FIRST PERSON: DIVERSITY HAS ENRICHED CITY AND I'M PROUD TO LIVE HERE

Allan Hayes has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Diversity has enriched city and I'm proud to live here

Allan Hayes on the different religions in Leicester and why education is so important

It's time to tell people that we in Leicester, religious and non-religious, are one in humanity and that we are enriched by our diversity. We are fortunate in being able to say this from experience, from living together, from walking around, from travelling on the bus – we know what we are talking about.

I vividly remember arriving back from the United States to be greeted at Leicester station by a tall turbaned Sikh taxi driver with a "hello my friend, how do you like my new taxi?" and suddenly thinking, "I'm home".

A great deal is going into building this feeling of belonging.

Others will be able to add much more, but let me look back a little.

An Imam telling a group of us what Islam means to him and expressing his concern that Muslims should not isolate themselves; the launch of a book by a Jewish Quaker, proud of his Jewish heritage, and at the same time critical of Israeli policy towards Palestinians and seeking a just peace; a talk on the influence of Indian thoughts on Western thinking; an inside line, via my wife, to a campaign to stop the deportation of an asylum seeker mounted by Leicester City of Sanctuary (a great example of cooperation); an e-mail from a Sikh friend telling me that the Pope had said atheists like me might earn salvation through good works.

At the top of my concerns, however, is education: it can do so much to bring us together but it can also promote division.

Please, let us bring up our children together, let us bring them up knowing one another; learning to appreciate the long journey that we humans have taken together and that the human family includes us all: Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, humanist, atheist, whatever.

There is increasing realisation of the importance of this issue.

I have been pursuing it for a long time, recently at meetings in London and in Birmingham and on the web.

It will be taking up a lot of my time and effort in the coming year.

Recently, I told a humanist group in rural Dorset about how we do things in Leicester – I spoke with pride.

Allan Hayes is a board member of Leicester Secular Society

SACRE AT QUAKER MEETING HOUSE, MAY 2013

Leicester SACRE (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education) meets this afternoon at Quaker Meeting House, Queens Road.

One of the main purposes of Leicester SACRE is to receive requests for "Determinations" from city schools. If the head teacher of a school feels that the provision of collective worship within the broadest interpretation of the law is not suitable for that particular school, then the head teacher should consider whether it might be appropriate to ask the SACRE to grant a "determination" in accordance with the law. A determination is the decision of the SACRE as to whether it is appropriate to lift the requirement for wholly or mainly broadly Christian collective worship to be provided for the school, or any class or description of pupils at the school, having regard to any circumstances relating to the family background of the pupils for which the determination is requested. The SACRE must review the determination if the school so requests and, in any event, within five years of the date when the determination was made or last reviewed. Members of SACRE discuss such requests in fixed blocks, reflecting their own interests and associations before voting on whether or not to grant the determination. Leicester Council of Faiths doesn't have voting rights at SACRE. We're involved as an invited observer; we have the right to speak and query, and can get involved in all sorts of activities and projects, but we don't vote on determinations or any other processes. Today we hear an application for a Determination from Abbey Community Primary and application for renewal of a Determination from Judgemeadow Community College.

A regular agenda item at SACRE meetings has one of the members make a presentation on their religion or belief. Today Stephanie Maude (immediate past Chair of Leicester SACRE) gives the presentation on the Bahá'í Faith. She does a great job, focusing on appropriate and relevant themes and topics (including the distinctive contribution that the Bahá'í Faith can make to Religious Education) with some nice supporting illustrations. Think of her offering a perfectly ade cake - to which I feel compelled to add a few sprinkles. I always like people to know that, before there was even one gurdwara, mosque or mandir in Leicester, there was a local Bahá'í Centre. This was in the house owned by John and Vera Long in New Walk, between 1957 and 1963, part of which was dedicated to meeting and worship. I also mention that 'Abdu'l-Bahá's visits to the west, during which he warned about the oncoming First World War, would be featured in Leicester's "fringe" commemoration of the Centenary of the Great War. (After today's meeting, I chat with Allan Hayes about the possibility of an unholy alliance between Leicester Council of Faiths, Christians Aware / Faith Awareness and Leicester Secular Society to create and promote this fringe.)

Under AOB I mention next week's meeting of the Christian-Muslim Dialogue Group week ("Learning for Life: How Islam is taught to children in a multi-faith society"), which has been arranged specially for members of Leicester SACRE. I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this; indeed, I expected to see it on today's agenda. To my further surprise, virtually no one here has heard of this and no invitation to the meeting has been received by SACRE. I'm able to call up the flier on my iPhone and pass it to Anne Fishenden, who is chairing the meeting, just to show I'm not making things up. Before leaving Quaker Meeting House this evening, I forward the flier with details of the meeting at Madani to SACRE's officers. It sounds like an interesting event and I hope that despite the glaring omission of inviting the very people for whom the meeting has been arranged, that it gets decent support come Wednesday.

SUITABLE PHRASE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Suitable phrase

I am surprised that Alan Hayes was miffed at the Bishop's "tale told by an idiot" phrase.

Did he miss the reference?

Macbeth facing his comeuppance says:

"Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,/ And then is heard no more: it is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing."

As a summary of their creed, to what in it could a sec-atheist possibly object?

F J Gallagher, Leicester

TOO MANY SCHOOLS IN CHURCH HANDS?

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Too many schools in church hands?

In a recent letter I made some remarks about the Church of England which Archdeacon David Newman (Mailbox, February 13) says were misleading.

But, before replying to this, I would like to take up his statement that "there is no such thing as a 'neutral' school in terms of ethos".What does he mean by "ethos" and by "neutral"? Do community schools have an ethos? We are diverse in beliefs but one in humanity.

It seems to me that the appropriate ethos for our schools would be one that starts from people and our common humanity; one that, through respect for people, respects their religions and beliefs and welcomes the contributions that they can make – a school ethos that brings children together.

What is his position on this?

Now, back to those remarks about the Church of England. I accept that most Church of England schools do not select pupils by religion. But the Church insists on its schools having the power to do this, and its Dearing report recommends having a "substantial core" of Christian pupils and teachers.

I accept that most Church schools do not directly seek to convert children.

But what should we make of those Dearing recommendations along the lines: tie the parish church, clergy and school as close together as possible; have a meaningful act of Christian worship every day; proclaim the school as CofE by external notice board, by displays of symbols inside and outside the school (the Samworth Academy includes a new parish church).

The Church of England is using state-funded schools to proclaim its own religion, not infrequently to children for whom its school is the only convenient one.

On expansion plans: last year the Bishop of Oxford, chair of the Church's National Board of Education, said that the past decade has seen "the most significant expansion of places" in the past 200 years; and the Archbishop of Canterbury remarked last September on the prospect of the Church becoming the largest "provider" of secondary education and with post offices, libraries, citizens advice centres in its schools.

David Newman himself tells us that the Church sees itself providing services to non-church schools. This expansion is from a base of one quarter of all state schools in 2001.

Is this not too great a concentration in the hands of one body?

Allan Hayes, Leicester

MISREPRESENTING SECULARISM

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Misrepresenting secularism

Bishop Tim (First Person, February 18 ) suggests that this is an opportunity to "make those who are secular feel at home".

I would welcome that: for I did not feel welcome when he kept me from speaking in the civic service as chaplain to the Lord Mayor, nor when he wrote in these pages that my beliefs were a "tale told by an idiot", nor when the Lord Mayor, Lady Mayoress and I found ourselves listening to a psalm in which the psalmist grieves about "the ungodly" prospering but is reassured knowing that they will "consume: perish and come to a fearful end!".

I do not feel welcome when he insinuates that I would get rid of spires, churches, gurdwaras and temples – he did this several years ago in correspondence over setting up the Samworth Academy – he has had ample time to learn otherwise.

And as for wanting "a secular state from which all signs of human believing have been removed" – it is very difficult to engage with fantasies.

These may be personal matters, but when we come to Baroness Warsi's Vatican Speech, we are getting to serious issues important to us all.

We have a senior figure in our government who seems not to have the first idea of political and religious history, who lacks breadth of vision, who is dangerously intoxicated and naively enthusiastic.

Her smearing and demonising of secularism is frighteningly like the demonising of Islam that she and I would both condemn – it is never plain "secularism", but always "militant and deeply intolerant secularism", "aggressive secularism imposed by stealth", "totalitarian secularism that denies people the right to religious identity", "secularism that attempts to remove all trace of religion from culture, history and public discourse".

How did she get these ideas? Not by growing up in Leicester.Humanists and secularists do not ask people to give up or diminish their faith or dumb down – we ask them to look more deeply into them and share what they can with us.

We fully recognise that religion has a role to play and that it is central to the lives of many – we have always defended and will always defend freedom of religion.

We share with the Pope the view that "the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief... need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation".

We share with caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib: "Every man is your brother... either your brother in faith or your brother in humanity."

We share with Sayeeda Warsi the view that "the cultures we've created, the values we hold and the things we fight for stem from something we've argued over, dissented from, discussed and built up" – but does she have any idea what these things are? We share humanity with everyone.

Allan Hayes, Leicester Secular Society

It's ironic that, when I read Allan's letter on the Mercury website, two of the three "Ads by Google" listed immediately below it were: "How to convert to Islam" (become a Muslim with Live Help chat) and "Loft Conversion Experts".

THE ROLE OF CHURCH SCHOOLS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

The role of church schools

There are a number of misleading ideas in Allan Hayes' letter "A divided society looms" (Mailbox, February 13).

Contrary to the implication of the letter, most Church of England schools do not "select pupils by their religion" and have very inclusive admission policies which are open to people of any religion or none. What is on offer is a Christian ethos in terms of the values and practices of the school and the approach to education.

This, however, is not exceptional. There is no such thing as a "neutral" school in terms of ethos and a secular-humanist outlook is just as much a faith stance as a religious one.

Of course, it would be natural for Anglicans to want the next generation to understand and experience the Christian faith at school, but the idea of the church "using schools more systematically to evangelise" is again misleading, and church schools would understand the distinction between education and ethos on the one hand and any attempt to convert on the other.

Finally, saying that "the church is offering to take the place of local authorities in providing assistance" and "looking to be the biggest 'provider' of education in the country" makes it sound as if the church has initiated big expansionist plans.

The fact is that the Government has introduced the academies initiative and the provision of the local authority in the county is diminishing fast.

Leicester diocese's board of education is very committed to support its 97 church schools, many of which are small and are very vulnerable in this new era. Consequently clustering with other schools is one way to ensure that they continue to have access to good quality services.

Sometimes it will make sense to partner with non church schools too.

However, the purpose of that would not be to make them become church schools, but to benefit from shared support and resources.

So I would have no quarrel with Allan Hayes' conclusion – "We must work together" – a commitment to the best education for our children demands that.

However, misleading statements about the nature and purpose of church schools is only going to increase division and defensiveness, when in reality they are as committed to an inclusive vision for education as anyone.

David Newman, Archdeacon of Loughborough and chair of the Board of Education for Leicester Diocese

BBC RADIO LEICESTER: DISCUSSING FORGIVENESS WITH MONICA WINFIELD

On BBC Radio Leicester this morning with Monica Winfield, talking about forgiveness. John Florance phoned me last Wednesday morning to ask if I'd take part in the show, speaking to the topic from a Bahá'í point of view.

I walk down to St Nicholas Place from home in Stoneygate (my 11-year old son Harry comes along to keep me company - and to continue our ongoing conversation about DC comics' new 52). That little stroll takes us about 45 minutes at this time of the morning. It's cold, of course, but pleasant enough.

I'm the last of the three guests to arrive, just after 0800. Already there and ready to roll are Allan Hayes, Trustee of the British Humanist Association and past President of Leicester Secular Society and Daud Sameja, Chairman of the Leicester Christian-Muslim Dialogue Group at St Philip's Centre for Study and Engagement in a Multi-Faith Society (in the photo above with Rebecca Bryers, the show's producer).

I haven't met Monica (photo above) before. She keeps us going for a quarter of an hour or so, asking two questions, which all three of us get to answer in turn. Then she allows us each a final thought. It's all very agreeable and matey and a genuinely enjoyable experience.

As well as putting across some of the ways in which I'd say the Bahá'í principle and practice of forgiveness converges and diverges from how it's seen and done in other traditions, I get to use one of my favourite quotations: "Resentment is like taking poison and hoping the other person dies." This is attributed to Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) - although personally, I heard it for the first time uttered by Tim Bayliss an unusually spiritually-centred detective (played by Kyle Secor) in the classic police procedural Homicide: Life on the Street. The quotation came up in connection with our agreement that an important aspect of forgiveness is how it allows us to draw a line under the past and make personal and collective progress.

This is the third time that Allan Hayes and I have sat together in this studio. He remarks (off-air) that he and I will have to put our minds to engineering a public spat of some sort before long, since most people expect the two of us to disagree with each other and we're constantly surprising them that we agree on so much. Thankfully, Monica is not of that opinion and is glad to promote harmony and cooperation on this slot. The programme can be heard on BBC Radio Leicester's Listen Again facility till midnight, Saturday 3 March (our chat begins just after 0810).

VIEW INSULTING TO RELIGIOUS PEOPLE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

View insulting to religious people

Yet again, Allan Hayes gives us a dose of secularist propaganda dressed up to look innocent and moderate (Mailbox, February 13).Yes, of course we must all work together, but that will never be achieved without the blessing of God, who is all truth.

To suggest that people holding a particular religious view cannot work with others because of the school they attend is an insult to the very great majority of them.

The idea of the Government to foster the foundation of schools with a religious ethos is a very good one. It is well accepted by many that such schools tend to be better with regard to both the quality of learning and the discipline, and this is why, for example, so many non-Catholic parents try to find a place for their children in a Catholic school, rather than at the Joe Bloggs comprehensive. (There are, of course, notable exceptions on both sides).

Parents have an absolute right to have their children educated in a religious ethos if they so wish, and most will want their children to learn about their own faith before starting looking at other faiths.Most (not all) local education authorities are "dead hands", so taking the provision of assistance to schools from them is no bad thing.

In the end, though, the agenda of Mr Hayes, as always, is to undermine religion, particularly the Christian religion, from which most western culture comes.

It was interesting to hear Baroness Varsi, a prominent Muslim, state that she could see a concerted effort from militant humanism and secularism to push religion out of public life.

Mark W Jacques, OP, Quorn

THE ETHOS OF CATHOLIC SCHOOLS IS COHESIVE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

The ethos of Catholic schools is cohesive

Mr Allan Hayes raises some interesting questions about the nature of faith schools, but his focus on divisiveness makes me wonder whether he has missed the point of what is the nature of religious faith (Mailbox, February 13).

I can't speak for all faith schools, knowing nothing about Islamic or Hindu schools, but Christian schools at least serve to educate a child on the bedrock of charity.

We are taught to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself, the first command leading naturally to the other.

Individual failings do not alter the Christian call to love, to honour parents, to serve others, to be modest, dutiful, disciplined, patient, unselfish, etc. This is not divisive – it is cohesive.

Catholic schools further protect the child against the worst excesses of modern secularism, such as the horribly explicit sex material paraded before children as "education" and the attempt to redefine marriage into a choice that a man can make with another man, rather than the holy and sacramental union of a man and a woman which has children as its greatest gift.

This resistance to the numbing of conscience encouraged by a secular (social engineering) society is preserved in a true Catholic school, for the good of the children it teaches and for society as a whole.

As for selecting staff and students by their religion, Catholic schools have long accepted large numbers of non-Catholic children and, sadly, there are many Catholic teachers nowadays that do not actually practise their religion.

Francisca Martinez, Leicester

A DIVIDED SOCIETY LOOMS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

A divided society looms

In my last article (First Person, January 5) I was optimistic about relations between religions and beliefs.

I had been meeting more people with different beliefs and had seen children from different backgrounds getting on with one another.

The latter is important: our children should be growing up together at school – Hindu children with Muslim children, Sikh children with humanist children, Catholics with Protestant, children indifferent to religion with those for whom it is central.

There are obvious difficulties because of the distribution of population in the city, but we should try.

Unfortunately, things are moving against us. Already, several city schools, Anglican, Catholic, Muslim and Hindu select pupils (and staff) by their religion and looking to the future, the Government's "free school" programme opens the way for many more such schools to be opened.

Under this programme, any group, local or not, can apply to set up a state-funded school in Leicester promoting one religion and giving preference to pupils and staff who belong to that religion.

Worse, there is no procedure laid down for letting us know about the application, for questioning it or for objecting to it – even the council can be kept in the dark – and the decisions are taken in London.

The programme is little over a year old and already in Leicester one school is up and running and others are being considered.

This is, of course only part of the bigger issue of the role of religion in society. What can be done?

I am, like other humanists and secularists, committed to joining with others in "promoting understanding and advancing harmonious cooperation", to quote the British Humanist Association constitution, and I have to ask my Anglican friends to think whether their Church was mistaken when in 2001 it took the decision to counter falling numbers by increasing the number of schools it controls and using schools more systematically to evangelise.

It has pursued this strategy and encouraged other religious groups to do the same.

It is now creating clusters of academies, and inviting other schools to become Anglican schools, and offering to take the place of local authorities in providing assistance – it is looking to be the biggest "provider" of education in the country.

This is not healthy for a democracy and it is being done using general taxes.

There is a steady drift towards a religiously divided country and city and politicisation of religion; and, very seriously in my view, efforts to create for our schools a vision of humanity encompassing both religious and non-religious views are being blocked.

We must work together.

Allan Hayes, Leicester

OUR CHERISHED RIGHTS HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A LONG STRUGGLE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Our cherished rights have been the result of a long struggle

Michael Myers (Mailbox, December 29) seems to be mainly concerned over my assertion (First Person, December 11) that "we are a country that belongs to all who live here and where all share equally in deciding its future".

Of course we already have a culture, a good one, and this is important; but it is also important to note that we have fought for it, forged it, and improved it over the centuries, and that a driving perception has been that we all count equally and share equally in taking it further.

So I make my assertion, agreeing with St Thomas Aquinas ("It is through culture that man lives a truly human life."), V S Naipaul ("if a man picks himself up and comes to another country he must meet it halfway"), and especially with Colonel Rainsborough at the Putney Debates, 1647: "...for really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under..."

And please note that the Putney Debates started in St Mary's Church simply because it was convenient. These were secular debates before the General Council of the Army. The demands were political demands from the soldiers addressed to the establishment and the landowners.

We should be teaching our children about the struggle that has gone on to get the rights that we value.

A good overview is the excellent website from the British Library, 2008 exhibition, "Taking Liberties".

Allan Hayes, Leicester

KNOWING AND RESPECTING THE BELIEFS OF OTHERS

Allan Hayes's First Person column appears in today's  Leiceester Mercury:

Knowing and respecting the beliefs of others

Allan Hayes, of Leicester Secular Society, looks forward positively to 2012

The New Year looks hopeful for the improvement of relations between religions and beliefs. In the past year much more effort has been put into trying to understand one another, into working together and creating an idea of humanity that we can all share and contribute to – what Giles Fraser in this week's Sunday programme called a "big story". This does not mean that serious differences will not be discussed robustly and frankly – they must be – what it does mean is that they will be discussed more in a spirit of co-operation, contribution and accommodation rather than combat and confrontation.

At bottom it means that we will meet one another as people to be respected and listened to. I find that some of the people I now most look forward to meeting again are ones with beliefs different from mine – there is a deep pleasure in sharing humanity.

Here are some recent personal highlights:

A "Challenging RE!" day, with 200 secondary school pupils at Holy Trinity Church was a revelation – young people from a all backgrounds sharing views about what mattered to them; a visit to Gateway school organised by St Philip's Centre during which I was vigorously challenged about my beliefs by pupils; exchanges of views at the Leicestershire Interfaith Forum at County Hall; several events organised by Muslim groups; talking to St Philip's Christian-Muslim discussion group and their subsequent visit to the Secular Hall; the continuing and rewarding involvement with Christians Aware; a very pleasant visit to the Gujarat centre in Preston. Probably the most demanding work, but in many ways the most useful and rewarding, was the preparation of a display on humanism at the invitation of a local primary school.

Two books should be mentioned as looking for understanding and mutual benefit: the first one, out in a few weeks, Religion for Atheists, by Alain de Botton (himself an atheist), tells us that religions are good at some things to do with life and, rather cheekily, that atheists should steal from them. It goes some way to meeting my criticism that humanism needs to be more human – a view that came home to me very much in designing the humanist display referred to above.

The second one by the Vicar of the University Church, Oxford, Canon Brian Mountford is entitled Christian Atheist: it is very sympathetically dealt with in a Westminster Abbey sermon by the Rev Robert Reiss, Canon in Residence; it is of great interest to me as a trustee of the Sea of Faith Network, many members of which might accept the description "Christian Atheist".

Some people may find these developments disturbing. I suggest that they need not: for the more we know and respect one another as people the more we can respect one another's choices of belief. So, things are looking up – but do please think about the effect of faith schools.

BIBLE, CULTURE AND IDENTITY

This letter is published in today's Leicester Mercury:

Bible, culture and identity 

Allan Hayes, of the Leicester Secular Society, expresses his concern that Mr Cameron's speech about Christianity allegedly misrepresents the past and "shows no understanding of the present" (Mailbox, December 26). 

He states that "it is all 'spin' in pursuance of a personal fantasy". He fears it might be to the detriment of those who "promote the shared values and sense of community". 

He criticises the Church for opposing democracy, extension of voting rights, election of MPs of other faiths, introduction of state education, access of women to universities and birth control. He seeks reassurance from members of the Church that "we are being dealt with fairly" and "we can move on". 

He objects to "a privileged" religion as promoter of values. He feels these should be based on "our common humanity". He criticises Mr Cameron for implying that only "Christianity will save us". 

He claims we are not a Christian country, but a country "that belongs to all who live here". 

And this is the problem. Many people living here do not regard it as such. I venture to suggest that this country belongs to all those who accept its culture. 

VS Naipaul, the Nobel prize winning author (born in Trinidad to Indian Parents) said: "A person can't say, 'I want the country. I want the laws and the protection, but I want to live in my own way.' I think if a man picks himself up and comes to another country he must meet it halfway. If he does not, it's wrong." 

A country can remain cohesive only if there is at least a residual sense of togetherness, in other words, patriotism. 

Olympic Games are an outward sign of patriotism but sometimes it is sad to see that sports people do not sing the National Anthem when representing their country. Ethnicity is not a bar to this idea. It should be noted that Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were truly multicultural societies. 

If one has a different view on multiculturalism one is immediately branded a racist so it thwarts reasoned discussion and results in discontent festering beneath the surface. That is counter productive. Mr Cameron's speech was marking the end of the 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible. He said he was not on a mission to convert the world. He said: "This book is important to understand the past and to shape the future of this country." He said that we should not be frightened to recognise this. 

We should note that: Firstly it "permeates every aspect of our culture (a high point of the English language) and heritage from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art". It is noteworthy that many references to the Bible, in literature, culture or music, are not understood by young people. 

Secondly, the Bible has been a spur to action for people of faith throughout history in "politics, human rights, equality, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy". 

Thirdly, "we are a Christian country and should not be afraid to say so whilst respecting other people's right to have or not have a religion". 

For the many shortcomings in British history Mr Cameron pointed out that debates in 1647 in the Church of St Mary the Virgin in Putney saw the first call for "One man and one vote" and demand for vesting of authority in Parliament rather than King. 

The Church built hospitals, created charities, fed the hungry, nursed the sick and looked after the poor to whom they gave shelter. 

Humanitarian crises are mainly supported by the Church charities.Mr Cameron stated that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which we should stand up for and defend. Moral neutrality was not an option. 

St Thomas Aquinas wrote: "It is through culture that man lives a truly human life." The words were repeated by John Paul II at the Unesco headquarters in 1980. No country should abandon its own culture or heritage since doing so eventually leads to its loss of identity. 

Michael Myers, Leicester 

CHRISTIANITY: CAMERON'S WRONG

This letter is published in today's Leicester Mercury:

Christianity: Cameron's Wrong 

David Cameron's speech on December 16 about Christianity is deeply worrying for those of us, including many Christians, who are working together to promote the shared values and sense of community that we need. 

It misrepresents the past and shows no understanding of the present. It might be said in excuse that it was put together to please a particular audience, Anglican clergy, on a particular occasion, the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, but I fear that it is all "spin" in pursuance of a personal fantasy which, if realised, would be to the detriment of us all. He links the Bible with parliamentary democracy, but the Church has often been opposed to democracy. 

In the 19th century it opposed the extension of voting rights and the right of elected MPs to sit in parliament regardless of belief; it opposed freedom of expression, of religion and of belief; it opposed the introduction of state schools free of Church control; it opposed access to universities, and, importantly for women, it opposed publications about birth control. 

History must not be twisted, and its proper acknowledgement by members of the Church gives reassurance that we are being dealt with fairly by decent human beings and can move on together – we get similar assurance from the revulsion expressed by Catholics at the abuse of children by some clerics. 

Cameron says we need values: of course we do, and Christianity has much to contribute as have other religions. But the surest way to fail to promote these values is to tie them to a privileged religion. Out of practicality, in a country as diverse as ours and where most people are not religious, values must be based on our common humanity. 

He tries to create a bogey man of a neutral secular society where anything goes, implying that only Christianity will save us. This is cheap: we have a big task ahead building a good society. It will involve upbringing, education, law, and business, and to succeed it must be a society that both cares for its members and makes them responsible active members; a society where life is measured by well-being and community, not just GDP, profit, and markets – it will need us all to contribute. 

And it must be said here that we are not a Christian country: we are a country that belongs to all who live here and where all share equally in deciding its future. 

That brings me to my final, and vital, point: are we not making too much of religious identity? 

Someone's religion does not tell us everything about them – we all have many interests and affiliations that link us. Are we not in danger of using heritages that should enrich us to make boxes that separate us? 

Allan Hayes, director, Leicester Secular Society.

INTER FAITH WEEK, DAY 4: HUMANISM 101

At 1200 today we've scheduled the fifth of ten public meetings for Inter Faith Week, “Communities of Faith or Belief in Leicester" at Leicester Adult Education College (or, more precisely, in the Leicester People's Photographic Gallery, which is part of the Adult Education College).


The speaker for this Beginners’ Guide to Humanism – or Humanism 101 - is Dr Allan Hayes, Director of Leicester Secular Society.


Unfortunately, due to ill-coordinated information about the venue, Allan is unable to deliver the talk. Through no fault of his, he's not directed to the right place, where at least a couple of people are waiting to listen to him. I'm sorry about this and offer our apologies for a good opportunity having been missed. This is especially regrettable as Humanists are not one of the communities of religion or belief represented on Leicester Council of Faiths and they have not taken part in any of the activities that we've organised for this annual event in previous years. I had deliberately put this public meeting in this year's programme of activities to help rectify this and to help bridge the gap between us - and Alla was the first speaker to commit to the talk out of all ten scheduled.

WISE WORDS?

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Wise words?

I cannot understand why Allan Hayes, of Leicester, describes the Bishop of Leicester's description that the atheist position is a tale told by an idiot, as an unfortunate remark (Mailbox, October 7). It was not an unfortunate remark. Of course, the atheist position is a tale told by an idiot.

In St Matthew's Gospel chapter 25 is a parable of the 10 virgins. Five were wise and five were foolish. Humanists, atheists and the secular people, are all like the foolish virgins.

At the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, if they do not get baptised and believe in Him, they will not go to heaven.

Frank Evans, Enderby

A CHALLENGE TO THE BISHOP

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

A challenge to the Bishop

Of course there is more to life than science can measure – on that I agree with Bishop Tim (First Person, October 1).

However, one might reply that there is more to life than is allowed for in theology.

I would be interested to hear more about his views on life, particularly following his unfortunate remark last May that the atheist position is a tale told by an idiot.

A week ago I took part in a very useful discussion with Paul Butler, Bishop of Nottingham, organised by Nottingham Secular Society.

Leicester Secular Society has a long history of discussions with people of all views – we would be delighted to arrange a similar discussion with Bishop Tim.

There are, in fact, several occasions already set up when we would welcome his contribution.

At the risk of being accused of self-promotion, I mention my talk at 7.30pm next Thursday about Faith, Humanism and the Secular State; he might also consider the talk to be given at 2pm on Saturday, October 15, by the Rev David Paterson, an avowed atheist who is also a practising Anglican priest.

To come back to the topic: He would indeed be dull of soul who did not respond to the evidence of the human capacity for devotion and the demonstration of the need to come together shown in the Treasures of Heaven exhibition concerning religious relics at the British Museum which the bishop refers to.

I understand the comment of the non-believing curator, that the experience of being close to these objects and seeing their effects on visitors had raised many questions for her, and I am not at all surprised to hear that Muslims and Sikhs have visited the exhibition, though I must say that for me a small village church or even a small Neolithic circle of standing stones can convey more.

This may appear as a challenge to the bishop, to some even a presumptuous challenge, but we have to have a better understanding of one another. Otherwise differences can harden and get in the way of the due recognition and co-operation that we need to develop.

We should all be willing to engage in discussions, both believers and non-believers.

Science and religion are both parts of humanity's search for understanding and meaning, for what it is to be human and how we can live life more abundantly together.

An essential part of being human is to engage in this search with goodwill: I invite the bishop to join in this.

Allan Hayes, Leicester

RELIGION UNDER ATTACK

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Religion under attack

Mr Allan Hayes (Mailbox, September 10), member of the Leicester Secular Society and the humanist movement, again tiresomely calls for religious influence to be abandoned.

Some of his views I can find favour with. The need to co-exist, the need for all of us to respect one another's views, the need for understanding.

There he should leave it, but, no, he insists on picking a fight with us of faith, all faiths.

He reminds me of the story of two tribes, the "Haves" and the "Have-nots" that lived on either side of the wide densely covered jungle valley. They each survived and lived in peace for many generations unaware of the other's presence.

One day, they discovered each other's existence, and although they lived only several miles apart, they had developed quite separately. The "Haves" had religion, the "Have Nots" had not.

Most of the tribe members were prepared to continue their way of life undisturbed and trade with the new tribe, except one person in the "Have Nots", who felt their way was the supreme way and continually harassed the other tribe to change their ways until the "Haves" patience was exhausted. Readers can finish the story themselves...

It was well over a year ago the Leicester Secular Society and the UK Humanist tribe set out to harass us religious people, even though we had co-existed for years. I cannot claim the Church has a clean record – recent reports would prove me to be deluded if I tried – but the actions of a few selfish, arrogant and perverted individuals in positions of trust should not condemn the millions who do charitable work day in, day out in centres, churches, streets and schools.

If a small minority's actions forecast the fate of millions, atheists would suffer, whatever My [sic] Hayes and his colleagues would claim against religion.

If atheism is so good, and for some it may be, why do committed atheists harass faith followers rather than centre on atheism's merits for recruitment?

Stephen A Warden, Wigston

RE: WE SHOULD TAKE A BROADER VIEW OF BELIEF

Allan Hayes has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:  

RE: We should take a broader view of belief

Allan Hayes calls for change in the position of religion in our schools' curriculum.

Thank you for your Opinion column, "Compulsory religion is out of date" (Mercury, September 7). It is time that we faced up to these issues. I write in a personal capacity, but with a long involvement with religion and its role in society: I am a director of Leicester Secular Society, a trustee of the British Humanist Association and Humanist representative on the Leicester Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE).

The requirement of compulsory acts of worship could be simply dealt with – it could, and I think should, be removed. That not just because it is widely ignored and the majority of the population is in favour of its removal; compulsion in religion is morally offensive.

Of course, morning assemblies are a valuable part of the school day.

One of the most inspiring experiences during my year as chaplain to the Lord Mayor, was a visit to morning assembly at one of the city's infant schools.

It was a joyous and happy affair with children singing and reading, and reflecting on life and caring. It set the feeling for the school as a caring community – it was good.

Religious Education is a more difficult matter.

In spite of the efforts of teachers and advisers, the subject still gives the impression to many people of the state pushing religious views on to children.

And consider the make-up of SACREs, the local bodies responsible for what is taught: four groups, one for Church of England, one for other approved religions, one for teachers' representatives, one for representatives of the local council. What about other beliefs and the great number who just want to get on with their lives without reference to religion? Millions of people are essentially humanist in their outlook, but Government guidance is that humanists should most definitely not be full members.

In addition to these issues of principle, there are real worries among teachers of RE at the reduction in the subject's status and the resources available, and its not being included in the English Baccalaureate.

What might be done? Can the subject evolve and widen into one in which our humanity is nourished and celebrated, including our religions – a subject where we learn to value one another directly as people and where respecting someone's religion is a consequence of a wider respect for people?

I would like to think that it can, but I don't know. Perhaps, here in Leicester, we have the possibility of bringing this about.

Our schools should bring us together, and it is on this point that, while I welcome your opening up of the discussion, I have to say that I think that your suggestion of simply leaving RE and worship to individual schools would push us in quite the wrong direction. It would lead to division – it could also result in schools rather than the state exercising compulsion.

This emphasis on religion can prove divisive

Here's the latest First Person column written by Allan Hayes, published in today's Leicester Mercury:

This emphasis on religion can prove divisive

Allan Hayes, of Leicester Secular Society, makes a plea to the Church of England

On numerous occasions recently I have been heartened by the humanity of people from many faiths and backgrounds (I'll come to my serious worries later): I gave an invited talk to the Christian/Muslim discussion group at St Philips; took part in a presentation by a fellow humanist to Loughborough Council of Faiths; attended a farewell party for a clergyman whom I have known and respected for many years; had the privilege of saying a few words at the launch of a book compiled by a leading Leicester Muslim; I was grateful for generous provision of free space in St Martin's Centre [sic] for the use of Leicester City of Sanctuary (which is not a faith organisation). I have just been invited to speak to a local Muslim community.

All these point to a wish to understand, to get on with, and to value one another as people. The same drive has been evident in other ways: Leicester Secular Society meetings have had speakers from a variety of religious backgrounds; the recent British Humanist Association conference was on the meaning of life and one talk was entitled "What has religion got that we haven't?"; I have been closely involved in the preparation of the Sea of Faith conference taking place at Leicester University this weekend (SoF is a national organisation with members ranging over all the religion/belief spectrum); a week ago I was at a conference in London with humanist, Muslim, and Christian speakers on religion in public life.

For the last eight years I have been the humanist representative on the Leicester Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education, Sacre (this body is responsible for religious education in Leicester state schools, apart from a few faith schools). This has led to many interesting conversations including ones at local and national meetings of RE teachers.

Plenty of evidence then that things are going well: so, what worries me?

I am worried by the prospect of division arising from Government policy: the handing over of significant parts of our school system and public services, to religious bodies; the lack of recognition that at least half of the population chooses not to belong to a religion and does not believe in God, over-emphasis on religious identity, and the privileged consultation accorded some religious organisations.

The Church of England's historical presence and privilege has provided a basis for this state of affairs, and its present institutional policies aimed at maintaining its position, particularly by using schools, have encouraged and legitimised the claims of others. A new accommodation is needed.

I know that some will interpret the preceding remarks as an attack on religion; I hope that the earlier part of this article will go some way to dispelling this impression, and I ask them to join in constructing a human ethos and political vision that will include all our contributions and enable us to go forward together.