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.

profile of the non-religious

To Secular Hall, Humberstone Gate this evening, for a talk sponsored and hosted by Leicester Secular Society: "Profile of the Non-Religious" by Prof David Voas (photo above). Prof. Voas is Simon Professor of Population Studies at the Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester.

His theme this evening is "Who are the 'non-religious' in Britain and where do they come from?" His presentation is based on statistics obtained from the 2001 Census and from the British Social Attitudes survey. Consequently, he takes into account how factors such as age, education, ethnicity, gender, marital status, political affiliation, social attitude affect or reflect whether (and to what extent) individuals, families and groups are or are not "religious". Several of these aspects of personal and social identity seem to have unexpected and intriguing implications on this topic. He also looks at geographical breakdown of religious and non-religious respondents to these questionnaires. Apparently, Aberdeen has the biggest percentage of its population who declare themselves to be "non-religious" (but the census question in Scotland was slightly different from the in England and Wales and allowed one to identify oneself as "non-religious" more easily).

The presentations contains some interesting definitions of what it means to be "religious" and "non-religious", which will be of interest here. We're asked to consider whether religious identity comprises on dimension or many and depends on the nature of the question being asked. A question such as "Would you say that you think of yourself as a religious person?" is different from a tick-box exercise. Definitions and typologies are justified by utility, although the real goal of this kind of investigation is to understand the world. It may not matter a jot in the end where we locate someone (or where they locate themselves) on such a scale. We learn about "strong" and "weak" forms of being religious and non-religious:

• attendance at services or prayers
• participation in religious rites of passage
• belief in God (with varying degrees of certitude or doubt)
• identifying with, or accepting affiliation, to a particular religion
• attitudes to religion range from hostility to indifference to support.

We also discuss distinctions between "secularity" (which is a descriptive term related to the absence of religious motivation or content) and "Secularism" (with a capital "S", being a particular ideology actively opposed to religious privilege).

From a personal point of view, I become more aware of  the difference between how the definitions of "religious" and "non-religious" are treated in England and in Scotland. For example, those who ticked "other religion" in the 2001 Census and wrote in "Jedi Knight" in England were put into the category of "no religion", while those who did the same in Scotland were classified as "another religion" alongside more recognised minority faith communities.

Dr Voas's conclusion this evening? That Britons are becoming secular without quite knowing it or knowing quite what it means.

Find out more about Prof. David Voas and his work:

http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/voas.html

Find out more about Leicester Secular Society (the oldest secular society in the world - formed 1851):

http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/