Far from being on the margins of British life – as Conservative MP Mark Pritchard weakly tries to argue – Christianity maintains a prominence far in excess of that merited by its number of adherents.
However much the Tories would like to see the emergence of a cohesive ‘religious right’ core vote in the UK, the evidence is that the social base for such a phenomenon it simply does not exist in this country.
Last time I saw any statistics, only 48% of Britons described themselves as belonging to any religion at all. Some 14% said they do not know who Jesus Christ is, and a further 22% believed he is 'just a story'.
Yet one Christian sect has been singled out as an official state religion, with its leadership given a voice in legislation through seats in the House of Lords. Christianity alone enjoys the protection of the blasphemy laws.
Extensive government funding is available to schools with a ‘Christian ethos’, even if that entails the teaching of creationism in science classes.
Nor is anybody seriously arguing, pace Pritchard, that we should forget the Christian contribution to the arts, science, and culture. But this is best achieved in examining the ideas that inspired Milton or Newton in actual context.
To judge by his website, Mr Pritchard is an enthusiast for nuclear weapons and Israeli membership of NATO, although his concept of Christian charity seemingly does not extend as far as immigrants.
But oddly enough, he bases his spurious 'Christianophobia' claims on the same tenet that most of the secular left would also use as a starting point: ‘Freedom of speech and of religion are fundamental principles of any liberal democracy.’
This is exactly the point. A true liberal democracy can only be premised on a separation of church and state. Precisely because we all want freedom of speech and freedom of religion, it cannot be right for the state to compromise such freedoms by privileging any one religion over any other.
Christianity competes in the free market for ideas on the same basis as other ideologies, and stands or falls by how far it succeeds. As many intelligent Christians would surely agree, believers cannot rightly ask for any more than that.
Posted at 14:52, 4 December 2007
Comments (21)
I think part of Pritchard's point is that when it comes to Christianity, in certain respects these basic freedoms, freedom of speech, expression and conscience are increasingly under attack. Furthermore, that a lot of what is described as secularism, is not, in fact, based on any separation of church and state but rather is driven by explicitly anti-religious, frequently anti-Christian sentiment. Hence, therefore, the curtailing of the right to freedom of conscience, which certainly can't be justified on secular, liberal grounds. Hence, also the different standards by which the concerns of Christian communtities are judged compared to other groups. Thus when representatives of minority groups complain about flagrant or offensive misrepresentation in the media, they will be given a respectful audience. When Christians do something similar and complain about the showing of say, Jerry Springer the Opera on a publically funded television station, they will be given very short shrift. The point here is not to argue for censorship but to query why so often Christians seem to be held to different standards to other groups.
The other point Pritchard makes, and an interesting one considering the muddled state the left currently is in over it, concerns multiculturalism. Pritchard argues and in my view it's an argument worth considering, that the doctrine of multiculturalism has been used as a cover for driving Christianity from the public square.
One of the consequences of this is the widespread ignorance of Christian doctrine which currently prevails. The basic tenets of Christianity are a matter of mystery to a great many people. An environment of such widespread ignorance is conducive to ugly anti-Christian mythmaking and shallow stereotype. The vitriol aimed at Christians in sections of the media seems especially shameless and does merit, in my view, the term Christianophobia.
The fact is that all religions are given increasingly respectful treatment. Multiculturalism is a doctrine which gives priority to group identities and the fact that Christianity is only one amongst others may irk believers, hence Fimber's reaction. There is indeed a concerted campaign, by contrast, against secularism (clear dividing lines between public political life and private faith) in general, and agnosticism/atheism in particular. Heading one campaign is the Mayor of London, Ken Livinsgtone, who has poured council tax payers' money into a Coalition to Defend the Freedom of Religious Expression. This asserts that there are concerted attacks and religious customs and traditions (a strange area for anyone remotely leftwing to want to defend)and unites all the usual god-bothers (I hope you don't find that too offensive Fimbar), from Christians, Muslisms, Jews, to the Stop the War Coalition and the head of the NUT.
Having failed to pass a law outlawing disprespect of religion there are clear signs of a revival of faith-based assertion in many parts of the political sphere, and not just this lone Tory. Hoping to jump on the reactionary multi-culturalist bandwagon, not overturn it.
Christianity, like any religion, should accept being criticised in however vulgar a manner. If your god is so powerful how come he doesn't like people cocking a snook at it? As for the farrago of Christian doctrine and its holy texts, it, like Judaism and Islam, is full of such utter rubbish it deserves a few more pantomimes.
Kindly allow me to correct one factual error in Dave's post. He asserts that one 'Christian sect' has a priviliged status in Britain today. One can only assume that he is making reference to the Church of England which is the established state sect in England but in England alone.
In Scotland by contrast there is an utterly different sect filling the same niche as state sect. Amusingly their Queen is head of both sects. Meanwhile in Wales there is no state sect whatsoever!
Turning to the Reverend Coates I can but echo some of his complaints regarding the priviliged status accorded to all the major religions not only to the various competing Xian sects. But the reason for this must be located in the ideological vacuity of Labourism and its decay in the closing years of the 20th century CE. Livingstones reliance on the tokenism of so called multi-culturalism is but one small example of this depressing trend.
The Reverend also has something in his mention of the revival of religiosity amongst certain sections of what he calls the 'political sphere'. This might well be true but, in my opinion, merely reflects the revival of religosity alongst quite wide sections of the petty bourgeoisie and the NMC's. A phenomenon that can be observed in the contining success of the Alpha courses run by the Anglican churchs for example. A phenomenon further fuelled by the increasing penetration of the market into education increasing demand for church affiliated schools which are viewed as superior.
As for Fimbars remarks that multi-culturalism has been used to drive Chrstianity from the public square this is just plain bizarre. It would however be far more accurate to say that the C of E has lost the central role in once had in the rituals of the state in England. But Christianity itself has not been removed from the public sqyuare but has simply been more and more 'privatised' snce the triumph of the bourgeois mode of production and the decreasing need of that boss class for that particular ideology.
Fimbar is on stronger ground when he argues that Xians are not accrded the same measure of respect, pun intended, as other 'minority groups'. One assumes that in the first instance 'minority groups' refers to Muslims but I'm content to ask for clarification of this point. This assertion does seem to have some truth to it, if one looks at the way various 'minority groups' have been treated in recent years, but it is a very superficial way of looking at the question.
Superficial because it is true that there has been a certain respect, pun intended, to what we might call offical representatives of the various Muslim communities in Britain. But in general Islam does not have the same priviliged status as Xianity in Britain and Muslims not Xians experience real discrimination. This is however largely as a result of their being majority working class and not belonging to the majority 'ethnic group' which places them in a profoundly diadvantaged. Religion here intersects with class and ethnicity.
What is true is that some sections of liberal opinion, who have a real echo in the media and the state, do dislike the role Xianity continues to play in Britain and do launch clumsy attacks on the rights of Xians. Attacks they would not launch on the religious rights of Muslims, Sikhs, etc, which they further entrench n a most perverse fashion given their attitude to Xians.
What we are seeing in Britain today then is a very confused set of contradictory atttitudes to religion in general and Xianity in particular. The far left is confused as to how to respond to these contradictory tendencies with the SWP taking a disgracefull attitude to one law that sought to privilige the right of expression of relgious belief. A foolish and unprincipled stance but they wee at leat correct in seeking to defend the ppressed. Where they went wrong was in not raising the demand for the placing of all ideological beliefs on an equal footing, thereby protecting all equally, by the seeration of church and state. With that as a goal they could not have fallen into the opportunist error of supporting a law that granted the state greater powers to 'police' the right of free speech without which all other rights are rendered null and void.
I thought God was dead? Or can one only hope?
Merry Zmas to all!
Might it be that Pastor Pearney's call for a law to protect *all* ideological beliefs equally barely conceals a desire to get some of the multiculturalist dosh swishing around for himself and his flock?
Mike is spot on about the growth of Alpha Courses, etc: there is a big banner on my local C of E church for this which I saw this very day. I could add that the YMCA runs all the local New Deal Training courses, with a plaque in their offices saying, "Motivated by our faith". The Unemployed are thus obliged to submit to a religious organisation, which does not recognise unions, and whose programme (see its web site) remains based on Christianity - however broadly defined by them in the usual mish-mash of concern for World Poverty, equal opportunity, and debt relief.*
Religious types enjoy great consideration from this government, in fomal consultation and subsidy, down to municipal subventions of various religious projects and charities. Not least because New Labour's leading members, not to mention the Brown itself, are raving Christologues, and draw their beliefs from the authoritarian anti-class struggle strand within Christian 'socialism' (starting with Maurice and Kingsley etc).
*Formally their training arm is semi-independent, but since it is not renamed the Person's Secular Association I rest my case.
Hmmm, while I share your view that religion and the state should be kept separate, I don't think the idea that the established church has moderated the influence of the church in politics is an unreasonable one. Amongst other reasons this is because the C of E is not a sect by any accepted definition of the term. I suspect you use it inaccurately because you want the pegorative connotations of the word to be applied to Anglicanism as well? I sympathise but I wish people would use words like 'sect' and 'cult' with more precision.
Another thing...
Christianity, like any religion, should accept being criticised in however vulgar a manner. If your god is so powerful how come he doesn't like people cocking a snook at it?
Christianity by and large did accept being criticised and being lampooned in various ways. I suspect many Christians have seen, post-Satanic Verses, Muslims calling for blasphemers to be executed and getting away with it and so-called liberal-lefties of various stripes making excuses for this, so think to themselves they would like even a fraction of the consideration given to other people's religious sensibilities. I suspect this is what's behind a lot of these complaints we hear from Christians about being 'marginalised'. One factor at work here, I reckon, is that since critics of violent Islamism are routinely described as 'Islamophobic', these critics feel a greater need to give Christianity a verbal kicking whenver possible in order to show their hostility to religion is universal, thereby deflecting the implied accusation of racism.
African immigration in my part of the world has done wonders for levels of religious observance.
"I suspect many Christians have seen, post-Satanic Verses, Muslims calling for blasphemers to be executed and getting away with it and so-called liberal-lefties of various stripes making excuses for this, so think to themselves they would like even a fraction of the consideration given to other people's religious sensibilities."
Can you be more specific? I can't think of many Christians who have been locked up for 'calling for' anything in particular?
The Reverent Coates may wish to retract his heretical suggestion that I desire a law to protect all ideological beliefs equally. In fact i'm opposed to any and all laws that aim to regulate ideology. Indeed in my post I criticised the SWP for supporting just such a law.
As fr Shuggy what is his problem with giving the Xians a good kicking from time to time? It passes the time in a most entertaining fashion.
Can you be more specific? I can't think of many Christians who have been locked up for 'calling for' anything in particular?
Ok - I don't mean for the example to be taken so narrowly. When I were a lad it was commonplace for those who would describe themselves as liberal-left to oppose organised religion in general and something they liked to call 'fundamentalism' in particular. We didn't hear much about the need to understand other people's beleief systems or to respect their religious sensibilities in those days. When Christians protested agaisnt the film 'The Last Temptation of Christ', for example - they were universally derided in the liberal press for demanding censorship of a film they hadn't seen - which was fair enough, in my view. People have taken issue with me using this example before but my memory of the furore caused by the publication of the Satanic Verses was that it provoked a quite different response from the liberal commentariat.
As fr Shuggy what is his problem with giving the Xians a good kicking from time to time?
I don't have a problem with it but if I were a Christian I would, obviously. I'd wonder, for example, where all the pseudo-iconoclastic comedians who liked to mock religion have gone when it comes to Islam?
Shuggy - I see now you're having a go at liberals. As I'm not one, and I don't think most people on here are, you probably won't get much of an argument.
As regards "pseudo-iconoclastic comedians" mocking religion, I don't the people you are referring to mocked Jews very often, or Sikhs either, so it's not just an Islam "thing". Surely you can understand why the established church and Christianity's role over centuries in being used to oppress the British working class makes it a more appropriate target for popular ridicule than small minority religions?
Shuggy asked why in the recent past we didn't hear much abut respecting the relgious sentiments of others. Perhaps the answer lies in the more or less homogenous ethnic and religious nature of Britain prior to mass immigration from the 1960's onwards?
As for respecting other peples beliefs fuck that for a game of soldiers. Politness is more than adequate to cover that.
Surely you can understand why the established church and Christianity's role over centuries in being used to oppress the British working class makes it a more appropriate target for popular ridicule than small minority religions?
Sort of, although I'd argue a) historically the role of Christianity and the churches was more mixed with regards the British working class than the simplistic way you suggest. (I'll refrain from wheeling out the Marxism-Methodism cliche in full.) b) I don't think this connection of criticism of religion to power works. The power the established church exercised has more of less disappeared - and if people mock religion because it exercises temporal power, surely Islam qualifies?
Minority religions? What happend to the 1.5 billions of Muslims worldwide, who know who George Galloway is?
In answer to your first point, though it's probably not worth going into in detail here, I think Max Weber's formulation of the importance of Calvinism and the work ethic in capitalism is a good one and there were occasions on which Catholicism and Lutheranism acted in the interests of the workers.
More importantly, I wasn't referring to the power the church wields now, though I would argue it still wields power over many millions through more subtle ways than it used to, but its status as an establishment organisation and hence a figure of ridicule for "alternative" comedians (along with the monarchy, the civil service, the police, the courts, etc)
I'm sure that in countries where Islam wields temporal power (i.e. not really the UK) the "alternative" comedians make equivalent jokes about imams or mullahs to our Vicar of Dibley.
Er...I don't think so.
That should be 'What alternative commedians?'.
Sue - maybe you should have a less monolithic view of Islam globally.
The problem with people who are religious is that they always think that those of us are amoral. There is also the problem that not everybody gets the idea of 'conscience', a particularly protestant invention perhaps. While the majority of people in this country are not church-goers, most of them do have a conscience about global poverty, discrimination, etc. When my children started school I was shocked that they'd done away with the daily act of worship, neither is Christianity or its parables taught in state schools any more. I felt strange, I could hardly argue that my children should be indoctrinated into the God myth but at the same time I missed them acquiring that cultural referent. As for my monomania...maybe but prove me wrong.
KS Rees:
"I thought God was dead..."
Nope, and I'm declaring an amnesty for good behaviour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QNkUQlyheE