came out of the pockets of the congregation. And I can see there is a valid distinction there, although there are many cases in real life where it is hard to draw clear boundaries between religious and social activity.
David Voas also added:As the demonstrations last week illustrate, some religious groups in the UK are far from happy with moves to promote equality, mutual respect and an open and inclusive society where attributes like homosexuality are concerned.
Obviously this is the case and in my view it is unfortunate in that it shows a desire to control and dominate others in terms of the beliefs, values and behaviours that are allowed rather than the grace and tolerance which are central to my understanding and practice of Christianity in face of the question "what would Jesus do?".
I understand of that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible and Christian tradition, (together with many other sins from unbelief in God to murder, to coveting your neighbours ox most of which, in the light of the sermon on the mount, we are all in our hearts guilty. There is of course a Christian response in terms of grace and forgiveness available through trust in Christ's death...which is mumbo jumbo to the BHA yet life transforming to many of us.).
I am in sympathy myself with Malcolm Duncan of Faithworks (an ulster pentecostal by origin) who has critiqued the approach of Anglican Mainstream and other non anglican conservative evangelicals who are livid about the gay rights issue..and anti discrimination law currently before Parliament.. http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=7305
Theres also a bit more of news and my views in this area on my blog http://gregsnewblogcredo.blogspot.com/2006/10/christians-inciting-hatred.html
And Helen Meads gave an example : When Friends (Quakers) advertised for a new Recording Clerk (equivalent to a charity CEO) exemption from the relevant discrimination legislation was obtained on the grounds that one had to understand Quakerism from within in order to be able to do the job.
As I read it then the BHA are within their rights to claim the exemption and specify that candidates shared secular humanist beliefs.. But the irony in that is that they would be admitting that they held a belief system that was in some sense a religious world view... yet if they barred anyone because they held a supernatural world view they would be contracting their values about equality etc... So it is necessary to rely on something more implicit.. the commonsense assumption that potential candidates will have at least an affinity towards the BHA set of beliefs and values..
Yet if a Christian or Muslim organisation advertised a post in, say youth or community work (especially if it had any element of public funding), under the heading "are you a committed Christian/Muslim ?" I suspect the secular fundamentalists would be the first to cry foul and bring a test case under anti-discrimination law. True, they might be a bit more tolerant if the post was that of "preacher" and all the salary came out of the pockets of the congregation. And I can see there is a valid distinction there, although there are many cases in real life where it is hard to draw clear boundaries between religious and social activity.
David Voas also added:As the demonstrations last week illustrate, some religious groups in the UK are far from happy with moves to promote equality, mutual respect and an open and inclusive society where attributes like homosexuality are concerned.
Obviously this is the case and in my view it is unfortunate in that it shows a desire to control and dominate others in terms of the beliefs, values and behaviours that are allowed rather than the grace and tolerance which are central to my understanding and practice of Christianity in face of the question "what would Jesus do?".
I understand of that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible and Christian tradition, (together with many other sins from unbelief in God to murder, to coveting your neighbours ox most of which, in the light of the sermon on the mount, we are all in our hearts guilty. There is of course a Christian response in terms of grace and forgiveness available through trust in Christ's death...which is mumbo jumbo to the BHA yet life transforming to many of us.).
I am in sympathy myself with Malcolm Duncan of Faithworks (an ulster pentecostal by origin) who has critiqued the approach of Anglican Mainstream and other non anglican conservative evangelicals who are livid about the gay rights issue..and anti discrimination law currently before Parliament.. http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=7305
Theres also a bit more of news and my views in this area on my blog http://gregsnewblogcredo.blogspot.com/2006/10/christians-inciting-hatred.html
In short my view is that, while I understand that many Christians have a conscientious objection to personally promoting or condoning homosexual activity I don't think they have a right or duty or responsibility to demand these standards of others, let alone to discriminate in the provision of services (or the offer of jobs). I sympathise with their dilemma but believe they should spend their time doing more constructive things that reflect and faithfully follow their beliefs and values, such as living in loving, faithful, monogamous marriage, graciously promoting the faith, and following Christ's teaching and example of caring for the poor, healing the sick and liberating the oppressed.
In terms of policy and practice I think there is much common ground between me and the BHA... Maybe we should simply recognise and allow communities and organisations to operate on the basis of affinity, shared values or constructed identity and be honest about it rather than imposing legal requirements.
Yet if we hadn't got anti-discrimination law we might return to the days of signs saying "no coloureds, no Irish". The hope expressed in the first Race Relations act was that it would be educative..The best law indeed is the one that is so widely accepted it is never broken and never comes to court.
I'd love to hear other people's reaction to these musings...
No comments:
Post a Comment