On 27 March 2009, David Booker was suspended from work for expressing his beliefs.

This is the latest in a series of incidents involving Christians taking their faith into the workplace.

Nurse Caroline Petrie was suspended for offering to pray with a patient (though she has now been reinstated). Council worker Duke Amachree was suspended for suggesting to a terminally ill woman that she could turn to God for comfort.

It could be argued that Petrie and Amachree were abusing their positions of authority and taking advantage of the vulnerability of clients in their care.

You can believe whatever you want in private, Christians are often told. It is when you try to impose those beliefs on others that there is a problem, particularly if you do it under the auspices of your secular employment.

David Booker’s case, though, is different in several key respects.

Firstly, he was talking to a colleague. Not a client, patient, customer or dependent: a colleague.

Secondly, it seems clear that both parties saw it as a private conversation, not a work-related one.

Thirdly, the discussion was instigated by the other party. Mr Booker was responding to questions, not asking them or directing the line of thought. Mr Booker, according to his own account, was aware that the subject matter – same-sex marriages and homosexual clergy – could potentially cause offence, and offered to change the subject if his interlocutor wished. She assured him that would not be necessary, and he believed there had been no hard feelings generated.

There was no abuse of authority, no impact on the discharging of Mr Booker’s duties, and no intent of imposing his beliefs on anyone.

It appears, then, that the suspension is not for any action or misconduct, but simply for the private expression of a privately-held belief.

The Daily Express’ reporting of the story suggests that it reeks of Orwellian ‘thought-policing’, though it will no doubt be pointed out that Mr Booker did not just think these things he spoke them out loud, in a public place rather than the privacy of his own home.

Is a comment made in public therefore a public comment, regardless of the context, regardless of the recipient, regardless of the tone or the intention? Should faith be an entirely private thing, never mentioned outside one’s own home or carefully licensed gatherings – such as churches?

There are many who would say yes, absolutely. If you want to believe in something that the rest of us can’t see, hear, touch or scientifically verify, then go ahead – just don’t ever mention it in the hearing of those of us more rational than you.

The problem this ‘solution’ will cause for the non-faith community is two-fold.

On a purely utilitarian level, it would mean the loss of some of the country’s best schools (because whatever the reasons why they are good schools – selection procedures, geographical locations etc, faith schools do consistently perform very well by all measures of success); the closure of many charities that work for society in ways the state simply can’t afford to (including, ironically, the hostel for the homeless which employed Mr Booker); and the consequent rise in taxes in an attempt to maintain the status quo.

Secondly, while the expression of faith may be suppressed, the holding of it will not be. History teaches us that when the Christian faith is forced underground, it does not die, but rather becomes stronger and more sure of itself. It swells and grows. It attracts more adherents, and eventually somewhere, sometime it bursts out, stronger than ever, and impervious to quiet argument.

Would it not be better to allow people with religious faith to interact with those who don’t share those beliefs, so that through calm and thoughtful discussion each side can express their ideas and explore the other’s, leading to informed decision-making on both sides?

This, surely, is the rational response, motivated not by fear or anger but by a compassionate desire to correct those in error. This is the approach of people who value diversity and freedom. This is true respect, trusting others to judge our words without judging us.

Apparently, these days respect is a punishable offence.

Philippa Tachbrook is a marketing consultant.