CHURCH SEES LARGE RISE IN WORSHIPPERS

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

The commissioning of a new Anglican church in Belgrave, which worships in a range of languages, in 2012, has boosted numbers

Church sees large rise in worshippers

by Tim Healy

Nearly 2,000 people have joined Church of England congregations across Leicestershire, a survey has revealed.

Many parishes are reporting that numbers attending services are on the increase following years of decline.

The figures for 2012 have just been published by the Diocese of Leicester, from responses sent in by more than 300 churches.

It means that across the diocese, more than 22,000 people are now regular members of an Anglican worshipping community.

The Bishop of Leicester the Rt Rev Tim Stevens said: "These figures reveal that in times of austerity people are looking for deeper satisfaction and meaning in their lives.

"Churches that are welcoming, responsive and prayerful increasingly meet that need."

The survey detailed many reasons people were prompted to find out more about the Christian faith, with a newer form of all-age, more creative church entitled Messy Church being one of the most popular.

A new multilingual congregation in All Saints, Belgrave was set up last year.

A parish spokesman said: "We have managed to reach out, resulting in 16 people being baptised, including those of other faith backgrounds."

Other churches have been involved in projects to feed those in need.

In Ashby, the CAP (Christians Against Poverty) Midlands National Forest Centre has continued to provide debt counselling and advice to an increasing number of clients.

The Rev Barry Hill, who is responsible for mission in the diocese, said: "This report brings much good news, not least that more than 22,000 Christians of all ages are showing they live, work, study, play and socialise together and that God makes a difference in their lives, in that there is much more with Jesus than without.

"The most reassuring trend is that the increase is a small and steady trend across a large number of churches, so is likely to be sustainable."

About 12,500 people attend worship on an average Sunday, and a further 3,000 on weekdays.

The number of people who attended Anglican services at Christmas 2012 was 36,800 – the highest number since 2008.

Details from the parish showed the majority of churches surveyed, 215, had Sunday congregations of fewer than 50.

There were 40 congregations of between 51 and 100, 16 between 101 and 150, nine of 151 to 250 and two of more than 250.

However, the parish returns show the average age of a worshipper remains about 14 years older than the population as a whole. This is illustrated by 465 members of churches dying in the past year.

The research, conducted annually, is available in full on the Diocese of Leicester website: www.leicester.anglican.org

FAITHS UNITED AFTER ACTROCITY

This is (part of) the front page of today's Leicester Mercury. I don't usually comment on articles or readers' letters in the Mercury, but I'm making an exception this time.

Well, this is the kind of headline I like to see, as I'm sure you can imagine, faithful reader. But the title of this short but prominent piece is hyperbolic - as is the first sentence, "People of different faiths stood shoulder to shoulder [...]" When you turn to the full article, it only refers to two faiths: Christianity and Islam. Even then, it's actually the Church of England and Islam. Only Sheikh Ibrahim Moghra, Suleman Nagdi and the Bishop of Leicester are quoted. Three important voices, who should be heard prominently in the city and beyond - but this is hardly comprehensive coverage of a matter that is of major interest and importance to everyone in Leicester who cares about the increasingly polarised debate on the influence of religion or belief on community relations. These three voices have no trouble being heard, because of their well-earned and richly deserved prominence in their respective communities and the place of their religions in the firmament of faiths. I certainly respect their opinions and want to know what they have to say and believe that the rest of the city should hear them too. But does the Mercury really think that the city's Bahá'ís, Buddhists, other kinds of Christians, Jains, Jews, Sikhs - and, for that matter, Secular Humanists - have nothing calming, illuminating or insightful to say about this?

Leicester Council of Faiths issued a brief statement to the Leicester Mercury (amongst other recipients) yesterday morning, but the paper has not used it, referred to it or contacted anyone involved with the Council of Faiths to contribute to any of its coverage of local responses to the incident in Woolwich. Considering our role in the public life of Leicester and our standing in the city, I think that's a pity.

LORDS SPIRITUAL MAKE GOVERNMENT TOE THE MORAL LINE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Lords Spiritual make Government toe the moral line

Jobee asks for the Lords Spiritual to be disbanded as they are not politicians ("Never nothing", Mailbox, April 20). Politics is the science of government to get party policies into law.

The Church has always been engaged in humanitarian work so it would be difficult to divorce social service work from social action.

During the last war, one of my heroes was Bomber Harris. My attitude was to give the Germans a taste of what they had done to us.

The day after the carpet bombing of Dresden in February 1945, Bishop George Bell, of Chichester, stood up in the House of Lords to condemn the raid.

Many thought it treacherous, if not treasonable, but the speech was, and still is, the function of the bishops in the Lords.

They make the Government toe the moral line. I would agree to a reduction in the number of Lords Spiritual, with them being a mix of all the faiths in the country.

Patrick Trigg, Oadby

WHY WE ALL TAKE PRIDE IN THIS NATION

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Why we all take pride in this nation

Today, We celebrate national patron, George, and all things English. to mark the occasion, some well-known citizens tell Natalie Derham and Tom Mack why they are proud to be English.

Sir Peter Soulsby, Mayor of Leicester

"I'm very proud of England's wonderful history and particularly its democracy."

Suleman Nagdi, spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations

"We have a great history of acceptance and tolerance and I'm proud of our liberal society and its multiculturalism."

Carl Gunns, owner of boxing club in Birstall

"I love the history of England and the great kings and queens we've had, such as Charles I and Henry VIII. I'm also proud of the film industry, particularly in the 50s."

Tom Joule owner of Joules Ltd Market Harborough

"What makes me proud to be English is the Grand National, the sound of an ice cream van in the summer and the beer garden at the pub."

Rosemary Conley, fitness guru

"I'm proud of England for its heritage, its people, its beauty as a country and for its diversity. I would never want to live anywhere else."

Canon Barry Naylor, urban dean

"The Church of England reflects some of the very best of what it means to be English.

"It values diversity yet acknowledges the essential realities that bind us all together."

BBC RADIO LEICESTER: SAME SEX MARRIAGE & ASIAN FAITH COMMUNITIES

This evening I'm live on BBC Radio Leicester, discussing the response of the city's Asian faith communities to the Commons vote earlier this week on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill with Kamlesh Purohit (photo above). Kamlesh broadcasts music, entertainment, news and features of special interest to an Asian audience every Sunday between 1800 and 2000.

We're joined in the studio by Paul Fitzgerald, Equality and Inclusion Officer at Leicester LGBT Centre.

Our appearance together here this evening follows on from a chat I had with Kamlesh's producer, Dimple Patel, when we met at the Student Volunteering Fair in Leicester College earlier this week. Once we'd agreed that this had the potential to be a good feature on this evening's show, I recommended involving Paul (my counterpart at the LGBT Centre) especially as he is coordinating the new Multi-Faith Support Group there. Paul and I meet up an hour or so before the show in the Almanack at Highcross so we can have a wee chat and avoid going on air cold. When we meet there, I recognise Paul from last week's edition of The Big Questions broadcast from Leicester, on which he made a memorable contribution to the discussion on same sex marriage. Here's a transcript of the interview:

KP: And talking of dealing with issues that affect you, there was one issue this week which exercised many minds, I can tell you, and got a lot of people talking. Because this week, MPs voted in favour of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which will enable same sex couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies. However, no religious organisation will be forced to conduct same sex weddings. Many religious organisations, including the Church of England, are strongly opposed to gay marriage, so what support is there for Asian gay people in the Hindu, Sikh or Muslim communities who’d like to get married but feel that their faith community may not support them?

Well in Leicester, the Council of Faiths and the Leicester LGBT Centre have been working positively with people of all backgrounds, including Asians, who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender with faith communities: a very complex but very important issue. So I am delighted to say that joining me in the studio now are George Ballentyne, from the Leicester Council of Faiths, and Paul Fitzgerald, who is from the Leicester LGBT Centre.Chaps, a very good evening and thanks to you both very much indeed for joining us to talk about this very important issue. George, if I can start with you – because you work with faith communities and leaders in Leicester – we’ve spoken to you in the context of the Leicester Council of Faiths many times before. In your experience, what has been the response to the marriage bill and gay marriage, particularly within the Asian communities in Leicester.

GMB: Well it’s a very interesting topic to try and deal with just now because of course the actual parliamentary process isn’t complete yet, the bill has to go through the House of Lords, to get Royal Assent. So you could say well the dust hasn’t settled and it’s not yet time for organisations to make a complete and systematic response. Now that doesn’t mean that people don’t have opinions right now about it and certainly it’s been something which has been a topic of conversation and discussion amongst the faith communities. And, as you can imagine, the diversity of Leicester being what it is, there’s no single response really from the Hindu community or the Sikh community; there has been from the Muslim community, I think which is quite well known, but there … I think if you were looking for a consistent, systematic response, you and your audience will know that there’s not going to be a single kind of spearhead comment that will say everything for those communities.

KP: But isn’t that frightening because, like you say, you know, it’s not quite law yet because it’s go through the House of Lords as well before it’s ratified, but nonetheless, you know, progress has been made, this is the second reading of the Bill, so you would expect the faith communities at least to have got the ball rolling in some way.

GMB: I think the ball might be rolling but it’s not actually come out into the open yet. And I always say, particularly in situations like this in the studio, that I’m an employee of the Council of Faiths, I’m not a member, I’m not a Director, I can’t make policy or set the direction for the Council of Faiths, but I would stress really that over the past five years that I’ve been in post, we’ve worked very constructively, very positively and very collaboratively with the LGBT Centre. We’ve been members of the Regional Equality and Diversity Partnership together. And it’s quite often an interesting event that we’ll do things together and people will automatically assume that we should not be collaborating, that faith identity and sexual orientation as an identity should be things which are mutually antagonistic – and they’re not; people have both these things going on in their lives, we recognise that and work together.

KP: That’s the reality isn’t it? That is the reality. Paul, Paul Fitzgerald, from the LGBT Centre, what do you make of what George is saying because I suppose you kind of see it from the other side, you deal with gay Asian people in Leicester all the time. [PF: We do] What is the feeling amongst that community?

PF: I think the vast majority of feeling is one of rejection, that they can’t be honest and open with either their families or certainly their leaders within their chosen faith. To do so carries great risk, you know, family honour is hugely problematic, letting the family down, feeling that, you know, they’re going to have to go along with the process of getting married to sort of prove their sort of heterosexuality. There’s so many problems on so many levels with a lot of the community, particularly with men. The women tend to be more silent if I’m honest, gay women, unless they make contact with other gay women, remain very isolated. It’s the gay men that have the bigger issue with us who come to the Centre, talk to us about the problems they’re experiencing, the sort of issues that are affecting them, from their, you know, from whatever religious background they ‘ve come from. But certainly their families are hugely problematic in sort of coming out to them, and letting them know what’s been going on.

KP: So for those people, does the marriage bill complicate the issue even further? Because at the moment you have civil partnerships, so people can coexist together and they have certain rights, the fact that there’s now this possibility of a marriage bill coming along puts added pressure on them because they may feel they want to get married but they don’t get the support from the communities – either the family or the religious communities - isn’t this just kind of putting just another, another – if you like – kind of iron in the works?

PF: I think it is. We’re a long way from, you know, a large number of religious organisations accepting same sex relationships and equality across the spectrum. I think all this does is add weight to their levels of concern, their levels of angst for want of a better term, because they can’t come out, they can’t be open, they can’t be honest with, with, about who they are. I think it will mean, in essence, very little to them because they still won’t be able to go through the process of approaching their religious leaders to help conduct a same sex marriage. We’re 25-30 years away from that happening, I think, in the UK at the present time.

KP: So in many ways, for those people who may – who are of Hindu and Sikh backgrounds and they may want to choose to get married in their religious establishment, it’s not going to happen anyway so isn’t this just a waste of time for them?

PF: No, because I think equality is very important. I think if we continue the path that we’ve chosen, to make our world, our country, human beings more aware of equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights then I think that somewhere in the future along the way we will open those doors where people can feel that they can approach their leaders, to have the opportunity to get married, if that’s the choice that they make [KP: George –] We have to start somewhere we have to start one step.

KP: Absolutely, it’s a right, in a democracy, they have a right. Do you think the faith communities, in many ways, are afraid to deal with this very difficult issue which is perhaps why we haven’t heard anything definitive from them or is it just, like you say, early days at the moment because it’s not been – it’s not gone through the House of Lords, it’s not been ratified yet.

GMB: It’s not just early days in terms of the parliamentary or the legislative procedure. This is something that’s going to play itself out, you know, like Paul said there, over the course of a generation or more. I think it’s going to be very interesting to see how the young people in the communities respond to this changing landscape, how they might ask for clarification or challenge the leaders and elders in their own community. It’s very difficult to explain to a young person why people of the same sex can’t get married in Britain today. They just look at you like you’re an idiot if you try to explain what the legal or the Canon Law reasons are for this, and it’s going to make a big change in our society and all the faith communities have to respond to a changing social environment. I cannot say, I cannot predict what that might be. I think it’s also important to remember that within the law there is protection for those organisations, they cannot be forced to conduct a religious ceremony for a same sex couple.

KP: But isn’t that something, you know, organisations can hide behind then? In other words, because they don’t want to confront this very difficult issue, they can turn around and say, we refuse to allow this to happen because it’s – you know – not allowed in the religion.

GMB: Well you could say that they are maybe hiding behind it, but the government has placed it there as a shield and as a protection for those organisations which cannot, in good conscience, conduct a ceremony like this and it would be quite interesting – I don’t, I mean, you know – your wedding day is supposed to be the best, most memorable day of your life, or the most memorable several days of your life, and it’s impossible to imagine why someone would want to force a priest to conduct the ceremony. You don’t want to be married by someone who is, as it were, biting their tongue while they’re doing the ceremony. It should be positive and loving and collaborative and supportive. And I think the situation now there – it’s just in a complete flux. We can’t really say anything meaningful about it for quite a long time to come.

KP: But in reality Paul, how does this transpire in reality, because you talked about the pressure young people are on. On the ground, because you deal with gay Asian people all the time, you know – are they under stress, you know, is it sort of putting their health at risk? What – How does it transpire?

PF: Well it’s not just young people, it’s people across the age spectrum. Of course it materialises in their physical and emotional well-being being severely compromised. High rates of suicidal ideation – which is the thought of suicide – we know there have been suicides across the UK as a direct result of trying to be something that you’re not. That happens across all communities, not just within the Asian community. But your sexual orientation , fundamentally, is a big part of who you are. It’s not the only thing, but It’s an absolutely vital component that brings the whole together, where people feel comfortable and confident in themselves. And if one part of you is having to remain hidden and you can’t be true and honest to yourself, first and foremost, let alone anybody else, that will have and does have a detrimental effect on both your physical, psychological and emotional well-being.

KP: Okay, well on a final note then Paul, if faith community leaders listening to the programme this evening, what one thing would you say to them in the context of the marriage bill?

PF: Please come and talk to us at the Centre. We take on board anyone’s values, anyone’s particular beliefs, we’re not there to sort of dictate one way or the other , what we want to do is have meaningful dialogue – and George does some amazing work with the Council of Faiths to bring that collaboration and those communities together to talk openly and honestly and move things forward. You can move mountains just with discussion. We don’t have to all agree that everything has to be absolutely perfect, but we can move things forward with genuine concern for the well-being of our community.

KP: Dialogue; dialogue is the way forward. Okay, Paul Fitzgerald from the Leicester LGBT Centre and George Ballentyne from the Leicester Council of Faiths, thank you both very much indeed for joining us this evening.

ALIENATING IS AN INEVITABLE RESULT

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Alienating is an inevitable result

The Bishop's spokesman on urban issues, Canon Barry Naylor, really did the Church no favours by claiming that Anglicans "unintentionally" alienated people ("Clarification," Mercury, December 13).

I would have thought it was pretty obvious that it was completely inevitable.

How can a Church that claims to be inclusive and non-discriminatory really not understand how it might offend people when it sends it's own bishop to the House of Lords to condemn gay marriage as unacceptable?

The Anglican Church must decide once and for all whether its God loves homosexuals, or whether it sticks by its God's words in the books of Leviticus and Romans which clearly appear to outlaw homosexual behaviour.

It cannot have it both ways. Society will judge its relevance on this issue alone.

Mark Sperry, Leicester

WOMEN'S ROLE IN CHURCH SET OUT FULLY IN THE BIBLE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Women's role in Church set out fully in the Bible

There has been a lot of media coverage regarding women bishops and priests.

However, not much has been covered regarding what the Bible says about the role of men and women in the church of Jesus Christ.

Is the distinction between men and women in the Church simply a relic passed along to us as a custom from a past biased against women?

One thing I know is the Bible teaches men and women have different, complementary roles to play in the Church.

The Bible says 12 men were chosen to be the founders of the Old Testament Church when they had a sister, Dinah, who could have been selected – Exodus 7:1; 5:20. Only Moses was selected to lead the nation of Israel out of Egypt and Aaron was to lead as the high priest, despite Miriam, their sister, being a prophetess and older.

Only the male first-born son was to be the priest.

A system of male priests was established even though Israel was surrounded by nations that had a culture of selecting priestesses.

Twelve male apostles were chosen as the beginners of the New Testament Church when there were able women who might have been chosen.

The apostle Paul was inspired to write that bishops and elders should be male.

A bishop then must be "blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober minded, of good behaviour, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence". 1 Timothy 3:2-7

In Ephesians 5:22-25, he wrote: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the saviour of the body."Therefore, just as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

When Adam was created, the Bible says: "It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helpmeet."

Women also have an important role in the church – see Matthew 28:1-10; Luke 8:3; 23:49; John 11:1-46; 12:1-8,1 Corinthians 12:27-31; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Peter 4:8-11; Titus 2:4; Acts 2:17-18; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5. From these we can see women in the Church played a very important role.

The problem comes when, as a body of believers, men and women, we do not do what the Bible says Christians must be doing in these last days – in Matthew 28:18-20 – but instead spend most of our time striving about who can occupy which position.

Ronald Mupfeki, Leicester

CLARIFICATION

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Clarification

In an article in Wednesday's paper, on the Census results, the Mercury quoted Canon Barry Naylor as saying: "We seem to be at a time when the Church seems to be doing its best to alienate people."

Canon Naylor has asked us to point out that what he meant was the Church was unintentionally alienating people on several issues, such as women bishops, and not that it was intentionally doing so.

He added: "On several issues, we have shot ourselves in the foot."We are happy to make this clear.

DIVER-CITY

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Diver-city

White British people now form less than half of the population of Leicester.

Figures released yesterday revealed 45 per cent of the city's residents are white British – compared with 61 per cent in 2001.

About 49 per cent of the population is made up of people from Asian, African or Caribbean or mixed race backgrounds and about 5 per cent are white but not British.

The numbers were the latest to be released by the Office of National Statistics from the 2011 Census.

The city's 93,335 Asian or British Asian Indians make up the next biggest ethnic group in Leicester, accounting for 28 per cent of the population – an increase of two per cent since 2001.

Leicester now has the highest proportion of people of that ethnic group in England and Wales, where three per cent of the total population is Asian or British Asian Indian.

Meanwhile, two per cent of people in Leicester are Asian or British Asian Pakistani, equalling the average for England and Wales.

City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby said: "It has always been recognised we have a diverse community in Leicester, and I think that is a great strength. It is quite interesting these figures should come in the year the Queen chose to start here jubilee tour here – obviously it is a strength that she recognised, too.

"These statistics are so useful as they help remind us of the people in the city.

"I think you will find a large proportion of people who, for instance, might say they are Asian will actually be Leicester born and bred."

Sir Peter said the figures would be analysed to make sure the council was providing services suited to the whole population.

The statistics, which are made up of information provided by residents, also revealed 65 per cent of the city's population was born in England.

This is lower than the average for England and Wales, which is 84 per cent.

The religious make-up of the city's population has changed drastically since the last census in 2001.

The most common religion is still Christianity. However, it is now the religion of 33 per cent of city residents, compared with 45 per cent in 2001. The next biggest group is people who said they had no religion. This accounted for nearly a quarter – 23 per cent – of people in the city, and is up six per cent since the last census.

Canon Barry Naylor, the Bishop of Leicester's adviser on urban issues, said he thought the change was down to people feeling like they could be "more honest" about their religious beliefs.

"I think in the old days people would just say 'put me down as C of E,' because they felt they should," he said.

"I think when people are more honest, it helps to show where we are.

"Also, we seem to be at a time when the church seems to be doing its best to alienate people, and that means we are not very effective at communicating what the Christian gospel is about.

"That could be a factor here."

The city has the third highest percentage of Hindu people in England and Wales – 15 per cent.

Leicester has the 11th highest percentage in England and Wales of Muslims, who account for 19 per cent of the population, an increase of eight per cent since 2001.

Overall in Leicester, 51 per cent of residents class themselves as white, regardless of where in the world they are from originally, and 49 per cent as not white.

Suleman Nagdi, chairman of the Federation of Muslim Organisations, said: "I think we are seeing what makes Leicester so unique – there is no such thing as a majority.

"I think it shows we need to keep working hard to keep our relationships going."

The figures released yesterday were the second set of statistics released from the 2011 census.

Population figures were revealed in July, when the Mercury reported the city has 329,900 residents – 16 per cent more than in 2001 when the figure was about 282,800 – the fastest growth of any city in the region.

More than a quarter of Leicester's population – 27 per cent – is aged 20 or under, making it the youngest population in the East Midlands.

WOMEN BISHOPS DISCRIMINATION

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Women bishops discrimination

The much maligned Human Rights and Equality Acts ban among other things gender discrimination, so how does the General Synod of the Church of England, whose head is our Queen, justify its refusal to allow women bishops?

This glass ceiling is illegal and the CofE should be prosecuted.

This ludicrous ruling comes hard on the heels of the death of a 31-year-old pregnant woman in a Belfast hospital who was refused a life-saving abortion on, would you believe it, religious grounds.

I wonder if the doctors responsible for this poor woman's death sleep well at night and would they have made the same decision if one of their own children was in a similar predicament?

Truly, God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.

Don Tallis, Wigston

SYNOD VOTE IS WRONG FOR THE CHURCH, SAYS THE BISHOP OF LEICESTER

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Synod vote is wrong for the church, says Bishop of Leicester

The Bishop of Leicester says the General Synod's decision to vote against the introduction of women bishops in the Church of England was a "personal blow".

Bishop Tim Stevens said he had invited members of the diocese to Leicester Cathedral tomorrow to reflect on the decision and "pray for the Church".

Draft legislation was carried through the houses of bishops and clergy but failed at the final hurdle when it did not gain the necessary two-thirds majority among lay members of the General Synod.

In a pastoral letter to his clergy, Bishop Tim said: "It is clear to me that this is a watershed moment in terms of the relationship between the Church of England and the nation.

"It is also likely to be a watershed in terms of the relationship between the General Synod and the dioceses.

"I know there will be many who find this decision incomprehensible."Yet we must respect and seek to understand the reasons why a significant minority of the House of Laity opposed the legislation.

"For myself, after 12 years of discussion in the House of Bishops, this comes as something of a personal blow.

"All of us know that an all-male episcopate cannot be a sustainable position for the Church of England into the future.

"If some proposals for change are the expression of God's will for the Church, then I believe they will prevail. We do not lose our heart in spite of our disappointment."

On Tuesday, the House of Bishops voted 44 in favour, with three against and two abstentions.

In the House of Clergy, 148 voted in favour and 45 against, with no abstentions.

But in the House of Laity, 74 voted against, compared with 132 in favour, with no abstentions.

Had the measure received final approval, it would have gone before the Parliament, with the first women bishops set to be appointed as early as 2014.

In his letter, which was sent yesterday, Bishop Tim urged Church followers to "take special care of each other at a time when some people will be bearing very personally the pain and disappointment".

He said that the majority of Church of England members wanted to move towards ordaining women as bishops and that the Church "remains faithfully at the service of the people of England without any discrimination whatsoever".

Canon Barry Naylor, the bishop's adviser on urban issues, said the rejection was "so very sad".

"I think my position is that the Church must move in this direction," he said.

"I think that in the eyes of the world it does make us look vaguely ridiculous.

"I think we need to listen to God in the scriptures, in the traditions of the church, but also we have got to listen to God speaking to us today."

The cathedral will be open for reflection tomorrow at 7.30pm.

AMBITIOUS £3M VISION FOR LEICESTER CATHEDRAL GARDENS UNVEILED

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury (and, oddly, in identical form in the next day's edition too)

Ambitious £3M vision for Leicester cathedral gardens unveiled

Church leaders have unveiled images of proposed new £3 million gardens outside Leicester cathedral.

Staff at the historic building want to create an area with trees and flowers that could host outdoor services and concerts.

As previously reported in the Mercury, the clergy and Leicester City Council are jointly funding the £3 million scheme and yesterday artist's impressions were published.

The move will see the precincts of the cathedral being combined with the car park of the redeveloped St Martin's House diocese building for a new public space.

The gardens will be capable of being turned into an outdoor venue with seating for up to 800 people.

They will include a tranquil graveyard created with the gravestones that stand outside the cathedral.

In 2009, before St Martin's House was started, the cathedral announced plans to transform the grounds but a lack of cash was a problem.

The diocese plans to raise its half of the £3 million through grants and private donations.

The Bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, said the scheme, which is waiting for planning permission, was going ahead thanks to the backing of city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby.

He said: "We have long wanted to give the cathedral its proper setting in the city and to make our spaces more attractive. Cathedral Gardens will now allow us to do just that.

"We are very grateful to the city mayor for his backing in getting us to this point and look forward to realising our vision during 2013."

The city council cash will come from the £19 million Connecting Leicester fund set up by the city mayor.

The cash will also be used for a new Jubilee Square at St Nicholas' Circle nearby.

Sir Peter said: "Cathedral Gardens would provide a wonderful setting for our city's cathedral and is an excellent example of what could be achieved through a shared Connecting Leicester vision."

The new gardens will include a central lawn and a water feature outside the cathedral.

The planning application will also include the demolition of a wall on the north side of the St Martins House car park to create a new cafe that will link Cathedral Gardens and the entrance to the Guildhall.

Demolishing the wall is likely to be a stumbling block though.

Chairman of Leicester Civic Society Stuart Bailey said: "The wall is a listed building in its own right and we and English Heritage have expressed our concerns about losing it."

He said there were also concerns about plans to straighten the footpath to the east of the cathedral.

The plans are being sent to the city council and the Church of England's own planning authority for approval. Artist's impressions are available at: www.cathedralgardens. dioceseofleicester.com

BISHOP OF LEICESTER VOICES CONCERN OVER GAY MARRIAGE PROPOSALS

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Bishop of Leicester voices concern over gay marriage proposals

The Bishop of Leicester has expressed concern over gay marriage while saying the Church of England wants an increase in support for the gay community.

The Rt Rev Tim Stevens said the Church of England had been supportive of civil partnerships when the legislation was introduced eight years ago.

In a highly critical response to the Government's consultation on gay marriage which closes on Thursday, the Church of England said several “major elements”' of the proposals had not been thought through properly and were not legally “sound”.

“We continue to be supportive of the gay community and want to see that inclusion in our society increased and developed,” said the bishop.

“I think the difficulty we have here is the substitution of equality for uniformity, that is to say that there can be no distinction at all between men and women.”

He added: “The Government is seeking to meet what it perceives to be the needs of the gay community. I would say that the Church of England is sympathetic to those needs, we want to see a society in which gay people are fully included and their needs are fully provided for.

“But this does not amount to a basis for introducing a complete redefinition of the concept of marriage based on a consultation process which is at the very least rapid.

“From a standing start within three months to arrive at a fully considered, weighed and articulated redefinition of a fundamental social institution which has been thought about in one particular way for centuries and which is broadly accepted as a social institution in the same way internationally - to change all that on the basis of a consultation like this seems to be at the very least unwise and ill considered.”

Gay marriage threatens the establishment of the Church of England and could lead to it being forced out of its role of conducting weddings on behalf of the state, it has claimed.

The Church of England said introducing same-sex marriage would lead to an unprecedented clash between its own canon law - that marriage is between a man and a woman - and that of Parliament.

SPEECH STIRS UP HATRED OF SECULARISTS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Speech stirs up hatred of secularists

As president of Leicester Secular Society, I was surprised by the reports about the address by Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor that appeared to suggest we are achieving world domination (May 17).

The former leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, speaking at Leicester's Anglican Cathedral, is reported to have said that "Secular values" were behind the violence carried out in totalitarian states and some of the 20th century conflicts that have killed millions.

"Our danger in Britain today is that so-called Western Reason has recognised what is right and thus claims reality – reality that is inimical to freedom," he said.

"No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the new secular religion as if it alone were definitive and obligatory for all humankind."

We need to remind him, gently, when he states "no one is forced to be a Christian", that until the death of dictator General Franco, of Spain, the Catholic church worked hand in glove with the fascist dictator's government; burying its dead in church, while Republicans were usually shot and flung into unmarked ditches.

His Church was essentially compulsory and to dissent was to risk death.Perhaps he should remember how the Catholic Church connived with the Nazis in the slaughter of Jewish people.

Further, our own Queen "Bloody" Mary Tudor had non-Catholics executed in large numbers.

He confuses what he calls "secular religion" with consumer capitalism. This, as he may know, had its origins in the late Middle Ages – in Catholic Florence and Venice.

I suppose he cares to ignore his Church's intransigent attitudes to abortion and birth control, which are helping to imperil the world by forcing yet more hungry mouths into existence, leading to resource degradation.

I consider that stirring up religious hatred against secularists is equally as bad as stirring it up against other denominations.

Michael Gerard, president, Leicester Secular Society

BRITAIN'S CHRISTIANS ARE BEING VILIFIED, WARNS LORD CAREY

This article is published in today's Daily Telegraph:

Britain's Christians are being vilified, warns Lord Carey

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor

Lord Carey says worshippers are being “vilified” by the state, treated as “bigots” and sacked simply for expressing their beliefs.

The attack is part of a direct appeal to the European Court of Human Rights before a landmark case on religious freedom.

In a written submission seen by The Daily Telegraph, the former leader of more than 70 million Anglicans warns that the outward expression of traditional conservative Christian values has effectively been “banned” in Britain under a new “secular conformity of belief and conduct”.

His comments represent one of the strongest attacks on the impartiality of Britain’s judiciary from a religious leader.

He says Christians will face a “religious bar” to employment if rulings against wearing crosses and expressing their beliefs are not reversed.

Lord Carey argues that in “case after case” British courts have failed to protect Christian values. He urges European judges to correct the balance.

The hearing, due to start in Strasbourg on Sept 4, will deal with the case of two workers forced out of their jobs over the wearing of crosses as a visible manifestation of their faith. It will also take in the cases of Gary McFarlane, a counsellor sacked for saying that he may not be comfortable in giving sex therapy to homosexual couples, and a Christian registrar, who wishes not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

Lord Carey, who was archbishop from 1991 to 2002, warns of a “drive to remove Judaeo-Christian values from the public square”. Courts in Britain have “consistently applied equality law to discriminate against Christians”.

They show a “crude” misunderstanding of the faith by treating some believers as “bigots”. He writes: “In a country where Christians can be sacked for manifesting their faith, are vilified by State bodies, are in fear of reprisal or even arrest for expressing their views on sexual ethics, something is very wrong.

“It affects the moral and ethical compass of the United Kingdom. Christians are excluded from many sectors of employment simply because of their beliefs; beliefs which are not contrary to the public good.”

He outlines a string of cases in which he argues that British judges have used a strict reading of equality law to strip the legally established right to freedom of religion of “any substantive effect”.

“It is now Christians who are persecuted; often sought out and framed by homosexual activists,” he says. “Christians are driven underground. There appears to be a clear animus to the Christian faith and to Judaeo-Christian values. Clearly the courts of the United Kingdom require guidance.”

He says the human rights campaign has gone too far and become a political agenda.

Keith Porteous-Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “The idea that there is any kind of suppression of religion in Britain is ridiculous.

“Even in the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to religious freedom is not absolute – it is not a licence to trample on the rights of others. That seems to be what Lord Carey wants to do.”

For another take on this story, see Martin Robbin's "Lay Scientist" column in today's Guardian: Lord Carey is a bigger threat to British Christians than any secularist

NEW STATESMAN: MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

In this week's Cover Story, the Archbishop of Canterbury's former press secretary George Pitcher - ousted in the fallout from his New Statesman guest edit - reports on Rowan Williams's struggle against the Church of England traditionalists who run his office.

FAITH IS STILL THE WARP AND WEFT OF OUR SOCIETY

David Johnson's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Faith is still the warp and weft of our society

David Johnson considers how the legacy of religion still affects our lives in many ways

During a recent visit to Canterbury I saw Antony Gormley's new sculpture, Transport. Shaped in the form of a human body, it is made entirely of old nails removed from the cathedral roof during restoration.

Suspended in the crypt over the site of Thomas Becket's first tomb, Gormley's "body" represents a transitory place briefly housing the spirit for the duration of earthly life. For me it made an optimistic statement, looking both backwards to the many lives the cathedral has touched over 1,000 years, and forwards to life in another place.

It is just one modern example of religion's influence upon society over 2,000 years. Just think how Christianity has shaped the English language and literary heritage, our artistic, architectural and musical treasures. The church was promoting education, social well-being and charitable endeavour long before the welfare state, and the interplay between church and people has in large part created our national identity.

Of course over the centuries religion has had its less glorious moments. But the role of faith changes with time. So the Queen has chosen to interpret her role in the 21st century as not merely head of a sectarian Church of England, but to promote tolerance as protector of the free expression of all faiths in Britain.

To appreciate this you don't have to be a practising member of a faith. But there is danger in enjoying the fruit without looking after the roots. For if you do abandon the rituals, ceremonies and prayers, then where do you find inspiration or moral guidance? The secularists and atheists too often adopt an illiberal and negative stance. It is easy to destroy what is precious, but hard to replace it.

As Gormley says of his new sculpture: "We are all the temporary inhabitants of a body. It is our house, instrument and medium. Through it, all impressions of the world come and from it all our acts, thoughts and feelings are communicated." It is a reminder that there is more to life than just us.

And while I hold no particular brief for prayers before council meetings, I can think of nothing so sublime as attending cathedral evensong where voices, organ and prayer mingle together amid the soaring arches and pillars. This outpouring of devotion happens daily in cathedrals up and down the country; attendance is free, requires no participation and is massively under-appreciated. Yet it is invariably an uplifting and mystical experience. It may not be heaven in a literal sense, but for me it is very close nonetheless.

David Johnson is an honorary fellow of the School of Historical Studies, University of 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

BISHOP GUILTY OF THREE ERRORS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Bishop guilty of three errors

The Bishop, in asking whether we would be more fulfilled "if there was no monarch to act as head of the Established Church" (First Person, February 18), gets three things wrong.

The first is grammatical; when we ask hypothetical questions we use the subjunctive mood, so what he should have said is "if there were no monarch".

The second is constitutional. Since the days of Elizabeth I the monarch has been styled "the supreme governor". And to get that wrong is, far more seriously, to get Christian belief wrong.The Head of the church, of any church, is Christ.

This understanding goes back to a momentous passage in the Epistle to the Colossians, when the author says of Christ: "He is the head of the body, the church" (1:18).

Richard Gill, Leicester

COMPULSORY WORSHIP IS WHAT WE ARE OPPOSED TO

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

Compulsory worship is what we are opposed to

The Bishop of Leicester writes that "No-one is forced to worship against their own conscience" ("This is not the time to build a secular state", First Person, February 18).

He appears to overlook the fact that the Church of England lobbied for (and continues to oppose any changes to) the current law requiring acts of collective worship in state schools, the majority of which, in any given school term, should be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".

The law gives parents the right to have a child excused from worship, but no such rights are recognised for school pupils, even those above school-leaving age.

Leicester Secular Society has been campaigning against this meaningless concept of "compulsory worship" for decades, but to date the Bishop, and his colleagues in the House of Lords, have strongly opposed allowing children to follow their conscience. I hope the Bishop's words mark a change of policy by the Church of England.At present the requirement for Christian worship is divisive, making it more difficult for schools to promote a cohesive community.

As to "it raises the question, what would a secular culture look like?", I would suggest that he looks at a the secular government of the USA where all forms of religion are much stronger than in the UK.

Secularists can be of all faiths and none, and some work to help preserve local churches. Secularists don't want to demolish places of worship any more than they would want to demolish golf club houses.

Secularists want to protect the freedom to practise religion (or not) and to pray, including in public. What we do object to is prayer being involved with the process of government, which should be completely agnostic with regard to religion.

John Catt, Loughborough