Loving religion, til China and Europe meet

   I don't think I need apologise to Auden for the above, because loving religion, or even God, in the way that so many of us do is not that far off loving a person. Although in another century, it was only a few years back that he wrote 'As I Walked Out One Evening.' And besides, the poet is dead, since 1973. Back then, it must have seemed impossible even that China and Africa should ever meet, never mind Europe. Yet now, almost religion-like, we have these new virtual realities of which this blog is one beneficiary transcending the physical and geographical boundaries of the past. So what happens in the Anglican Church in Africa is helping determine the future shape of the Church of England and the whole Anglican Communion. And it has taken our living, loving, religious poet of the present, the Archbishop of Canterbury, himself intellectually resplendent in the ancient ascetics of the Fathers, to point us to the paradox of a Western society driving itself towards mindless secularism while China herself turns back and contemplates capitalising on the social benefits of religion.

In a nutshell, the Archbishop has in an article in our paper warned politicians not to interfere in a Muslim woman’s right to wear the veil in public and has criticised the march towards secularism in British society. Dr Williams, who is backed by other senior church leaders, said the Government must not become a ‘licensing authority’ that decides which religious symbols are  acceptable, adding that any ban on the veil would be “politically dangerous”. His comments reflect concern within the church that some in Government wish to see Britain go down the same route as France, where secularism is close to being a national religion.

"The ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen – no crosses round necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils – is a politically dangerous one," he says. "It assumes that what comes first in society is the central political ‘licensing authority’, which has all the resource it needs to create a workable public morality."

His comments come as it emerged that the education secretary Alan Johnson had bowed to the pressure of the Catholics, Jews and Muslims by dropping plans to force all new faith schools to take a quarter of non-faith pupils. The Education Secretary made the concession after receiving assurences from both the Church of England and the Catholic church that they would accept non-faith pupils. Many in the church had regarded the move as a first step towards secularisation.

Bishops in the Church of England have long regarded their role in public life, and their privilege of having 26 seats in the House of Lords, as giving them an obligation to speak out in defence of other faiths as well as their own. The Archbishop's comments were made with the backing of at least two senior diocesan bishops.

The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, said: "The Archbishop brings a helpful perspective to recent disputes concerning religious symbols. Religious symbols add to the richness of our society and we should not be too influenced by those who push such symbols to excess."

The Right Rev Colin Buchanan, retired Bishop of Woolwich who is now an assistant bishop in the Bradford diocese, which has one of the highest proportions of Muslims of any diocese, added that any attempt to ban religious symbols would open "not just a can but an entire barrel of worms."

Dr Williams, who has just returned from a controversial trip two-week visit China, the world's largest atheist state, said a "proverbial visitor from Mars" might have imagined from recent events that "the greatest immediate threat to British society was religious war."

He said this appeared to have led some to question whether Britain should "become a secular society". But this would be a mistake, he said. "Here in the UK, the daily reality of faith in ordinary communities is bound up with the maintenance of civil society, with enabling citizens to ask constructively critical questions of the state and to co-operate with statutory bodies to meet urgent needs. We could do with some common sense and realism about this."

He also said: "Up to now, we have taken for granted that the state is not the source of morality and legitimacy but a system that brokers, mediates and attempts to co-ordinate the moral resources of specific communities which make up the national unit. This is a 'secular' system in the sense that it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body; but it is not secular in the sense of giving some kind of privilege to a non-religious or anti-religious set of commitments or policies. Moving towards the latter would change our political culture more radically than we imagine."

Secularists warned that the Archbishop was misguided. Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, said: "The way we are going in this country with the rise of Islam, the churches should look at secularism as their best friend. Otherwise we are in danger of going down the same road as Northern Ireland or Iraq. Secularism is one of the best things that can happen to protect religions from being persecuted or persecuting each other."

Leading Muslims echoed Dr Williams' position. At a conference in Tower Hamlets this week, Professor Tariq Ramadan, a visiting professor at Oxford University, said: "Some politicians are using this (issue) because they have an agenda to push. In Britain wearing the veil and the Niqab is legal. But both here and across Europe there is a movement to try and change the law by nurturing fears. Many Muslims do not realise that by reacting emotionally to the politicians they are alienating citizens."

There are almost too many ironies in all this even to know where to begin. But I do feel that those who criticised Dr Williams for failing to intervene on behalf of the unregistered, underground church were missing the point just a little.  Archbishops of Canterbury tend to visit China every decade or so and, as I recall, George Carey suffered similar criticism last time round. No way was this Archbishop ignorant or unfeeling of the plight of the unregistered Christians in China, but it is difficult to see what he could have achieved by launching an open strike on their behalf. I accept though that people who know China better than I do might see things differently.

It is more helpful to look at what Dr Williams could and did achieve, and what unique gifts he took with him on his visit. Surely one of the most fascinating aspects is that he is himself described by some who know him well as an "unreconstructed Marxist" in many of his political ideals and personal philosophies. So here we have this formidably intelligent, left-leaning academic driven thrust slightly unwillingly to the top of a recalcitrant Church that is the product of the ultimate in monarchical, capitalist systems, in a country without a constitution that has never suffered or enjoyed a revolution. On the social scale, he sits immediately below the Queen in the hierarchy. On the socialist scale, they couldn't be further apart.

Too many people (including at times myself) have been too ready to dismiss some of Dr Williams' public interventions as unintelligible or difficult. If you read between the lines, as some of us have had to many times, a quite radical agenda emerges. It might be disguised in the language of public and private space, of Oxbridge intelligentsia-speak. But the Archbishop is quite clear on why he believes religion cannot be separated from the public good, the common good as the Catholics would put it, the Commonwealth as the Queen would say. And in China, where he was particularly keen to meet and engage with academics in the universitites, it is quite possible there was a powerful meeting of minds, and that more good was done for the underground churches there than we who were not there can possibly imagine.

For all the little I know about China, even I understand that it is not a place where shouting and railing about the gross injustices described as a "scandal" by the Archbishop himself n his article for us will achieve much beyond getting the tanks sent in. But talking as conviction-Archbishop to conviction politicians where the ideals of communism are almost a religion, that is something else. We still don't know the precise mechanics of how the last Pope helped bring about the downfall of communism in Europe, but what was said publicly was as nothing to what went on behind the scenes.

Researching this story yesterday, one of the most valuable insights came from Dr Vinay Samuel, of the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life and who grew up in the Muslim city of Hyderabad. Dr Samuel, who has also recently visited China, said: One reason why China is afraid of strong religious identities is that they can lead to conflicts. The only religious identities it allows are those which the state defines. To suggest that modern states can define the limits of religious identity is no part of a liberal society. The key test should be whether a religious identity is palpably contrary to the public good. The role of religious identity in a plural and liberal society is an emerging question which must be settled through discussion and self-censorship by the respective communities. The debate cannot be proscribed. In this sense we are still different from China where the state defines what kind of Christians Christians can be. The British state cannot define what kind of Muslims or Christians, Muslims or Christians can be or how and where they can express and display their identity."

The climbdown on quotas for faith schools this week is something to be grateful for. But the present abuse of the doctrines of Islam by extremists pursuing political agendas is being too gladly seized upon by secularists who are taking their chance to try and get religion evicted from public life.

If China's reasons for embracing religion once more are indeed that her rulers see it as a tool of social control, as a rediscovered opiate legitimised in that sense by none other than Marx himself and with which they can drug a discontented people into some semblance of dazed happiness, let her rulers think that. It is only those who don't believe who fail to understand where the power really lies. In Europe, the communists found this out too late and religion is now returning apace.

There is obviously no question over what the Archbishop's view of religion is. His politics are a little more inscrutable. But if ever there was an Archbishop with the mental and spiritual tools to intervene on behalf of China's Christians, he has got to be the one. He just won't have done it in the way we are used to politics being done in the West.

Time, and "interesting times", run on indeed.

Comments

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Ruth,

I had to reach for my supply of Dramamine after reading your article as I was very nauseated. The very idea of a spiritual Marxist at the head of a religious structure bodes ill for both.

Religion as the tool of the State goes back to Plato's Republic see
http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/plato/religp.htm.

It's a joke to see one religion "businessman" dealing with his Chinese counterparts. Now, I'd like to know what the Chinese Government considers a "registered Christian". Do they have "registered Moslems" or are they as cowardly as the English authorities re Islam?

Previously , you had a story about the Chief Rabbis of Israel meeting with this "person" of Canterbury. They should be dubbed the " Chief Clowns of Israel" for having even gone to see him. All three should be fired.

Oliver Cromwell did bring a sucessful revolution to Britain but people were too inexperienced in establishing a relationship of Executive and Legislature to have it work.

[Philip]

I attend a continuing Anglican church in the United States. We are not in the Anglican Communion, but I appreciate what is being done in the name of the Holy Catholic Church by the Archbishop. It seems to me that the faith is what the entire world needs, to deal with the current century.

[J Pearce]

I feel it necessary, as a de facto secularist (and general target of abuse from certain religious persons), to defend some of the issues raised by your report, Ruth. First of all, I do not believe that anyone has argued that religion should be removed from public life, unless someone has advocated removing all the churches and mosques from this country and replacing them with a Tesco. However, there is an important argument to be made in favour of removing the creeping religious "sectarianisation" from public education.

For a start, faith schools are by definition elitist. But it is elitism as defined by religious denomination, not by any measurable criteria such as academic ability (or even wealth). Therefore, they implicitly promote superiority of one religious ideology over another, by their very existence. So much for our egalitarian society (and new labour dogma).

Secondly, I don't think anyone seriously expects faith school curriculums to go out of their way and promote a "come one, come all" attitude to inter-faith harmony, as much as the more liberally faithful might want to believe. Of course, what will actually happen is that children will be inculcated into a specific religious doctrine from an early age. What are the ramifications of this? Well, for a start, we will have a generation of children leaving school, not having had any experience of other religious belief sets or behavours and implicitly believing that their religion is the "one, true path to God". In effect, we are sowing the seeds of societal discord from the moment a child enters education.

This may have worked in the 18th century, bearing in mind that the UK had a mainstream majority Christian population. But with a growing, ethnically and religiously diverse population, how can it be to the societal good that we are indoctrinating swathes of children into believing that "they are unarguably right" in their religious beliefs? And how are faith schools going to help address the problem of perpetual conflict between competing religious ideologies? It has been demonstrated ad nauseam that autonomous religious populations cannot peacefully co-exist within a state without some form of secular authority to regulate between their competing demands. Throw off the yoke of secular control and what do you get? A recipie for anarchy, fuelled by religious zealotry.

This is why we need a clear definition between Church and State. The state can address the educational needs of the populace without recourse to funding schools where religious segregation is promoted (of course, privately funded religious schools must be acceptable in a free society, but they should only address the needs of those religious people who are prepared to operate and fund them privately). I'm not saying that our present state education system is in a good way - far from it. But allowing creeping religious apartheid in education is emphatically not the answer, it can only lead to further divisions within society. By allowing children to receive a balanced education, free from religious bias, we give them the intellectual tools to at least assess what they consider is the best way forward. Piling children into propoganda academies is not going to help.

The ABC has some interesting ideas but I wonder how far he thinks religious doctrines should be allowed to influence the operation of the state? Get it wrong and we could have a sectarian nightmare on our hands in a few years.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

This is a very interesting blog. However, as I have pointed out on my own blog, the problem with covering the face is what do you do on passports, and would you then allow other groups, such as hoodies, to do likewise in public?

I do feel that senior Anglican clergy are being very naive about the motivation of people who don the veil - the article in a recent edition of the Catholic Tablet, by Mona Siddiqui of Glasgow University, put the case from a Muslim perspective very well I thought.

As I have stated on my own blog, I have not seen one Muslim in Haifa or in the nearby villages, where many Muslims, Christians and Druze live as a tight-knit community (as many do in Haifa as well), don any form of complete face covering.

It does appear that some do so in private, but then remove them in order to go about their daily busines, as in the case of my friend's husband's barber, for instance, who is a woman.

Crosses, kippot, turbans and other religious symbols are not comparable, because they do not cover the face, thus avoiding eye contact, which is so important in communication.

There is also no doubt that some are donning the veil in the UK for other than spiritual reasons.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Secularism is one of the best things that can happen to protect religions from being perscuted..."
- Terry Sanderson (National Secular Society)
He should have that translated into Mandarin Chinese and mailed to the regime in Beijing. I wonder what
the Chinese word is for "guffaw"?

[Andrew Eburne]

What a curious week it has been for those of us with an interest in the ecumenical complexion of this country. It strikes me (and I hope not unfairly or disrespectfully) that one of the reasons the Archbishop, unlike Pope Benedict, can accommodate the Chinese agenda is because the Anglican Church is not a 'Universal Church' in the same, simple sense that Catholic is. So Benedict risks Chinese ire in a way Archbishop Williams doesn't. And yet perhaps that absence of a simple universality (or catholicity) can give, or appear to give the Archbishop an intellectual breathing-space - as your comments might imply, Ruth. The other side of the coin is the fiasco over faith schools: Catholic parents often want their children to go to Catholic schools, which accordingly are often over-subscribed by Catholics, let alone those of other (or no) faith. Hence the practical absurdity, for Catholics, of the government's abandoned proposals. Anglican parents, however - like mine - often seem to let their children grow up in a kind of religiously 'neutral' environment, so that they can 'decide for themselves' when they reach the appropriate age. Hence the swiftness of the Anglican church to endorse those same proposals. An outsider might wonder just how it is (leaving aside Establishment) the Anglican church has survived so long.

[Frank Schnittger]

The Archbishop is entering difficult terrain if he is arguing that tolerating the Niqab is the price we have to pay for religious freedom. Many people who are not particularly for or against religion will argue that the price is too high. The CofE risks being swept aside by the tide of revulsion against Islamic fundamentalism if it makes common cause with the fundamentalists. After all Turkey, an extremely Islamic country, bans all veil wearing in public. Disallowing such attire is not inconsistent with allowing religious freedom.

Democrats who have fought against Christian Theocracy are not going to take any more kindly to Islamic rules. Why should feminists stand by and allow all they have fought for be undermined by the creeping infiltration of Islamic rules? The fastest way to promote the wholesale secularisation of British society is to insist that Islamic rules have to be incorporated into the British way of life. People just won’t wear it! (Pun intended).

There is little hope for either Christianity or Islam if their leaders think that imposing their dress codes on civil society are essential for the propagation of their faiths and belief systems. They will rightly be consigned to the rubbish bin of history as relics of Feudal societies. Religious freedom cuts both ways – people have to be free not to be religious. Can this really be the case for children sent to faith schools?

I’m surprised that Church leaders make such a fuss about retaining total control on Faith Schools intake. One would have thought that the Missionary impulse should have impelled them to accept children from secular parents in the hope of gaining a convert. It looks like the fatted calf is going to be rolled out for the already converted instead.

[Keith Downer]

Like many others, I welcome and applaud the Archbishop's visit to China. I would welcome and applaud his taking more vigorous, effective and constructive action to raise the profile and involvement of Christianity here in the UK even more enthusiastically.
Personally, I am disappointed that Dr Williams appears to have missed the point about the objections to Muslim women wearing the niqab. The social implications of any action we take, any dress we wear, any statements we make, are at the root of the debate on Muslim veils, not any religious aspects.
The hiding of the face is the issue, not the banning of any symbol of belief. I admit that if those of the Islamic faith could show that wearing the niqab or the burqa was a proscribed and essential part of their religion, further debate, flexibility and constructive negotiation might be necessary but that is not the case.
If those of the Christian faith adopted a style of dress or some form of activity as an inappropriate statement of their belief and this proved socially unacceptable to the majority in the community, the same argument would apply. In my opinion, the Orange marches in Northern Ireland are an example of behaviour that should be considered very carefully from this perspective.
The real threat posed by increasing Islamic influence in the UK - both in our institutions and in our way-of-life - and the demands by a minority, disproportionate to the size and existence of their community, are matters of serious concern and to many of us, counter measures which reflect a purely secular perspective are almost as undesirable as ignoring the situation or denying any problem exists!
The C of E has an increasing responsibility to both stimulate and harness the Christian heritage of the majority of the population as a counter to other belief systems which through their energy and devotion to their faith threaten to infiltrate and influence, not just the commercial and social life of this country, but also the moral and religious life. The problem is, of course, that while the majority of the UK population will claim a Christian heritage, it is not in our nature to be active or demonstrative in a religious manner and the leadership of the Church appear unable to overcome this reluctance or to highlight the relevence of maintaining Christian values and standards of behaviour.
Dr Williams should not allow himself to appear to dismiss concerns about other faiths as simply a calculated "lets jump on the bandwagon" approach by politicians and journalists. With such violent examples of just how far an extreme and fundamentalist approach to the Islamic religion can unsettle and cause upheaval in even the most sophisticated and organised communities, the citizens of this country have considerable justification for expecting those responsible for government to respond with effective and far-reaching measures.

[Tom Allen]

Interested in ABC's response to the veil issue, and in particular the suggestion that he is in some in conflict with politicians. The discussion should really not be about a "ban" as such - but an open discussion about the consequences personally and in terms of community understanding of wearing the Niqab.I have posted the experience of Zaiba Malik a woman journalist who is a Muslim and her experience of wearing a full veil for a day in London see http://bigbulkyanglican.typepad.com/bigbulkyanglican/2006/10/the_veil.html

On the issue of Church schools it should be remembered that many Church of England Primary schools outside the main cities have quite a different history - they are "the school" in a particular place - (started to educate "all the children" of a particular village or local community) or were the first schools to be created with state schools following as numbers grew.

Many Church of England and Methodist schools have trust deeds which speak of providing an education for the children of a particular village or parish within a larger town - rather than specifically for a children of particular faith community - so that is what by charity law they are required to do.

That is why the Church of England had no problem with the idea of 25% of the intake being non-Church. The more cynical would suggest that in most circumstances that there are not enough Anglicans to fill all the places anyway!

This contrasts with the trust deeds of other religious groups who started (and are starting)schools with children of that faith in mind.

The issues arise when the Church of England school excels in a communiy with more than one choice and becomes a "middle class school of choice" - which is more often the situation in the secondary sector but does occur in the primary sector as well. The secularists should ask why the state schools cannot compete?

Could I suggest that they are actually not elistist in their origins, but may become so as result of parental freedom of choice.

As regards Church schools not being able to offer a perspective on other faiths - I would suggest that many church schools offer a more open perspective on other faiths than schools with no particular religious affiliation - which is why no doubt some of our Church primary schools in West Yorkshire are so popular with Muslims and other parents of real religious conviction.As was put to me recently at least they can be sure that assemblies will be about God and not "achievements" or "being good".

Do parents of faith tend not to trust other people of faith (as staff and governers) more than the kind of wooly secularism which is caught up in a kind of PC correctness - with the policy and values dictated by LEAs rather than by local interests - it may just explain the popularity of church schools?

[alistair mcbay]

If we have Christianophobia, as coined by Pope Rat at the UN, and Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism, can't we also have seculaphobia? In which case ++C is guilty of it - and Pope Rat, and the MCB, and...

As for Geoffrey Smith's sarcasm, Terry Sanderson made the remark in a UK context, not a Chinese one. Do keep up.

Frank, what we have seen in the faith schools example is Christianity saying Islam can have its faith schools because that means we get to keep ours.

So, faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs - it's game on and the stakes are high. Who will win? Who will turn out more, and more thoroughly indoctrinated pupils at the end of the education production line - Christian schools or Islamic ones? And what will be the effect on British society if one or the other wins / loses out? I know where I'd place my chips.

Terry was right - Christianity has chosen Islam over secularism on this one, but in the longer term that may come to be seen as a triumph of misguided self-interest, and a truly pyrrhic victory.

[Chris Sugden]

A knowledgeable friend has shared with me this reflection on your blog:

From veiling to unregistered church

Soon after his fortnight’s visit to China, Archbishop Williams got involved the ‘veil debate’. He believes that any ban on the veil would be ‘politically dangerous’ and has warned that the government should not become a ‘licensing authority’ that decides which religious symbols are acceptable. He was concerned according to Ruth Gledhill, that Britain would become a nation where secularism is close to being a national religion. Obviously, Archbishop Williams was trying to defend religious freedom. He seemed to have felt a ‘new onus’ and welcomed the challenge.

As a Chinese Christian I wish Archbishop Williams could do the same thing for China. I wish he could say to Chinese government that control over religious activities would be ‘politically dangerous’ and warn the Chinese government that it should not become a ‘licensing authority’ that decides what religious assemblies are legal. Unfortunately, he did not do that. Probably he thought Communist China was a secular nation and it was tending to see religion in a positive way. So religious freedom appeared to be something to be encouraged instead of to be defended. He did not try to see what he could do probably because he thought that was a mission for the Chinese Christians and they should meet the challenge.

Doubtlessly, the relationship between the state and religion in China and in Britain is quite different. Dr. Vinay Samuel believes that the point is whether religious identity should be defined by the state. In China’s case, the government defines religious identity, whereas in Britain the government cannot act in the same way. Ruth Gledhill believes that defining religious identity is not something that the government should do in a democratic society. (See Ruth Gledhill's blog:http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/)

Is an atheist government able to define religious identity for its citizens? Although the government can do something to restrict or promote religion, it can hardly push its effort to a deep level. There are layers of religious identity that external power cannot reach. Probably that is why Archbishop Williams suggested that Chinese Christians develop some kind of ‘inner freedom’ in the Chinese Communist context. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the Chinese Communist government has tried hard to define religious identity for all Chinese religious believers since the beginning of Communist regime either in Mao’s era or in post-Mao times. And this effort has much to do with the division between two Christian groups: the TSPM and the house church. In fact, the ambition to define religious identity for religious believers is one of the key factors causing and tightening tensions between religion and state.

In the British context secularists defend secularism. According to Terry Sanderson of the National Secular Society, ‘secularism is one of the best things that can happen to protect religions from being persecuted or persecuting each other.’ Seen from a Chinese perspective a statement like this could be very dangerous, The Chinese Communist government made a similar statement, but as an excuse. Terry claimed that the ‘churches should look at secularism as their best friend.’ But nobody is sure what kind of friend it will be. Understood in the Chinese Communist context, the connotation of friend can be changed according to their needs. Can the secularist be a trustworthy friend? In China’s case, the answer is no!

What role the state should play in facing religious conflict is highlighted in this debate. In Chinese history, religious conflict is hardly as intense as that in the Western world. There has been no religious war in the thousands of years of Chinese history. If Dr. Samuel is right in saying ‘religious identity could lead to conflict,’ that has to be understood in the context of Western history. Nevertheless, what happened in Western history could happen in China, and this is why the Chinese government required all Christian churches and organisations to server all possible links with Western countries in 1950s. How the Church of England responds to the tension between church and state will quite likely influence, to some extent, the attitude and policy of the Chinese government towards religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Veiling and the unregistered church appears to have nothing in common. But they are symbols showing that many religious believers are not satisfied with the secularisation of the human destiny. People cannot stop themselves seeking rest in the arms of their creator, but not one of their own invention.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I think that it is a worrying argument which backs the idea of Muslim schools, in order to keep Church schools. For goodness sake, look at what they are teaching and then decide whether they should be allowed or not.

And in order to safeguard Britain, I think that should go for all religious/faith schools and none.

I also think that philosophy should be introduced side-by-side with religion, as it encourages you to think outside the box.

[alistair mcbay]

"Terry claimed that the ‘churches should look at secularism as their best friend.’ But nobody is sure what kind of friend it will be."

This remark was made in a British context. Judging by the comments made by some Christians on this blog over the weeks and months about Islam, many Christians are not sure of what kind of a friend Islam will be here. I wonder how it would fare in China?

"Can the secularist be a trustworthy friend? In China’s case, the answer is no!"

The secularism advocated in the UK is one that says anyone must be able to practise their religion, change it or not have one at all, each to his own conscience. The Chinese Government, a communist one, clearly does not accept this, but that is not secularism's fault, it is the fault of a communist dictatorship.

Clearly secularism as defined in the UK is no more tolerated in communist China than Chistianity.

[Tim Cooper]

Since Dr Williams suggests that secularism marches on inexorably and should be halted, I think it fair to say that there are few humanists worrying about whether or not religious adherents are displaying visible symbols of their faith. It is internecine conflict between faiths that has generated overly sensitive views within the wider community regarding the wearing of crucifixes or other paraphernalia. A variety of nervous agencies have also allowed this paranoia to infect the publishing of texts, regulate forms of speech and to stifle public utterances generally. Indeed such an almighty fuss has been kicked up that otherwise uninterested or completely indifferent parties are now in fear of transgressing, receiving criticism from all sides or, in failing to address imagined problems, worsening the already fragile situation.

It is the issue of separating weighty and uneven religious privileges, both in the legislature and in education that 'secularists' are gradually being demonised for. And no matter how morally concerned those with no faith may be, the implication is that their perspective is dangerous, has little value or is one that Christians should urgently warn against on behalf of society. Amazingly, Dr Williams' fatuous suggestion that secularism may lead to Christians or members of any other faiths requiring a licence to proceed does not arise from the obviously sincere wish to bring children up in a society based on reason, experience and shared human values. This would of course be a rational culture embracing all religious views, but one in which entrenched extreme positions, unbridled discrimination and constant rancour over piety would be regarded as futile, if not seriously destablising and, as such, would not be encouraged.

[Keith Downer]

There is a certain purity - some might say, naivety - in being able to live your life not experiencing or ignoring the deeply ingrained spiritual dimension that exists in the human character.
If - like many contributors to this blog - a sufficient majority of people were so inclined and able to organise "a society based on reason, experience and shared human values" eliminating "entrenched extreme positions, unbridled discrimination and constant rancour over piety", then maybe the secularist perspective could be shown to be a feasible alternative.
The reality is, of course, that no matter how sophisticated or academically thorough that argument, Man is a spiritual being with a need to understand and satisfy that spiritual dimension. Such are the limitations of human experience and intellect, there is no absolute or adequate explanation for Man's existence available through logic and science - unless you are easily satisfied.
We have, therefore, to face up to the problems of life and how we live together as a community, acknowledging the spiritual needs of individuals - to whatever degree they are developed and expressed. Given the "internecine conflict between faiths" it should be clear to everyone that "reason, experience and shared human values" will not alone be the dominating factor in deciding how we will achieve to achieve this aim. Whatever course is adopted, it will be far from perfect and cannot rely upon one human being's natural inclination to be reasonable where other human being's are concerned.
That is why we cannot anticipate a secular society developing and maintaining a way-of-life that is acceptable and sustainable. There has to be an underlying sense of common objective and belief in certain standards of behaviour. That comes, not from a political agenda, individual conscience or some form of uninspired altruism but from a regard and unselfish respect for one another on the level of the spiritual dimension that exists in each and everyone of us.
That is how civilised societies develop and while they may lose their way at times, is how they manage to function and continue.

[Katie]

Yo, emmanuel, tell it like it is!!!

[John Penta]

Mr. McBay:

Could we *please please please* refrain from referring to the Pope as 'Pope Rat'? The skimming/casual reader would assume you are either intending to be insulting, or simply trolling. I've read this blog enough to know you (hopefully) don't mean that, but c'mon. The least you could do is show a slight degree of respect, or at least be clear on not trying to be offensive.

[alistair mcbay]

"There has to be an underlying sense of common objective and belief in certain standards of behaviour. That comes, not from a political agenda, individual conscience or some form of uninspired altruism but from a regard and unselfish respect for one another on the level of the spiritual dimension that exists in each and everyone of us."

I agree, Keith - BUT there are two cautions I would add. One, the "unselfish respect" you mention has to be earned by all of us and cannot be given automatically. Why should I respect Islam when its holy book calls for me to be killed as an infidel and unbeliever - and you, for that matter? You would not automatically respect any political system that systematically oppressed particular groups of people for holding certain characteristics, so why should religion be any different?

The second is that I could find it insulting that you proclaim a spiritual dimension exists in all of us - I disagree! "Man is a spiritual being with a need to understand and satisfy that spiritual dimension" - so you believe, but not all people do. I think it's twaddle. BUT there is room for both views, of course, without one encroaching on the other, which is my point. Unfortunately, the more religious among us are never happy merely living their own lives and leaving the rest of us to lead theirs.

I have no problem with people feeling the need to be "spiritual" as you put it. Chacun a son gout (minus accents). I do have a problem though when that need is translated into particular forms of spirituality being force-fed to me or to my children as fact, or where that need is manifested in a requirement for other spiritually-aware human citizens to be the victims of discrimination and prejudice.

I would also counter your view that one is "easily satisfied" if one believes there is "no absolute or adequate explanation for Man's existence available through logic and science". On the contrary, it is better to be easily satisfied than believe in primitive mythologies as fact in order to get through life. But you would expect us to disagree on that!

On the subject of this human spirituality thing, I see Madonna has announced that her adopted baby is to be raised as a follower of Kabbalah, although she won't stop him being a Christian later, like his real dad. Wouldn't it be better for the boy to investigate any alleged spirituality in himself once he is old enough to engage in free enquiry about it, and decide for himself?

I wonder if Madonna will do a Vardy next and open a city academy? She must have £2m she doesn't know what to do with, and might even become Lady Madonna as a result! I have wondered for some time why the wealthy Scientologists haven't done this. The Greenfields school in Forest Row is as near as damn it to being a Scientology school, although it is private. Does the country need the Tom Cruise City Academy of Crawley?

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: Nobody is saying that it is wrong for human beings to have a need for, or pursue a spiritual dimension. And to live a life based on reason, experience and shared human values is clearly not mutually exclusive. Presumably then you regard religious rancour and internal strife as numbering among the problems of life we must 'face up to'. Your problem - but one which affects others.
As you point out we are not talking about absolutes here and I cannot imagine why you think a secular perspective, or way of life should ever apply to you, somehow replacing your own faith-based view. However, religious privilege permeates the wider society. It is visibly present within the legislature, and has a demonstrable effect upon education and some aspects of the media. Consequently you cannot expect people with differing faiths or those with no faith at all - a position they are entitled to - to go along with the limits and restrictions it places upon their lives. It seems to me to be elitist or wholly naive either to demonise another perspective on these matters or to view it in isolation.

[alistair mcbay]

"Could we *please please please* refrain from referring to the Pope as 'Pope Rat'"

Sorry if it offended you, John. I shall refrain, although I picked it up from a Catholic pal originally. It is not intended as offensive, nor would I pretend it is a term of endearment either! Pehaps a useful shorthand, an attempt at bursting that bubble of pomposity and awe that his office is wont to inspire in some people.

If I was a "Wee Wee Free" in Scotland, of course, they would call him much worse, and not apologise for it in the slightest. I would probably refer to him as the anti-Christ and his RC Mass as idolatrous, but I would still call myself a devout and devoted Christian. Funny old world!

[Keith Downer]

Yes, Alistair, you are quite right. I should have foreseen that the use of "spiritual" to describe that part of our being which is not physical would provoke a rebuke from you. I therefore acknowledge that you do not possess a "spiritual" dimension and will try to be more specific in future.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Don't waste your time asking Mr McBay to be courteous to Christians, Mr Penta.
Try asking the atheist Chinese government to stop persecuting the Falun Gong. I guarantee you will
have much more success.

[John Atkins]

Whether tragic events touch your family personally or are brought into your home via newspapers and television, you can help children cope with the anxiety that violence, death, and disasters can cause.

Listening and talking to children about their concerns can reassure them that they will be safe. Start by encouraging them to discuss how they have been affected by what is happening around them. Even young children may have specific questions about tragedies. Children react to stress at their own developmental level.

The Caring for Every Child's Mental Health Campaign offers these pointers for parents and other caregivers:

* Encourage children to ask questions. Listen to what they say. Provide comfort and assurance that address their specific fears. It's okay to admit you can't answer all of their questions.
* Talk on their level. Communicate with your children in a way they can understand. Don't get too technical or complicated.
* Find out what frightens them. Encourage your children to talk about fears they may have. They may worry that someone will harm them at school or that someone will try to hurt you.
* Focus on the positive. Reinforce the fact that most people are kind and caring. Remind your child of the heroic actions taken by ordinary people to help victims of tragedy.
* Pay attention. Your children's play and drawings may give you a glimpse into their questions or concerns. Ask them to tell you what is going on in the game or the picture. It's an opportunity to clarify any misconceptions, answer questions, and give reassurance.
* Develop a plan. Establish a family emergency plan for the future, such as a meeting place where everyone should gather if something unexpected happens in your family or neighborhood. It can help you and your children feel safer.

If you are concerned about your child's reaction to stress or trauma, call your physician or a community mental health center.

[alistair mcbay]

"Don't waste your time asking Mr McBay to be courteous to Christians, Mr Penta."

Geoffrey, or should I say Mr Smith, I have been looking for signs of you being courteous to non-believers, but I can find none. Motes and beams again.

As you see I have taken note of Mr Penta's feelings. But given my example of the Wee Wee Frees, why do you think it is bad for atheists to be discourteous to Christians, but not for Christians to be discourteous to each other? I can assure you the Wee Wee Frees would be much more discourteous to Benedict than I would.

Do you challenge Muslims for being discourteous to Christians, given that they believe as Allah-given fact that Jesus was not fathered by God, did not die on the cross, was not therefore resurrected and was not therefore raised from the dead? They also believe he will not return, as the revelation to Mohammed was the last.

These are there firmly held beliefs, as they consider the Koran infallible. The Koran calls on Muslims not to take Christians as their friends, that Christians misbelieve, that the trinity is 'shirk', which means it attacks the oneness and unity of god.

Are these discourteous enough for you?

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

A friend of mine from Jerusalem has just come back from China. She was not sure whether to go, but she was appalled both at the poverty and also the fact that there is apparently no word or concept of 'charity' in Chinese.

She so wanted to donate money to some of the people she noticed in the streets and apparently this just isn't done.

I wonder if others have had this experience in China.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Don't put words into my mouth, Mr McBay! I don't like it. You can plagiarise my text and get away with it, thanks to Ruth and her soppy liberalism, but if you try to make me look a liar it will only rebound on your own head. You are no Richard Dawkins so don't try it.
I have never said, or implied, at any time, that discourtesy is a permissible practice when done by
one Christian to another, as, for example, in the case of the Dean of Bangor.
Discourtesy is endemic to the secularist code, a fact that you have demonstrated yet again in your latest posting. Your reference to the Free Church of
Scotland as the Wee Wee Frees is damned disgusting, and, as a fellow-Christian of theirs, I demand an apology from you in your next posting, an apology which I also demand from Ruth. This is an
intolerable insult to Christians, even worse than Mr Appel's gibe of "Islamofool". She apologised for Mr Appel's crudity, but allowed you to utter yet one more,even coarser comment. And you have the bloody nerve to call James vulgar!
I demand an apology, sir, or this complaint will go to the editor of the "Times".

[J Pearce]

"I demand an apology, sir, or this complaint will go to the editor of the "Times"."

Mr. Smith, I do believe you are pulling our collective plonkers. Even I can see the smirk behind this "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" remark.

You had us going for a while, mind.

[Robin Bather]

Children children children!
I leave the blog for a couple of week's sabbatical and when I return I find you all squabbling and pointing fingers!

I just cannot help remembering my dear old mother when she returned from shopping to find me and my sister fighting.

ROBIN (Trying to get his side of the arguement in first): Mum! Margaret hit me!
MARGARET (Tears in her eyes): I did not! He started it by calling me a bloody twit!
ROBIN: Liar! I didn't! You pushed me down and it still hurts. A lot.
MARGARET (Now crying): That's not true Mum! He hid my favourite doll and denied it.
ROBIN (Now crying): Oh my leg hurts so much where she hit me!
MARGARET: And he called me a sod as well!
ROBIN: Sod! Sod! Sod! So there!
MUM (Giving a mild smack on the bottom to both of us): There's one for you Robin for being so horrible to your sister, and one for you Margaret for hitting him.
BOTH (Wailing): Boo hoo hoo hoo, sob sob.

Now Geoffrey, don't be such a pompous ass, and Alistair stop provoking the Christians.
And Geoffrey, apologise to Ruth.

Now lock your little fingers together and repeat after me:

"Make up, make up, never do it again, if you do, you'll get the cane".

PS
If you give it, you must learn to take it. You should hear the insults that Emanuel Appel and I have exchanged.
It rolls off our backs like water off a duck's back.

PPS
In January Margaret will be coming to visit me here in Mexico. I'm really looking forward to seeing her again. I love her.

[alistair mcbay]

Dear Mr Geoffrey Smith

Send your complaint if you must. I am sure the editor will give it his undivided attention.

I will just say this in reply to your use of threats, intimidation and calls for censorship to silence those who hold a different world view to your own.

Unlike you, I trust in Ruth’s judgment, as it is her blog. If she chooses not to edit out “Wee Free”, that’s fine by me. If she chooses to edit my posts, that’s absolutely fine too.

It is also fine by me if she chooses not to edit out posts from people who refer to humanist principles as “secular garbage” and who refer to perfectly reasonable, decent, law-abiding fellow bloggers as “Christian-bashers”, a most disgraceful slur on the fine gentleman concerned. I have not heard this expression used at all in Scotland, while the term I used , "Wee Wee Free", is colloquial here, most certainly descriptive and considered neither derogatory nor pejorative.

And yet....... I do not demand that you apologise for your insults. We humanists simply turn the other cheek to such vile abuse. You simply do not know how misplaced your bombast is, nor I venture to suggest do you have the slightest understanding of Scotland.

By the way, in a speech on 21st March this year, the Prime Minister, an avowed Christian, said this in defining who "we" are in the West in the context of the 'West versus Islam' arena:

“We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.”

That is exactly what I believe in too. That is my “secular garbage”, Mr Geoffrey Smith, precisely defined as it happens by a Christian, one who shares them with me. Given your threats, abuse and call for censorship, I ask to confirm that you also uphold these ideals, as espoused by your fellow Christian.

I respectfully suggest your reference to my peaceful humanist ideals and ethical life stances as "secular garbage" is damned disgusting, sir, and an insult to secularists.

And yet, it is not an intolerable insult. Yet again, humanists turn the other cheek and do not demand that you apologise for it. Again, we humanists simply forgive you.

Enjoy your weekend, sir.

[Christopher]

"I demand an apology, sir, or this complaint will go to the editor of the "Times."

And then what? Pistols at dawn? It is surprising how seriously some people take themselves, but surely in this case Geoffrey Smith has his tongue firmly in his cheek. Nevertheless religion often does something to otherwise perfectly nice people - I should know, I could be an awful little prig when I was religious. Watch it there, Geoffrey, I am not a prig now - and if you say so there'll be a letter of complaint winging its way to the editor of the Times before you can say 'dig up your dahlia tubers before they get frosted'. (Assuming you are one and the same great gardener whose programmes I used to enjoy on television!)

Jews are lovable in the way they laugh at themselves - and catholics can do it too, but unfortunately protestants and muslims are not so good at seeing the funny side of religion. I wonder why that should be........

[J Pearce]

"Jews are lovable in the way they laugh at themselves - and catholics can do it too, but unfortunately protestants and muslims are not so good at seeing the funny side of religion. I wonder why that should be........"

Because they spend most of their lives with their heads placed somewhere the sun don't shine?

Oh, I'm sorry, it was a rhetorical qustion...

[Vivek Golikeri]

The idea of "spiritual Marxism" will sound as crazy to many today as the idea of "dialectical materialism" must have to German intellectuals when Karl Marx brought dialectism and materialism together. After all, Hegel, the proponent of the dialectic concept, saw history as "God realizing himself." But Marx, who was an atheist, said that his purpose was "to turn Hegel right-side up," sort of like an opthalmologist correcting erratic vision with new glasses.

Likewise, it is my intent neither to condemn Marx nor to accept his ideas, but to do to him the same thing he himself did to Hegel. Karl Marx was a prophet, subconsciously getting his revelations from the same God, Higher Power, or whatever term that he refused to believe in. And because the messenger himself rebelled against the divine source of the message, the message got screwed up inside the messenger's head.

Remember the biblical story of Jonah? Well to me, the Bible is not God's word but basically the ancient Jewish equivalent of Greek mythology. A blending together of fact and fiction. Yet the reason I bring Jonah up is that, in one sense, Marx was like a modern-era "Jonah." The only problem is that in the Jonah story, only the rebel himself got swallowed by the fish or whale. But when Marx misunderstood God's messages, half the human race eventually ended up inside the belly of the horrible beast that communism became!

I hate comunism, thank Heaven it's mostly fallen apart save in a few enclaves. Yet blaming Marx and Engels for Stalin and Pol Pot is exactly as unfair as blaming Jesus and the early Christians for atrocities done in the Inquisition, the Crusades, or European Wars of Religion.

The conventional wisdom is that Marxism failed because it was allegedly too utopian, "against human nature." I also used to believe that in my younger days. No, Marxism failed because it was consistently implemented in backward countries like Czarist Russia, Chiang Kai Shek's China, or Batista's Cuba. Were socialism implemented in modern Japan, North America (USA and Canada) and western Europe, it would work. But why have those countries never tried it?

The answer is imperialism, whether official or unofficial. Be it Japan's empire in Asia and the Pacific, the White Man's Burden, or US westward expansion at the expense of the Native tribes and the wilderness, imperialists didn't go out and conquer because they were bored, and needed a hobby.

No, imperialism has a very practical reason. By sucking the blood, or stealing the lands of weaker peoples, the imperialist uses the stolen wealth as anaesthesia upon the economic misery of their own poorer classes. But imperialism results in national resistance movements, and this gradually wears down public enthusiasm in the house of the conqueror as more and more of their young men are killed, maimed, and still more need to be drafted.

Imperialism gradually backfires. America learned this in Viet Nam, Russia in Afghanistan, and Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They who misuse their own blessings, and do evil to innocents, inevitably bring down evil upon their own heads.

I disagree thoroughly with Marx's opinions on the existence of God, immortality of the soul and life after death. I believe in Vedantic doctrines of karma and reincarnation, that God and the individual soul eventually merge after many, many lifetimes of evolution in this School of Life. The Buddhists call this state of eventual merging "nirvana."

I firmly believe that in the centuries ahead, the whole human race will gradually replace capitalism with socialism, just as capitalism replaced feudalism and feudalism replaced slavery-based societies. But it will be a democratic socialism where the government is chosen in free and fair elections, where religious freedom is protected so long as religion doesn't serve exploitation or crime. Much as I dislike capitalism, the nonsense in America today is a thousand times preferable to the nonsense people endured in totalitarian regimes.

What, really, should democratic socialism mean? In a nutshell, it would mean the country or society directly supplying the needs and wants of its citizens, and the citizens directly working to produce and equitably distribute what they and their fellow-citizens consume. Everyone is required by law to give a minimum amount of labor hours, instead of taxes in money form. If they want, they can give extra work and use the extra wages to buy luxuries or have a higher living standard. Thus no-one goes without the basics, but each individual's lifestyle depends on how much they choose to contribute.

In a democratic socialist society, unlike under totalitarian communism, people would be free to emigrate without permission except when the intent behind going overseas is to help the country's enemies. Religion would be a matter of private conscience. People would be guaranteed the right to family life, but society would collectively take care of dependents. The family would be the core of love, but not the core of economic survival.

There has been one country in which a limited degree of democratic, voluntary socialism has worked. This was the early, pioneering state of Israel. Nobody can honestly accuse Israel of being a totalitarian state; if anything, like India, they sometimes go berserk with democracy! Yet in the kibbutz and the moshav, the early halutzim (Hebrew for "pioneers") showed that a people's economy can indeed exist within a free and open society.

Israel,today, has sadly gone the wrong way to right-wing rabbis, just as American privacy and liberty have to some extent been molested by the Religious Right. But Israel in the early decades of statehood was an inspiration to the Third World. I wish developing countries would study and copy the early labor Zionists rather than dictators like Castro, Pol Pot, and North Korea's monsters. Compared to those, even corporate America looks like a saint!