Jun 19 2009
Church Says No To Witches: Is This Even News?
A coven of witches in England rented out a hall for a Halloween ball. Then they were kicked out. It might sound discriminatory, until you learn that the hall they rented was parish property. (View the original source here at the Telegraph.)
Because of obvious differences in their belief systems, this seems to be a no-brainer. But what gives the witches the right to claim persecution? After all, isn’t it a bit odd that they’d rent a church hall to begin with? If anything, this story would be more controversial if the church HAD allowed them to keep the space.
The church is its own institution and has its own property. I don’t think it’s discriminatory if they give priority to members of their church (just like having a wedding in a church is less expensive for church members, who also have priority on dates) or if they decide not to support a social celebration of a religion that they feel conflicts with their beliefs.
I don’t necessarily agree with church principles in general, but they have a right to have them–and by claiming persecution here, this coven is actually infringing upon the church’s right to make its own choices.
Why is this a story? Because it’s about a larger issue–the rights of a religious institution. I believe a church has a right to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, if it choose. I also have the right to think they are wrong about that, and when I say marriage I mean something different than they mean. That’s fine.
This would have been different if it was a public institution denying the coven access–but it wasn’t. It was a private religious institution, so cut them a break! How would the witches feel if someone invaded their space for a Christian ritual or even ask to use it? Likely persecuted.
Thanks to Lola for the original source. Please visit her site here.
I completely agree with you on this - but I go a step further on your same gender marriage analogy. Churches have a right to define marriage in whatever way they want - but they don’t have a right to define it for the rest of the world. I believe that it IS discrimination if the government - which is not supposed to have a churchly bias - makes that definition. Likewise, I believe that the government (including the courts) has no right to force ANY church to extend their definition of matrimony outside the church’s beliefs.
I’m in total agreement with your taking that a step further!
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with both of you! Both on the extrapolation on marriage, AND on the fact that this isn’t persecution, it’s simply a private group saying they’d prefer to not have another group that is completely the opposite of their beliefs using their property. It’s really no different than a person renting out their home for weddings, etc.
“Churches have a right to define marriage in whatever way they want - but they don’t have a right to define it for the rest of the world. I believe that it IS discrimination if the government - which is not supposed to have a churchly bias - makes that definition. Likewise, I believe that the government (including the courts) has no right to force ANY church to extend their definition of matrimony outside the church’s beliefs.”
A government can’t define it for the rest of the world, but it absolutely can for its territory.
If a government is going to sanction or recognize anything, it has to define what it sanctions and recognizes. Law should always define its terms; otherwise it renders the law subjective, and therefore arguably meaningless.
The government therefore has to define marriage as SOMETHING if marriage is going to be something the government deals with.