"We shouldn't have unelected people influencing decision making." (Terry Sanderson, NSS)
which kind of undermines the whole rationale of lobby groups like the National Secular Society, who are, by definition, unelected. A large part of their work is making submissions to government to try to influence decision making.
Compare and contrast Boris Johnson yesterday (see previous post) and John Denham in the story linked above: "I don't like the strand of secularism that says that faith is inherently a bad thing to have and should be kept out of public life," Mr Denham said. From what I can see Mr Denham is setting up a panel of faith group representatives to encourage them to do their bit in building a good society.
At the same time, he's quite open about the fact that, to be part of this process, faith groups need to be open to critique. That seems much healthier than shutting people out of the democractic process altogether - I'm not sure that's what the NSS are advocating, but that's what it sounds like.
Update: Church Mouse has a bit of background, and isn't that taken either with John Denhams proposal, or the NSS response.
When the National Secular Society gets 26 members of the House of Lords like the Church of England does then you can compare the two approaches. Otherwise there's a spot of Matthew 7:5 about your comment.
ReplyDeleteThe comment attributed to me in the Sunday Telegraph was accurate as far as it went - but, as you'd expect, it also left out essential parts of what I said. I told the paper that I had no problem with religious individuals taking part in democratic processes - everyone in our society is entitled to do that. My objection was to the special privileging of religious organisations and leaders, who are often driven by dogma rather than being open to debate on issues of controversy that affect us all. The suggestion from the Minister was that religious groups be given privileged input into policy making. This is not the same as lobbying on an open and equal level. The NSS does not claim to speak for anyone other than its members and supporters - unlike the Church of England, which claims - in Parliament -to speak for everyone in the country, Christian and non-Christian alike.
ReplyDeleteNone of this was included in the tiny quote in the Telegraph, which leads to the confusion you have demonstrated in this blog. It is unfortunate, but there we are.
Terry - thankyou for clearing that up, I did wonder whether you'd been quoted in full, and the post is slightly tongue-in-cheek. I take it you have no problem with religious organisations taking part in the democratic process?
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, it seems to me that there's a right place for consulting religious groups and asking for their input into social policy, just as there is in consulting medical groups for their input into health policy, etc.
I'm not sure the C of E claims to speak for everyone, I don't know if you have any examples of that? Yes there are occasions when the CofE tries to act as a broker for a diverse range of faith groups, but this seems like a good thing, tending towards cohesion and co-operation, rather than divisive dogmatism.
Andy - to a degree, but ordained ministers currently can't be MP's, so there's a balance to be struck.
More thoughts on bishops - they're a legacy of another era, and it's right that that issue is up for discussion. It also isn't working that well, if government departments need to engage with religious groups in other ways, as in this example. My personal jury is out on this one, but I wouldn't lose much sleep if things changed.
ReplyDeleteSo I still don't understand why the Government would consult a "religious expert" on matters of climate change, unless they happened to be a climatologist as well?
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as more of a shallow attempt to hijack voters from the more "traditional" conservative-religious base to me? Carefully synchronised with Mr Cameron's statement of faith the other day perhaps?
Hi David, Actually there's nothing stopping you from standing for election as an MP since the snappily titled House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001 got passed.
ReplyDeleteNow, the only clergy not allowed to stand are the 26 Lord Bishops already in the House of Lords. If they weren't already in the Upper House then they would be eligible to be MPs as well.
Only yesterday on the PM programme Bishop Tom Butler said that the CofE, because of its established status, was representaitve of everyone in its parishes, not just its members.
ReplyDeleteThe bishiops have said in their defence that they represent the religious voice in parliament - and therefore there is no need to introduce representatives of other faiths.
This is not the first time that the Government has introduced "faith advisory" panels. They do about every two years, usually to coincide with elections. None of them have ever amounted to much.
@Andy
ReplyDelete>When the National Secular Society gets 26 members of the House of Lords like the Church of England does then you can compare the two approaches.
I think we can make a comparison any time, because insider lobbying is one of the key pillars of NSS strategy.
As for the HoL, here are 11 Lords of which the NSS website states: "These are our supporters who work and speak on our behalf in politics"
Lord Desai
Baroness Flather
Baroness (Glenys) Kinnock of Holyhead
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Lord McIntosh of Haringey
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan
Lord Peston
Lord Raglan
Lord Taverne QC
Baroness Turner of Camden
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC
Bearing in mind that the NSS has something under 0.01% of the population in membership, I think you protest a bit too much.
There are also another 12 in elected bodies:
Graham Allen MP
Lorraine Barrett AM
Michael Cashman MEP
Colin Challen MP
Angela Eagle MP
Dr. Evan Harris MP
Patrick Harvie MSP
Paul Holmes MP
Mary Honeyball MEP
Kelvin Hopkins MP
Robert Marshall-Andrews QC, MP
Joan Ruddock MP
Sophie in 't Veld MEP
I'd be interested to know how many of those included "working on behalf of the NSS" in their political platforms at the Election - particularly
a) as two are Ministers, and
b) because the NSS routinely runs campaigns suggesting that views they disagree with are incompatible with involvement in public life.
And - yes - of course the HoL needs reforming, but you need to talk to the Govt about that.
Steve - there are a few Christian climatologists out there, but I suspect Denham is more looking for ideas about how to engage with and motivate people, rather than the science itself.
ReplyDeleteTerry - I can't quite see what you're objecting to now. If the faith advisory panel is just a pre-election ploy (a counter to Cameron on Songs of Praise, as Steve suggests? That makes sense) which doesn't amount to much, then it won't influence decision making anyway.
The quotes from John Denham (perhaps not quoted in full either) seemed to be as much about getting faith groups to help the government, rather than getting the government to help faith groups. If people have a perceived expertise or track record, then any sensible government is going to call on that, and it would be a bit strange if there was a rule to exclude anyone motivated by their religious faith from that process.
For the record, how many members and supporters does the NSS have? You have quite a high profile in the media when it comes to comments on religious issues, which is good for the debate. However I'm also aware that the media actively seek out 'Christian Voice' for comment, when they represent the views of very few people, and seem to be quoted principally to create a media-orchestrated scrap!
Terry Sanderson makes the comment: 'My objection was to the special privileging of religious organisations and leaders, who are often driven by dogma rather than being open to debate on issues of controversy that affect us all.' This statement was also made by Evan Harris during the discussion following Michael Sandel's Reith Lecture on Morality in Politics. Sandel rightly pointed out to Harris that those engaged in the public discourse arguing from faith positions do not have a monopology on dogmatic assertions.
ReplyDeleteSandel made a very powerful argument for including faith traditions in public debate in his lecture and I didn't here anyone challenge it effectively in the discussion that followed.
I suspect what is really meant by those speaking for the NSS is that they object to others who express opinions and values which challenge their own dogmatic assertions.
Sorry David, I meant to add that argument, debate, listening and reflection are very strong elements of the mainstream religious traditions as anyone with even a basic understanding of the history of the major faith traditions would know.
ReplyDeleteI think Matt makes a very good point indeed with his lists. And I rather like the idea that the NSS is to humanism what Christian Voice is to the churches :)
ReplyDeleteSorry I haven't had time to follow the discussion before now.
ReplyDeleteYou can make the argument that the NSS has more representation in Parliament than amongst the population at large. But that would also apply to a lot of other pressure groups including Christian Voice. The fact is that the leaders of the NSS don't have automatic seats in Parliament and surely Matt isn't suggesting that the only people who speak up for the Church of England are the 26 Lord Bishops? He's not comparing like with like.
Finally David, would you not be a little bit discomforted if John Denham has announced that a panel of athiests would be set up to advise him on policy? Christians aren't being discriminated against so I've got no time for whining that you are.
Andy
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
>You can make the argument that the NSS has more representation in Parliament than amongst the population at large.
>But that would also apply to a lot of other pressure groups including Christian Voice.
I'd pretty much agree with that. Non-transparent briefing and lobbying from anyone is a bad thing.
Give me a list of peers who have an arrangement to represent CV - who I'd criticise just as robustly as the NSS - and I'll be happy to publicise it.
I think that all such insitutionalised arrangements should be in the Register of Interests, and transparent.
>The fact is that the leaders of the NSS don't have automatic seats in Parliament and surely.
The fact is also that they don't always identify their affiliation (at the Parliament end), and specifically speak "on behalf" of the NSS. I think the Bishops are, until reform, justified by their record, and a far wider experience of their communities than others in the Lords.
>Matt isn't suggesting that the only people who speak up for the Church of England are the 26 Lord Bishops? He's not comparing like with like.
You need to clarify "speak up for the Church of England". Comment on "Church of England" matters is a pretty tiny proportion, even for the Bishops. Even within the Bench of Bishops, as I assume you know, there are differences of views on almost everything - though David knows more about that (I am not a member of any church other than nominal).
If others speak up with their views, that is their right and does not mean they are "CofE Glovepuppets".
I don't need to be comparing like with like to point out the NSS enjoys an influence far beyond that justified by its constituency. If there were 250k members that would refute my point, but transparency would still be required.
Personally I quite like the idea of having an "Elected" Lords with voting rights, while maintaining appointed Peers who can speak in debate as specialists but not vote. That would go some way to preserving the most valuable features of the Lords are its wide range of experience, the lighter touch of the Whip, and the cross-benchers.
Rgds
Matt
Perhaps a government would consult a religious expert regarding climate change as religious experts may sensitively understand the beliefs of those holding their faith and how they relate to the issues surrounding the 'causes and cures' of climate change. I may consult a scientist about atmospheric models but I'm likely to find a religious expert more useful when I wish to engage the hearts of large parts of our multicultural community.
ReplyDelete