Downton Abbey: Why His Grace has Gone Missing

God's absence from Downton Abbey was noted a couple of years ago, but it turns out it was more by design than by accident. The historical advisor to the show told the Telegraph earlier this week that DA bent over backwards to keep God out of it. On the absence of a mealtime 'grace':

“In essence you hardly ever see a table that isn’t already sat at. We never see the beginning of a luncheon or a dinner, because no one was ever allowed to see a grace being said, and I would never allow them to sit down without having said grace.

“I think that the view was that we’d leave religion out of it, and it would’ve taken extra time too. I suggested a Latin grace, but they decided that was too far, and no one would’ve known what was going on.”

Mr Bruce said that he was even banned from featuring napkins folded in the shape of a bishop’s mitre, for fear of breaching the religious edict. “Everyone panics when you try to do anything religious on the telly,”

The US screening of the show even looked at leaving out the word 'Abbey' from the title. So you leave out a prayer of thanks, but call the dog Isis.....

It's ironic that the very article which broke this story writes this about the Christmas episode: The feature-length yuletide edition will be the show’s last ever episode, ... though to be fair it does use the word 'Christmas' too. 

Even though the stories are usually fake, it's no surprise that  'Christmas banned by local council in....' gains such traction and is believed by so many people. If you can't screen a prayer on a Sunday night costume drama, when can you?

The power of Christian faith to unite across the political divide

Have we found something on which all the party leaders agree?

(update: Justin Welby has blogged on the topic too - ...the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have not said anything very controversial. It is a historical fact (perhaps unwelcome to some, but true) that our main systems of ethics, the way we do law and justice, the values of society, how we decide what is fair, the protection of the poor, and most of the way we look at society . . .  All have been shaped by and founded on Christianity. Add to that the foundation of many hospitals, the system of universal schooling, the presence of chaplains in prisons, and one could go on a long time. Then there is the literature, visual art, music and culture that have formed our understandings of beauty and worth since Anglo Saxon days.

It is clear that, in the general sense of being founded in Christian faith, this is a Christian country. It is certainly not in terms of regular churchgoing, although altogether, across different denominations, some millions attend church services each week. Others of different backgrounds have also positively shaped our common heritage. But the language of what we are, what we care for and how we act is earthed in Christianity, and would remain so for many years even if the number of believers dropped out of sight (which they won't, in my opinion)... Welby's answer seems to be yes and no - Christian roots, but not Christian practice)

Nick Clegg,

There’s been, I think, a really interesting debate actually, over the last few days in the context of this year’s Easter about whether we are, or are we not, a, a Christian country.  It seems to me that it is self‑evidently the case that our heritage, our traditions, our architecture, our history, is – is infused by, by, by Christianity.  Of course it is and there is nothing remotely controversial in saying so.

But of course what flows from, from those great Christian values is also a wonderful tradition of tolerance, of diversity, of recognition of other peoples, other faiths, other – other denominations, of our ability to live and work cheek by jowl.  Different faiths, different communities, people of all faiths and none, and that is something which seems to me is entirely consistent with our, with our Christian traditions and history and indeed, values that have infused our country for a very, very long period of time.

and "it's stating the flamingly obvious that we as a country are underpinned, informed, infused by Christian values. Christian heritage, Christian history, Christian culture, Christian values and I think that is something that is obvious about our identity as a nation."

David Cameron, "I believe we should be more confident about our status as a Christian country"

Ed Miliband Britain is a Christian nation and is lucky to have the CofE as an established church (effectively, I can't find the original interview - done in Israel a couple of weeks ago - but he's quoted as saying the same thing in several places).

Nigel Farage: "we have been saying for years that we should be more muscular in our defence of Judeo-Christian culture"

No comment from the Greens, otherwise we'd have a full house.

Question

If, as David Cameron says

"we are a Christian country"

why are Christians forced to choose between work and faith for not working on Sundays, despite having told their employer beforehand they couldn't do so, and then having their shifts changed? A decision then backed by our court system?

At what point does this sort of rhetoric simply become meaningless (left-leaning readers will probably respond 'as soon as Cameron says it')..?

New Year Prayers 3 - Prayer of Divine Support

Thou art the blessed God, happy in Thyself,

source of happiness in Thy creatures,

my maker, benefactor, proprietor, upholder.

Thou hast produced and sustained me,

supported and indulged me, saved and kept me;

Thou art in every situation able to meet my needs and miseries.

May I live by Thee, live for Thee,

never be satisfied with my Christian progress but as I resemble Christ;

and may conformity to His principles, temper, and conduct

grow hourly in my life.

Let Thy unexampled love constrain me into holy obedience,

and render my duty my delight.

If others deem my faith folly, my meekness infirmity,

my zeal madness, my hope delusion, my actions hypocrisy,

may I rejoice to suffer for Thy name.

Keep me walking steadfastly towards the country of everlasting delights,

that paradise-land which is my true inheritance.

Support me by the strength of heaven that I may never turn back,

or desire false pleasures that will disappear into nothing. 

As I pursue my heavenly journey by Thy grace

let me be known as a person with no aim but that of a burning desire for Thee,

and the good and salvation of my fellow men and women.

comment: not quite sure where this comes from, I think it's of Puritan stock. The opening line is a cracker, and like every great prayer it begins with God and not with us. The 4th section seems increasingly relevant, not as an excuse to be an idiot, but because, in an increasingly post-Christian UK, fewer and fewer people will understand Christianity, and what makes Christians tick. It's familiar to anyone who reads the comments on any online Guardian religion piece. 

It therefore shouldn't surprise us, though we should be concerned, that a secular court can pronounce that Sunday isn't a special day for Chrisitans. Despite a growing number of non-Sunday gatherings, Sunday is still the main day of worship, fellowship and teaching for the Christian community, and the court seems to have bought the lie that 'you don't have to go to church to be a Christian'. Maybe we are in for a more 1st and 2nd century church, where Christians met before or after the working day on a Sunday for worship. 

But in the meantime the prayer reminds us that the focus is Jesus, becoming more like him, keeping our eyes on him, following his path, because it's his approval that matters most. 

Warsi: Europe should be more confident in its Christianity

Baroness Warsi has written a piece for the Telegraph today, which is an interesting new angle on the secularisation debate. Writing in advance of a trip to the Vatican, she says

I will be arguing for Europe to become more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity. The point is this: the societies we live in, the cultures we have created, the values we hold and the things we fight for all stem from centuries of discussion, dissent and belief in Christianity.

These values shine through our politics, our public life, our culture, our economics, our language and our architecture. And, as I will say today, you cannot and should not extract these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes.

Quite striking, coming from a Muslim. Someone reminded me yesterday that there's part of the Lords prayer (I think) inscribed on the walls of the House of Commons, so to eradicate prayer from Parliament you'd have to repaint the place as well as rejig the timetable.

BBC summary here. And linking to the Bideford case, a piece from the Guardian which argues that the NSS may have shot itself in the foot, and that the case is a victory for religious freedom.

The British Humanist Association response to Baroness Warsi is oddly out of touch:
The British Humanist Association (BHA) described Baroness Warsi's comments as "outdated, unwarranted and divisive".

"In an increasingly non-religious and, at the same time, diverse society, we need policies that will emphasise what we have in common as citizens rather than what divides us," said BHA chief executive Andrew Copson.

well, yes, but there are some issues in our society which just affect women: is it divisive to focus on them? What about tackling stigma on the mentally ill, or youth unemployment, or children with special needs? Being a diverse society doesn't mean a lowest common denominator humanism, it means affirming and valuing people in their diversity, and valuing what that diversity brings to the common society. It also means that the whole values the parts in their diversity, rather than trying to eradicate them all. And part of what we have in common is a Christian heritage in our society, whatever you happen to think of that. So the BHA response  makes for a good quote, but rapidly unravels.
 
And be careful what you wish for: the USA has a much more rigorous separation of religion and state, whilst at the same time having a much more publicly confident Christianity, right up to Presidential prayer breakfasts. Imagine the stick Cameron would get for holding one of those in Downing Street? 
 
We are a post-Christian society, and I'm all for a debate about what's appropriate from our past and what isn't. But it should be a renegotiation, not a land grab by one side or another.

Religion and Society

Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty wrote in the Times yesterday defending the right of BA employee Nadia Eweida to wear a cross on her lapel at work. She mentioned...

an extremely disappointing employment appeal tribunal that found no discrimination, because “Christians generally” do not consider wearing a cross as a religious “requirement”. This fundamentally misunderstands the idea of individual rights and freedoms, which do not depend on how many people agree with your conscience or speech. It also opens up secular courts to lengthy arguments as to what is a theological necessity. Making windows into men’s souls is as pointlessly complex as it is dangerous.

Which all sounds pretty sensible to me. It's one of those cases which is easily used by one group to proclaim that Christianity is being persecuted and marginalised, and by another group to talk about Christians foisting their faith uninvited upon others in what should be 'neutral' space.

She goes on:

It seems to me that any society has three choices in dealing with this small question of religion.

The first is to elevate an approved faith to the point of dominant status over all other belief systems. It is formally woven into the legal, political and social system, every sphere of public life and as much of private life as possible. An extreme example might be Afghanistan under the Taleban; a more moderate one, Britain at earlier and less enlightened times in its history.

The second option is, in many ways, equal and opposite. It is based on the view that faith is all dangerous, divisive mumbo-jumbo. No good can come of it so, if it cannot be eradicated altogether, it must be chased from the public sphere, confined to a place of worship or the home, upstairs under the bed with the pornography. An extreme example would be Stalin’s Russia; a more moderate one, the French Republic.

You will have guessed that I favour a third approach that is based on human rights and resonates well with a society such as Britain’s. Here the struggle for religious freedom has been strongly connected with the struggle for democracy itself.

I believe that human beings are creatures of both faith and logic, emotion and reason and it is as well that the law reflects this. It may be true that religion has caused much war and prejudice but it has also inspired much art, music and compassion. And it is also true that scientists and engineers have produced some of the greatest advances in human history, but also some of the stuff of nightmares.

If we really believe in freedom of thought, conscience and religion, this must include the right to the faith or belief of one’s choice, the right to no faith and to be a heretic. Proportionate limits on this precious liberty don’t arise because a minority causes irritation or even offence. We interfere when someone is harming others, or in the workplace when, for instance, their faith or clothing prevents them doing their job.

Again, all pretty sensible. However, within 'human rights' is normally some kind of pecking order - the debates over the Equalities Bill at the moment are about whether the 'right' to freedom of sexual expression trumps the 'right' to hold certain religious moral views, or vice versa. So an approach based purely on rights doesn't get us out of the woods.

I was also struck by the fact that none of these 3 scenarios is equated to what we have in England at the moment. Christian faith has, to some degree, a privileged status (e.g. Bishops in the Lords, established church) though in areas like faith schools an area once reserved for Anglicans is now open to all. But you'd hardly describe the Church of England as 'dominant'. In one sense it holds the ring, acting as a broker for the many faith groups in England, and the way the CofE engages with politics and society has itself been shaped by history, and the constraints of being the 'national church'. We can't simply start from scratch, we are where we are, and though it has its faults, the relationship of church, religion and state continues to evolve in a fairly consensual manner.

The other thing which puzzled me was where an organisation like the National Secular Society would stand on these 3 options. Their stated principles are along the lines of the 3rd option, but a cursory glance at their website and public statements seems to indicate a contempt for faith more along the lines of option 2.

A debate to be had is on the nature of the 'neutral' spaces in society, like the workplace. Should any expression of faith be banished, or is it better to go for a 'live and let live' approach, where people can express what's dear to them on the understanding that they don't impose it on anyone else. That is an issue of culture as much as law: I personally would dread a society where everything has to be settled by appeal to the rule book. Unfortunately the headlines in the culture wars are being made by narratives of 'persecution', 'intolerance', and 'fundamentalists', which force people into corners and make a culture of acceptance and grace less likely.

National Secular Society and the General Election

Excellent piece of analysis by Matt Wardman about the National Secular Society, their political agenda, and the likely extent of their influence after the General Election.

Ironically, I think that if the NSS was pushed to the margin, the case for a secular state could be put far more strongly, as there’d be far fewer insults thrown around, and far more use of accurate information in the debate.

Faith, Football and Sweaty T-Shirts

Would God rather be on the pitch, or in the stands watching? Being omnipresent He can, of course, do both at the same time, but how far is it ok for players to express their faith on the pitch?

A new BBC World Service prog on the relationship between faith and football opens this up very well, worth a listen, some insights both on the work of team chaplains, and it invites comparisons with other recent issues over faith in the workplace.

From the FIFA website, on a visit by Sepp Blatter to Moldova.
Next stop was the Orthodox Church, where President Blatter was awarded Moldova's highest honour, that of 'Stephen the Pious, the Great and the Saint', by His Holiness Vladimir, the Metropolitan Bishop of Chisinau and all Moldova. "I am deeply touched by this award. For me, religion and football have at least one thing in common: they bring hope and emotion to the people," said the FIFA President.

that's 2 things Sepp, but we'll let that go. Also from FIFA, in the Equipment Regulations
15.1. All forms of advertising for sponsors or third parties, of political, reli­gious or personal statements or other announcements, are prohibited on all kit items (see Annex A) inside the stadium.

which is fair enough, though some of the most courageous sportsmen in recent times include the Zimbabwean cricketers who used their profile through the sport to protest about the government. It's also a good way to protect the turf for the FIFA designated sponsors and bankrollers.

A few months ago Fifa warned the Brazilian team against displaying religious slogans on the pitch. That doesn't stop people crossing themselves, or dedicating goals upwards, so it seems reasonable. At the same time, money talks, and Fifa is probably quite sensitive to certain parts of the 'market' taking offense: it's not easy to know whether this secular equality or capitalist pragmatism talking. Possibly both.

Deep Church notes that possibly 40m people will listen to the radio programme.

There's Probably No Street Pastors, Now Stop Vomiting and Get Home by Yourself

Hands up who thinks this is a 'success':

I thought I would provide a small success story Westminster Unison had regarding Street Pastors, which were nearly introduced at Westminster City Council. Following a complaint made by myself, and a letter to Newsline, outlining the reasons why a local authority should not pay for the Ascension Trust, an evangelical Christian group, to patrol the streets, I was informed this week that Westminster has now withdrawn the proposal.

or this a 'victory'

After some persistence on my part, however, the Council undertook something called an Equalities Impact Assessment, which had to acknowledge the fact that, under the aims of the scheme Street Pastors could only be recruited from "individuals with a Christian Faith" and was also only open to those "whose relationship lifestyle is in keeping with mainstream Christian teaching" – i.e. no gays or lesbians, thank you.

I have just received confirmation from a slightly embarrassed Council official that the scheme will receive no further public funding, and wanted to share with your readership a small, but satisfying, victory against the encroachment of religion into public life. I would even go out on Friday night to celebrate, but the Street Pastors are still out there after my soul.

I'm caught between bewilderment and boiling blood at the sheer short-sightedness of this 'secularism at any cost' approach. The real losers will be the clubbers, who SP's are there to look out for, help where needed, and be a listening ear for. The police and emergency services jobs will get a little bit harder too. In both cases there'll probably be enough financial support from the churches to make up the difference, but there are obviously some very odd ideas out there of what the Pastors do.

In the last few months I've heard of young children found sleeping rough by SP's on a Saturday night who were got back home, someone else who was about to commit suicide who talked it through with some Street Pastors and changed their mind, fights avoided, vulnerable women protected from people trying to bundle them into cars, you name it. These are the people Street Pastors help.

At the same time if someone asks why we're doing it, they'll get an honest answer. That gives all sorts of opportunities for people to sound off about God, get into deep theological argument, or walk away - and that's completely up to them. At no point is there any attempt to evangelise or exploit people who are slightly worse for wear. If there was, the police would quite rightly tell us to go back home. As it is, police in several areas are actively inviting the local churches to set up Street Pastor initiatives, as it's recognised that they do some good.

So what's the problem? That if a group is motivated by their faith to do something of public benefit, then it shouldn't get any funding. You can be motivated by anything else, and we won't complain, but we can't have Christians doing good, because, well, they're Christians. And? We have a night shelter for the homeless in Yeovil, originally set up by Christians, now passed on to other leadership. And the Lords Larder, which gives out hundreds of food parcels in partnership with Social Services - the clue is in the name. Both work in partnership with secular agencies, and have received support from non-church sources. Does the council have to wait for agnostic charities to set up before it's allowed to fund them, or can it support positive action no matter who does it, or whether or not they are motivated by some kind of faith?

Perhaps the problem is the conviction that there must be an ulterior motive. That wouldn't be unreasonable - every other stranger who acts friendly is usually a salesman or a Scientologist. The church itself sometimes gets in a muddle over 'friendship evangelism' - friends are not friends if they're just people you are getting to know so you can invite them to church. So that suspicion is understandable. And of course if clubbers show some interest in the Christian faith, they'll be encouraged in that. A comparison: our local MP and councillors all represent political parties. They'll work on behalf of constituents of any political conviction, but if those constituents show signs of supporting the LibDems, or whoever, then that will be encouraged, but the help isn't made conditional on people's political viewpoints. Same with Street Pastors - the help isn't conditional, but enquiries are welcomed.

There are clearly a lot of myths about Street Pastors doing the rounds, so lets nail a few:
- SP's main aim is to be a pastoral presence on the streets, to look out for and help the vulnerable where appropriate. They are not 'after your soul'.

- We work in partnership with the police and council, and involve the police in the (quite intensive) training, which all SP's must complete. That includes drug awareness, conflict management, alcohol awareness, youth culture, probation, child protection etc.

- There is no attempt to 'get people when they're vulnerable'. If folk want to talk about God, the SP's are happy to listen. But there's no preaching. The proof of this is simply to see what happens where SP's are in operation - if they were going round Bible bashing people, most clubbers would either run a mile or beat them up. As well as being extremely bad practice, it would be self-defeating. We'd also not have any Street Pastors, as nobody would sign up to that sort of job description.

- People know what we stand for, it's no secret that these are people from the churches, so there's nothing covert or underhand going on.

- The point of the uniforms is so that SP's are recognisable, that there's some 'brand recognition' that these are safe people who'll look after you and make sure you're ok. There's some suggestion that SP's make too much of what they do, and that proper Christians would do it in secret. Fair point, but the uniforms are very helpful - ask anyone else who wears one as part of their work. A complete stranger with no identification turning up to 'help' a group of clubbers would be pretty suspicious.

- Each SP commits to raising the money (around £300 for training, uniforms, etc.) themselves, many are supported by churches, but we find that the local community/agencies want to support the initiative as well. We had one grant in Yeovil from a local councillor who decided to apply on our behalf. If that support is available, then great - the fact that SP's is primarily a Christian charity shouldn't prevent local authorities and agencies from supporting it. The British Humanist Association recently got a grant from national government, but not many people are suggesting they pay it back.

- SP's will deal equally with everyone they come across: male, female, gay, straight, drunk, sober etc. etc.

Meanwhile here is a long list of the awards that SP's have recieved from local communities who appreciate what they do, and here is an account from an Essex MP of what Street Pastors do in Chelmsford. Simon Burns MP quotes the following statistics:

In Lewisham there was a 30% reduction in street crime in the first 13 weeks that they were operating, in Camberwell a 95% reduction and in Peckham 74%. In Chelmsford they have made an immediate and significant impact.

a few other links
positive noises here on ConservativeHome.
Derby police nominate local SP's for award.
SP's praised by police for bringing down crime in Kingston.
Home Office paper which mentions Street Pastors as an example of good public sector/charity partnership in community safety.
Example of what's going on in Taunton, where they offer a 'safe space' for folk to wait for friends and taxis, and recover from a heavy night in a safe place, rather than in a hedge.
Good explanation of the SP ethos in this BBC Scotland report.
SP's in Bridgend praised by police and welcomed by the council.

and so on...

I don't have the stats for Yeovil yet, but we were told by the town centre beat manager a couple of weeks ago that recorded crime had been steadily dropping on a Saturday night since the Street Pastors started up here, and they're very keen for us to do Friday's too. We've just interviewed about 17 applicants to join the team, and hopefully will start doing Friday and Saturday nights from the spring of 2010.

We could run Street Pastors without funding from the council - it would make the £300 fee a bit tougher for some of the folk who do it, but many of them would probably manage to raise it anyway. Even without the funding, we want to do it in partnership with the council and the police, because that's what works best. And local councillors around the UK clearly see it as something worth supporting. Some people may be opposed in principle to anything done by Christians, but there's not much we can do about that except say: come and see what really happens, and then make up your mind.

Final point: it's been argued that Street Pastors should let folk of any faith or none sign up. In some places this happens - there are 'street angel' projects in several towns. However, it seems a little bizarre to insist that if Christians want to get together to do something of benefit to the public, that they have to let anyone else join in. Surely the important thing is that the benefit is open to all, rather than the membership.

It's a positive thing that Christians want to do this, and do it in partnership with the police and the local authority. That partnership is healthier than forcing the church to go it alone, and freezing it out of any partnership because we're motivated by a set of values and beliefs that some other people don't agree with. Even if your vision is of a secular society, that vision will only work if people with faith and people without it are able to live and work together.

PS Blogger comments has gone a bit weird, I keep getting error messages during the review process, so they may take a bit of time to appear.

National Secular Society to Disband?

"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.

Sunday Brain Food

An interview in the monthly review with Terry Eagleton, about religion, atheism, culture, and lots of other things. Covers lots of ground, good stuff.

Normblog responds to the Eagleton interview, kicking off a whole discussion about whether religion is basically about believing certain doctrines, or is more 'performative' - based on action (which expressed doctrine). Stumbling and Mumbling argues that perhaps faith is more like getting into a piece of music, and here's Norms response to that.

Couple of posts at Heresy Corner, one on Richard Dawkins at the Libdem conference, the other on Back to Church Sunday and comments by bishops about supermarket queues. (ht Thinking Anglicans). Ann Droid posts a Facebook discussion about blasphemy, offence and Christian values in a secular society.

I am Christian, hear me roar wonders if John Calvin is to blame for capitalism.

Ben Myers notes the 'Jesus, All About Life' advertising campaign in Australia. Not being an Aussie, I've no way of knowing how culturally appropriate this is, or whether it's come across better or worse than Back to Church Sunday, but Ben doesn't seem to be impressed.

Beyond Relevance has a good meditation on the Princess and the Pea: Many church leaders will tell you that they do not have problems with the non-Christians, its the finicky church people that keep them wound in a knot. (spotted this a bit late, but it's still worth a look)

Thinking out Loud takes us behind the scenes at King David's worship committee.

Girlpreacha has a nice version of the 10 Commandments translated for 7-11 year olds.

Steve Borthwick has unearthed a copy of the Daily Mail from AD 33

Here We Go Again

Another faith in the workplace controversy involving a West Country nurse, this time one in Exeter whose health trust asked her to stop wearing a crucifix on health and safety grounds. She's been wearing it for 30 years, without injury to patients, but the trust policy is 'no necklaces', so she's been taken off front line duties until she complies.

The Trust statement is here - it appears the policy was adopted 18 months ago, and it seems the nurse was only informed of it in June this year. Obviously not that crucial a policy then..... It does seem a little odd, given that there are plenty of other things patients can grab (stethoscopes, security tags, watches). It would be interesting to know what led to the review of policy in the first place, but it clearly wasn't this particular nurse or else this story would have happened in April 2008.

The Christian Legal Centre, who have taken up the case, point out that there's not one recorded incident of anyone in the NHS suffering injury from a necklace. The CLC has a fuller version of the story, including quotes from the nurse herself, and links to media reports. The Telegraphs story points out that other trusts are perfectly happy with the wearing of religious symbols, as a sign of diversity. The CLC are arguing that a secularist agenda is behind the policy/this particular application of it, but I'm not really sure that we need that level of rhetoric to get this sorted out sensibly.

It's certainly very easy to hide one agenda behind another: secularism behind health and safety, or refusing to publicise church events in a library/renaming Christmas, because you 'don't want to offend people of other faiths', who wouldn't have been offended anyway. There is a track record here, so the CLC may be wrong, but it's not unreasonable to be suspicious.

One of the issues is whether certain things are 'required' by a religion, or are just an expression of faith. Having said that, wearing a wedding ring isn't 'required' but if anyone asked me to remove mine then they'd have to have a pretty good reason, because of what it symbolises.

And given my recent experience in the NHS (more later this week), there are much more important things for NHS managers to be doing than faffing about with jewellery.

Other coverage and comments:
- Tabloid watch notes how stories like this fit a running 'political correctness' narrative in certain sections of the press.
- the Journal of Medical Ethics blog thinks the Trust is in the right, and that 'a hospital is a secular institution' - which doesn't entirely square with the presence of chaplaincies and prayer rooms, it's not quite that simple is it?
- best piece discovered so far is One Minions Opinion.
and lots of strange 'Britain is being turned into a Muslim country by political correctness' sites.

All Quiet in the Cathedral

The Cathedral tour guide who never once mentioned God, Jesus, or the Christian faith during a tour of Salisbury is the topic of a couple of threads, one at Cranmer, and the original by Tim Montgomerie at Conservative Home.

Sharing the same tour was American blogger CrunchyCon, who also takes a dim view of the bookstore. He notes that during some recent time in England, there was increasing despair about society in general, and the church's response to social breakdown.

Tim's post brings to mind several conversations I've had with English Christians of various traditions on my travels here this summer. There is among them a very deep concern about the moral direction of this country, and what role exiling Christianity from the consciousness of the nation plays in this.

His post is not the whole story, but it's part of it.

I note in passing that there's a vigorous debate about assisted suicide going on at Conservative Home as well. I'm struggling to think of anything equivalent on a Christian-run blog. Maybe this backs up CrunchyCon's point - the moral discussions are, increasingly, bypassing the church. That's partly because we don't play knockabout/rentaquote, but it might also be because we're too scared of offending people to make clear and unequivocal statements.

Top Trumps on the Stornoway-Lewis Ferry

On Sunday the Beeb had an item on its main news programme about the first Sunday sailing of the Stornoway-Lewis ferry.

Operators Caledonian MacBrayne claim that they'd be breaking the law not to. According to the BBC report: "CalMac said it could be breaking equality laws if it did not run ferries seven days a week. It said religion or beliefs were not valid reasons to refuse to run the ferry.

Supporters of the service said it would be good for tourism. They said it would offer more flexibility to travellers.

As the ferry left Stornoway a crowd of several hundred gathered to applaud, and wave to those on board.

The local council for the Western Isles opposes the sailing, (e.g. here) so this is not just about a few religious traditionalists versus progress, CalMac seems to have gone against the will of the local people. That's much more than 'religion or beliefs'. It also strikes me that the Equality Act 2006 is a convenient place to hide: CalMac wouldn't be doing this if it didn't make them some money.

Their spokesman has at least recognised that they are 'reacting to demand' rather than simply doing the bidding of the law, though launching sailings with only 5 days notice is an interesting tactic. With only a few days notice, anyone from the island who wanted to protest about the sailing would have had to travel to the mainland on Saturday and lodged overnight, so the numbers of protesters at the port is immaterial. This seems to have been deliberately timed to get round local opposition.

Thoughts:
1. If the Equality Act means that observing Sunday as a day of rest is illegal, then there are a lot of us who would like to see that legal advice. If the Act really means 'every day must be exactly the same as every other' then that's pretty grim.

2. Given that folk can go pretty much everywhere else in the British Isles on a Sunday, is it really so bad that one part of it is allowed to do things differently? One argument made on the news report was that it was hitting business on the island, and that people were moving away. But is economics always the trump card?

3. Whose needs take preference here? The island is a home to its local population, but most of the CalMac demand (I imagine) comes from tourists. If local people want to have a day when their island isn't swarming with tourists, then what's wrong with that? Just because demand is there doesn't mean it has to be satisfied.

4. Humans aren't made to work 7 days a week, and a community day of rest is a good thing. It's for that community to decide how to observe that, not for commercial interests to decide it for them. Part of the original Sabbath laws was a recognition that there was more to life than work, it was a recognition that we're not slaves, we're human beings rather than human doings. Andrew Marr calls the late 20th century 'the triumph of shopping over politics', but Sabbath reminds us that there's more to life than merely earning and spending money.

5. Does 'religion or beliefs' have any standing at all in decision making, or are they trumped every time? And in this case, what counts as a belief? Isn't the dogma that the only bottom line is the bottom line a mere belief, open to challenge and dispute? Or does CalMac know that by painting its opponents as reactionary Puritans the vast majority of people will automatically side with the ferry company, as they hear the dog whistle sound?

the press release from Keep Sunday Special notes that CalMac is government-backed, and that their decision overrides the will of local people. Another report quotes a hotelier on the island who is now having bookings cancelled because folk can leave the island a day earlier at the weekend.

The danger in all of this is that it's just another 'church says no' story, which depicts Christians as fun-quenching killjoys stuck in the 18th century. It all depends on how you tell the story: are the Christians reactionaries opposed to 'progress', or beleagured underdogs fighting to protect a valued way of life against the march of capitalism?

National Secular Society: Foot, Aim, Fire

It was a surprise to discover earlier this week that the NSS accepted a key argument against euthanasia, give that they campaign in favour of it. But the heat is possibly getting to them. Consider this motion, of which parts 3-5 were rejected by the British Medical Association yesterday:

That this Meeting:
(i) recognises that the NHS is committed to providing spiritual care for patients;
(ii) notes the position on inappropriate discussion of faith matters in GMC Guidance on Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice;
(iii) while welcoming the constructive and necessary advice in the document "Religion or belief", is concerned that some paragraphs suggest that any discussion of spiritual matters with patients or colleagues could lead to disciplinary action;
(iv) believes that offering to pray for a patient should not be grounds for suspension;
(v) calls on Health Departments to allow appropriate consensual discussion of spiritual matters within the NHS, when done with respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals.

and this interpretation from the NSS (Ht Doug Chaplin)
Doctors have voted down a Christian motion at the BMA conference that would have given carte blanche for religious medical practitioners to “share their faith” without restraint.

Ok, read the motion again. "Consensual" "respect for the views and sensitivities of individuals", "offering to pray". As Mike Peatman points out, that's not carte blanche in any translation of the French. Either the NSS haven't read the motion that the BMA were debating, or they have chosen deliberately to misrepresent it.

Now this poses a couple of problems:
- One of the supposed assets of secularism is its application of reason to the facts. It doesn't reflect well that the most-quoted secularist organisation (though they're oddly secretive about total membership), neither has a grasp of the facts here, nor presents them in a reasonable way.

- The NSS prides itself on sending submissions to the government on various pieces of legislation. However their reputation for distorting/ignoring the facts must undermine the credibility of any of this. If the NSS wants to be taken seriously, it should try a bit harder to establish a reputation for truthfulness. Alternatively if they just want to play yah-boo rentaquote, then they shouldn't complain when faith groups arguments are taken more seriously than their own.

It's also nice, but surprising, to discover that the NSS recognises the reality of spiritual health:
“Sick people want doctors to take care of their physical health and a clergyman to take care of their spiritual health. Doctors and nurses have enough to do without burdening themselves with the need to pray with patients.” (Terry Sanderson).

That's really good news, as its a basis for discussing the best way of meeting the spiritual health needs without resorting to headline-grabbing stuff about hospital chaplains, which really doesn't lead to constructive debate.

Update: the National Secular Society has never published its membership figures - you might wonder why, I couldn't possibly comment. Starcourse however has done some maths and estimates that NSS membership is still around the 7,000 level quoted in 2007.

National Secular Society accepts key argument against Euthanasia

Ht to Nick Baines for spotting this National Secular Society comment on spiritual care in hospital:

We have to be very careful about how we tread on this issue. If we say it is ok for doctors and nurses to provide spiritual care and pray for patients it can all too quickly get out of hand and we will have staff preaching on the wards. The risk is that it makes patients feel uncomfortable. They may feel compelled to say ‘yes’ thinking their care will suffer.

So there you have it. The NSS accepts that patients may feel pressurised to do something they don't want to do. Which is one of the key arguments against assisted suicide, being debated in the Lords this week. Strangely, the NSS are campaigning in favour of it. I continue to be amazed that an organisation with such a track record in flawed reasoning and misrepresentation is taken seriously by either the media or the government.

One comment on Nick's blog mentions a patient who apologised to her doctor for being a Christian, in case the doctor was offended. Who exactly is being made to feel uncomfortable for what here?

The National Secular Society: who needs evidence when you've got prejudice?

A couple of good pieces responding to yesterdays National Secular Society attack on the work of hospital chaplains, which was given the oxygen of publicity by the BBC.

- Ekklesia reports on the response of union Unite, which calls the report 'erroneous and simplistic',
- and Matt Wardman raises some serious questions of detail about the research behind the report, and the figures it quotes.
- to be fair to the Beeb, they also have an article by a medical ethicist on the value of hospital chaplaincies.

There are several other good articles on the Ekklesia site.

The NSS would command a lot more respect if they dropped their editorial policy of refusing to recognise any positive contribution made by people of faith. Unfortunately, because they're known to be innately biased, nothing presented by the NSS can be treated as objective fact. Which is ironic, since I guess that would be their critique of religion...

BBC Poll: Only 1 in 3 catch the agnostibus

A new poll on the BBC site shows a 2:1 majority favouring religious values in public life, and the influence of religious values over our laws and culture. Full data here. 50% of those with 'no religion' agreed with the statement that 'our laws should respect and be influenced by religious values' (which is actually two statements rolled together....). So even though most folks aren't overtly religious, they value a role for faith in public life.

There was also a question on how fairly the media report religion, in which, surprisingly, the majority of Christians thought their religion was fairly reported. See my previous post!!

from the site: However, the BBC poll indicates that even at a time when baptisms, church weddings and attendance at Sunday services are declining, people are unwilling for secularism to displace religion altogether.

They may be dubious about specific religious beliefs, and unwilling to accept the teaching of religious organisations about how they should lead their lives, but the survey suggests they are not yet ready to cast God out of public life.

Ht Ekklesia, which has a longer comment piece on this. See also Robert Piggotts interpretation at the BBC.

It'll be interesting to see how the National Secular Society spin doctors rewrite the headline on this one. It must be a major blow to them that, after a fairly high media profile in recent times, most of us still don't buy their argument for banishing religion from public life (E.g. 'Religion should be a matter of private conscience, for the home and place of worship....religious involvement in public life...disadvantages those who have no religion').

Can You Be a Christian in the West Country?

A Christian primary school employee in Devon, whose daughter was told off for talking about Jesus to a classmate, is facing disciplinary action after asking some other Christians to pray for her family. (ht Cranmer)

This follows the case of Caroline Petrie, a nurse in Somerset, who was investigated by her NHS Trust after an offer to pray with a patient.

(see also letters from a Tory, Kouya Chronicle)

I can see this becoming a running story, as particular parts of the media will go on the hunt for similar episodes. There was another case last week of a Christian foster family who were struck off because a 16 year old in their care converted to Christianity, having come (I think) from a Muslim family. All of this seems to share a common theme, of driving Christian practice into the purely private sphere.

Yet at the same time the government would like to encourage Christians to do their 'public' charitable work in partnership with secular funders and authorities. You can't have it both ways.

We seem to be getting to the stage where, piecemeal, a combination of the state and regulatory bodies are deciding which bits of Christian faith are permissible in public and which are not. At the moment it's a few isolated stories - by contrast here in Yeovil there seem to be good relationships between the church and the council/police/community. However we also try to make sure those good relationships continue: we don't use situations like Street pastors, pregnancy counselling or the offer of food parcels to coerce people into faith.

1 Peter encourages Christians to share their faith 'with gentleness and respect', the early church was deeply conscious of the suspicion of this 'new religion' from those around it, and there are repeated injunctions for the church to live a blameless life in order to win over those around it. As well as proclaiming the good news afresh in each generation, we also need to earn the respect of each generation by showing that Christian faith is a good thing, not a threat or a psychosis.

This is a tricky one. We need to stick up for the victimised, without creating a climate of fear where all Christians feel that someone at work is out to get them. It's also hard to know whether these cases are the beginning of a process which will steadily erode Christian freedoms, or a few isolated incidents which are down to one or two personalities in specific jobs. It would be very sad if this whole area came to be governed by law and codes of practice, rather than by common sense and mutual respect.

Atheist daughter, Reverend mother

Story from the (ahem) Mail about an atheist daughter whose mum has just been ordained here in Somerset, and how she feels about it all. It's a very honest piece, and fascinating to read about her reactions, and how they deal with having their children at a church school, after moving back to the UK from France:

In September, they started at a Church of England school in Cornwall. I had initially liked the fact that French state schools are completely secular, but, as the years went by, I found myself rather jealous of friends whose children were in Nativity plays.

Religion was never mentioned at school, to the point where I began to notice the children taking their cue from us, their atheist parents, and declaring that 'God doesn't exist'. Following my gentle reminders that, 'You can believe whatever you like. Lots of people believe in him', they'd exclaim, 'but they're wrong, aren't they, Mum?'

St Francis, the primary school the children go to now, has made me question all my previous assumptions. I ticked the 'no religion' box on every form we were given, but they let us in anyway. And the school felt like the right environment from the moment we walked through the door.

At school, the children have absorbed the fact that they can believe whatever they want to believe. Seb, my second son, currently has a 'God' who has a lot in common with Superman, but with the added power of invisibility.

Gabe, the eldest, is not interested, but is more tolerant than he used to be. Now that I am older and less trenchant, and now that we have a vicar in the family, I can see a grounding in religion as a positive thing.

Apart from anything else, they will know the Bible stories that will help them appreciate their literary and artistic heritage. How do you read Milton (or even Dan Brown), or understand the Sistine Chapel, unless you have an idea of what is behind it? Seb is going to be in a Nativity play this year, and I have the camera ready.

Ht Madpriest, of all people. The piece is also encouraging in that here are two people in the same family, with opposite religious viewpoints, who haven't let it come between them.

I'm also wondering whether to copy this from his blog, as it's very funny and was written by the patients themselves, but was a tad controversial at the time.