It’s “British Humanist Association“, John!

The Pope did a Thought for the Day today. Don’t get too excited, it’s fairly anodyne and Christmassy and this-is-who-I’m-praying-for, as opposed to his atheists-are-Nazis riff. No reflection on a terrible few years for the Church though, either.

In a response segment afterwards, Polly Toynbee points out that Today programme listeners on Twitter haven’t been particularly moved by the level of excitement the Beeb encouraged re the Pope’s slot. Bishops in the Lords, ‘faith’ schools, and dodgy religiosity stats all come in for criticism, with reference to the BHA Census Campaign. –  Cristina Odone responds by accusing Polly of wanting to take religious people “out of public life”… apropos of nothing.

You can listen again at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9319000/9319167.stm

Note: The British Humanist Association campaigns for non-religious inclusion in Thought for the Day given that it’s remit is to reflect ethically on current affairs and people other than priests, rabbis and the Pope can do that actually.

Last week the British Humanist Association outlined the need for constitutional change, removing the Bishops from the House of Lords, for epolitix.com.

We want a secular state. By this we mean a state where public institutions are separate from religious institutions and treat all citizens impartially regardless of their religious or nonreligious beliefs.

This would include, for example, a separation of church and state so that the Head of State was not also Head of the Church of England and an end to Bishops sitting as of right in the House of Lords.

We want a government that shares our ideal of an open society.

The UK is the only democratic country to give seats in its legislature to religious representatives as of right.

We want a reformed chamber so that Bishops no longer sit as of right in the House of Lords.

The presence of the Church of England in the House of Lords entrenches a privileged position for one particular branch of one particular religion that cannot be justified in today’s society, which is not only multi-faith but increasingly non-religious.

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/parliament-an-end-to-bishops-sitting-in-the-house-of-lords/

The British Humanist Association campaigns on a range of ethical and policy issues.

Senior figures in the Church of England are forcing an unprecedented showdown with the judiciary over an allegation that some of the country’s most senior judges are prejudiced against Christianity.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, and other church leaders will urge senior judges to stand down from future Court of Appeal hearings because of “disturbing” and “dangerous” rulings they issued in recent religious discrimination cases.

Senior churchmen do not think they have any chance of a “fair” ruling if the latest significant hearing – due on Thursday – is heard in front of those judges who, they argue, have already shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs.

Critics are particularly alarmed by a ruling by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, that Lillian Ladele, a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships ceremonies – because they were against her Christian beliefs – broke the law.

The Court of Appeal decided in December that the right to express a strong Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals under Labour’s equality laws.

Lord Carey and others will this week support a formal application by lawyers acting for Gary McFarlane, a Christian relationship counsellor, that a specialist panel of five judges with a proven understanding of religious issues and headed by Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, should be established to hear his case and future cases involving religious rights.

Mr McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, is appealing against an employment tribunal ruling that supported his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

Continues: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7574690/Church-leaders-head-for-showdown-with-top-judges-over-bias-against-Christians.html

The BHA was quick to denounce these calls, this morning, saying “There must be no privilege for Christians before the law.”

Over the last few days the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords must have been astounded to receive over 50,000 letters telling them their time as legislators is up. Today an ICM poll for Power2010, who organised the write-in, shows that 74% of voters think unelected bishops should have no place in the legislature, and only 21% believe that they should. Even more persuasive is that 70% of Christians want the bishops gone, and only 26% are in favour of keeping them. We are the only western country with theocracy in its law-making.

Failure to reform the Lords, despite the Commons voting for a 100% elected upper house, is just one of Labour’s long list of missed opportunities. But a revised plan will emerge shortly to join Labour’s manifesto of regrets. Why didn’t Labour do Lords reform? It would have taken a year of guerrilla warfare with the ermine, obliterating all other business. What a mistake: all that fidgety “other business” is long forgotten but this would have stood as a monument, fulfilling at last what the Commons has tried to do since 1911.

Maybe 2011 will be the year to do it. This is a trap for the Tories, by no means united on Lords reform. If Cameron votes down the constitutional reform bill in the “wash-up” of unfinished bills when the election is called, he will be voting to prevent a referendum to let people choose electoral reform for the Commons. He will also be voting to keep the present preposterous 92 hereditary peers, with their bizarre blue-blood byelections to replace their dead.

Labour regarded Lords reform as abstruse, nerdy stuff, alienating voters. But Power2010 is proving them wrong, campaigning for wide public involvement in how democracy works. With more than 100,000 votes cast in the campaign’s open poll on ideas to change the system, it is pursuing the people’s top constitutional reforms. The voters’ first priority was proportional representation; then came scrapping ID cards and “the database state”; third was an all-elected second chamber. All candidates will be challenged to support the chosen reforms at the election.

Continues at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/14/lords-reform-bishops-reserved-benches

Polly Toynbee is the President of the British Humanist Association. The BHA campaigns for constitutional reform including the removal of reserved spaces for bishops in the Lords. The BHA supported the Power2010 initiative.

Theo Hobson says that Establishment gives the lie to the Church of England’s claim to be liberal and respectful of religious freedom.

I agree with Richard Harries’ defence of faith groups who want to conduct civil partnerships in places of worship.  But I really dislike the way he poses as a defender of religious liberty. We Lords-spiritual have no right to oppose them holding civil ceremonies in places of worship, he loftily says: “it would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible”. This is laughable. For an Anglican bishop to say this is like a Thatcherite saying “compassion must always come first”.

The Church of England has many things going for it: it has lovely buildings, lovely music, lovely liturgies, lovely literature, and a lovely habit of theological vagueness. But it does not have the moral high ground in terms of religious liberty. Indeed it is founded on the denial of religious liberty. This is too often obscured by its reputation for “liberalism”, which is based in the fact that it is more liberal than certain other churches on certain issues, and manages to find a few nice people to say nice things on Thought for the Day.

According to the vague, lazy orthodoxy about our history, the C of E is deeply entwined in the story of British liberalism. From the time of the first Elizabeth, did this Church not nurture the distinctive English tradition of toleration, pluralism, fair play? Did it not reject the authoritarian ways of another church we won’t name, and choose freedom? No, actually. It is truer to say that our tradition of liberty arose in opposition to the established Church.

Continues at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/05/religion-christianity

Lord Carey thinks Christians are being bullied by the political establishment. In reality, they enjoy many privileges.

Lord Carey’s recent accusations – of politicians bullying Christianity – brought to mind Andrew Brown’s rather delicious observation regarding the former archbishop of Canterbury. “The trouble with Rowan Williams is that he can never remember that he is Archbishop; the trouble with George Carey was that he could never forget.” Carey, who enjoyed a good innings at Lambeth Palace, still has an enviable public profile, able to command full page op-eds in national newspapers and champion the cause of the marginalised. But he makes a mistake by counting British Christians among the persecuted.

In the UK Christians still form the dominant religious group, their churches are part of the physical landscape in towns and cities everywhere, their schools educate thousands of children every year and they have their interests represented by bishops in the House of Lords. The prelates have been especially busy of late, lobbying successfullyagainst changes to the equality bill and the provision of sex education in faith schools. Their earlier outcry, about proposed changes to registering civil partnerships in places of worship, persuaded some peers to include a proviso that there was no obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they did not wish to do so. In the last few months politicians have begun talking about the importance of the religious vote. To the untrained eye, then, it would appear that it is not the government doing the bullying. In any case, the one time that a politician explicitly stated that Britain was indeed a Christian country it prompted a fit of outrage from Carey (it was Nick Griffin on Question Time).

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/04/george-carey-christianity

Exeter Cathedral

In this first year of the tens, why does anyone still cares what bishops say? Keith Denby contests the authority of the “Lords Spiritual”.

Once these powerful men commanded the attention of the kingdom; peoples lives and the prosperity of their families could depend on the will of the local Bishop. In 1278 the Bishop of Exeter was able to “ordain that every Dean, at his creation, shall swear to observe this our statute and ordinance, together with the other ancient and approved ones of the church of Exon.”

The current Bishop of Exeter gave a profile interview in the Western Morning News just before Christmas. Michael Langrish said that “‘Everyone has a right to their view … if they respect mine”. His Grace the Bishop still seems to be living in 1278. Nowadays respect has to be earned, it does not come with the job – as prime ministers, ministers and MPs have found to their cost. Substitute Robert Mugabe or Katie Price for the Bishop and the absurdity of his statement becomes sharply apparent. What has Michael Langrish actually done to earn our respect?

In the interview he accuses secular humanists of having a “hidden agenda” to claim the entire public forum for themselves and of not wanting a space for people of any faith. Yet Bishop Langrish merely makes a passing comment about his own privileged access to the very public forum of the House of Lords. Twenty six bishops of the Church of England comprise the “Lords Spiritual” and have full voting rights on any bill brought before the house. Beyond the political party in power, no other interest group has such extensive privileges of access to the public forum.

The Church of England has become sensitive to the steadily increasing criticism of this privilege and has taken to providing links to the Hansard text of the bishops’ contributions to Lords debates. Unfortunately this has only highlighted the self serving nature of most of these speeches. In November 2009, after graciously adding his condolences to the family of the policeman drowned in the Cumbria floods, the Bishop of Exeter gets down to the real business of asking the Chancellor to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme which has so far given around £81 million to the Church of England.

He was back with the collection plate on 21st Jan this year with an appeal for a VAT reduction for charities. Whilst this would benefit many worthy causes with no religious affiliation, it is also true that all the Parochial Church Councils that administer parish church finances are themselves charities.

The Lords Spiritual have a long and unpleasant history of blocking progress, mostly for the intended benefit of the Church of England. In 1831 the country was on the verge of revolution as demands for ‘one man one vote’ reached a crescendo. Britain needed to reform the voting system to bring ordinary men into the process of selecting the Government. The Second Reform Bill of 1831 was defeated in the Lords by 41 votes and the Lords Spiritual all voted against the bill. The country was outraged and there was a riot in Bristol that resulted in the burning down of the Bishop’s Palace. The Duke of Wellington, never regarded as a moderniser, had a better understanding of the mood of the country than the bishops and his ministry forced through the Great Reform Act in 1832 against their continuing opposition.

One of those opponents of reform was Henry Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter. Philpotts and his business associates owned 665 slaves in the Caribbean and were compensated for their loss when slavery was abolished. After the 1831 debate he whined that “noble lords had … spoken against them in a tone of sarcasm … as a body actuated by self interest at variance with the public good.”

Bishop Michael Langrish continues this fine tradition. On 25th January this year he spoke during the debate on the Equality Bill to plead that faith communities be allowed to continue to make their own decisions about matters that touch the very heart of religious faith and life.

But, in plain English, he was asking for the churches to be allowed to continue their discrimination against employment of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The Archbishop of York made the astonishing claim that the ability to discriminate against lesbian and gay people was a matter of “religious freedom”. In the vote on an amendment which sought to extend the exemptions permitting religious organisations to discriminate in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation, sex and marital status, the eight bishops present voted against the Government and the amendment was carried. This may lead to the UK being prosecuted in the European Court of Justice.

Such a regressive move by the Lords Spiritual is no longer likely to provoke any burning of bishops’ palaces but what little respect the general public has for ‘What bishops say’ has been even further diminished.

Bishop Langrish is quite wrong in his snide accusation of a hidden secular humanist agenda. The secular humanist agenda is right out in the open – there should be no privileged access to any public forum or legislature by any faith or belief group, all should have equal access and stand or fall by the merits of their argument. Among other things that means turfing out all the bishops from their privileged seats in the House of Lords, and they should be turfed out right now.

Keith Denby is a committee member of Devon Humanists, a BHA Local Development volunteer.

References

• Hansard
  • http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91123-0008.htm#09112331000025
  • http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100121-0002.htm#10012120000058
  • http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100125-0007.htm#10012533000009
• Reform!: The Fight for the 1832 Reform Act – Edward Pearce (Pimlico 2004)
• British Humanist Association – http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/437

The British Humanist Association campaigns to end the special privilege which sees bishops of the Church of England sitting as of a right in the House of Lords.

Apparently only two out of 26 Lordly bishops were present as the upper house voted yesterday to allow same-sex civil partnerships in churches.

The Church Times carries a cartoon wondering where all the other bishops had got to.

The Bishop of Winchester feels the need to explain that he wasn’t there because of “ubreakable prior commitments” (poker night?). Nonetheless, he’s really annoyed that allowing right-minded congregations to bless same-sex unions will “further fudge the line between civil partnerships and marriage. That is shown by some newspapers which simply speak of gay marriages in church.”

The British Humanist Association campaigns on marriage law and to remove the bishops from the House of Lords.

Christians and bullied and marginalised in the UK according to former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, speaking at an event in Parliament, where 26 of his established Church of England bishops sit as of a right in the upper house.

He also criticised Muslim countries for marginalising Christians, but then bemoaned the “politically correct” inclusivity of Britain. He also appears to imply the political secularism was invented only in response to the 9/11 attacks on the US.

“What is happening in Western Europe is not persecution but a marginalising of faith which seeks to portray it as a matter of personal conscience only.

“Some examples of this originate from a mistaken but well-meant political correctness that is anxious not to upset minority faiths by seeming to ‘privilege’ Christianity.

“Hence the regular ‘pantomime’ every Christmas where some local Council or another absurdly gives Christmas another name.

“Of course, I not am denying for one moment that since 9/11 – and the date is significant – a new breed of atheists have moved into the public square arguing that Christianity, or any other faith, should have no role in public life.

“This strident and bullying campaign seeks to ban faith schools, in spite of the clear evidence that such schools perform better than many others. We have reached a point where politicians are now criticised and mocked for merely expressing their faith.

“It is clear that we must stand up against the marginalising of faith. We must constantly remind society, of its Christian roots and heritage. As I wrote recently, if we behave like doormats, don’t be surprised if we are treated as though we are…

“I simply cannot imagine any Prime Minister of England saying that his major concern is that Britain remains a Christian nation. And that reticence is a scandal and a disgrace.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7347335/Lord-Carey-Strident-and-bullying-campaign-to-marginalise-Christians-in-UK.html

The British Humanist Association has responded to the remarks, saying that “our courts are increasingly finding little substance to claims of discrimination or marginalisation of Christians.”
http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/493

If Jesus were on earth today, he would ask why the Church of England still has 26 of its bishops in Britain’s unelected upper chamber of parliament, the House of Lords, a British commentator on Christian affairs has said.

Jonathan Bartley was speaking during a debate held in the British Parliament’s building, and organized by the Labour Humanist Group, on whether Anglican bishops from England’s established church (the Church of England) should be evicted from the House of Lords.

Bartley, the founder and director of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, told fellow panellists and an audience of over 100 members of the public, “To have a group of men – they must be men and cannot be women – who represent one part of the country (for they cannot be Scottish, Welsh or Irish) parachuted into parliament, would be condemned by bishops if it happened in any other part of the world.”

http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=3746

The BHA campaigns against the Bishops in the Lords.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/constitutional-reform/bishops-in-the-lords

Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia wonders if the bishops in the Lords have brought themselves a step closer to redundancy with last night’s vote on the Equality Bill and says ‘not in my name’!

The Church of England website makes the claim that the bishops in the Lords “are a voice for all people of faith”. Well I am a person of faith and they don’t speak for me. They weren’t speaking for gay people of faith tonight either, who will now legally not be considered for many church jobs or employment with many Christian organisations. Nor were they speaking for the Quakers, who recently backed civil partnerships, the Unitarians or some Jews, who all wanted the Equality Bill amended to permit religious symbols to be used in civil partnership ceremonies. They weren’t speaking for the religious groups involved in the Cutting Edge Consortium set up around the Equality Bill. In fact, one might fairly suggest that whilst they are prominent members of the Church of England, they weren’t speaking for any Christian who believes that the message of the Jesus means a warm welcome for all to join in and be included in the community of God.

So just who do bishops represent? Bishops must be male, from one part of the UK (not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland) – a strange thing that even predates Tam Dalyell’s West Lothian Question. They must be from just one denomination, within just one faith.

On many issues they are divided and can not invariably be found voting as both ‘content’ and ‘not content’ on the same issues. It is often only when it comes to the interests of the institutional church that they suddenly seem to join together with one voice.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11101

The British Humanist Association has been working with sympathetic parliamentarians on the Equality Bill which gives “excessive privileges to religious groups to discriminate against not only gay and lesbian people but against the non-religious and those of other religions.” The BHA also campaigns against the bishops who stand as of a right in the House of Lords.

Chris Clark - Labour Humanists

Chris Clark for the Labour Humanists: There is no reason for anyone to occupy a place in the British parliament as of right.

The Labour manifesto of 2005 pledged that we would complete the job of reforming the House of Lords, making it a modern, democratic chamber fit for the needs of the twenty-first century.

The draft legislation trailed in the Queen’s Speech set out two options for the reformed second chamber, with either 80% or 100% of members elected. Under the 100% elected option, there would be no reserved places for Church of England Bishops.

A 100% elected second chamber is the most democratic way forward. There is no reason for anyone to occupy a place in the British parliament as of right. Last year the Government addressed one of our constitution’s long-standing oddities, in removing the Law Lords from the legislature and founding a supreme court. The next step is to deal with the democratic deficit and ensure that anyone sitting in the reformed second chamber has a mandate to be there. If the remaining members of the Lords are confident that people will agree with their opinions and/or will want to be represented by them, then they should stand for election and let the people decide.

Advocates of retaining some appointed members point to people from non-political backgrounds with substantial experience, or special areas of expertise, who may not wish to stand for election. These people certainly have a contribution to make. So the question we must ask is, would a 100% elected chamber mean we lose the benefit of their wisdom and experience?

The answer is that we can listen to what these people have to say without handing them a permanent seat and vote in our parliament. For a start, those who decline to stand for election can still contribute to public debate by writing or speaking outside parliament. And just as the Select Committee system sees parliamentarians asking questions of subject experts from business, charities and campaigning organisations, there is nothing to say that representatives from faith communities could not be invited to give evidence in a similar way.

The only religious institution currently represented in the Lords by right is the Church of England – a single denomination of a single religion. This discriminates against members of other religions and those with non-religious belief systems like humanists. Preserving the status quo is unthinkable.

One response to this is to say that this religious privilege should be extended to other religions and/or other Christian denominations. Thankfully, the Government has already ruled this option out in the White Paper of 2008, which confirmed that no seats in the reformed second chamber will be reserved for representatives of other religions.

So, is it time to evict the Bishops? Our answer is that they should give up the seats they hold as of right and, if they wish, compete in an open contest – Labour Humanists say, let the people decide.

Chris Clark is Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidate for Ashford and a member of the executive committee of Labour Humanists

For the BHA position on Bishops in the Lords see:
http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/constitutional-reform/bishops-in-the-lords

The British Humanist Association is not a party political organisation. The Labour Humanists are affiliated to the BHA as are a number of other groups with party political affiliations.

Open debate

Labour Humanists are hosting an open debate on whether it is time to evict the “Lords Spiritual.”

Time and date: 7:30pm, Wednesday 27 January 2010
Location: Committee Room 10, Portcullis House.
Chair: David Aaronovitch
Yes: Polly Toynbee, President of the British Humanist Association and Jonathan Bartley, Co-director, Ekklesia
No: The Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester and Convenor of the Lords Spiritual and Rt Hon Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss
Tickets: FREE and open to all, though you have to book. Parliamentary Passholders still need to register.

The UK is the only Western democracy that has clerics in its parliament as of right.  With reform of the House of Lords currently a hot topic, Labour Humanists are hosting an open debate on whether it is time to evict the ”Lords Spiritual.”

Entrance is free but you must book at the link below.

Chair: David Aaronovitch

Yes: Polly Toynbee, President of the British Humanist Association; and Jonathan Bartley, Co-director,Ekklesia

No: The Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester and Convenor of the Lords Spiritual; and Rt Hon Baroness Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

Time and date: 7:30pm, Wednesday 27 January 2010

Location: Committee Room 10, Houses of Parliament, London, SW1A 0AA
Note: The room has changed from 4 to 10 due to popular demand.

The room is fully accessible and has suitable audio support facilities. Please use the Cromwell Green entrance (the main public entrance for Parliament) and take the public route to the Committee Corridor.

http://evict-the-bishops.eventbrite.com/

Bishops who sit in the House of Lords are able to live both in London and their dioceses for free under a unique arrangement that saw them claim more than £1.5million in expenses last year.

The “Lords Spiritual” are all provided with grace-and-favour houses, many of which are mediaeval palaces, and claimed £1.4million in hospitality, travel and utilities bills from the Church of England last year.

However, like other peers, they are reimbursed by the taxpayer for meals, hotel rooms, travel and office costs incurred when they visit Westminster, claiming £135,762 in the most recent financial year.

This means that the costs of both their main residences and their stays in London are covered.

Some of the prelates have only spoken in Parliament on a handful of occasions, records show, despite claiming thousands in expenses.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6860012/Bishops-claim-136000-in-expenses-from-House-of-Lords-and-1.4million-from-Church-of-England.html

Also see the BHA campaign on Bishops in the Lords.