You are here:   Ethnicity > Breaking Faith With Britain
 
At the same time, government will have to be increasingly open to religious concerns and to make room for religious conscience, as far as it is possible to do so. Religious leaders, for their part, will seek to guide their peoples in the light of their faith and to seek to make a contribution to public life on the same basis. The integrity and autonomy of public authority and of the law will also have to be recognised, and it would be best if religious law in its application were left to the communities and to the free obedience of their members. Public law, however, should continue to provide overarching protection for all.

In the specific case of sharia law, of course, Muslims will continue to be guided by it, but recognising its jurisdiction in terms of public law is fraught with difficulties precisely because it arises from a different set of assumptions from the tradition of law here. The contradictions that emerge would be very difficult to resolve. At the same time, it should be possible for Muslims to contribute to the development of a common life by bringing the maqasid, or principles of the sharia, to bear on the discussion. These have to do with the protection of the individual and of society and can be argued on their own merits without attempting to align two quite different systems of law.

Christian faith has been central to the emergence of our nation and its development. We cannot really understand the nature and achievements of British society without reference to it. In a plural, multi-faith and multicultural society, it can still provide the resources for both supporting and providing a critique of public life in this country. We have argued that it is necessary to understand where we have come from, to guide us to where we are going, and to bring us back when we wander too far from the path of national destiny.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Norman Hanscombe
June 2nd, 2008
3:06 AM
What a shame fundamentalists of all stipes, be they theists or non-theists, Marxists or Enlightenment Faithful, or anything else, all want to place the blame for the planet's problems at the door of the blind unquestioning beliefs of the adherents of other "answers". None is really interested in examining the role of human nature too carefully, because one thing all faiths have in common is that what they find doesn't always support the kind of "solution" that's too dear to their hearts to risk tight analysis which will endanger their (often noble) plans. Even universities began shying away from analysing popular accepted secular articles of faith in the sixties, so why should religions be held to a higher standard? If we're not careful, next thing you know we'll be questioning astrology, ouija boards, and other growth industries of the sixties. p.s. Your spam test is so difficult to interpret that I began to wonder if I really am human.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
5:06 PM
To Bill Hensley: A reasonable, testable explanation for the empirical finding is that religion trains people into irrationality & intolerance, & away from critical, mature thought. Of course a good empirical test would have to distinguish other effects & variables, eg effects of some religious activities on social cohesion.

Bill Hensley
June 1st, 2008
12:06 PM
Now we have gotten quite specific, Peter. I wonder if you could sketch for me the causal link between Christianity and criminality in the Western democracies.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
2:06 AM
To Bill Hensley: Religious and irreligious peoples alike have committed great atrocities. That argument doesn’t favour religion. Nor does the argument that christianity had some civilising influence in some earlier, more barbarous times. Amongst western democracies, the more religious a society is, the more criminal and disordered it is. Within such democracies, the more religious the area, the more criminal it is. Not accidental. Religion intentionally and explicitly teaches irrationality, stupidity and intolerance. True, it gives lip service to kinder doctrines. So do Islam and the rest. But the kernel of its instruction is to believe the dogma or be damned.

Bill Hensley
May 31st, 2008
5:05 PM
To Peter Brawley: You can as well argue the opposite. The greatest atrocities of the past century have been committed by nations which overtly discarded religion and sought to eliminate its influence. I would also argue that it is a mistake to lump all religions together when you make such sweeping broadsides as "Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers." With Bishop Nazir-Ali, I argue for the distinctiveness of Christianity as a civilizing influence in human culture. I would agree with you that the Islamic doctrine of jihad, the Hindu caste system, and the fatalism of Buddhist thought are negative influences to be resisted. I would put these in stark contrast to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Oliver Cromwell
May 31st, 2008
12:05 PM
Right on , Rochester! A man after my own heart.

FR Colin Griffiths.S.S.M.
May 31st, 2008
10:05 AM
As an Australian Citizen I am pleased to see Standpoint give such prominace to an article by a Bishop.I feel it is a very good piece , but I am uncomforable with it's general message. Would we be truly in a better place with leaders who were truly confessinfg christians. George Bush certainly gave the impression that he was a christian leader, it has been reported thathis administration made over 900 lies in the lead up to the Iraq war. His former press sectary alleges that his main purpose in going to war was a determination for re election. Jesus called us to laven in the lump , not to be agents of contol and donination.

Peter Brawley
May 31st, 2008
4:05 AM
In the UK and Northern Europe, dignity, equality, liberty, democracy, human rights, freedom of conscience, respect for the common good and hospitality became social & political realities not least via rebellion against established religion. These values "stand more strongly" in mainly irreligious societies than in more religious ones---because over the last hundred years or so, worthies in those countries had the wit to toss out idiotic religious superstitions in favour of secularism & humanism. Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers. That's no accident. Religion debilitates. To argue that we should bring back religion---christian or muslim---is incredibly stupid.

the deity formerly known as nigel6888
May 30th, 2008
10:05 PM
Congratulations on this piece. I and many like me are devastated and disappointed that the Christian faith, and its apparent leaders lack the moral fortitude to defend their corner. My Christianity is unashamedly of the muscular variety, I am intensely proud of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and am very much conscious that western civilisation would not exist without it. That is, without this tradition, there would be no "human rights" "womens rights", electricity, industrial revolution, etc etc.

Bill Hensley
May 30th, 2008
8:05 PM
To Brian: And on what alternate base would you establish the values of dignity, equality, liberty, safety and hospitality, which are essential to the formation of a civil society? These hard-won principles arose from the Christian tradition which you now seek to discard. They will not stand on their own.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.