Submission from The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints
Should existing religious offences (notably blasphemy)
be amended or abolished?
The Church would accept such abolishment if
some other criminal provisions were put in their place.
Should a new criminal offence of "incitement
to religious hatred" be created, and if so, how should the
offence be defined?
The Church views the proposal to extend incitement
to racial hatred legislative provisions to incitement to religious
hatred as commendable as defined in the Religious Offences Bill
introduced in the House of Lords on 8 January 2002.
(A) BLASPHEMY
AND BLASPHEMOUS
LIBEL
1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (the Church's) own definition of blasphemy accords mostly
with that set down by the Common Law in Whitehouse-v-Lemon being
that blasphemy generally denotes contemptuous speech concerning
God, or concerning something that stands in a fixed relation towards
God, such as His temple, His law or His prophet (see Bible Dictionary,
Blasphemy).
2. One of the 10 Commandments given to Moses
in the Old Testament provides against taking the name of the Lord
God in vain (ie uttering an oath or making a promise using the
Lord's name without valid purpose). This is therefore an issue
which The Church takes seriously. In biblical times, the offence
was considered sufficiently serious to hold a consequence of death
by stoning (Leviticus 24:16) which penalty of death was eventually
required of Christ on the basis of his own alleged blasphemy (John
10:33, 19:7.18).
3. Clearly the severity of the penalty has
been gradually altered over the years to the current position
whereby, albeit the offence still exists, no prosecutions are
made.
4. As will be referred to under paragraph
3 below, the Church holds a fundamental belief that every individual
should have the free exercise of conscience unless and until their
religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and
liberties of others (Doctrine & Covenants s.134:2,4). Whilst
the Church was not wish to see the abolition of any offence that
was in any way encourage, or even indicate a less harsh view,
of blasphemous offences, the Church also fundamentally believe
that God created all men equal.
5. The Church agrees with the Bishop of
London (Official Report 30/01/02, col.332) that "The requirements
of natural justice entail that this protection should not be limited
to Christians. Other members of the British society who sincerely
hold religious beliefs are members of the same society of Christians,
and so should enjoy similar protection under the State's law."
Whilst the Church is a Christian Church and so itself would benefit
from the provisions, the Church would welcome a widening of the
provision to include all religious denominations. However, the
Church notes, Lord Avebury's comments (Official Report 28/11/01,
col. 435) that extending such provisions to other religions would
open a Pandora's Box inviting constant pressure for the (currently
narrowly defined) offence to be widened.
6. In the absence of a suitable widening,
and in an endeavour to maintain both equality and freedom of religion,
the Church would agree with the Lord Bishop of Blackburn in his
speech to the Lords on 28 November 2001, wherein he stated that
The Church of England: "is not opposed to a review and a
revision of the blasphemy law if something better can be put in
its place." (See comments under Incitement to Religious Hatred
below.)
(B) OTHER RELIGIOUS
OFFENCES
7. The Church echoes the sentiments of the
Lord Bishop of Blackburn that whilst such offences as those relating
to disorderly conduct in churches and graveyards may "seem
archaic . . . there is growing evidence in this country of disrespect
for people engaged in worship and devotion, and indeed, of the
desecration of sacred places.". As later stated by Earl Russell,
if the abolition of such offences were to be approved, the Church
would wish to see "protection against hurt that is liable
to lead to a breach of the peace".
Should a new criminal offence of "incitement
to religious hatred" be created, and if so, how should the
offence be defined?
8. We quote the Church's position from a
Declaration of Belief regarding governments and laws in general,
adopted by unanimous vote at a General Assembly of the Church
in Ohio in 1835 (Doctrine & Covenants s.134). That states:
(a) "We (the Church) believe that governments
were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds
men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making
laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
(b) "We believe that no government can
exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate
as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience,
the right and control of property, and the protection of life."
(c) "We believe that religion is instituted
of God; and that men are amenable to Him, and to Him only, for
the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them
to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do
not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing
rules of worship to bind the conscience of men, nor dictate forms
for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should
restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt,
but never suppress the freedom of the soul."
(d) "We believe that rulers, states,
and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for
the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious
beliefs; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice
to deprive citizens of this privilege or proscribe them in their
opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws
and such religious opinions to not justify sedition or conspiracy."
(e) "We do not believe it just to mingle
religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious
society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges,
and the individual rights of its members, as citizens denied.".
9. In the application of this statement
to the matter in hand, the Church comment as follows.
10. The Church believes that individuals
will face eternal consequences as judgement for their actions
in this life. However, it acknowledges the need for both ecclesiastical
and governmental laws to protect peoples rights and liberties
here and now. Internally, the Church would take disciplinary action
where appropriate against its own members for matters relating
to actions/behaviours against the Church's own beliefs and teachings.
In some matters clearly the involvement of state law would not
be appropriate where questions of the continuing membership of
individuals in the Church due to their actions/behaviour were
concerned.
11. However, the Church does on occasion
suffer itself from unjustified persecution by others of its beliefs
and members, and as such it would wish to be able to avail itself
of the protection of the law to prevent such behaviour. For example,
the Church has much literature published against its beliefs by
various bodies and individuals, as well as vociferous preaching
to persuade against its teachings. Whilst on most occasions the
Church does not seek to stifle any genuinely held views on its
teachings to allow free expression of conscience, if circumstances
occur that led to such publications being so vehement as to incite
hatred against the Church, or lead to violent or abusive behaviour
against, whether by a group or an individual, the Church would
wish to seek the protection of the law in preventing such publications
or behaviour.
12. In such circumstances the Church would
approve of the proposals for the incitement to religious hatred
provisions. In an ideal world, such provisions would not prove
necessary as men would not seek such persecution and antisocial
behaviour towards others, regardless of their beliefs. However,
the Church acknowledges that unfortunately:
(a) there will always be prejudice against
(even law abiding/main stream) religions that give rise to unacceptable
persecution; and,
(b) there will always be some whose expressed
beliefs hold them to such anti-social behaviour as should not
be permissible, however, the Church would not condone persecution
of these groups.
As the Church reads the currently drafted legislation
it does not prevent justified criticism of anti-social behaviour.
13. The Church may express views contrary
to such practices (and even support action to stop them?) but
believes in free exercise of conscience and therefore where liberty/rights
of others are not being affected, the Church would not seek to
make condemnation of any other religion and certainly would not
seek to incite hatred against any other.
14. In conclusion therefore, the Church
views the current proposals in the Religious Offences Bill to
extend racial hatred legislative provisions to religious hatred
as commendable.
24 July 2002
|
