Woolas: End is nigh for the Church of England

Phill Woolas, Immigration Minister, saying how it is

Well, if you mean 50 years, Woolas commented:

“Disestablishment – I think it will happen because it’s the way things are going. Once you open debate about reform of the House of Lords you open up debate about the make-up of the House,” he told the newspaper.”

“It will probably take 50 years, but a modern society is multi faith.”

So who is in the way of allowing people to choose their faith or none without the state privledging one over another?

A Ministry of Justice spokeswoman said: “The Church of England is by law established as the Church in England and the Monarch is its Supreme Governor.

“The government remains committed to this position and values the establishment of the Church of England.” [BBC]

Woolas’ point – which along with a Sunday Times interview have come to haunt him in his new role as Immigration Minister – was that reform of the House of Lords was needed. Once that happens you cannot ignore the unelected Bishops of the Church of England there. Nor the role the monarch plays as head of an established church to which the majority of subjects are not actively a part of.

The reason why this is not a government priority:

The Government has reassured the Church of England that it will not embark on any move towards disestablishment unless the Church asks it to do so. With the Church bogged down in disputes over gays and women clergy, the last thing that it wants is a row over disestablishment. In Lambeth Palace and Whitehall the issue is considered political dynamite. [The Times]

It has the hallmarks of passions being stirred on all sides of the debate. The thing is that the best arguments are not on Lambeth or Westminster’s side. Citizens should be free to pursue their religious belief without having one privileged over another. The question of belief is an entirely a private matter. You do not have to believe in hell to be a member of the Church of England. That is not a question of belief but a matter of law on the statute book by parliament.

There is however a danger that rather than going ahead with disestablishment, the Labour Government will actually try to have religion encouraged in the public sphere. Sharia Law is already being practised for civil cases via Sharia Councils in Britain:

The councils do not involve themselves in criminal law or any aspects of civil law in which they would be in direct conflict with British civil codes. The vast majority of their cases cover marriage and divorce. By consent of all parties, they may also arbitrate issues of property, child custody, housing and employment disputes, though their rulings are not binding unless submitted to the civilian courts. [source]

The issue here is the nature of the consent by all parties, and whether all parties know about access to British civil codes and how to abject. This really must be stressed when you consider the number of women that may be subjected to Sharia Councils who do not speak English. By what token are we assured that they know their rights under English law?

Meanwhile the report Moral, But No Compass, backed by the Church of England suggestion is to have a Minister for Religion. As if 26 Bishops in the House of Lords was not enough representation. As one blogger commented:

the moment this minister sets foot in a church, the Muslims would demand visits to their mosques with increasingly-taller minarets, and then the Sikhs would want a visit to their shining new gurdwaras, and thence to mandirs, and viharas. And at some point the minister would have to make statements in the House about the status of Scientology, and feel obliged to celebrate Yoda’s birthday at the House of Commons with the Jedi Knight fraternity, if only to win their endorsement and votes. [Cranmer]

Hopefully the Conservative Humanist Association can ensure that the Minister for Religion idea is not one adopted as Conservative Policy – though it could be a move to gather back Anglicans feeling slighted by the Labour Government. Despite the fact that this government is very much in favour of faith based initiatives – signalling them out for special praise in the Goldsmith report.

The real reason is that the government sees the whole issue as a Gordian Knot where the monarchy, Church of England and House of Lords all intertwine. To sever one is to unravel them all, in a way that the government fears it could not control. A church that would be free to be political, rather than just a public servant. An elected head of state with executive power independent of the Cabinet. An elected House of Lords with legitimacy to take on the lower chamber more often.

It could also be one of those things that power is only ever given away when it is expedient too or the institution that has it cares not to have such exercise of authority. The political problem though remains. The issue is one that has to be advanced on a human rights front. The state cannot effectively favour all religions, nor should it use taxpayers money to privilege one over the other. Giving religious civil courts sanction to make rulings over citizens is a breach that all are the same under the law where legally unqualified people will render verdicts based on their interpretation of holy texts – which do not favour the equal treatment of people regardless of gender, and have a notion of property rights inconsistent with moder law.

The feminists should be burning Korans, and the government should be having an almighty headache over the dalliance with organised religion. Right now it bears the harlot upon it’s back – when will the beast shake itself free of the rider that feels secure debauched on the legitimacy of their union on the statue books? Some may say it would mark the end of the world, a new world order (a book on Revelation interpretations would be how many volumes?). What it should mean is the sovereignty of belief resides in the private minds of the citizens, and not a matter of the government who should protect the freedom of religion and speech by advocating those human rights values, rather than religion being able take them away and make them their own, with the complicit government allowing it’s citizens to be unequally treated in civil cases.

OTHER BLOGS:

Secularism – why it is good for us all

Swear allegiance – a bond that will bring us together?

Apparently we lack an identity on this floating island that incrementally moves away from Europe (shifting plates rather than anti EU). Such things, as well as lack of role models for kids, have been considered responsible for anti social behaviour. An aimlessness leading not to Nirvana but social deprivation, binge drinking, and drugs. The UN ranks the UK to be the worse place for a child to grow up in among rich nations. In short lacking a sense of belonging.

Lord Goldsmith has written a report Citizenship Review: Citizenship Our Common Bond which at 136 pages is for the Prime Minister (all quotes in blog from report). Lord Goldsmith sees citizenship as a sense of belonging, a bond between people that can be enhanced. Now if you had read the report in the media the impression you would get is that it is about angst teenagers swearing allegiance to the queen on a voluntary basis; in return for which they would perhaps get grants and reduction of tuition fees.

The executive summery includes freedoms of citizens and rights that they should expect (for example the State to protect them when another State does them harm). It notes that there are six categories of citizenship that exist at present. It also suggests that ceremony is important in human affairs and that, especially for youth, a citizen ceremony would give a sense of belonging:

The role of ritual and ceremony

There is a significant role for ceremonies in each of our individual lives. These ceremonies mark important stages of life and they are occasions for celebration as well as reflection. On that principle, there is a role for ceremonies in the shared experience of citizenship as well. Citizenship ceremonies for new citizens have been in place since 2004 and they have been very successful. I recommend that further consideration is now given to extending citizenship ceremonies to all young people.

I would agree with the civic measures he suggests about school children being involved in their community - these things exist already and schools could be encouraged to sign up to more of these. Those children that do take part in these civic responsibilities would have such things as reduced tuition fees – it is not the swearing allegiance to the queen that would bring that about as the BBC News website seems to suggest.

He also proposals debating days where political action, as part of civic participation, would be encouraged by the State with “Deliberation Day” just before a General Election – for organisations and political parties to organise events. Also “Citizenship Petitions” that could make Parliament set aside time to debate issues so raised.

The actual oath of allegiance that those take on becoming citizens is this:

“I, [name], swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law … I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.”

Now as an atheist I take issue with that, and that it does not mention that there should be an alternative (as there is for Parliament, courts etc). As to being a republican you could do the Tony Benn MP thing: “As a life long committed republican I swear …”

However there is the aspect of faith that he goes on to mention:

The role of faith communities

1. Faith communities create many opportunities for participation in society and they have long been a force for positive social change. From the perspective of their contribution to strengthening the common bond of citizenship, what is key is that they are alert to the risk of separateness and hence they contribute – as most do – to working across faith communities: this is interfaith action, which is an additional step beyond interfaith dialogue.
2. Where faith communities are an integral part of the community in this way, there is a dual benefit. They provide additional resources for dealing with social problems. And where they work across faith divides, they contribute to creating a greater sense of a shared purpose and inhibit the emergence of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ outlook.

This reflects government thinking – faith communities are seen as delivering social goods to deprived areas and as underpinning civic society in some sub cultures of the UK. Hence talking about inter faith contact which I have talked about in a previous blog. The problem is that faith actually separates people rather than brings humanity together. His call for interfaith action – that is positive steps beyond breaking bread together – in coordinated civic participation. However for this sense of belonging one hopes such civic action is done without strings attached on would be recipients. There is no such thing as a free lunch, though I confess that my lips could sing the praise of the lord to quench my stomach while my brain rationalised the hypocrisy that my need gave rise to. It is notable that many faith based organisations contributed to the review and they are given a prominence compared to non faith organisations. 

He also mentions mediators drawn from local communities that, with appropriate training, can deal with tensions in the local community they live in for informal dispute resolution. Further he mentions the fact that asylum workers are not allowed to work in the UK – a cause for tension where the local community through council tax pays for them via the local authority:

I was told by many that denying the right to work to asylum seekers also has a negative effect on the future integration of those who are subsequently recognised as refugees. This is particularly so for those with specialist skills, such as health professionals, who need to keep their skills up to date.

There are also pragmatic considerations. If asylum seekers cannot work, then it is the state that has to provide support. Equally, providing asylum seekers with access to the labour market may reduce the likelihood of illegal working – which can be dangerous for the migrants in question and depress wages for legal workers.

A mention that if they are to be funded that should come from central government rather than the local government would have been in order to reduce tensions in the local community.

Overall the report seems rather limp wristed. Deliberation Day seems like a good idea to try and engage the populace with politics – but he does not mention a televised debate between party leaders over the course of an election to bring more focus on that in the run up to an election. Ceremony is important in our lives, but that would mean more if a citizenship ceremony actually had real significance – for example on your 16th birthday you become a citizen capable of driving a car, voting, marriage, child bearing, joining the army, buy property etc. The law currently stands that you can be a parent but not get a tattoo till you are older.

Faith is given a status for harmony it scantily deserves if a sense of belonging means a distinction of them and us – goats and sheep. Religion is all about the insider and outsider distinction, and one reason why church attendance is relatively so low is that people do not need that to distinguish themselves as an identity. Islam, often with people in socially deprived areas, by contrast is giving people a sense  of belonging and that youngsters can be more radicalised than their parents should not be so shocking, especially when role models are those that claim religious zeal and people identify more with their faith then they do with the country they live in. They see themselves as outsiders and becoming a part of a sub culture is one way of compensating for that.

The issue for society is when youngsters become part of sub cultures that range from binge drinking to radical Islam. There is much to be said for social integration – but this report is no way nearer to solving that problem.

A list of the various oaths that are made in the UK can be found here.