Defining an issue of conscience is really about freedom of religion

Regarding Samuel's post, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly is an issue of conscience for MPs. I would suggest that any definition of an issue of conscience must be deeply rooted in our historic British belief in freedom of religion. Essentially an issue of conscience is one which conflicts with a central part of an individual MP’s worldview, whether that worldview is Christian, Secular Humanist, Islamic, Jewish or any other.

What is an issue of conscience will therefore vary according to an individual MPs worldview, because worldviews conflict with each other. For example, a vote on House of Lord’s reform that proposed retaining the role of bishops would be an issue of conscience for an MP with a Secular Humanist worldview – as the exclusion of religion from public life is a central belief of Secular Humanism. However, for such an MP the proposal to create human-animal hybrids would not be an issue of conscience in the same way. Yet it clearly would be for an MP holding to Christian or Jewish worldview, as the uniqueness of human beings is central to the Judeo-Christian worldview (which defines them as being uniquely made in the image of God).

Where a policy issue conflicts with a central part of an individual MP’s worldview they must be allowed to vote according to their conscience. Not to do so fundamentally undermines religious freedom, which historically has been one of the defining hallmarks of British society. Religious freedom means that no government should impose a worldview by law on its citizens.

In 1559 Elisabeth 1 promulgated an Act of Uniformity requiring everyone to assent to a particular worldview, that of the established church. It was not until 1871 that Britain attained full religious freedom with the repeal of the University Test Acts that had restricted admittance to Oxford and Cambridge universities to Anglicans. This freedom of religion is one of the defining ‘British values’ that has historically led many victims of religious persecution to find sanctuary on our shores. We spent 400 years as a country slowly and painfully working our way towards this religious freedom.

However, if no government should impose a worldview by legislation on its citizens, it follows that neither should a government require its MPs to vote for something that conflicts with a central part of their worldview – because that is in effect imposing a worldview by force.

This means that neither the government nor the whips office can define what is or is not an issue of conscience, they can only recognise that for individual MPs it is an issue of conscience.

Comments

[Steevo]

In America we spent a bloody revolution for it. The Declaration of Independence was based on 'natural law' implicit to justifying 'self-determination' and setting forth the proclamation that we derive our rights from the Creator, not a king or the state. Such a basis for sovereignty established the legitimacy for law as king (ie no man has the right to usurp). Unfortunately we are a more secular humanist society now and that based in our Constitution has been deluded and made not so relevant.

I find it more than interesting here Brits are plenty motivated to discuss this. I would have guessed the significance of church, god and individual conscience as opposed to the state and/or obedience to the party, was long past relevance.

[Dominic Harvey]

The second paragraph concerning
'worldviews' seems a little odd to me. Conservatism, socialism etc. tend to be a worldview as much as a political philosophy, and your attempts to say that certain issues are or are not matters of conscience for certain people seem to miss the point. Let's assume for a moment that you're right, and that, to use your example, hybrid embryos are not an issue of conscience for Secular Humanist MPs. Does this mean that such MPs should be denied a free vote on the issue?