Rochester, Oxford and the 'call to prayer'

As we report today, the Rector of St Aldates Oxford, Charlie Cleverley, has been attacking the plans for a thrice-daily 'call to prayer' in Oxford, plans which the Bishop of Oxford, John Pritchard, has supported. Some of the comments on ThisisOxfordshire make interesting reading. Dr Nazir-Ali, who made headlines with his comments that some parts of Britain were becoming no-go areas for non-Muslims, and has criticised permitting the azan in Britain, also spoke at the Oxford Union last night. A mole in the audience sent me some of his remarks, which I've reproduced below.

'Christianity is at the heart of British history, art, constitutional arrangements and literature.  If a society doesn't have the spiritual resources of that kind it will fail to deal with other faiths.  It will marginalise them all.  In many ways that is what has happened in Britain and that's why it is very important for the people of Britain to recover a moral and spiritual vision on the basis of which they can be hospitable to everyone else.'

'Now that there's a plural situation, people need to make a constructive contribution to the tradition that is there already but that has first of all to be acknowledged. It cannot be denied.'

'What is the relationship of faith to the state? That's the urgent question in many parts of the world including Britain.'

'The great moral systems of the world have all been articulated within the great religious traditions. Laws only have moral force if there is a spiritual tradition behind them. Otherwise what you have is tyranny.'

'The relationship of sharia to law in Britain is that the foundations of the law in this country are Christian and must remain so, unless you want to change the whole basis of the legal system. If you are to have the shariah in Britain, it must be congruent, in terms of the place of women, the law of evidence, the penal law and inheritance.' 

On reciprocity:  'It is not tit for tat, but a recognition by all sides of fundamental freedoms wherever we may be and whatever influence we may have.They must have universality and cannot be denied anywhere.'

Asked about the Church of England House of Bishops watering down the faith, and losing believers as a result: 'I think the bishops need to be repentant about this and one of the difficulties about taking office is the temptation to take the easy road and not to be hassled by the difficulties there are.

'Watering down Christianity and not offending other people . . . I don't think people of other faiths are accountable in this matter.  I think the people who have led the view in saying that Christianity is offensive are not people of other faiths, but those of no faith, and those who have an actively secularising agenda.  Sometimes they have used people of other faiths by, for instance, trying to make sure Christmas is not celebrated properly.'

Comments

[George Parr]

Talk it up Henry! Don't let the facts you would rather avoid get in the way. After all attempts to ban homosexuals from public discourse has been a runaway success for Christians ...

You are right of course, on some levels. Religion continues to shape our society and grows in influence. There are the training camps and hidden cells that propose to wreak appalling violence on us. There are the schools, divided by religion, where choices for the non-religious, or specific faiths are restricted, whilst the taxpayer picks up the bill. The cost of the war in Iraq is now trillions of U.S dollars and is emblematic of a clash of religious cultures.

Divide and separate Henry; refine and marginalise - sift and sort by perceived notions of race, culture and human worth, until society is fragmented to such an extent it cannot possibly heal. Some say we are nearly there.

What is your banner Henry? A depressing motif of a scourged and ridiculed man nailed to a cross, haemorrhaging guilt.

Humanism at least embraces positives and is not in the least concerned about rigid notions of sexuality, or whether women are overstepping the mark. Never mind the NSS, you couldn't get more 'yesterday' than harking back to the perceived wisdom of cave- dwellers as a paradigm of modernity.

[Henry]

"Privatisation" means something banned from public discourse. "In private" is where homosexuality belongs, in the opinion of almost every British person I know.

Unlike religion, which continues to shape our society and our culture, and continues to grow in influence, to the dismay of the NSS. They really are yesterday's men.

[andrew holden]

"And clearly private religion is exactly where the British people think it should be placed."

I'm not convinced. British people are, above all tolerant and accommodating - perhaps too much so. I think Brits still retain an admiration and appreciation of their christian traditions and, whilst they cleary don't wish to see any kind of theocracy neither do they want to see religious people marginalised and driven from offering an influence in public life. Many still wish to send their kids to religious schools and even if they want to pillory the Archbishop of Canterbury for his reported views most would not want him silenced.

So I find little evidence that Brits wish to live in any kind of totalitarian state which would outlaw religion in everything but the private realm. In fact most Brits seem to have a pretty relaxed and balanced attitude to religion - the tolerant variety at least!

[Mike Homfray]

If the only examples of religious growth are the arrival of temporary migrants, then that simply emphasises how deep secularism has become in the UK

And clearly private religion is exactly where the British people think it should be placed.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Support for religion waxes and wanes, but does not define belief or unbelief. But the evidence just now points to a religious resurgence in England, which I am happy to acknowledge and welcome.

[George Parr]

Alan, it seems to me as if you are prepared to clutch at any straws which vaguely point to a re-surgence of Christianity. Opinions dressed as facts - looks like it.

My 'evidence' comes from the same source as yours, but presents a more balanced picture.

Support for religion waxes and wains and is a shifting concept. I assume that you have not considered giving up your beliefs on the strength of hearsay evidence which purports to weaken your own position? Neither have I.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

That won't do, George. You don't deny what Bunting says about the fears of the NSS. Are they right? Can you bear to admit it?

Her piece also points to the rapid growth of Christian belief in this country as a result of immigration by evangelicals and African Pentecostals. She does not even mention the recent influx of Poles. And she rightly states that religious people, of whatever faith, are not content to accept the privatisation of religion by those who would secularise society.

Your "evidence" is nothing more substantial than your own bias, and even the NSS has a clearer view of the emerging shape of a religious society.

[George Parr]

In the interest of balance Alan Marsh, Madeleine Bunting also suggested that this country 'privileges a particular Christian denomination' and that to 'disestablish the Church of England...(and) cut funding to faith schools', whilst desirable, was a 'highly sensitive area' that weak political parties were currently fighting shy of.

As Bunting also suggests, the recent fears surrounding Islam together with more mundane but highly publicised issues has exposed the effects of 'religion' for itself; this in a Europe which, in part, appears happy to separate it from the state.

So if you are prepared to accept the resurgence of 'religion' is due to the profile of sundry other doctrines Alan, you might have to admit that, for itself, Christianity remains challenged.

Overall the piece in the Guardian is not over-friendly towards the 'dense musings' of Rowan Williams and questions how on earth issues such as headscarves, minarets, cartoons and religious courts ever became political issues.

It might also not serve your own biased agenda particularly well to note that the piece also asserts that secularism has as many believers as non-believers which, of course, does 'not preclude the right of religious identity'.

Since this is clearly the case, the demonising of secularism, by nervous Christians, appears to be driven not by any desire to recognize that ours is an open-minded pluralist society, but through a fear of losing overblown notions of identity and control and the associated privileges that the article defines.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Henry, the National Secular Society does not share George's confidence about the "available evidence". Take a look at Madeleine Bunting's piece in today's Guardian:

alarm calls issuing from the UK's National Secular Society talk of "mounting fears" at a "religious resurgence.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/25/turkey.islam

[George Parr]

Henry, Stalinism was not only about religion. Yours is just another example of someone who defines all manner of concepts in religious terms. (like 'atheism', a pejorative term for people who do not choose to subscribe to faith-based ideologies).

I'm sorry if my prose style is overly 'portentous' Henry. Perhaps, having consulted a dictionary, you would like to circulate a list of suitable instructions to all contributors explaining just what form of words would be acceptable to you.

Of course, if you wish further to define 'condescending and discourteous' try re-reading the prodigious amount of comments from 'Christians' on this forum regarding the human rights and social acceptability of homosexuals, women, and those embracing any form of open-mindedness, or possessing a liberal reformist attitude.

Your rather precious notions only serve to show just how privileged some religious groups have come to regard themselves, and contrary to your own assertions in this pointless volley of opposing claims, the available evidence does show a trend towards a more rational secular society.

[Henry]

George, there have been many before you and there will be many after you who wish to drive religion out of the democratic forum. Stalin attempted to do so, as did most of the old Communist bloc, and numerous other regimes past and present, but ultimately without success. Despite the best efforts of their government there are now some 100m Chinese Christians, and at the present rate of growth they will form the majority of Chinese within a generation.

I am not surprised that you disagree with me, but you don't speak for many, despite your assumption that everyone shares your narrow view. Religion is a fact of political life.

That's the problem with your claims: they are all founded on assumptions, masked by an astonishingly portentous prose style and a condescending and discourteous attitude towards religion and its leaders.

Just repeating again and again your mantra that religion should somehow be excluded from political life will not make your dreams come true.

[alan]

What a lot of haggling and backbiting and insulting and accusing and infighting.
Oh, wouldn't the world be a much better place without religion.
That goes for all other "belief"-systems as well.
Perhaps then we could all be just rational human beings.

[George Parr]

Very poor Henry. I'm sorry you feel the way you do - predictable really. I just didn't think that your claims that religion was highly relevant politically stood up - and you seem to feel surprised that not everyone agrees with you. You appear unable to relate to anything other than a faith position. If you think that I employ Stalinist methodology, you have no idea what it is. I expect you were just keen to try to maintain 'the upper hand'. You have no idea in what arenas I operate. Much of what you write relies on assumptions. Never mind.

[Henry]

George, you have demonstrated your stalinist methodology beyond any shadow of a doubt.

And I can see you are completely convinced by the magnificence of your own grandiloquence.

Keep practising on your soap box and one day you might even get to try it out in the public arena.

[George Parr]

Henry! I rest my case. Enjoy life in the box.

[Henry]

The difference between me and George is that I am content for him to have his views but he is not willing for me to have mine.

[George Parr]

Naturally, I cannot hold on to the hubristic belief that any ability to reason that I might possess could ever surpass that of the Zeusian Henry! I might however suggest that he continues to live in a world of myth. It really is not particularly apposite continually to re-assert the same self-reverential nonsense which defines religion as a burgeoning tour de force.

But I do find it revealing that he talks of 'gaining the upper hand'; presumably he believes that currently the ayes of religion have it, or perhaps he defines his religious beliefs in terms of conflicts of identity within society. If so - typical. At least the LibDems are not dwindling and fragmented; visibly imploding over half-baked notions surrounding homosexuality, gender discrimination and the rights of the individual. Perhaps Henry really does prefer the murine scuttling around the feet of male hierarchies, in a sense aligning himself with the bigger gangs.

Henry and I will never agree, mainly because he cannot differentiate between the absolute right to hold religious beliefs and the position of those, like me, who uphold that right but are not comfortable with numerous sundry faith positions dictating policy either socially or politically. For me, this inability places the deluded Henry firmly in the box marked 'Closed Minds'.

[Henry]

George, I don't know what kind of personal ivory tower you inhabit, but you seem to have some difficulty connecting with some very simple concepts such as democracy and free speech - while presuming loftily to inform me that I have no right to either as a Christian.

There are no parameters on the expression of religiously informed views, however you may fantasise about the possibility, and Christians will contend as strongly as we choose for our world view without your permission or approval.

I can see how frustrating it is for you that you can not gain the upper hand in a society which continues to frame its laws and its morality with reference to religious views. It must be rather like being a LibDem, condemned in perpetuity to minor opposition, or Sisyphus, for ever pushing at a boulder.

If you can persuade the world to act in the way you prescribe then you will have achieved your goal. But it looks to me as though secularism has had its limited day, since religion is on the increase rather than disappearing, and you will have to go on chewing the carpet for some time to come.

[George Parr]

Rowan Williams is certainly a distinguished academic Henry and your concerns over the way I might refer to him begin to paint a telling picture of you. It's most revealing for example that, for you, there is no way to challenge or change anything - those who do not like the way religion impacts upon society are exhorted to either put up with it or emigrate!

And just how far can that position be extrapolated? What other range of unknown issues fall within your apparently totalitarian perspective? This is a fine example of the sort of thinking that those with open minds are seeking to remove from any public decision-making process. Free speech applies to you alone then.

Moreover, if you think that you have won any form of debate over Britain's inexorable progression towards a secular society, you are living in a fool's paradise.

You see Henry, it is precisely because religious beliefs tend to muddle or hijack the thinking of those infused with them that large sectors of the general public prefer a system of politics that avoids multifarious supernatural notions, informed by the slimmest possibility of gods.

Thank you for unwittingly defining my right to free speech however, and also for telling me what I need to think about, possibly having made assumptions regarding my own academic qualifications. This, Henry, remains a forum where opinions can be asserted in any chosen form - it is not necessarily a vehicle for publishing academic monographs. If it were, judging by your disconnected jottings you would probably not be taken seriously.

Currently the Anglican Church is a factor within the legislature, but since it represents only itself, I should be disappointed if legislation based on beliefs rather than people were enacted on behalf of us all. We live in hopes that crazy laws surrounding blasphemy will be fully abolished - although against the inequalities of faith schools and dogma versus human rights issues this might be a poor example.

You also appear to confuse robustly-held beliefs with prejudices. I have considered statements by prelates, critically analysing their meaning and their significance. I have concluded along with others that whilst they are fully entitled to express them, the political dimension and their profile should be reduced. This does not demonstrate a prejudical view. For me, we simply cannot have a society in which religious leaders make assertions, some highly inflammatory, on behalf of us all, from specific positions defined by arcane doctrines (which for many are irrelevant). None of these people are elected, nor is there seen to be any meaningful consensus, either between faith groups or regarding the issues they debate.

I accept that the situation is as it is, but in a free society I am fully entitled to express a desire to change things. You, seemingly, are not content with the parameters of your faith; your position appears linked to maintaining power and influence in society, through the historical context of your religion.

It does seem to me that increasingly few people are finding the utterances of privileged clerics overly credible. If Anglicans or other groups want to subvert laws, avoid human rights issues (claiming exemption) or to define morality through dogmatic ideologies (on behalf of us all), I would ask what on earth gives them the right?

[Henry]

You are in complete denial, George, in pursuit of an untenable argument.

Free speech means just that: all points of view are entitled to make themselves heard. In a free society, the prevailing legal and moral culture represents whatever consensus or majorities can be achieved in the legislature and in the public forum. You simply don't like the fact that you have not won the debate. Christians are in a large majority and not going to keep quiet just for you.

And it is a somewhat pedantic way in which you belittle a distinguished academic, by referring to him as "Mr". Most people recognise earned doctorates and higher doctorates from Oxford University as substantial marks of academic status. Do you have an earned higher doctorate, George? But this is clearly the level of childish desperation to which you stoop.

I don't like having to pay taxes to support the state in a wide range of activities of which I disapprove, but that is the way of the world. I have to accept it.

You need to think seriously about accepting the fact that the Christian religion remains an important factor in public life, debate and legislation in the UK.

It's a free country. You can try to change it. But secularisation does not seem to be happening, and you will either have to live with that, or find a country which suits your prejudices better.

[George Parr]

Don't be so pedantic Henry.'Dr' is merely one of Mr Williams' titles along with 'Rowan' or 'Archbishop'.

You clearly have not been internalising much from other threads. If you had you would know that the mythical figure of 72% has been wholly debunked on a number of fronts. It represents no qualitative assessment and no specifics which differentiate between those who believe in gods or who claim to be committed Christians. Look at the Ipsos Mori Poll 2006, which shows that 62% of the population believe that the government takes far too much notice of religious leaders. A similar number think that right and wrong can be determined by human nature alone. Mary Cunningham's Gallup poll on another thread lowers the figure considerably, but stops short of presenting the full picture.

And you won't find many humanists preferring one form of morality over another, in a system where free-thinking prevails. The rationale challenges the claim that a one-dimensional morality based on various religious manuals of instruction is neither paradigmatic nor suitable for a pluralist society; unthinking dogma is certainly NOT preferred over more important issues of individual rights.

What are you proposing - some form of muddled theocracy, in which doctors of divinity are a serious alternative to a democratic system, with all its faults?

Your assertion that Britain has a 'legal and moral system shaped by the Christian faith' is another risible, mythical notion, which simply does not reflect reality. Judging by the contributions of some Christians on these boards; those who marginalise homosexuals, discriminate against women, seek to insist upon rigid behavioural 'norms' or prescribed sexuality, are more suited to a Fascist ideology than any acceptable political system. There is no meaningful 'large Christian majority' Henry. You are clinging on to the remains of a rose-tinted post war past; one in which authoritarianism played a part in seeking to maintain already attenuated notions of class and status.

Of course I am not saying that the views of Anglicans count for nothing. What I AM saying is that increasing numbers of people do not want to be defined against the vainglorious religious beliefs of others, regarding education, morality and other general social and political issues.

Arguably the social benefits of religious communities are far outweighed by the repressed and restricted forms of behaviour they advocate. Why should those of us unencumbered with the need to define life in this way put up with the collateral damage of Islam or the attempts by Christians to assert themselves politically?

[Henry]

It's Dr Williams actually, several times over. Including an Oxford DPhil and DD.

I note that you have no arguments other than to dismiss the right of religious leaders and commentators to contribute to public debate.

What you call discrimination merely represents your prejudiced assertion that one kind of moral (or immoral) system should prevail in a Christian country against all others.

Given the lack of real participation in party politics in this country it is hard to demonstrate how any party leader actually represents his members, let alone the electorate. Broon did not even undergo the farce of an internal election in order to become PM, and has routinely disregarded the clear manifesto commitments made by his party on a number of issues.

So few people take part in party elections that one has to question whether they have any legitimacy at all. But it is very clear that Dr Williams speaks for the great majority of Anglicans in England, and indeed throughout the UK.

We are far more numerous and active than any tinpot constituency party and on those grounds alone we have every right to campaign for our views within the broadly democratic framework of public debate in a country which retains a large Christian majority, and a legal and moral system shaped by the Christian faith.

Membership of the Lords is a red herring. The reality is that a very small proportion of the population is avowedly secularist. The Archbishop speaks for a 72% majority, according to the most recent "poll".

If their stated view counts for nothing, as you assert, the views of the tiny minority claiming no religion count for proportionately less.

I have tried to find out how many members the National Secular Society has - but oddly the information is not available!

[George Parr]

Henry, I am not arguing that Mr Williams is a public figure only through his membership of the upper house. The wider point is that our lordly clerics are the tip of an iceberg which affects social policy regarding an effective education system, morality through a one-way glass, hotly contested human rights legislation and discriminatory attitudes to issues of sexuality and gender.

Moreover I would not expect a leading figure of any institution to be an academic idiot. The Anglican Church can choose whoever they like to lead them. And politicians do indeed speak on behalf of their electorate from their own party position - but duh! the very voluble archbishop is not speaking on behalf of any political party - and as it stands does not represent anyone other than Anglicans. There is a substantial percentage who follow football in this country - are we to expect the FIFA chairman to pronounce on socio-political matters from a position of privilege within the legislature?

Your 24 million Anglican figure is very much open to debate and cannot be fully quantified or measured qualitatively through a system of ticked boxes. If this is all you have to go on, you are on a loser.

The reality is that a small minority of people have a vested interest in what Mr Williams has to say, but his public status affords him a platform from which he can address, pronounce upon and at times inflate inflammatory issues. For some, his political utterances represent a voice from within the establishment; in short he speaks, together with other prelates, in an unwise, falsely inclusive manner to which he is not entitled.

We need urgently to separate religion from politics.

[Henry]

Dear George, you have a rather inflated view of the influence which is conferred by membership of the House of Lords. Even if the Archbishop were not a member, his status would make him just as much a public figure as he is now.

And you clearly don't comprehend the "rationale" for his appointment. He is Archbishop because of intellectual and academic stature which put him ten miles above any other candidate, in an appointment procedure which involves the Prime Minister - since the Archbishop is ex-officio a member of the House of Lords.

Of course he speaks "from his own faith position" - duh! Do politicians not speak from their own party position?

Mr Broon claims to speak for the UK but has less democratic legitimacy than a parish councillor since he was not elected as PM. At least we know that some 24m claim to be Anglican, providing the Archbishop with a very more substantial platform than the Cabinet, which can only claim a modest minority of voters on one dark day a couple of years back.

[George Parr]

I agree entirely with your assessment of the disproportional voting system Henry. In my view it urgently needs changing. However, to try to justify one unfair and partial system by directly relating it to another advances the matter not one jot. You confuse the right of Mr Williams to speak for Anglicans with the wider point that, from his privileged position, he is also speaking on matters affecting everyone else, but from his own faith position. Attempts to 'make great efforts' to speak within a wider framework appear either to split his own congregation, or enrage others.

How on earth you can annoint Mr Williams with lordly legitimacy? I cannot imagine how (even in your rather singular view) he would ever succeed as a Prime Minister!

Currently he is simply another appointed, unremovable cleric, sitting within the legislature and informed by his own religious beliefs. There is no other reason for his being there. Since this is the case, he is no more qualified than any other professor of ethics or philosophy, in fact less so, as the rationale of his appointment relies solely upon his faith rather than academic expertise for itself.

And who is seeking to deny anyone the right of free speech? Those members of society with Anglican beliefs have as much access to elected politicans as anyone else. The difference is that other faiths and those with none are not specifically represented.

I am horrified that representatives from 'faith' groups should be appointed to parliament, with an eligibility to vote on social and political issues - the driving force for doing so based on sets of arcane beliefs, or dogmatic ideologies. I would certainly oppose a widening of appointments in this respect.

I do not believe that there is a point where theocratic principles either underpin or augment a (admittedly poor) democratic system. Historically, religious institutions, together with those based on monarchical elitism, have been seen significantly to divide and classify society. For me, peace stability and equality is not achieved via these means. Moreover there is scant evidence from the social and religious struggles of the past several centuries to suggest different.

[Henry]

George,

Which group in society does NOT speak from its own perspective?

When it comes to ticking boxes, the Labour Party was a minority of those who voted at the last election, but Gordon Broon (a Scottish MP in what ought now to be an English Parliament) purports to speak for 100% of the UK, and to sign treaties on our behalf, without consulting us and without the fig leaf of being elected himself to serve in No. 10.

Ticking boxes at the Census may be the extent of anyone's commitment to anything - like voting at General Elections - but the last Census did indicate a far higher percentage identifying with the Christian faith than with the Labour Party. Roughly double! IMHO Williams would make a much better PM, and a much more legitimate one.

To the extent that anyone is qualified to speak for any section of society, it seems to me that the Archbishop has a far greater right to speak for Christianity, than Mr Broon has to speak for the 65% who did not vote for him.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, as a former Oxford Professor (the youngest at the time at 36) has a very considerable stature as a thinker and as a religious leader, who works not only with Christian leaders but leaders of other faiths as well (shock, horror!) in order to ensure that the place of religion in society receives attention commensurate with its current significance and diversity, compared to the 19th century when the religious element of the House of Lords was fixed at 26 Anglican bishops.

In fact, he and the other bishops make great efforts to speak for a much wider perspective than their own. It seems to me laudable and unexceptionable - unless, like the NSS, you want to deny the right of free speech to one sector of society in a way you would not dare to stifle the views of a political party.

And as I noted earlier, the bishops would welcome a greater diversity of appointments to the House of Lords. You presumably would not.

[George Parr]

Dear Henry, I feel not one ounce of guilt over the appalling deeds of my colonial predecessors - and my post was considerably tongue-in-cheek!

I do think however that you are stretching a point in blandly defining Britain as Christian. But then that's the usual assertion, that sits alongside the invented, single religious paradigm of moral guidance. These things are normally used to justify an unelected group that interferes continually in everybody's lives from its own perspective. The trick, seemingly, is to speak not only for itself but for everybody else in order to represent and then internalise its ideology as the status quo. In reality the church's constructed but diluted position is now one of clinging on for grim death...

There seems to me to be no finer example of a desperate attempt to be taken seriously than Dr Williams, an Angican appointee presiding over a vastly split congregation, commenting unwisely on a social and political matter of grave concern to all. In doing so he demonstrates an inability to connect with political reality and assumes that all people, religious or not, are 'nominally' in thrall to and grateful for his notions of social repair. Perhaps he has delusions of grandeur over his own specific profile and cannot measure how far he should seek to impose himself in a wider sense. He has the privilege of heading the Anglican Church.

Perhaps an awareness of where his privilege ends might position him safely away from the hail of brickbats hurled by both the secular and the religious.

[Henry]

My goodness, George, you do have a large quantity of postcolonial guilt swimming about inside your noddle! None of which defines British values in the slightest!

Actually, the world would be a better place if there was more Pax Britannica. The inability of Africa to manifest even one recognisably civilised state since the colonial powers withdrew has done no favours for its inhabitants.

To invest in Africa these days is to invest in numbered Swiss bank accounts held by kleptocratic tyrants and corrupt officials. At least the money provided jobs and security in the old days.

I assume from your remarks that you would salve your conscience by permitting Britain to be remodelled along Zimbabwean lines?

When the rule of law breaks down I have little doubt that liberal secularists will be the second to suffer - once the barbarians have finished murdering the Jews.

[George Parr]

(An attempt at levity!)

Is that right Henry! Haven't you forgotten some of the criteria? I thought 'Britishness' also involved interfering with other countries' internal policies; jeopardising the safety of the young men in our ill-equipped armed forces by sending them on bloody campaigns overseas, whether the host population wishes its culture disturbed or not; exporting armaments to regimes with dreadful records on human rights; not allowing its people a written constitution; maintaining an unequal and unfair electoral system, in which the majority does not get the government it voted for; having an elitist, colonial history where western values were viewed as sacrosanct, some of which are preserved to this day, providing a supreme position from where other cultures can be marginalised in their 'otherness'; and obtaining stinking wealth for generations from all manner of hideous schemes which included slavery, stealing gemstones, minerals and world art - and the general exploitation of some of the poorest countries on earth, for centuries paying them virtually nothing for their goods?

And where do you get the idea from that we are all 'nominal Christians' from? You speak for yourself! 

I do hope that no-one actually judges us from your (albeit non-exclusive) model - apparently based on our obsession with either Pooter losing at cricket, or exposing the intellect of those bothering to get excited over one team of millionaires playing continual football against another band of Bentley owners! (As a mass of men living lives of quiet desperation struggle to afford the latest strip for their celebrity boggling offspring!)

Is it from this position we welcome strangers with a degree of remarkable tolerance? I agree with many of your sentiments however!

[CHRIS]

Interesting how Bishop Pritchard, in pleading Christian inclusiveness, claims to use Archbishop Sentamu's greeting to Muslims, but actually drastically alters it. A quick bit of googling shows that for Sentamu, Jesus is "the Saviour of the World", but according to Bishop Pritchard, he is (merely) "a saviour".

[Henry]

The vast explosion of comment over recent days, RW, does seem to indicate that the great majority of people living in the UK take the view that to be British requires more than the accident of birth here.

They are by no means exclusive tests, but the language of a name indicates its provenance; Britons are generally at least nominal Christians; and they support the national side at cricket or football. These are the sort of thing that people look for when examining what it means to be "British".

And Britain has proved to be remarkably tolerant and even welcoming of those who set about integrating here, and even proud of the national dish which is served up in many a curry house. Many communities have become respected and contented parts of the national life, Huguenots, Jews, Sikhs, people from all around the former Empire, refugees in their hundreds of thousands. Why do you suppose they all converge on Britain rather than Iran or Somalia or Russia?

Most muslims seem content to settle here on precisely the same terms. And that means accepting the common law which is applicable to everyone, whether they have been here for a decade or a thousand years.

There have been many attempts in the last millennium to impose something else upon us, and they were all defeated. Anyone contemplating the same project in the 21st century will equally find that at the very core of Britishness lies the determination to remain free and to fight to the bitter end for the freedom to govern ourselves according to law, and not according to the dictates of any foreign or religious power.

[RW]

"Why should islams move here and expect me to change my culture and laws for them?"

Er, and you expect us to believe that you are British with English like that?
I didn't 'move' here, I was born here (as were generations of my ancestors) and the number of British born (and British ancestry) Muslims is soaring. A few more years and your 'coming here' argment is dead (and by the way, most of them are British citizens because of the hostory of British imperialism). The only reason they are immigrants (and not 'expats') is because they're not white.

[John Gregory Flinn]

"Why should islams move here and expect me to change my culture and laws for them?"

Because they are building a colony in Britain. And developing their own Sharia legal system to govern it!

[G Howard]

If I moved to a islam state I would respect their culture and laws.

Why should islams move here and expect me to change my culture and laws for them?

[Tom Jackson]

Just reported in the Times, "The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for the UK to adopt Sharia law for Muslims."

Rowan Williams has finally lost the plot and has to go! What on earth is he saying?

[George Parr]

Tom, humanity binds people together and the pursuance of diverse ideologies, which define and separate human behaviour, morals and attitudes against fear of punishment or marginalisation do not.

The 2005 study by Gregory Paul clearly demonstrates that secular nations like France, Britain and many others have far outstripped Christian countries like America in reducing serious crime, suicide and a raft of social and medical diseases. Whilst certainly not utopias they have shown that social cohesion does not rely on religion.

Have a look at
http://moses.crighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005/-11.html, covered by Ruth in www.timesonline.co.uk/article/O,,2-1798944,00.html.

I go along with some of it and whilst not all might impress you, it does tend to show that there is a trend supporting a more secular approach to social problem solving. Those with faith should not, in my view feel threatened by this, but I do feel that, as groups embracing differing beliefs, they cannot expect to turn the wheel on which they turn.

Historically, look at Catholics like Pinochet in Chile or Franco in Spain to assess how successful Christianity has been at maintaining human rights and generating solidity. Prominent Nazis were sheltered by the Catholic Church in South America after WW2. The list of social atrocities in England, underpinned by religion is also endless. But for those who believe that Britian is going to hell in a handcart, I would embrace a more positive attitude if I were them.

[Tom Jackson]

"I do think that morals are a result of the fusion of human nature with a long history of human experience, in which a desire for mutuality can support civilised communities."

I was fascinated, George, with your comments, none more so than the above.You see, I basically agree with this observation but with a proviso.

Individuals can basically develop morals in the manner under the conditions you identify but communities - that is, groups of people who either choose, or through circumstances find themselves, living together, sharing a common perspective on how to live - need to draw those individuals together in to a cohesive unit.

This doesn't happen naturally; it happens because someone, something first attracts and then binds them together.

Think about it; a club, an army, a workplace, a family, a football team, a church, a political Party, a nation.

I know many decent, hardworking people who share idealistic views on how we should live and they are not Christians. Absence of religion doesn't change anything as far as they are concerned as individuals; it doesn't change their way of life, their goodness and their determination to provide and protect their family and friends.

But, they are individuals; they may be encouraged to vote in a 5 yearly election for a candidate who appears to share their perspective, who seems to epitomise what they believe in but as a nebulous group, that is as far as it goes. And there are probably millions of such people, isolated across our nation and there is no indication of a significant movement to elect candidates commited to protecting our way of life.

And I would argue, that since the fundamentals of human nature and the foundation of human experience as we understand it in this country are to be found in the underlying belief system that has contributed to our way of life and the character of our nation, it is natural that if any cohesive resistance is to be organised against, for example, Islamic incursion, it will be through the Christian Church.

[George Parr]

Tom, as usual I think you are associating me with a straggling band of humanist idealists, who are not capable of forming the resistance you envisage. I would argue that the logic applies to a dysfunctional and schismatic band of clerics and their followers!

It is true that I believe in a positive agenda based upon building on the integrity of human beings and working with what there is, as opposed to what is curiously hidden and assumed. It incorporates some attitudes, as you rightly point out, which are not exclusive to members of humanist associations. I do think that morals are a result of the fusion of human nature with a long history of human experience, in which a desire for mutuality can support civilised communities. The current issues over Islam, where heavy religious overtones accompany increased immigration presents us all, with faith or not, with a social problem.

You say that you are 'not certain' if we can protect our way of life outside of a spiritual belief; and you appear to think that we have not yet decided what our national identity consists of. This leads me to suspect that a worse postion might arise should faith groups attempt an ad hoc process of strengthening their positions. I simply do not believe that exclusivity is the answer. The problem is here and now and cannot be denied. It has happened over time and is established.

There is no humanist army and the consolidated traditional faith-based framework that you speak of does not exist.

Elected representatives, with all their faults are the people who need to address it.

You might be heartened to know that Elizabeth O'Casey, the sole National Secular Society represenative at the European Union's recent meeting on 'Cultural Diversity, Religions and Dialogue' in Brussels, reported that the EU was, depressingly, 'a Christian Club'.

Mr Edmond Israel, (Asia Europe Foundation) apparently asserted that there are 'no true atheists' and in general Ms O'Casey wondered how the EU could possibly regard itself as a secular entity, with a responsibility for representing all faiths or those with none!

In short, since faith groups seem unable to provide any workable social answer to this current dilemma and Christians appear to eschew what they see as the dubious inclusivity of multiculturalism, I remain convinced that a secular solution must be found, in which the humanist attitudes found within both those with faith and those without are significantly reflected.

[John Gregory Flinn]

The realisation of the threat posed by Islam in Britain is well posted by KATE and others, and in a tone seemingly quite dark and negative.
This compares to that four or more years ago when the mood was still quite positive in Britain despite 9/11, with the multi-cultural band-wagon almost celebrated in those corners of the UK now seen as troublesome immigrant ghettos.
I think the penny has dropped in government, although local councils, their agencies and the judiciary are still in the 'multi-culti' timewarp.
And this is perhaps JOE's error. He must feel under attack when really he is only reciting yesterday's received wisdoms.

However, to labour GEORGE PARR's metaphor, the Islamic cuckoo has hatched and is already kicking the others out of the nest.
I've a feeling it's too late.
Who would have ever thought that that historic, and epitomy of christian learning Oxford, would fall under the call of Islam?

It seems this change of mood can only worsen.
As the authorities struggle for a solution, and as the economic depression gathers pace and deepens, Islam and muslims can themselves come to feel under threat in Europe. Those same dark forces from the 1930s may emerge somewhere and, either convert muslims to christianity or drive them out as they were from Spain and the Balkans.

[Tom Jackson]

George, while you seem to realise the need to resist the Islamic incursion into our society, I am at a loss to understand exactly how you would prevent our way of life being threatened and compromised.

I understand your resistance to anything based in Christianity. It wasn't so long ago that as an agnostic, I would have taken a similar position and I still agree with many of the points you make from an humanistic point of view..

But to look to Europe for co-operation and a coordinated approach is like wishing for the Moon. To trust in people as uncoordinated and unorganised individuals to present any approach that would meet the objective is just as much a fantasy. To expect the level of awareness, professionalism and ability which would create political policies " to maintain future social stability, inclusivity in education and balanced immigration" from those available to govern us, going on past experience is just pure delusion.

You are quite right to highlight the poor performance of 'religion' in the past. But that doesn't diminish the value and contribution that 'great religious traditions' have contributed to stability, morality and all the other areas important to humanity.

The fact is that although you can talk all week about the failures of Christianity and adopt a perspective where the only satisfactory approach is to expect an unrealistic 100% performance and success from the system you accept, whatever you settle for is going to fall well short of perfection!

So, even if you manage to get some powerful, organised and effective non-religious, humanistic movement off the ground, in 10 years time I would be able to offer the same or similar criticisms as you do now about Christianity's poor performance and record!

It isn't going to happen and Bishop Nazir-Ali is absolutely correct when he places his faith in an approach that stands some chance of success rather than pie-in-the-sky, wishy-washy solutions that will never see the light of day.

[J Pearce]

"Nazir-Ali is living in a Christian country. The rest of us are living in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic country.

Utter bollocks. Joe might like to get his cultural kicks out of being some sort of inner-city resident, cashing in his working class kudos and trading it for street cred. But the fact of the matter is that for a large swathe of the British population, this idea of "multi-cultural, multi-ethnic" is utterly alien (unless you count one local chinese takeaway in a wiltshire town as "multi-cultural".

Get real, Joe. Britian does not end at the outer edges of its grim metropolises. There are suburbs and then there are rural places you wouldn't even recognise. Does being isolated from the hubs make you "racist", I wonder?

Only from the perspective of outdated marxists, I suppose.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Funnily enough, I have loads of friends who don't have any views on Zionism at all. I also have others who at least know what Zionism is, which is more than you do, Mike.

I have cited the views of Engage, a left-wing academic forum, members of which tend not to be Zionists, but who are aware of how anti-Zionism can very quickly become antisemitism.

[David Cohen]

So, Irene, have you got that?

Melanie is ALWAYS wrong
Polly is ALWAYS right

Mike Momfray (who?) says so.

[George Parr]

I am appalled that Bishop Nazir-Ali has allegedly received death threats, but in terms of measuring attitudes or proposing social policy based on foregrounding what he describes as the existing spiritual tradition, I think he is on a loser.

And whilst he asserts that the 'great moral systems' of the world have been articulated via 'great religious traditions', it is the case that, throughout history, 'religion' (as distinct from faith) has enjoyed a very poor record over human rights, morality and institutional probity in general. The very fact that attempts have been made to intimidate the bishop, whilst merely exercising his right of free speech, tends to support the theory that with regard to social cohesion, 'religion' is an antagonistic force.

I do not believe that unelected clerics should form part of the legislature, and I think that laws should be proposed based upon the needs of all people rather than to protect singular 'beliefs'. But within the context of how 'religion' relates to society in general, it can clearly be seen that political statements from 'establishment' clerics are likely to highlight the totalitarian elements within a wide spectrum of religious views. To my mind this is the best possible evidence that polarised positions cause more problems than they solve. How we wish to live in this country and what rights those of us who take no part in inter-faith conflicts can expect, is an urgent matter for our elected politicians.

[Kate]

Mike Homfray: the arrogance is mind-boggling.

Because YOU think Melanie Phillips is a "Zionist" her "world view" is wrong! Ergo every thought, everything she writes, is wrong. An intelligent argument indeed.

Could we, instead of the usual snipping, have a definition of what you mean by the term Zionist. It might go some way to making sense of a rather discourteous antagonism against Irene, Melanie and at times, myself.

I ask because I am loathe to assume that you are one of those (rare in my personal experience) gay men who simply detest (or fear) women who are willing to think and express an opinion.

Again, perhaps you are one who supports those weird turkeys who vote for Christmas, i.e. Gays for Palestine.

[Mike Homfray]

Irene: I think Phillips' world view is utterly wrong, and so what she says will also as a result be wrong because of her very basic errors about the human condition and the warped view she has of a 'good society'.

My views are almost diametrically opposed to hers - now, I suggest you read polly Toynbee who, conversely, almost always says what i agree with. It is a very profound difference of outlook and worldview. Phillips is wrong on this as she is wrong on everything else, in my view. including, of course, her uncritical Zionism, which is why you defend her as that appears to be your sole criteria for supporting anyone!

[Rev F Orr-Ewing]

Charlie Cleverly (Rector of St Aldates) is absolutely right. A call to prayer is wholly inappropriate from the muezzin. The nightclubs in the area have the strictest of sound limits and licensing, and the mosque should be no different. The vast majority of local residents are also opposed.

[George Parr]

I also agree with Tom and Kate that we are faced with an attack on our freedoms and liberties from the Islamic cuckoo in the nest.

I believe that we should take urgent steps to de-emphasise the so-called importance of religious diversity and begin from a position of humanity based on our own western values.

We are led to believe that the majority of Muslims living here are rational and form a corpus of social responsibility, with extremism a marginal and sporadic phenomenon. But as Kate says, the core beliefs of Islam clearly seem to centre on cultural and religious superiority, and it is no secret that there are built-in anti-handling devices within Islam, in the form of devious untruths, in order to preserve the notion of protecting the greater Islamic good.

I am not at all sure that to strengthen other religions, such as the Christian faith, is an appropriate mechanism for identifying or consolidating some form of national identity; or even if, in the light of significant cultural changes, to do so is actually possible. Equally I do not agree that in itself Christianity has provided a stable historical paradigm for the cementation of western cultural virtues; I am more persuaded by a return to Kate's trusted enlightenment values.

It is the case however that historically the indigenous community inevitably suffers, following an influx of immigrants where their values are at odds with a host population removed from far-flung ideologies it is wholly unable to identify with or even address. And we are only responsible for living in peace, treating each other fairly and with respect, not global problem solving. Our human rights agenda which, in the main, encompasses and relates to other integrated immigrant groups, collides head-on with (for most westerners) some of the more repulsive or unacceptable aspects of Islam.

In my view, we ought to try to find and build on, perhaps on a European basis, significant areas of reciprocation - beginning with seriously overhauling our policies on ways to maintain future social stability, inclusivity in education and balanced immigration.

[Tom Jackson]

“Ultimately, the simple demographics of Muslim immigration will lead to the destruction of western civilization as we know it today.”

Only a fool or an optimist would disagree with Kate’s statement. Even the simplest, logical analysis of our recent history cannot result in anything but this conclusion.

There is an assumption, however, that those responsible for the policy and response of those countries, which we classify as being part of ‘western civilisation’ to the spread of Islamic influence, will continue to bury their heads in the sand. And it relies upon the citizens in the West to remain inexplicably tolerant and apathetic to the danger.

There are already indications of a desire in the UK to reassert our national identity (once we decide exactly what that is!) And this will cause a great amount of dismay amongst those who misguidedly believe a national identity is of no importance (and may even present a danger in itself).

There is no danger in this reassertion unless it emerges as some form of irresponsible force along racial lines. Re-establishing an awareness of our history, our heritage, the actions and sacrifices that our countrymen made to protect and preserve a way of life that we value today, can restore pride and a sense of who we are.

If this can happen in isolation from spiritual belief and strength, I am not certain. There is no way that a dysfunctional, dispersed and unorganized group of people can achieve anything, while the Church not only provides a structure but also embodies many, if not all, of the characteristics upon which our national identity evolved.

Medieval superstition? It depends on your point of view but without recognition of first, the problem we face and, second, the need for organization and leadership, Kate’s conclusions are inevitable.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

See Ruth's exclusive report in The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3292032.ece

I wondered how long it would be before Bishop Michael received death threats. Intimidation seems to be part of the islamic handbook.