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
Cllr Sundip Meghani's First Person column appears in today's Leicester Mercury:
Our heritage is slowly being chipped away
Councillor Sundip Meghani considers the controversial issue of public prayers
Earlier this month the High Court ruled that a town council in Devon had acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said at council meetings. These are the same kind of prayers incidentally that routinely take place in the council chamber here in Leicester and in the House of Commons.
As a lawyer I can see how this decision came about but as a councillor and as a person of faith I was disappointed with the judgment.
In terms of the legal aspects, I understand that Bideford Town Council is planning to appeal against the outcome of the judicial review, which had originally been brought by the National Secular Society.
I also understand the Government has fast-tracked a new statutory power to allow councils to circumvent the ruling in the interim.Whatever the end result it is fair to say that this case has certainly ignited a great deal of public debate, with Baroness Warsi, Richard Dawkins, the Queen and Polly Toynbee – to name but a few big hitters – all recently weighing in with their views on religion.
I can certainly appreciate the strength of feeling on both sides, particularly as we live in a country that is officially neither secular nor religious.
On the one hand our head of state is also the head of the Church of England and Bishops in the House of Lords influence the legislative process. On the other hand Parliament is supreme and the rule of law applies equally to all, irrespective of faith.
Since my election in 2011 I have attended every meeting of the Leicester City Council and I have observed prayers at the start of each of those meetings.
To his credit, every time the Lord Mayor has called upon his chaplain to lead the prayers, it has always felt to me as if the Lord Mayor was simply inviting councillors to participate, rather than insisting that they do so.
I believe that the rule of law should always take precedence over religion because that is the safest and fairest way to guarantee equality for all.
However, I also believe that expressions of faith in public life are a good thing, and that elected representatives should be free to publicly express a belief in God, and even ask for guidance in their work.
I cannot help but feel that this harmless tradition of prayers at council meetings has been hijacked, so as to try and open a new front in the on-going war of attrition between – and I'll choose my words carefully here – the "very religious" and the "very non-religious". Sadly that leaves those of us in the moderate majority stuck in the middle as yet another part of our nation's heritage is steadily chipped away.
Sundip Meghani is a Labour and Co-operative councillor for Beaumont Leys.
This story appears today on the National Secular Society website: Council prayers unlawful rules High Court
The High Court today ruled that "The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue". The judgement follows a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society.
The judgement follows a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society to challenge the practice of prayers as part of the formal business of council meetings in Bideford Town Council (Devon).
The ruling will apply to the formal meetings of all councils in England and Wales, the majority of which are thought to conduct prayers as part of their meetings. It does not, contrary to a recent report, extend more widely to "the role religious worship plays in public places", for example remembrance services, or councilors voluntarily attending them.
In passing judgement, the Head of the Administrative Court, Mr Justice Ouseley, directed: "I do not think the 1972 Act [...] should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude, or even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected councillors".
Commenting on the judgment, Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society said:
"Acts of worship in council meetings are key to the separation of religion from politics, so we're very pleased with the judgement, and the clear secular message it sends - particularly the statement made about the 1972 Act (quoted in the preceding paragraph).
"We believe that council meetings should be conducted in a manner equally welcoming to all councillors, regardless of their religious beliefs, or indeed, lack of belief.
"The NSS is not seeking to deprive those who wish to pray the opportunity to do so; indeed, we fight to retain freedom of religion and belief. The judgement clearly states that religious freedoms are not hindered, as councillors who wish to do so are free to say prayers before council meetings.
"Our interest in this issue was prompted by a complaint from a Bideford Town Councillor, Clive Bone, who felt uncomfortable at having to sit through prayers, homilies and requests for divine guidance while carrying out his formal duties as an elected councillor. The only alternative to this discomfort was to walk out, unbidden by the mayor, which would look discourteous to those in the public gallery.
"We sought the Judicial Review only after Bideford had rejected compromises made by (now former) Councillor Bone and the NSS for prayers before the meeting, or a period of silence during the meeting. Bideford had also rejected legal advice from the National Association of Local Government and our lawyers that the practice could be unlawful. If Bideford had agreed to cease their practice of (Christian) prayers during the meetings, there would have been no basis for this action. Bideford was indemnified from costs and supported by the Christian Institute. There was no question of prosecuting councillors.
"The judgement echoed an admirably secular passage in the judgment by LJ Laws in McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd (2010), which a number of equality cases have also cited: 'The precepts of any one religion, and belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of another. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.'"
Prayers have been the cause of tension in a number of local councils. When Portsmouth Council allowed a Muslim Imam to say a prayer, one Christian councillor walked out of the meeting, later saying "I do not believe we are praying to the same god". Meanwhile, councillors in Shropshire called a fellow councillor "disgusting" when he wore headphones during prayers.
Putting the judgment in a wider context, Mr Porteous Wood added: "This judgment is an important victory for everyone who wants a secular society, one that neither advantages nor disadvantages people because of their religion or lack of it. This is particularly important for activities which are part of public life, such as council meetings.
"There is no longer a respectable argument that Britain is a solely Christian nation or even a religious one. An increasing proportion of people are not practising any religion and minority faiths are growing in number and influence. This underlines the need for shared civic spaces to be secular and available to all, believers and non-believers alike, on an equal basis."
The defendant has requested permission to appeal.
Court bans prayers at formal council meetings
The saying of prayers as a ‘formal’ part of local council meetings has been ruled unlawful by the High Court today in an extraordinary judgment.
The judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, said there is no law that gives councils the power to do so.
But critics hit back, saying the ruling also means a council has no power to formally start its meetings with the national anthem.
In December the head of the Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips, said he ‘dropped his coffee’ when he heard the case was being taken to court, calling it “nonsense on stilts”.
Today’s ruling only affects the formal meetings of local government, and does not stop councils from holding prayers outside of that setting if they wish to do so.
And the court rejected claims that the saying of prayers discriminates against, or breaches the human rights of, secularists.
The practice of saying prayers at Bideford Town Council meetings is understood to date back to the days of Queen Elizabeth the First.
The Council has, recently, twice voted in support of continuing with the prayers.
Individual councillors were free to not take part in the prayers if they wished, and the register of attendance was not taken until after the prayers had finished.
Nevertheless, a court case was brought by the National Secular Society and a secularist former councillor, Mr Clive Bone, against Bideford Town Council.
The claimants’ legal case rested on three arguments: that the prayers were discriminatory against atheist councillors, the prayers were a breach of human rights laws, and that the council had no lawful authority to hold prayers as part of its formal meetings.
The judge rejected the first two arguments, but ruled: “The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue.”
The Act does allow councils to do anything that “facilitates, or is conducive or is incidental” to a council’s functions, but Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the saying of prayers at formal meetings does not fall within that provision.
If councillors are not compelled to pray, the judge reasoned, then prayers cannot be an essential part of a council’s functions and therefore should not be part of the formal council meeting.
The decision was criticised by The Christian Institute – a national charity that defends religious liberty and underwrote Bideford Council’s legal costs.
Institute spokesman Simon Calvert said: “We welcome the finding that the saying of prayers isn’t discriminatory, or a breach of equality laws, or human rights laws.
“But it is extraordinary to rule that councils have no lawful authority to choose, if they so wish, to start their formal meetings with prayers. That is simply wrong.
“The logic of the ruling is that councils would also be going beyond the law if they took a vote and decided to start each formal council meeting with the national anthem.
“There is no way that Parliament, when it passed the Local Government Act 40 years ago, intended it to be used to outlaw prayers.
“This case was brought by a campaign group that wants to drive Christianity out of public life, and the High Court has today given them great encouragement to take matters further.
“It is high time Parliament put a stop to this assault upon our national heritage. What’s next? Will prayers at the cenotaph end up in court?
“What about local councils that wish to formally mark the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee as part of their official meeting? Is that now unlawful too?”
This has been posted today on the website of Pink News, Europe's largest gay news service.
National Secular Society will advise in religious vs gay rights cases
The National Secular Society has been granted permission to intervene in four religious rights cases due to come before the European Court of Human Rights.
The body will submit legal arguments in four cases where plaintiffs are appealing against UK court decisions – two of which involve Christian employees who refused to provide services to gay people.
The other two concern workers who were barred from wearing religious symbols.
Keith Porteous Wood, the executive director of the NSS, said his organisation would focus on legal arguments, rather than expressing opinions on the cases.
In the past, the NSS has praised judgements in the case of one of the plaintiffs, Islington registrar Lillian Ladele, who said her Christian faith meant she could not carry our civil partnerships.
Mr Porteous Wood said: “These four cases have a major bearing on the extent to which employees’ manifestation of their religion can impinge on others. We want to make sure that the European court considers all aspects of the relevant law.
“The NSS submission will deal with the implications for equal treatment that would be raised by the granting of greater protection to actions motivated by religious belief than is granted to actions motivated by fundamental beliefs that happen to be non-religious in nature.
“The NSS will further focus on the degree of protection which it is necessary under the convention to afford third parties who may be subjected to a detriment which is motivated by, or a manifestation of, a religious belief.
We will also deal with the significance of a religiously neutral public space for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
“Finally, we will address the nature of the limitations prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of the protection of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has also applied to intervene in the four cases, which are likely to be heard together.
The commission stated last month that it believes ‘reasonable adjustments’ could be made for such employees in the same way that disabled people are accommodated in the workplace. This could mean allowing anti-gay Christian workers to swap shifts to avoid gay people.
After strong criticism from Stonewall, Peter Tatchell, trade unions and some MPs, the body appears to have decided not to argue for ‘reasonable adjustments’.
Former Stonewall chief executive Angela Mason, who is the body’s only LGBT commissioner, said this week that the EHRC had come to a “preliminary view” on the matter.
In response to emails from concerned PinkNews.co.uk readers, she wrote: “The commission has already decided not to put forward ‘reasonable adjustment’ arguments if we do continue with our intervention.”
Council prayers face High Court hearing
A High Court date is expected to be set within weeks whether councils should say prayers before meetings.
The National Secular Society says it is concerned that many local councils start their meetings with Christian prayers.
Papers were lodged at the High Court last year for a judicial review. A hearing date is imminent.
Last month newly-elected city Lord Mayor Rob Wann decided to reintroduce prayers before monthly full council meetings after previous office-holder Colin Hall stopped the practice.
A Leicester City Council spokesperson said: "There is a long tradition of the sitting Lord Mayor choosing whether or not to have prayers at the start of a council meeting and that we see no reason why that should not continue."
A Leicestershire County Council spokesman said: "We're aware of the issues surrounding council prayers and for this reason, lead a short, multi-faith prayer before council meetings which was introduced in 1974."
A secular society spokesman said: "If some council members wish to pray, we think that should be a private matter for themselves and there is no problem with them doing so before council meetings."
Having read the article, "Humanist census posters banned from railway stations" in today's Guardian (and having posted that article here earlier today) I see this piece in today's Leicester Mercury with what might be considered the local response. As I mentioned in the earlier post, I was sorry to see that the British Humanist Association has bowed to pressure and was changing the wording on its Census campaign posters. Trust Leicester to stick to its guns!
Leicester Secular Society refuses to leave God out of campaign
By Peter Reeve
Leicester Secular Society today vowed to continue its poster campaign on census responses to religion – despite warnings the wording could be offensive.
Buses in Leicester have been carrying the society's posters with the slogan: "If you're not religious, for God's sake say so."
The society wants non-believers to tick the "no religion" box on this year's census.
But the British Humanist Association (BHA), which had planned to use the same slogan for a national poster campaign, said it had been forced to change the wording.
It was told by the Committee of Advertising Practice that the original wording had the potential to cause widespread and serious offence.
As a result, the British Humanist Society posters – which will be displayed on more than 200 buses in London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham, Cardiff and Exeter – will now carry the slogan: "Not religious? In this year's census, say so."
Dr Emma Chung, president of the Leicester Secular Society, said they would be continuing with their poster campaign, despite the CAP's recommendation.
The society also intends handing out British Humanist Society leaflets with the original "for God's sake" slogan on them.
Dr Chung said: "Buses in Leicester have been carrying these ads for nearly two weeks with no complaints from the public.
"Our advertisements are intended to be a humorous way of drawing people's attention to a serious issue.
"Leicester has a well-earned reputation for tolerance and I am sure that apart from a few zealots, the majority of religious people have a sense of humour."
Dr Chung says that during the 2001 census, many people felt compelled to answer "Christian" when it came to their religious belief, either out of habit or because they felt they ought to.
But she says doing so leads to inaccurate figures, which are then used to justify policies that "do not reflect the real demographics of our society".
Andrew Copson, BHA chief executive, said: "This censorship of a legitimate advert is frustrating and ridiculous.
"The blasphemy laws in England have been abolished but we are seeing the same principle being enforced nonetheless."
But the CAP insisted it had not banned the British Humanist Association from using the "for God's sake" slogan, merely given it advice.
A spokesman said: "Leicester Secular Society, just like the British Humanist Association, are not duty-bound to take our advice.
"We may or may not investigate if we get any complaints about Leicester Secular Society's poster campaign, but at this stage we have not received any complaints."
The British Humanist Association is a national charity which champions atheists and agnostics.
Its work is based on improving human welfare, happiness and fulfilment.
The National Secular Society is a pressure group which fights for the rights of atheists and agnostics.
I was wondering why Leicester didn't appear in the list of cities where buses would be carrying posters with the amended wording. Now I know. Although, as a regular bus passenger (at least twice a day) I've yet to see one of these posters inside or on the outside of a bus in Leicester. As soon as I do, faithful reader, I'll let you know of course.
Religion - not an obsession but the truth
The Bishop of Leicester explores the importance of the Christmas message for our society
This week the National Secular Society has accused the BBC of being "obsessed with religion". I think they are objecting to the invitation to the Pope to give the Thought for the Day on Radio 4's Today Programme which was broadcast this morning on Christmas Eve. They might also be objecting to the decision to run the Nativity series on BBC TV in the prime slot at 7pm each day this week. I wonder why it is thought to be obsessive for our major national broadcasting institution to be helping the nation to understand what Christmas celebration is all about. Recently a shocking statistic demonstrated that only a small percentage of our young people even knew the story of Christmas. Have we gained anything from losing our hold on the story which makes sense of this mid-winter celebration?
This week our city council has decided to press ahead with an election for a Mayor of Leicester. Hidden in all our preparations for holiday-making and partying comes a solid piece of political news.
Are these two completely disconnected worlds? Do politics and Christmas have anything to do with each other? In one of the great Bible readings from our Carol Services this year come these words from the Prophet Isaiah: "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon His shoulders; and He is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
The Christmas story tells us that God comes to us as a human being.
And that all of us stand under His authority and judgement, even politicians, even the most powerful people in the world. That truth is right at the heart of how we understand ourselves as a nation. It is acted out in the Coronation Service when the Queen places the sword of state on the altar of Westminster Abbey – acknowledging a higher authority than her own.
The Pope, speaking in Westminster Hall earlier this year, acknowledged that the voice of the Church of England in this country has helped to create a Britain that has fought against the most secular evils of the 20th century, by holding our politicians to account.
The celebrations we all share in are not based on a fairy story of long ago and far away. But upon a real story of a real truth about the real world. God comes to us in Jesus. He comes today and everyday. And He comes to reveal to us that the way to peace, justice and prosperity is by means of the law of love. This is not an obsession, but a truth.
A very happy Christmas to you all.
Ahead of the visit to the UK of Pope Benedict next week, today's Guardian contains an interesting article about how religious adherence is measured.
A nation of fuzzy doubters
"People cling to the idea of religion as a source of morality," says Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society. "There is general apathy: people don't want to make a fuss."
Many Britons have at best a shallow belief in God: the most recent British Social Attitudes survey found that just a third of the population held firm religious beliefs, with another third deeply sceptical and the final third uncertain.
[...]
"People prefer to talk about spirituality rather than religion, which can mean anything you want it to," says Sanderson.
[...]
According to demographer David Voas at Manchester University: "The part of the population that is properly religious is a minority, but so is that part which is overtly secular. In the middle is an informal group of fuzzy people who don't really care."
Britain is not, as some think, the most secular nation in Europe; it is less so than Scandinavia and parts of the former Soviet bloc.
Migrant communities are the most committed - even long-standing ones, such as the Irish Catholics who dominate what Voas calls "the British bible belt running from Merseyside to Wigan pier."
Most other people are less engaged, although measuring belief is difficult and the data conflicting.
Much depends on how questions are asked and whether they refer to broad social identity or practical belief.
The census, which records the highest level of religious belief, assumes people are adherents of one religion or another and actively asks them to choose from a list.
In 2001, more than two-thirds selected Christian and well under a fifth no religion. that, says Voas, overstates the reality of British religious belief. Asked to choose Christian rather than Muslim or Hindu, people see it as an ethnic identity. Voas argues that the British Social Attitudes survey, which found over half the population holding no strong religious views, is a better measure.
Other polls go further. In a 2006 Guardian/ICM poll only 33% described themselves as religious, against 69% who said they were not - including a majority who described themselves as culturally Christian.
Women and older people were more likely than average to believe in a god, but overall only 13% said they went to a place of worship at least once a week. More people saw religion as a force for harm than for good.
That suggests a country where religion is on the retreat. "There is a huge change - the trend is toward secularism," says Sanderson.
Others, pointing to the impact of migration, from Catholic Poland as well as the Indian subcontinent, are less sure.
The country's religious makeup is fragmenting as the Church of England declines. "It is not the case that Britain is getting more religious," says Voas.
