Christians urged to defy non-existent cross ban

Cardinal Keith O'Brien has used his guaranteed free press at Easter to urge all Christians to wear a cross at work, in protest at what he sees as the "marginalisation" of religion.  This presumably follows an obscure government submission to a silly case in the European Court of Human Rights last week, which seems to have been taken as a "ban" on wearing crosses.

Let's be clear - there is no law against wearing crosses at work, but employers can and do set dress codes, which may include banning jewellery.  This has long been the case, and has nothing whatever to do with religion.

If you cut through all the usual nonsense about how those nasty militant secularists are trying to destroy christianity, the facts are these (more detail here) :

• Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin are both Christians who worked in places where necklaces were not allowed.
• They insisted on wearing crucifixes around their necks anyway, and lost out at work as a result
• They both took their employers to court claiming discrimination and lost
• They are now taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that it is their inalienable human right to wear a cross, and that UK law must be changed to accommodate this.
• The government says they have no such right.

What we actually have here are two cases where people have chosen to work in places which place restrictions on what they can wear.  They've then decided that because they are christians, the rules which apply to everybody else needn't apply to them.

There is no secular conspiracy to stop people wearing their crosses, or for that matter their turbans, burkhas or indeed offensive atheist t-shirts!  All the government is saying is that if an employer makes a rule about clothing in the workplace, it applies to everyone equally.

Voice, yes. Votes, no.

In this interview yesterday morning, Tim Stevens, the Bishop of Leicester was defending the place of C of E bishops in the House of Lords.  Amongst other things, he said that it was important for the church, as a representative of all faiths to have a voice in "the public square".

At the moment, there are 26 bishops who have a seat by right in the House of Lords.  Under the government's current proposals for Lords reform, that number would reduce, but then so would the overall size of the House.  In fact, under Nick Clegg's proposals, bishops would make up 3% of the new House, more than they do now. This would only exacerbate the fact that the UK is unique amongst western democracies in having any religious representation in our parliament at all.

I actually agree with Bishop Tim that faith groups are entitled to a voice in our national conversation.  Where we differ is that I don't think they're entitled to a vote.  The church, and any other religious group, could have a voice from outside parliament, just like any other interest or pressure group does.  How strong that voice is, and the extent to which it is heard by power would rightly depend on how much legitimacy the church could claim in representing the views of the people.

If the Church wants seats in the Lords, let it stand for election like any other group.  Then we'll see how much the public values its voice.

Why Cardinal Keith O'Brien is Wrong

I accept that this post might seem a teensy bit hypocritical.  I wrote last week that gay marriage was not a secular issue (it isn't), that secularism isn't about opposing religion and everything it stands for (it isn't), and that those religious figures who are opposed to gay marriage have the right to say so (they do).  What I also made clear though was that those of us who support gay marriage have that same right.  Cardinal Keith O'Brien's article in the Telegraph today was so stupid, scare-mongering, bigoted and just plain wrong that I couldn't resist opening my mouth (and my laptop) and exercising that right.

One of the points he raises is, to quote from The Simpsons, "won't somebody please think of the children?" He writes :

Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. 

Leaving aside the cheap shot that the Catholic church might not be the best institution to teach the rest of us about child protection, this is just rubbish.  For one thing (and I'm happy to be corrected on this), I am aware of no law now that says every child should have a mother and a father.  Of course it is important for children to grow up in a secure, stable, loving environment, but there is no guarantee that heterosexual marriages achieve that, and no reason to think that gay marriages would do any less well.

Second, Cardinal Keith is making a logical slip-up here.  Allowing gay people to marry will not prevent a single child who is currently growing up within the setting of a straight marriage from doing so.  All of the benefits of marriage that are currently available to the children of straight couples will still be there.    On the other hand, gay couples can already adopt children who had not enjoyed the benefits of a stable home, and provide one for them.  Allowing those couples to marry, if it makes any difference at all, can only make that home even more secure.  In other words, allowing gay people to marry will not harm a single child.


He also made some arguments based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Article 16 of the declaration says that  "Men and women ... have the right to marry" (it doesn't actually specify who should or shouldn't marry whom).  The blessed Keith thinks that this means the government's proposal to allow gay marriage "attempts to demolish a universally recognised human right".   In the interests of pith, I'll go no further on that one, assuming that readers can see for themselves how silly it is.

Finally, and this is where it does become more of a secularist issue, he goes back to the old chestnut about the desire of the religious to teach children about the world as they would like it, rather than the world as it is. He asks :

If same-sex marriage is enacted into law what will happen to the teacher who wants to tell pupils that marriage can only mean – and has only ever meant – the union of a man and a woman?

The answer is simple Keith - the teacher would be wrong.  If same-sex marriage is enacted into law, it will be a simple matter of fact that marriage does not only mean the union of a man and a woman.  Now if a teacher wants to tell children about his opinion, what marriage means to him personally, or what he would like it to mean to the rest of us, then fine.  He would of course be subject to the same laws that would apply now if a teacher told a class that gay people were an abomination, or black people should all go back to where they came from.  As I have said here before, secularism means that everyone is subject to the same law, and nobody's faith provides them with an exemption from that.

So, the good Cardinal has set out his view, as he is entitled to do, and I've set out why I think he's wrong.  There will no doubt be more of a national debate on this subject, and eventually parliament will have its say.  When it does, and whether it comes down on my side of the debate or Keith's, we will both have to live with it, because we live in a democracy.  That is exactly what secularism exists to protect, and long may it be so.

Is gay marriage a secularist issue?

The next issue that looks to be lined up as part of the great secularist vs. religious debate is gay marriage.  I've thought a lot about this over the last few days, and I've come to the view that it's not really an issue that has much to do with religion or secularism at all.

I'm sure that there will be those who portray the government's proposals as the latest step of those nasty militant secularists trampling all over their religious rights.  The reality is that this is a bit about equality, a bit about democracy and quite a lot about politics, but it's not really about religion.  Writing in the Telegraph this weekend, equalities minister Lynne Featherstone said that "this is not gay rights versus religious beliefs", and she's right.

Of course many religious people and groups are strongly opposed to gay marriage, just as many secularist and humanist groups are strongly in favour, and that's a good thing.  Secularism isn't about opposing religion and all it stands for.  One of it's principles is that everyone has the right to their own faith, and faith groups have the right to state and defend their views the same as everyone else.

I'll write that bit again, because it's important - the same as everyone else.  No reasonable secularist would oppose the right of groups like the Coalition for Marriage to campaign against gay marriage, just as no reasonable churchgoer would have a problem with Stonewall supporting it.  The only role I can see for secularism in this debate will come if the bishops in the house of lords use their privileged position to stop the legislation, but that's a debate for another day.

As for my own view by the way, I stood up in front of my friends and family (in a civil venue) and promised to love and support my wife for the rest of my life.  I can see no reason why my gay friends shouldn't be able to do the same thing.

So what exactly are "Christian values" anyway?

One reason commonly given for Christianity to have a privileged place in the UK is that even if the number of those practising the faith is in decline, our country was founded on "Christian Values".

Fair enough, nobody can deny that Christianity has been the predominant faith in Britain for the last 1500 years or so, but is it really true that the values which underpin British society are Christian ones?  What are Christian values anyway?

Not surprisingly, very few of those who pontificate on the subject define what they mean, but there are a few websites out there which provide lists of what they say are christian values (see here, here or here).  Reading through those lists though, I don't think there's anything about the values they contain which is uniquely Christian.  To illustrate what I mean, here are a small selection of them.

• Revering / loving / valuing God.  OK, so on the face of it this is certainly a religious value, but is it really Christian?  Do followers of any other religion not love or revere their god(s)?  For that matter, atheists and humanists place great value on their own belief systems, whether or not they involve a deity.  I don't think this can really be claimed as a "Christian value".
• Forgiveness.  I don't claim to be an expert on comparative religion, but I can use Wikipedia, and it doesn't take long to discover that forgiveness is inherent in pretty much all cultures.
• Peace. Once again, peace is a fundamental part of all major faiths, particularly Islam.  For that matter, I'm not religious, and I kind of like peace too!

I could go on, but it would only get boring.  My point here, in case it wasn't clear, is that the values which underpin British society might be ones that Christians adhere to as part of their faith, but they are shared by people of all faiths and none.

I would say that Britain (and most other countries) is founded on human values, not Christian ones and with that we come back to the fundamental point of secularism.  However important our own beliefs are to us individually, the state should approach and respect us all equally as humans.

Calm down dear - the Bishop of Leicester goes off on one!

The Right Reverend Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, wrote this extraordinary article  in the Leicester Mercury this week attacking secularism.  Wondering what a secular society might look like, he asks :

If there were no public prayers said before any Government proceedings, if there were no great services in our cathedrals, and if there was no monarch to act as head of the Established Church, would our lives be more free and fulfilled? What if the spires and towers of our parish churches were removed from our cityscapes and landscape? What if every village no longer had an ancient iconic building at its heart? What if the mosques, temples and gurdwaras were removed from Leicester?

Hang on a minute!  Nobody is suggesting that prayers shouldn't be said before government proceedings for those who want them, only that those who don't want to worship shouldn't be at a disadvantage.  Who has ever said that there shouldn't be services in our cathedrals?  A central tenet of secularism is that everyone should be free to worship in their own way, or not at all as they see fit.  As for there being no monarch, while most secularists would welcome the disestablishment of the C of E, I think regicide might be taking things a bit too far!

The second part of his piece, where he seems to suggest that secularists want all religious buildings razed to the ground, is really so ridiculous that any comment from me seems unnecessary.

All in all, this is the kind of vicious scaremongering that you might expect from an unreformed Daily Mail columnist, but you might hope a Bishop would know better.  Thankfully, I suspect that the good people of Leicester are not stupid enough to fall for it.  I would advise Bishop Tim to take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, and go and read the NSS website to find out what secularism is really about.

"Moral complicity" - think about it

In the aftermath of the Bulls guest house case (see my previous post), Christian barrister Neil Addison posted this blog setting out his frustration that, in his words, the courts are unable to recognise the "nuance" of moral complicity which sits behind the case.

In his words, this means :

"... the fact that giving a double room to an unmarried couple would make the Bulls morally complicit in an immoral act. Were they, for example, running a restaurant and had refused to give a meal to a same sex couple then that would have been simple discrimination but their stand was more nuanced than that ..."

He seems to be saying that discrimination is generally a bad thing, but it's OK if the alternative is to be an accessory to something that you consider to be morally wrong.  Fair enough, yes?

Well actually, no.  If we agree that it is OK to discriminate in order to avoid moral complicity, then who is to decide what is or isn't moral?  The Bulls acted as they did because they believe that gay sex is immoral, so should we all just accept that their behaviour was reasonable?  What if I thought that it was immoral for black people to sit at the front of a bus?  Would that make it OK for me to stop Rosa Parkes from taking her seat?

The point here of course is that we all have our own moral code, and with over 60 million of us in the UK, we're not all going to agree on what is or isn't morally right.  That's why we have a democratically elected parliament to make laws on our behalf, and those laws must apply to us all, whether we like them or not.

Gay rights DON'T trump religious ones!

Since the Bulls (the Christian couple who refused to allow a gay couple to stay at their guest house) lost their appeal last week, there has been a fresh round of complaints by the usual suspects that gay rights have been held up over religious ones, feeding the ongoing narrative about an "attack on religion".

The reality, as ever, is different.  The law in question here is the Equality Act 2010.  It doesn't place one set of freedoms or rights as more important than another, it simply says that it is illegal to discriminate on various grounds, including sexuality, and religion.






The law is actually one-sided here, but not in favour of gay people, or against the religious.  The act places a duty not to discriminate on those who offer a service to the public, but places no such duty on the public themselves.  In other words, guests can choose which hotel they want to stay at, but hotels cannot choose their guests (well, not based on their sexuality or their religion anyway).

What that means is that if a gay hotel owner had turned the Bulls away because they are Christians, the hotel owners would have been just as guilty of discrimination as the Bulls were found to be.  The law applies equally to all of us, and that's exactly what secularism is all about.

Ending council prayer isn't an attack on anybody

In my working life, I attend a lot of meetings.  Some of these are optional, but most are an integral part of my job.  I'd consider it more than a little odd, not to mention inappropriate, if the person chairing one of those meetings announced that they'd invited the local vicar / rabbi / imam along to lead us all in prayer.  I suspect that the same would apply to most of you.  Unless you happen to work in a place of worship, prayer is not a required part of most peoples' working environments, nor should it be.

If you believe all the hype and hysteria that has spewed forth since last week's high court ruling on council prayers in Bideford, it was all about "atheist councillor Clive Bone" seeking to impose his atheism on everybody else.  In fact, of course, it's entirely the opposite.

Throughout the case, nobody has suggested that councillors shouldn't be able to pray before going to a meeting, or even pray silently during it.  The case merely suggested that worship should not be part of a council's formal business, and should not be required of councillors in order to do their democratic duty.  In other words, nobody is saying that councillors shouldn't be religious, only that the council shouldn't be.  That seems like a reasonable request to me.

"Hang on though," supporters of council prayer will say, "prayer is part of our nation's heritage."  Bideford Council has apparently been praying during meetings for 200 years.  Back when they started, that was fair enough - it would have been unthinkable that anyone who wasn't a Christian would ever sit on the council. It would also have been unthinkable, by the way, that anyone who wasn't white and male would sit on the council.  Those days are thankfully gone, and our public institutions need to adapt their behaviour accordingly.

Welcome

Welcome to my new blog.  As I start this in February 2012, the UK is in the middle of a storm of media attention on the role of religion in the state.  This was triggered just over a week ago by two high-profile legal cases, the banning of council prayers at Bideford, and the unsuccessful appeal by christian guest house owners against their conviction for barring a gay couple from their hotel.

Since then, I have seen various people reaching for the nearest microphone and decrying secularists as "militant", "illiberal", "chilling", "wanting to impose their minority view on society" and so on.  I've found myself shouting at the TV more than once, so I decided to come here and try to do something about it.

The aim of this blog is to counter the attempts to portray secularism as some kind of dark force intent on destroying British customs and values.  I'll try to do that by putting over the reasonable and reasoned argument for secularism as calmly and cogently as I can.

The first few posts that you'll see have been written pretty much back to back, they're my reaction to a few issues that have cropped up over the last week or so.  After that, the idea is that as stories or comment on secularist issues hit the press, I'll come here and post my response.  I've got no idea how long this will last, whether anyone will read it, or if it will change anybody's mind, but here goes.