Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Cameron. Show all posts

Friday, 24 May 2013

FIRST PERSON: RELIGION CAN'T BE DEFENCE FOR BRUTAL KILLINGS

Suleman Nagdi has written the First Person column in today's Leicester Mercury:

Religion can't be defence for brutal killings
Suleman Nagdi says the murder of a soldier on a London Street betrays all Muslims
The shocking murder which took place on Wednesday has left me appalled and angry. Appalled at the brutality and savageness of the murder of an innocent man and angry that this wanton act of violence is being labelled as "Islamic".
The Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO) rightly condemned in the strongest terms possible what occurred. I concur with our Prime Minister when he said: "This was not just an attack on Britain. It was a betrayal of Islam and the Muslim communities who give so much to our country."
I must begin by expressing sympathy and condolences to the family of the dead soldier, who have lost their loved one as a result of inexplicable violence.
It is shocking that this tragedy happened in broad daylight.
Eyewitness accounts describe the depth of psychotic callousness with which the killers acted – killers whose motives are irrelevant, as the crime itself demonstrates an extreme level of psychological disturbance.
I am numb and outraged that two people intent on violence have hijacked my faith to such an end. This is a complete distortion of the true meaning of Islam.
It betrays all Muslims who have peace and compassion in their hearts and particularly those in our Muslim communities across the UK who work for the security of our nation.
Such a brutal act of murder cannot be justified using religion as a defence. Islam places the highest value on life and safeguarding a single human life is tantamount to safeguarding all life.
It is truly distressing to see the extreme right opportunistically using this tragedy to spout their vicious racist hatred and sadder still to see that some people are responding to this incident by joining their extreme cause.
Most Muslims I have spoken to have been distressed by the fact they are being made to defend themselves when the deranged killings have nothing to do with them or their religion.
The killers' motives are political and their methods are criminal.
The tensions felt by British Muslims will be exacerbated in the days to come by those who blame all Muslims for the actions of two psychotic men, who may happen to be Muslim.
As reports of two lone attacks on mosques in Britain are covered in the media, it is imperative that all of our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail.
It is important we allow our police authorities to do their job without speculation. We also urge the utmost vigilance and ask the police authorities to calm tensions and ensure this tragedy does not unfold into greater tragedy.

Suleman Nagdi is chairman of Leicestershire Faith Forum [sic] and spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations.

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

FEDERATION OF MUSLIM ORGANISATIONS STATEMENT RE WOOLWICH INCIDENT

As you can imagine, faithful reader, many comments and statements will be made regarding the incident in Woolwich, Wednesday 22 May 2013. I'm posting a selection of these on the blog, limited to relevant organisations with which Leicester Council of Faiths is involved to some extent. Below is a statement issued this evening by the Federation of Muslim Organisations:
Federation of Muslim Organisations (FMO) condemns in the strongest terms possible the shocking and abhorrent murder of a soldier in Woolwich, London. FMO PR Officer Suleman Nagdi said "This is a most truly appalling crime. Reports about the graphic nature of the incident with the use of a machete to commit murder in full public view, makes this case even more reprehensible. As the situation unfolds, our thoughts are with the family of the victim".
The Prime Minister David Cameron has said that there are "strong indications that it is a terrorist incident". Mr Nagdi added, "The FMO condemns violence for whichever cause in all its hideous guises and it is our sincere hope that the perpetrators of this horrendous crime are brought to justice. Muslims historically through the first and second World Wars have contributed greatly to the defence of our country.  I appeal for all communities to remain calm in the face of this attack and not to allow this evil crime to divide communities in our country".

Monday, 8 April 2013

REMOVE BISHOPS FROM THE LORDS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury (but not on the paper's website):
Remove Bishops from the Lords
Come on Cameron, let’s have those frocks (Bishops) out of the House of Lords. They are not politicians, they have not been elected.
The £350 a day each out of the public purse is not fair on us.
Blind faith psychosis,
psychosis and money
What is it then that makes them pray
that makes them creep crawl all day
that makes them read some silly script
their pride, confidence, slyly stripped
What is it then that transfers their minds
to heavens angels spiritual kinds
to attend cathedrals in little groups
then dress in robes as elitist troops
 
What is it then that makes them build
on fertile land where food was tilled
huge mosques cathedrals too
just to sing confess anew
Does it help in any way
to wile away the hours of day
dressed in best on their knees
praying to anything making pleas
 
Is it selfishness that makes them think
we all need them to cover shrink
on our behalf at their request
so that our souls be sublimely blessed
The whiff of selfishness stirs the air
I think it’s just themselves they care
the work is easy less to think
from competition they will shrink
This god they advocate with fuss
when ask for proof they won’t discuss
O proof o proof what for you need
the Devil’s home you’ll go with speed
My lucid mind begins to stir
I’m in the hands of a blackmailer
I only ask for what your sales
they came back as hard as nails
 
So business then shall prevail
in Woolworth’s by an honest sale
the church an inquisition I think
proof of god surely brings
Jobee, Leicester

Friday, 29 March 2013

CAMERON ACCUSED OF BETRAYING CHRISTIANS


There's plenty of coverage in the national media today of an article written by Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, published in the Daily Mail. Immediately below is how the article is promoted on the Daily Mail's website, followed by the full text of the article itself.
Cameron accused of betraying Christians: Astonishing Easter attack on the PM by former Archbishop of Canterbury
Many Christians doubt David Cameron’s sincerity in pledging to protect their freedoms, former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey says today.
In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey squarely accuses ministers of "aiding and abetting" discrimination against Christians.
He says he believes there is an "aggressive secularist and relativist approach" behind the Government plans to legalise gay marriage and says the Prime Minister has "done more than any other recent political leader" to "feed" Christian anxieties.
As a dramatic new poll released on the eve of Easter Sunday revealed that more than two-thirds of Christians feel they are now part of a "persecuted minority", Lord Carey insists the Government must do more to demonstrate its commitment to pledges to stand up for faith.
The survey suggests churchgoers increasingly feel religious freedoms are under assault from aggressive secularism. 
Critics say court rulings against Christians who want to wear crosses at work, and legal action preventing prayers before council meetings, have helped make people feel marginalised.
In the article, Lord Carey expresses particular alarm about apparent Government support for a campaign by Labour MP Chris Bryant to turn the 700-year-old Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi-faith prayer room so that gay couples can get married there.
But he also turns his fire on the Prime Minister, saying: "It was a bit rich to hear that the Prime Minister has told religious leaders that they should 'stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation' when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.
"At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians’ right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity."
The ComRes poll suggests there is continuing resentment over the Government’s decision to legalise same-sex unions, even though there is special protection for the Church of England in the law. 
More than half (58 per cent) of Christians who backed the Conservatives in 2010 suggested they will ‘definitely not’ vote for the party in 2015.
The ComRes poll of 535 regular churchgoers, commissioned by the Coalition for Marriage (C4M), reveals that more than two-thirds (67 per cent) of Christians feel that they are part of a ‘persecuted minority’.
The march of secularism means that if trends continue, Britain will no longer be a Christian country by 2030 when the number of non-believers will have overtaken the number of Christians.
In the past six years the number of Muslims has surged by 37 per cent to 2.6 million, Hindus by 43 per cent and Buddhists by a massive 74 per cent.
Numbers who choose to call themselves Christians fell by more than 4 million in a decade after 2001, the 2011 census showed. Fewer than six out of ten – 59.3 per cent – described themselves as Christian.
A decade ago nearly three quarters, 72 per cent, did so. Some 33.2 million people said they were Christian in 2011.
Downing Street strongly rejected Lord Carey’s attack. A spokesman said: "This government strongly backs faith and Christianity in particular, including backing the rights of people wanting to wear crosses at work and hold prayers at council meetings. Christianity plays a vital part in the Big Society."

Here's the text of Lord Carey's article in full, published in the Daily Mail today:
The PM's done more than any other leader to make Christians feel they're perescuted
I like David Cameron and believe he is genuinely sincere in his desire to make Britain a generous nation where we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully.
But it was a bit rich to hear that the Prime Minister has told religious leaders that they should ‘stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation’ when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.
At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians’ right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity. According to a new ComRes poll more than two-thirds of Christians feel that they are part of a ‘persecuted minority’.
Their fears may be exaggerated because few in the UK are actually persecuted, but the Prime Minister has done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.
He seems to have forgotten in spite of his oft-repeated support for the right of Christians to wear the cross, that lawyers acting for the Coalition argued only months ago in the Strasbourg court that those sacked for wearing a cross against their employer’s wishes should simply get another job.
More shockingly, the Equalities Minister, Helen Grant, recently gave her support to the Labour MP Chris Bryant’s campaign to turn the 700-year-old Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi-faith prayer room so that gay couples can get married there. The Speaker of the House of Commons is reported to be supportive of the move.
Now, there are many questions that we need to ask. If this means the removal of Christian symbols from the chapel to accommodate all faiths and even humanist ceremonies this would amount to changing the chapel fundamentally, even to banishing the Christian faith from the seat of political power. This would have implications for Her Majesty, the Queen, and could place her in a very difficult position as the chapel is a Royal Peculiar under her direct patronage.
As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial.
By dividing marriage into religious and civil the Government threatens the church and state link which they purport to support. But they also threaten to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.
If this is not enough, the legislation fails to provide any protection for religious believers in employment who cannot subscribe to the new meaning of marriage. There will be no exemptions for believers who are registrars. They can expect to be sacked if they cannot, in all conscience, support same-sex marriage.
Strong legal opinion also suggests that Christian teachers, who are required to teach about marriage, may face disciplinary action if they cannot express agreement with the new politically-correct orthodoxy.
The danger I believe that the Government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom, is the alienation of a large minority of people who only a few years ago would have been considered pillars of society.
Today’s ComRes poll suggests that more than three-quarters of Christians believe that the Government is not listening. More than half of Christians who backed the Conservatives in 2010 say they will ‘definitely not’ vote for the party in 2015.
This continues the breakdown in trust between politicians and the people they serve.
Among these people are very many volunteers, school governors and public servants. In their churches they provide soup kitchens and advice centres, and many other valuable initiatives. They are the ‘big society’ which David Cameron was advocating until recently.
The Government risks entrenching a very damaging division in British society by driving law-abiding Christians into the ranks of the malcontents and alienated – of whom there are already far too many. 

Saturday, 2 March 2013

NO APOLOGY FOR MUTINY MASSACRE

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:
No apology for mutiny massacre
After reading that the Sikh community has criticised our Prime Minister for failure to apologise for the massacre of Indians in 1919 ("PM criticised over failure to apologise for India atrocity", Mercury, February 21) it made me think.
Did we ever receive an apology from India for the massacre of hundreds of English women and children during the Indian Mutiny in 1857.
They were hacked to death and thrown into a well at Cawnpore?
They were so ashamed that they have changed its name to Kanpur.
A Rudkin, Melton Mowbray

Thursday, 21 February 2013

PM CRITICISED OVER FAILURE TO APOLOGISE FOR INDIA ATROCITY

This article appears in today's Leicester Mercury:

PM criticised for failure to apologise over India atrocity
Prime Minister David Cameron's decision not to apologise for the massacre of hundreds of Indian people in 1919 by troops under the command of a senior officer in the British-Indian Army has been criticised by Leicester's Sikh community.
Ordered by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, the troops shot into a crowd of thousands of protesters, including women, children and elderly people until their ammunition ran out.
Mr Cameron visited the site of the shootings in Amritsar, northern India, yesterday, signing a book of condolence and laying a wreath at the spot of the slaughter.
The first British PM to do so, he described the atrocity as "a deeply shameful event in British history".
However, Mr Cameron stopped short of an official British apology, claiming it would not be right to "reach back into history and to seek out things that we should apologise for".
"I think the right thing to do is to acknowledge what happened, to recall what happened, to show respect and understanding," he said.
The decision has sparked debate as to whether he should have issued a formal apology to the people of India.
Raj Mann, of the Leicester Sikh Alliance, had two great-grandfathers who served as British officers in the British-Indian Army.
He said: "It's very positive he acknowledged the 1919 massacre as a shameful and indelible stain on Britain's colonial history, but it doesn't go far enough.
"He needs to look at compensation and reparations for the families of the victims and we're disappointed with the level of apology he's given."
Mr Cameron visited the holy Sikh city, in the state of Punjab, during a visit to India to encourage business links. Before visiting the massacre site, he toured Amritsar's Golden Temple, the holiest site in the Sikh religion.
"Some commentators have argued this was a trade visit and it would have been a cynical apology, but I don't agree – I don't think that's right," said Mr Mann. "He had the perfect opportunity."
Amandeep Rai, also a member of the Leicester Sikh Alliance, said: "It's mixed feelings, to be honest. Mr Cameron didn't have to go to Amritsar and make any kind of statement or sign the book. It was kind of a half-baked sentiment.
"I'm not saying bridge-building is required, just some acknowledgement in the form of an apology."
Rushey Mead councillor Culdipp Bhatti, a former Punjabi national, who had family in the British forces, said: "Sikh soldiers fought and died for a country they had never been to and this is the reward they get.
"I think the Sikh people deserve an apology."
Mr Cameron signed the book of condolence at a permanent plaque in the Jallianwala Bagh public gardens, where the massacre took place.
Mr Cameron wrote: "We must never forget what happened here, and in remembering we must ensure the UK stands up for the right of peaceful protest around the world."
An inquiry commissioned by the Raj colonial authorities found 379 people were killed, though this has been challenged by Indian sources, who put the death toll at 1,000 or more.

Thursday, 19 July 2012

PROMISE OVER FAITH SYMBOLS

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:
Promise over faith symbols
I am pleased that the Prime Minister said that the Government will back the right to display a symbol of faith in the workplace.
He also said that the Government will change the law if that is necessary so that employees can wear religious symbols at work.
The way Ms Nadia Eweida was treated by British Airways because she refused to hide or remove a necklace that had a cross on it was a disgrace.
Also, the story of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse, who was banned by the Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Trust from working on the wards because she refused to hide a necklace with a cross on it, was a disgrace.
They have taken their cases to the European Court of Human Rights and the cases will be heard at Strasbourg in September.
However, the Government's lawyers are resisting the appeal.It should be acceptable that people of all faiths should be allowed to wear symbols of faith in the workplace.
So I am hoping that the Prime Minister will stick to his promise.
Kevin Fletcher

Saturday, 3 March 2012

WRONG ABOUT SECULARISM

This letter appears in today's Leicester Mercury:
Wrong about secularism
I've often wondered what it is Baroness Warsi does – and it strikes me that she must have wondered herself.
Hence how readily she embraced her chance to fly the flag for Cameron's UK vision all the way to the Vatican, where, in her Valentine's Day speech, she said militant secularism "demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes."
This paranoid allying of secularism with totalitarianism was coupled with repeated reference to the Pope's state visit to Britain in 2010, and how successful and well received this was.
But she diplomatically avoided mention of the accompanying controversy and protest.
Moreover, she declined to pass judgment on instances of conflict between faith and public policy, genuflecting to someone who continues to evade the serious questions that she wouldn't dream of asking him.
It's not "aggressive secularism by stealth" the religious need fear, it's religious conservative authoritarians.
There were important matters to discuss with Vatican officials the following day: climate change, international aid, Somalia. This did yield a joint declaration calling for an "immediate end" to violence in Syria, which I imagine will make all the difference.
When Warsi says: "For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant", this exposes her ignorance of what secularism is.
She further misrepresents secularists as, "... the anti-religionists, the faith deniers... attempting to remove all trace of religion from culture, history and public discourse".
Secularism is not intolerant of any faith; but it rejects that privileged place, and automatic unqualified respect, that religious leaders and lobby groups carry in our political decision-making bodies.
Warsi has embarrassingly let down her country.
Lee Turnpenny, Southampton

Saturday, 18 February 2012

GOVERNMENT OPPOSITION TO SECULARISM SHOULD CONCERN US ALL

This story appears today on the website of the Huffington Post:
Government opposition to Secularism should concern us all
To call Britain a "Christian country" is only marginally more sensible than calling Italy a "Roman country" and it was appropriate that Baroness Warsi made her most recent rallying cry against secularism amongst all the archaic pomp of the Vatican state. As a simple factual statement the "Christian country" line is of course demonstrably false (the most recent British Social Attitudes Survey published at the end of last year put the proportion of Christians at 40% and falling) and as a historical claim it omits as much of our cultural past as it includes. But on this occasion it was not so much Christianity the Baroness had come to praise but secularism she had come to attack.
But it is not overweening secularism that is the UK's problem - it is continuing and entrenched privilege for Christianity and Christian churches, and the consequent efforts by other religious groups for privileges of their own.
It was especially surreal of the Baroness to accuse secularism of being "intolerant" and "illiberal". It is not secular schools in England that are allowed by law to discriminate against children on the basis of their parents' religious beliefs: it's the thousands of state-funded Christian schools and the handful of those run by other religions. It is not secular agencies that reserve employment opportunities for staff according to their beliefs, but the many Christian and other religious agencies who are increasingly having public services contracted to them by the state. It is not non-religious organisations which lobby for and have received special exemptions from laws - like equality laws - that should affect everyone equally. It's not the British Humanist Association that has unelected representatives as of right in our national legislature - it's the 26 bishops of the Church of England who are there.
These and many many other examples of religious privilege and continued official discrimination on grounds of religion or belief give the lie to Lady Warsi's oft-repeated smears. 
by would be good if we could dismiss her as just a minority of one but - at least in her views on this issue - she is far from isolated. Eric Pickles just last week jumped into the row about local councils not being able to include prayer on their formal agendas with the same anti-secularist gusto he has displayed on previous occasions. At the end of last year, David Cameron made his own extraordinary speech on Britain's status as a Christian country, a speech which provoked more astonished bemusement than outrage, with its self-evidently ahistorical and bizarre statements, and its improbable calls on us all to be confident in our Christian nature.
When they are so palpably out of kilter with reality, why do present day politicians keep saying these things?
The most hopeful political reading is that they don't really mean it and are just attempting to pacify the small but increasingly strident minority of Christian lobby groups who are seeking yet great influence in our public life and greater privilege for those with Christian beliefs. It would be a shame that politicians had bought into the crazy narrative of "christianophobia" that these lobby groups promote, but at least we could rest assured that it would just be political rhetoric and no practical harm would come of it.
More alarming is if Warsi, Pickles and Cameron are serious in their message. A government that tried to make Christianity and Christian beliefs the foundation of British values or a social morality would be building on seriously unstable and unshared foundations. Secularism is essentially a political strategy that says, in the context of a diverse society, the state should not discriminate in favour of or against any person because of their religious or non-religious beliefs. For a government to set itself against that principle is concerning, and the expansion of state-funded religious schools, contracting out of public services to religious groups, and official guarantees of Christian privilege in public life give increasing plausibility to this second interpretation of the politicians' words.
If the latter interpretation is the correct one, then politicians should remember that their approach is far from popular. In a 2006 IpsosMori poll, "religious groups and leaders" actually topped the list of domestic groups that people said had too much influence on government. In the research released yesterday by the Richard Dawkins foundation, over 90% of self-described Christians said they did not think religion should have special place in public policy. A majority of the public surveyed - including a majority of Christians - repeatedly say they are against new religious schools. Policies that pursue religious exceptionalism in defiance of demographic reality and public opinion can only cause division and dissent.

Andrew Copson is Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association. 

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

BRITAIN BEING OVERTAKEN BY "MILITANT SECULARISTS"

This article appears on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph:


Britain being overtaken by "militant secularists"
Tory Chairman Baroness Warsi says we should defend the role of religion in public life
British society is under threat from the rising tide of “militant secularisation” reminiscent of “totalitarian regimes”, a Cabinet minister will warn on Tuesday.
In an historic visit to the Vatican, Baroness Warsi will express her “fear” about the marginalisation of religion throughout Britain and Europe, saying that faith needs “a seat at the table in public life”.
In an article for The Daily Telegraph, the Cabinet Office minister says that to create a “more just society” Britons must “feel stronger in their religious identities”.
The minister, who is also chairman of the Conservative Party, says: “My fear today is that a militant secularisation is taking hold of our societies. We see it in any number of things: when signs of religion cannot be displayed or worn in government buildings; and where religion is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere.
“For me, one of the most worrying aspects about this militant secularisation is that at its core and in its instincts it is deeply intolerant. It demonstrates similar traits to totalitarian regimes – denying people the right to a religious identity because they were frightened of the concept of multiple identities.”
Baroness Warsi leads an unprecedented government delegation to the Vatican where she will be received by Pope Benedict for a private audience on Wednesday.
She will be the first foreign minister to deliver an address to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, which trains Papal diplomats, and the party will stay in the Santa Marta, an official residence in the Vatican for visiting cardinals.
The visit, to mark the 30th anniversary of the re-establishment of full diplomatic ties between Britain and the Vatican, follows the Pope’s successful visit to Britain in 2010 when he is said to have been impressed by the Government’s outspoken defence of the importance of religion in public life.
The speech represents one of the most strident defences of the importance of religion by a serving British minister. It comes days after the High Court ruled that local councils could not hold prayers during meetings. There have also been recent cases of public sector workers being banned from displaying Christian symbols at work.
David Cameron welcomed the visit. He said: “Our relationship with the Holy See is an important one and it speaks powerfully of the positive contribution faith can make to all societies.
“Sayeeda Warsi has consistently made the case for a deeper understanding of faith by the British Government so I am delighted that she will be taking this message to the Vatican personally.”
In the speech, Baroness Warsi, the country’s first female Muslim Cabinet minister, is expected to draw strongly on her background to illustrate the importance of religion. She grew up in a Northern mill town where Christian values were important during her youth. The minister has decided to send her own daughter to a Christian school.
The Conservative chairman will say that Christianity is a vital part of British life and warns of the dangers of eroding its importance.
“You cannot extract Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can erase the spires from our landscape,” she will say in her speech.
“I see a great danger to this confident affirmation of religion today. It is what the Holy Father called the 'increasing marginalisation of religion’ during his speech in Westminster Hall. I see it in the United Kingdom and I see it in Europe. Spirituality, suppressed. Divinity, downgraded.
“Where, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, faith is looked down as the hobby of 'oddities, foreigners and minorities’. Where religion is dismissed as an eccentricity because it’s infused with tradition.”
However, Baroness Warsi will call for a more robust discussion between people of different faiths. She says that faith has a “key role” in bridging divides. She will say: “Interfaith dialogue works when we debate our differences, when we wear our beliefs on our sleeves. It’s not about you giving your version of God, and me giving my version of God. And us coming to some watered-down compromise.”
In her speech, the peer will urge that European countries need to be “more confident” about the role of Christianity.
“Our continent needs the zeal of a convert,” she will say. “Not from discovering something new but rediscovering something which has underpinned our civilisations for centuries.”
Last year, the Prime Minister made a flagship speech on the importance of faith. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury has been highly critical of some aspects of Coalition policy, particularly government cuts, prompting criticism by some ministers.
In her article for The Daily Telegraph, Baroness Warsi makes it clear she is not calling for religious leaders to have the final say on government and social matters.
She says: “I am not calling for some kind of 21st century theocracy. Religious faith and its followers do not have the only answer. There will be times when politicians and faith leaders will disagree. What is more, secularism is not intrinsically damaging. My concern is when secularisation is pushed to an extreme, when it requires the complete removal of faith from the public sphere.
“I am calling for a more open confidence in faith, where faith has a place at the table, though not an exclusive position.”
Seven ministers including Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland Secretary and Michael Moore, the Scottish Secretary, travel to the Vatican on Tuesday. They will be joined by the Archbishop of Westminster. They will meet Holy See officials on Wednesday to discuss issues including human rights and international development.
The delegation will then be received by Pope Benedict XVI — an honour not normally accorded those who are not heads of state or government.
It comes as a report conducted for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) suggested that almost three quarters (74 per cent) of Christians polled agreed that religion should not influence public policy, while only about one in eight (12 per cent) thought it should, the survey found.
It also found that 92 per cent of Christians agreed the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their personal religious beliefs.
Just over a quarter (26 per cent) said they completely believed in the power of prayer, with more than one in five (21 per cent) saying they either did not really believe in it or did not believe in it at all.
Almost half (49 per cent) had not attended a church service in the previous 12 months, apart from on occasions such as weddings, funerals and baptisms.

Thursday, 29 December 2011

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 

Monday, 26 December 2011

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.

Friday, 16 December 2011

PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH RE KING JAMES BIBLE


Here's the full text of a speech given by Prime Minister David Cameron Oxford's Christ Church Cathedral today, commemorating the version's 400th anniversary.

This text is taken from the official site of the British Prime Minister's Office. I've fiddled with the punctuation a little, without changing the meaning of course. On the No. 10 website the text is laid out in a very bitty style (e.g. with pauses indicated) which makes it a little harder to read on screen.

I've collected a few of the responses to the speech which have been published online at the foot of this entry, after the speech itself.
It’s great to be here and to have this opportunity to come together today to mark the end of this very special 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible.
I know there are some who will question why I am giving this speech.
And if they happen to know that I’m setting out my views today in a former home of the current Archbishop of Canterbury and in front of many great theologians and church leaders they really will think I have entered the lions’ den.
But I am proud to stand here and celebrate the achievements of the King James Bible.
Not as some great Christian on a mission to convert the world.
But because, as Prime Minister, it is right to recognise the impact of a translation that is, I believe, one of this country’s greatest achievements. 
The Bible is a book that has not just shaped our country, but shaped the world.
And with three Bibles sold or given away every second, a book that is not just important in understanding our past, but which will continue to have a profound impact in shaping our collective future.
In making this speech I claim no religious authority whatsoever.
I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues.
But what I do believe is this.
The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history.
And none of us should be frightened of recognising this.
Why?
Put simply, three reasons.
First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art.
We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it.
And it is right that we should acknowledge this – particularly in this anniversary year.
Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.
From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects the Bible has been a spur to action for people of faith throughout history, and it remains so today. 
Third, we are a Christian country.  
And we should not be afraid to say so.
Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith – or no faith – is somehow wrong.
I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion. 
And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger.
But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.
Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.
The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option.
You can’t fight something with nothing. 
Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything. 
Let me take each of these points in turn.
First, language and culture.
Powerful language is incredibly evocative. 
It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate.
Part of the glue that can help to bind us together.
Along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible is a high point of the English language creating arresting phrases that move, challenge and inspire.
One of my favourites is the line “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” 
It is a brilliant summation of the profound sense that there is more to life, that we are imperfect, that we get things wrong, that we should strive to see beyond our own perspective. 
The key word is darkly – profoundly loaded, with many shades of meaning.
I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations.
The New International Version says: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror”
The Good News Bible: “What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror”
They feel not just a bit less special but dry and cold, and don’t quite have the same magic and meaning. 
Like Shakespeare, the King James translation dates from a period when the written word was intended to be read aloud.
And this helps to give it a poetic power and sheer resonance that in my view is not matched by any subsequent translation.
It has also contributed immensely to the spread of spoken English around the world.
Indeed, the language of the King James Bible is very much alive today.
I’ve already mentioned the lions’ den.
Just think about some of the other things we all say. 
Phrases like strength to strength… how the mighty are fallen… the skin of my teeth… the salt of the earth… nothing new under the sun.
According to one recent study there are 257 of these phrases and idioms that come from the Bible.
These phrases are all around us from court cases to TV sitcoms and from recipe books to pop music lyrics.
Of course, there is a healthy debate about the extent to which it was the King James version that originated the many phrases in our language today.
And it’s right to recognise the impact of earlier versions like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Douai-Rheims, the Bishops and Geneva Bibles too.
The King James Bible does exactly that setting out with the stated aim of making a good translation better, or out of many good ones, to make “one principall good one”.
But what is clear is that the King James version gave the Bible’s many expressions a much more widespread public presence.
Much of that dissemination has come through our literature, through the great speeches we remember and the art and music we still enjoy today.
From Milton to Morrison and Coleridge to Cormac McCarthy the Bible supports the plot, context, language and sometimes even the characters in some of our greatest literature.
Tennyson makes over 400 Biblical references in his poems and makes allusions to 42 different books of the Bible.
The Bible has infused some of the greatest speeches from Martin Luther King’s dream that Isaiah’s prophecy would be fulfilled and that one day “every valley shall be exalted” to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address which employed not just Biblical words but cadence and rhythms borrowed from the King James Bible as well.
When Lincoln said that his forefathers “brought forth” a new nation, he was imitating the way in which the Bible announced the birth of Jesus.
The Bible also runs through our art.
From Giotto to El Greco and Michelangelo to Stanley Spencer.
The paintings in Sandham Memorial Chapel in Berkshire are some of my favourite works of art.
Those who died in Salonika rising to heaven is religious art in the modern age and, in my view, as powerful as some of what has come before.
And the Bible runs through our music too. From the great oratorios like J S Bach’s Matthew and John Passions and Handel’s Messiah to the wealth of music written across the ages for mass and evensong in great cathedrals like this one.
The Biblical settings of composers from Tallis to Taverner are regularly celebrated here in this great cathedral and will sustain our great British tradition of choral music for generations to come.
It’s impossible to do justice in a short speech to the full scale of the cultural impact of the King James Bible.
But what is clear is that four hundred years on, this book is still absolutely pivotal to our language and culture.
And that’s one very good reason for us all to recognise it today.
A second reason is this.
Just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.
The Bible runs through our political history in a way that is often not properly recognised. 
The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Bible in which Kings were anointed and sanctified with the authority of God and in which there was a clear emphasis on the respect for Royal Power and the need to maintain political order.
Jesus said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
And yet at the same time, the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible also provide the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy.
The Torah placed the first limits on Royal Power.
And the knowledge that God created man in his own image was, if you like, a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality.
In the ancient world this equity was inconceivable.
In Athens for example, full and equal rights were the preserve of adult, free born men.
But when each and every individual is related to a power above all of us and when every human being is of equal and infinite importance, created in the very image of God we get the irrepressible foundation for equality and human rights, a foundation that has seen the Bible at the forefront of the emergence of democracy, the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of women – even if not every church has always got the point!
Crucially the translation of the Bible into English made all this accessible to many who had previously been unable to comprehend the Latin versions. 
And this created an unrelenting desire for change.
The Putney debates in the Church of St Mary the Virgin in 1647 saw the first call for One Man, One vote and the demand that authority be invested in the House of Commons rather than the King.
Reading the Bible in English gave people equality with each other through God.
And this led them to seek equality with each other through government. 
In a similar way, the Bible provides a defining influence on the formation of the first welfare state.
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus says that whatever people have done “unto one of the least of these my brethren” they have done unto him.
Just as in the past it was the influence of the church that enabled hospitals to be built, charities created, the hungry fed, the sick nursed and the poor given shelter so today faith based groups are at the heart of modern social action.
Organisations like the Church Urban Fund which has supported over 5,000 faith based projects in England’s poorest communities including the Near Neighbours Programme which Eric Pickles helped to launch last month.
And St Ethelburga’s Centre for Reconciliation and Peace in London’s Bishopsgate a building once destroyed by an IRA bomb but now a centre where people divided by conflict, culture or religion can meet and listen to each other’s perspective.
In total, there are almost 30,000 faith based charities in this country not to mention the thousands of people who step forward as individuals, as families, as communities, as organisations and yes, as churches and do extraordinary things to help build a bigger, richer, stronger, more prosperous and more generous society.
And when it comes to the great humanitarian crises – like the famine in Horn of Africa – again you can count on faith-based organisations like Christian Aid, Tearfund, CAFOD, Jewish Care, Islamic Relief, and Muslim Aid to be at the forefront of the action to save lives.
So it’s right to recognise the huge contribution our faith communities make to our politics. and to recognise the role of the Bible in inspiring many of their works.
People often say that politicians shouldn’t “do God.”
If by that they mean we shouldn’t try to claim a direct line to God for one particular political party they could not be more right. 
But we shouldn’t let our caution about that stand in the way of recognising both what our faith communities bring to our country and also just how incredibly important faith is to so many people in Britain. 
The Economist may have published the obituary of God in their Millennium issue.
But in the past century, the proportion of people in the world who adhere to the four biggest religions has actually increased from around two-thirds to nearly three quarters and is forecast to continue rising.
For example, it is now thought there are at least 65 million protestants in China and 12 million Catholics – more Christians than there are members of the communist party. 
Official numbers indicate China has about 20 million Muslims – almost as many as in Saudi Arabia – and nearly twice as many as in the whole of the EU.
And by 2050, some people think China could well be both the world’s biggest Christian nation and its biggest Muslim one too.
Here in Britain we only have to look at the reaction to the Pope’s visit last year this year’s Royal Wedding or of course the festival of Christmas next week, to see that Christianity is alive and well in our country. 
The key point is this.
Societies do not necessarily become more secular with modernity but rather more plural, with a wider range of beliefs and commitments.
And that brings me to my third point.
The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country.
Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.”
Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love, pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities … these are the values we treasure. 
Yes, they are Christian values.
And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that.
But they are also values that speak to us all – to people of every faith and none. 
And I believe we should all stand up and defend them.
Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality.
They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths.
And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour.
I think these arguments are profoundly wrong.
And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people, what we stand for and the kind of society we want to build. 
First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths simply don’t understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity.
Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France.
Why?
Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too. 
And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.
Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code.
Let’s be clear.
Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality.
There are Christians who don’t live by a moral code.
And there are atheists and agnostics who do.
But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction.
And whether inspired by faith or not – that direction, that moral code, matters.
Whether you look at the riots last summer, the financial crash and the expenses scandal or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world, one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn’t going to cut it any more.
Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots.
The absence of any real accountability, or moral code allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society.
And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes.
Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong.
“Live and let live” has too often become “do what you please”.
Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles.
To be confident in saying something is wrong is not a sign of weakness, it’s a strength.
But we can’t fight something with nothing. 
As I’ve said if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything. 
One of the biggest lessons of the riots last Summer is that we’ve got stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations.
The same is true of religious extremism.
As President Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope: “in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning.”
Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism.
A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone.
It stands neutral between different values. 
But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them.
We need to stand up for these values.
To have the confidence to say to people – this is what defines us as a society and that to belong here is to believe in these things.
I believe the church – and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain – have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this.
I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics.
To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions.
So I don’t think we should be shy or frightened of this.
I certainly don’t object to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his views on politics.
Religion has a moral basis and if he doesn’t agree with something he’s right to say so.
But just as it is legitimate for religious leaders to make political comments, he shouldn’t be surprised when I respond.
Also it’s legitimate for political leaders to say something about religious institutions as they see them affecting our society, not least in the vital areas of equality and tolerance.
I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities.
But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country.
The future of our country is at a pivotal moment. 
The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way. 

Some responses to the Prime Minster's speech (tehre are loads more - you'll be able to find them yourself without too much trouble, faithful reader):