Preparing for battle

If, as Barnabas Fund suggests, 2016 will be remarkable for the battle for religious freedom, what's to be done about it?

It's worth mentioning that the religious freedoms we have long enjoyed in this nation were won - and maintained - in a Christian culture. Religions who want to impose alternatives by force are no friends of freedom. And atheistic organisations who want to prevent Christians from practising their beliefs are no friends of freedom either.

John 8:36 says "If the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." Gal 5:1 says "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free."

(Freedom is not freedom to do as you please. That's not freedom. Freedom is freedom to do the right thing. That's freedom.)

There are two things that a Christian can do here. He can compromise, pretending that any religion will do, accepting any sort of sexual lifestyle, or believing that there is more than one way to heaven. (There isn't.) Or he can stand.

Ephesians 6 says:

Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might.

Put on the whole armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Therefore take up the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness,

And having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

Above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one.

And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;

Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.

Not just words of comfort. Not just words of encouragement. But words of detailed instruction in preparation for the battle.
           

The battle for religious freedom

Political Islam, an increasingly intolerant humanism and the development of a new civic religion will be the major battleground in 2016 for the future of religious freedom, says Christian charity Barnabas Fund. 

Political Islam in much of the world is the greatest threat in its attempts to enforce sharia law, either through the political process or through violence. Last year ISIS extended to new areas of Syria and Northern Iraq. Boko Haram spread its attacks on Christians from Nigeria to Niger and Chad.

Acer province in Indonesia began enforcing sharia; in Tanzania the government attempted to introduce sharia courts to the mainland, where Muslims are a minority. Brunei and Somalia banned the public celebration of Christmas.

Humanists have campaigned against Christian moral standards, attempting to enforce their own secular version of morality. They have tried to prevent parents from sending their  children to Christian schools, wanting children to attend entirely secular schools that reflect humanists' own belief system. They have sought to prevent schools from including any Christian aspect in Christmas celebrations.

We are seeing, says Barnabas, the emergence of a new civic religion in the West in which all beliefs and lifestyle choices are equally valid, and no one, including churches, is allowed to discriminate against them. It claims to be based on tolerance, but is in fact profoundly intolerant of anyone holding historic biblical Christian beliefs.

One of the results is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold public office as a teacher, social worker, judge or politician without at least nominally subscribing to a particular set of beliefs. Freedom of speech is being undermined, with attempts even being made to prosecute pastors for comments made from the pulpit deemed to be offensive to such as Muslims, as evidenced in a recent court case in Northern Ireland. 
        

So how did we get in this state?

Where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old. . . But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities come from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different. This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

In light of recent events. . . terrorists attack, school shootings etc. . . I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. . . The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about, and we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "We reap what we sow."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send jokes through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it. . . no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

The above was written and recited by Steven Levy on America's CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. It could apply equally to the UK.

Just thought you might like to think about it.
   

Mr Pickles takes the helm

After the resignation of Baroness Warsi as faith minister, Prime Minister David Cameron has handed her role to Eric Pickles, who will fill the faith brief in addition to his job as Communities Secretary.

A couple of years ago, after the National Secular Society obtained a High Court decision banning councils having prayers to open council meetings, Mr Pickles fast-tracked laws to override the decision. "The Government recognises and respects the role that faith communities play in our society," he said.

He complained in a speech last year: "In recent years long-standing British liberties of freedom of religion have been undermined by the intolerance of aggressive secularism."

And in April this year he told the Conservative Forum: "I've stopped an attempt by militant atheists to ban councils having prayers at the start of meetings if they wish. Heaven forbid. We're a Christian nation. We have an established church. Get over it. And don't impose your politically correct intolerance on others."

He explained: "The Government has backed British values. And we've stopped Whitehall appeasing extremism of any sort. Be it the EDL, be it extreme Islamists or be it thuggish far-left, they're all as bad as each other."

Says the New Statesman: "Eric Pickles's appointment as Faith Minister is bad news for secularists."

And in a blog post about the appointment, Stephen Evans, campaign manager for the National Secular Society, asks: "Rather than a 'minister for faith,' perhaps we need a minister for freedom of belief?"

Critics complain that Baroness Warsi produced nothing but words. So will Eric Pickles do a better job as faith minister?

Time will tell.

But if his appointment causes the secular humanists to draw in their horns a little, that can't be a bad thing, can it?
   

Dying can be a great opportunity

What's the worth of a human life? If it's my life, can I do what I want with it? Do I have the right to end it when I feel like it?

Listen to John Wyatt, emeritus professor of ethics and perinatology at University College, London, writing in the current issue of Catalyst, published by CARE:

Many insist that we are like chimpanzees with extra brain, just one more species on the planet. Others believe we are basically machines, with brains like computers made of flesh instead of silicon and wires.

Another common attitude is narcissism or the elevation of the self, which is a form of idolatry. 'Everything that improves my life is great. Anything that diminishes it is negative. I have the right to choose how to live my life and also when it should end.' This mindset sees suffering as something to avoid, dismissing the idea that it could ever be of positive value. We see young people caught up in addictions that deaden the pain in and around them.

In secular thinking, human beings can be 'categorised' according to their value with high achievers and celebrities at the top all the way down to those who are totally unproductive and burdensome. Just think where this leads. 'Provided I am independent and able to choose, life is worth living but once I become frail, vulnerable, limited, I become less valuable - putting me out of my misery might be doing me a favour.'

Genesis 1 is clear that every human life is made in God's image. Psalm 139 describes us as 'knit together in our mother's womb. . . fearfully and wonderfully made.' Ephesians 2:10 says 'we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.' Jesus became human like us, choosing to be vulnerable, experiencing human fragility.

God chooses for us to live in a web of dependency on Him and others. We did not choose the circumstances of our birth and arrived completely helpless. As we grow, others may rely on us, and later we might need looking after again. In love, God calls us into existence by name; His plan for us reaches beyond the grave. For someone with dementia, this is crucial. They may forget who they are, but God knows, and remembers, holding their identity safe.

Christians should be particularly concerned about protecting the most vulnerable!  The brain-damaged, the disabled baby, someone severely harmed by life's circumstances, a frail older person - are they not made in God's image - all equal, special beings?. . . 

Palliative care is about living, helping to maximise someone's final days positively. I know of many who have 'died well' - finding time to restore relationships, say goodbye and let go as they focused on meeting God, many receiving Christ as saviour. Vulnerably ill people sometimes express suicidal thoughts but skilled and compassionate caring support transforms the situation. Dying can, by God's grace, be a great adventure and an opportunity, right up to the end, for a person to find purpose in their life.

So God goes out - or does He?

In November last year, Julie Bentley became chief executive of Britain's Girl Guide movement. Ms Bentley, a leading campaigner for abortion and former head of the Family Planning Association, described the Guides as "the ultimate feminist organisation."

In June this year came the announcement that the Guides' promise, "I promise that I will do my best to love my God, to serve the Queen and my country, to help other people, and to keep the Guide law," was to be changed.

It was to become "I promise that I will do my best to be true to myself and develop my beliefs, to serve the Queen and my community, to help other people, and to keep the Guide law."

Secular meddling, you might think, with something that has served a good purpose for a long time.

"Sounds like a self-help manual," wrote someone. "Being true to oneself is what leads to the queue for X Factor auditions," said someone else.

In August, a group of leaders at St Paul's United Reform Church in Harrogate said they were going to use the old promise. They were threatened with expulsion: only the new promise would be recognised, said Girlguiding UK. "So much for diversity," wrote someone. "Secular totalitarianism."

St Paul's United Reform Church leaders were reported to have capitulated after a meeting with the organisation.

Enter Jesmond Parish Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The vicar, the Rev David Holloway (a founding member of the Christian Institute and a council member and trustee of Reform, the Church of England reform organisation), said the church's Brownie and Guide units were refusing to use the new promise, and were right to do so for five reasons.

First, he says, the charitable object of Girlguiding is to help girls "develop emotionally, mentally, physically and spiritually," and according to the Guiding manual members are encouraged to be active in a religious faith. Jesus and the apostles made it clear that sometimes a person's self is a dark and conflicting source of deception and to be resisted. Eph 4:18 - 24 says we are to put off our old self and put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. To which self are we to be true?

Second, being true to a self that is materialistic and gives free rein to sexual and other instincts is surely not in line with the charitable object of Girlguiding.

Third, men and women by nature do not put God first, others second and themselves last; they put themselves first. This can result, like the Guides, in "developing their own beliefs."

Fourth, the promise does not help girls deal with guilt. To encourage a girl in her delusion that there is no objective divine moral law, but all is from her own self, is cruel as well as spiritually and psychologically damaging.

Fifth, the new promise is illegal. The doctrine of the (established) Church of England, defined by law, refers to the Thirty-Nine Articles, which forbid "vain" or "rash" promise-making.

Jesmond Parish Church Brownies and Guides do not propose to disband, said Mr Holloway, but will be enrolling girls using the old promise.

"Their founder Baden-Powell would be horrified."

Not much help for UK Christians in Europe

UK Christians didn't find much help at the European Court of Human Rights yesterday.

Lillian Ladele, a registrar, was disciplined by Islington Council for asking to be excused from conducting same-sex civil partnership ceremonies on the grounds of religious conviction. She lost her claim for discrimination on the basis of freedom of conscience and religious belief.

Gary McFarlane, a Relate marriage counsellor dismissed for gross misconduct after suggesting he might not be able to counsel same-sex couples because of his Christian faith, also lost his claim.

Nadia Eweida, a British Airways check-in clerk sent home by her employers after refusing to remove a necklace with a small cross, won her case. The court ruled the UK had failed to protect her freedom to manifest her faith in the workplace.

The judges said that manifesting religion was a fundamental right. This was because "a healthy democratic society needs to tolerate and sustain pluralism and diversity, but also because of the value to an individual who has made religion a central tenet of his or her life to be able to communicate that belief to others."

Shirley Chaplin, a nurse ordered by her hospital to remove a small cross on a chain she had worn for some 30 years, lost a similar claim. The judges said the hospital should be able to refuse permission to wear a cross on health and safety grounds.

The Telegraph said in an editorial: "Instead of the application of a little common sense, we have seen protracted and costly legal action, followed by a judgment that severely curtails people's rights to manifest their faith at work. This is part of a wider trend to nudge religion to the margins of society. People of faith are depicted as being not part of the mainstream, as being quirky and different.

"We are not only a Christian country, we are a tolerant one - but it seems the new secularism has no room for toleration."

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said "What this shows is that Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold. If the Government steamrollers ahead with its plans to redefine marriage, then hundreds of thousands of people could be thrown out of their jobs unless they agree to endorse gay marriage."

Turtle Bay and Beyond, a blog covering international law, said it was not proportionate to dismiss an employee when he could have been accommodated in other positions or tasks. The refusal to accommodate the applicants was merely an ideological sanction meaning that, as a question of principle, there was no room on the staff for "intolerant Christians."

Canon Chris Sugden, of Anglican Mainstream, said homosexual rights were stifling the rights of people to live lives of faith openly. "Human rights were introduced to protect minorities but not to give them supervening rights over the rest of society. Gay rights have now become a separate privilege and a specially protected group of rights which trump all others, including freedom of conscientious objection and to hold religious conviction without fear of discrimination."

Dr Dave Landrum, of the Evangelical Alliance, said "Christianity is not about a set of rules, but a God that brings people into a new life of freedom. This new life is then lived out 24-7, and cannot ever be restricted to just our private lives.

"If UK courts are going to protect religious freedom more fully in the future they need to better understand the nature of Christian belief. . . We need solutions that will allow for the reasonable accommodation of the expression of religious belief."

Leaving God out

You may remember that Bideford Town Council had been starting its meetings with a formal prayer since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. An atheist former town councillor objected to the practice. Aided and abetted by the National Secular Society, he took the council to court - and won his case.

The legislation that Communities Secretary Eric Pickles consequently rushed through to ensure councils could open their meetings in prayer if they wanted to evidently hasn't had the effect that was expected.

The Sunday Telegraph says 40 councils have recently decided either to drop or "water down" the practice of opening their meeting in prayer. More are considering following suit. Twenty-one authorities said they planned to continue with prayers without changes.

In order to accommodate several atheist or agnostic members of Glocestershire County Council, the council chairman has taken it upon himself to remove all mention of God and of Jesus from the council's traditional opening prayer.

The old prayer said

Let us pray for God's blessing on all those who serve the people of Gloucestershire, and especially on the work of this county council.

May He give us wisdom to carry out our duties; the humanity to listen to those we represent; the courage to do what is right; and the generosity to treat each other with respect. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The new prayer says

May we find the wisdom to carry out our duties, the humanity to listen to all, the courage to do what is right and the generosity to treat each other with respect. Amen.

Said the chairman, Brian Thornton: "I am very happy with it. There is now unity. I kept the words, but there is no longer a reference to calling for God's help. It does the trick."

Does the trick? How do they know now who they're praying to? And do they get an answer to the prayer?

In Cheltenham, where they used to open their meeting with prayer, the council chaplain now leads members in up to two minutes' silence.

Can someone tell us why it needs a chaplain to lead two minutes' silence?

A faith to die for?

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who seems far more outspoken about Christianity now than he did when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, had some pertinent words this week about the British legal system and a "tiny majority of secularists who will stop at nothing in their attempt to sideline Christianity."

British Christians, he said in an interview in the Spectator, should not see themselves as martyrs. "We are still very lucky in this country. Unlike in other countries, we can practise freely. What we are talking about here is discrimination, not persecution."

But discrimination might be a prelude to something more sinister. The silent majority must stand up for religious freedoms before it's too late.

"It's up to us to do something. We've got to shake up the clergy, shake up the people, encourage them to get over the attitude of 'We can do nothing about it, this is now a post-Christian age.'"

British Anglicans have much to learn from their African counterparts, he said. "For them, faith is so important that they would face death for it if it came to that. It's not an old overcoat you can dispense with. Maybe we have got to learn to be more committed to our faith."

Baroness Warsi, chairman of the Conservative Party and a cabinet minister, led a ministerial delegation from the United Kingdom to the Vatican this week. In a speech to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy, she complained of a militant secularisation that is "at its core and in its instincts. . . deeply intolerant."

We have got to the stage, she said, where aggressive secularism is being imposed by stealth, "leaving us with the ironic situation where, to stave off intolerance against minorities, we end up by being intolerant against religion itself."

Europe, where faith is sidelined, marginalised and downgraded, she said, needs to become more confident in its Christianity. "People need to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs," with "individuals not diluting their faith and nations not denying their religious heritage."

Fine words.

The trouble is that Baroness Warsi supports a Prime Minister who says he is a Christian and a churchgoer, but who supports abortion rights, who supports homosexuality and who intends to alter laws on marriage so marriage can include two people of the same sex. Christians, he has said, should be "tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded" in their attitude to homosexuality.

Just to clear things up, could Baroness Warsi tell us what type of Christianity she thinks Christians should be more confident in?

Prayer in Bideford: the latest

Bideford Town Council has apparently opened its meetings with prayer since the days of Queen Elizabeth I. In recent times, an atheist councillor, one Clive Bone, objected. The council twice voted on the matter, and agreed by a majority to continue to open in prayer. Mr Bone decided to be no longer a member of the council.

Along with the National Secular Society, he took the council to the High Court. They claimed that prayer was discriminatory against atheist councillors, that prayer was in breach of human rights laws and that the council had no lawful authority to hold prayers as part of its formal meetings.

Even Trevor Phillips, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, called the case "nonsense on stilts."

The court decided that the council's opening in prayer was unlawful.

It held that the prayers were not discriminatory against atheist councillors, that the prayers were not in breach of human rights, but that "the saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a council is not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue."

One MP called the court's decision "utterly preposterous."

Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 says that "a local authority shall have power to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."

Barrister Neil Addison writes: "As a lawyer I find the decision bizarre. . . By any rational analysis it seems wholly disproportionate to say that a local ceremony which has lasted for hundreds of years is unlawful merely because it is not specifically mentioned in legislation."

Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said: "We are a Christian country. Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation. Public authorities should have the right to say prayers before meetings if they wish."

Yesterday the Christian Institute, who funded the council's defence at the High Court, reported that the Communities Secretary will introduce new legislation by the end of the week if possible, and if not by the end of the month, which will restore the right of councils to say prayers at official meetings if they wish.

So within two weeks we're going to be back where we were.

There are complaints of militant secularism taking over in Britain - but can it be that secularists have exceeded themselves this time? Can it be that reasonable people are fed up with secularists going to such lengths to stop a couple of minutes' prayer? Can it be that this time the secularists have shot themselves in the foot?

Facts and figures

Christians are by far the largest religious group on the planet, with nearly 2.2 billion followers, making up about a third of the world's population.

So says a study of global Christianity, based on data from 232 countries and territories, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (The study does not mention practice or belief; it simply counts as Christian anyone who says they are.)

The percentage of the world's population claiming to be Christian is about the same as a century ago.

While approximately two-thirds of Christians lived in Europe a hundred years ago, Europe has only 26 per cent of the world's Christians today. More than a third of all Christians today are in the Americas.

The United States has the world's largest Christian population, with more than 247 million, followed by Brazil and Mexico. China is among the top 10, with an estimated 67 million.

Sub-Saharan Africa has seen the biggest growth in Christian population, from about nine million in 1910 to about 516 million today. That's nearly a quarter of the world's Christians. Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia are among the top 10.

According to the study, half the world's Christians are Catholic, 37 per cent Protestant and 12 per cent Orthodox.

Islam is the world's second largest religion, with about 1.6 billion followers - just under a quarter of an estimated world population of 6.9 billion.

The number of people in England and Wales calling themselves Christian dropped from 77 per cent to 70 per cent between 2005 and 2010, according to the Government's latest Citizenship Survey. It showed Christians were less than half as likely to attend a place of worship as followers of other religions.

The number of people saying they have no religion went up from 15 per cent to 21 per cent between 2005 and 2010.

The Citizenship Survey was introduced by the Labour Government in 2001. This one will be the last. The current Government considered the £4 million cost of each survey could not be justified.

A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ONE AND ALL.

Goodbye to Christian Britain?

The newspapers have gone to town with the case of Owen and Eunice Johns, a Christian couple who were not allowed by their local authority to continue as foster parents - to children under 10 years old - because they were not willing to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a young child temporarily in their care.

The High Court was asked for a ruling.

Two judges decided that if children were placed with foster parents with traditional Christian views there might be a conflict with the local authority's duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children;

that equality laws concerning sexual orientation should take preference over laws regarding freedom from religious discrimination;

that a local authority can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality;

that the Johns were not being religiously discriminated against because they were excluded from fostering due to their moral views on sexual ethics, not their Christian beliefs; and

that Article 9 of the Human Rights Act provides only a qualified right to manifest religious belief, particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children.

The Telegraph called it "the new Inquisition" and "a disgrace." Michael Kelly at the Scotsman called it "downright insulting to traditional Christians and their beliefs." Melanie Phillips called it "a grotesque judgment" and "utterly appalling."

Said Andrea Williams, of Christian Concern: "If Christian morals are harmful to children and unacceptable by the state, how many years do we have before natural children start being taken away from Christians?

"Britain is now leading Europe in intolerance against religious belief."

Under a heading "Christianity isn't dying, it's being eradicated," Cristina Odone wrote on her Telegraph blog: "It's official. Britain is no longer a Christian nation. In banning Eunice and Owen Johns, a devout Christian couple, from fostering children, Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson declared that we live in a secular state, and the Johns' religious convictions disqualified them from raising citizens of that state. . .

"As the judges wagged their fingers about the secularist principles that, they claim, define the nation (and which 'ought to be, but seemingly are not, well understood'), they were not describing the status quo: a strong majority of Britons still consider themselves to be Christian. Instead, they were making clear their desire to steer this country in a direction of their own choosing - one that matches the views of an increasingly strident group that is determined to scrub Christianity from public life. . .

"According to our learned judges, 'the aphorism that "Christianity is part of the common law of England" is now mere rhetoric.'"

This is, says Ms Odone, "excruciatingly unjust." Unfortunately, she doesn't offer a remedy.

Bully for the BBC

The BBC has been heavily criticised for extravagance, for anti-Israel bias, for left-wing bias, for slashing religious programming and for bias against Christianity. Not without cause.

But credit where credit's due.

This coming year is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the Authorised Version of the Bible, also known as the King James Version. It was in 1611 that the 54 scholars brought together at the instigation of King James I to produce a new English translation completed "the noblest monument of English prose." The King James Version has not only provided inspiration and spiritual instruction for four centuries, but has left its mark on the English language like no other book.

The BBC is to devote Radio 4 on Sunday, January 9, to readings from the King James Bible, between 6am and midnight. Space will be found for the most popular Radio 4 programmes, like the Archers and Gardeners' Question Time, but in between will be a total of seven hours' Bible reading in 28 portions of 15 minutes.

Introductions will be by people as diverse as Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Simon Schama and Will Self; the readings by actors like Samuel West, Hugh Bonneville, Emilia Fox and Niamh Cusack.

There is a suspicion that the BBC is looking not so much to the King James' spiritual content as to its influence on the literary life of the nation, but the BBC's decision will please the church.

The secular humanists, as you may imagine, are somewhat peeved.

Like Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society. "It is fair enough," he said, "to have a programme devoted to it, but the coverage is so excessive it beggars belief. The BBC is supposed to be for everybody, not just Christians, so to devote a whole day to a minority, which is what Christians now are, is unfair to other listeners who may want something different."

(There are, of course, other BBC radio channels.)

Said the BBC: "The King James Version of the Bible remains one of the most widely published texts in the English language and it has been recognised for centuries as both a religious and literary classic.

"It is also generally accepted to have had a significant impact on our language, the arts and music and the wider cultural impact of the King James Bible cannot be overestimated."

Good for the BBC.

Not so fast, you secularists

Sally Bercow, wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, has been criticised for making infelicitous remarks on Twitter. On one occasion she was complaining about the presence of bishops in the House of Lords. "Kick out religion from politics," she said.

Archbishop Cranmer has a different idea. (Yes, I know. He did die, quite some time ago, but somehow or other he still manages to write a blog.) Interviewed by Annabelle Williams at www.totalpolitics.com, Cranmer says:

The United Kingdom owes its laws, law-making, customs, traditions and values to the Christian faith. To pretend that this rich heritage can be systematically eradicated in favour of "multiculturalism" and "secularism" is a fallacy. There is a myth that politics should be secular and that secularism is somehow neutral. It is not. It has its own dogma, a distinct orthodoxy and an intolerance of dissent every bit as intransigent as those religions it frequently misrepresents and seeks to neuter. Instead of constantly demanding that religion should be removed from politics, perhaps the time has come for there to be a strict separation of secularism and state.

Now there's something to think about!

The Pope, religion and society

Pope Benedict XVI told UK politicians gathered in Westminster Hall that religion needs to have a central place in public life.

Religion was not a problem for legislators to solve, but "a vital contribution to the national conversation."

"I cannot but voice my concern," he said, "at the increasing marginalisation of religion, particularly of Christianity, that is taking place in some quarters, even in nations which place a great emphasis on tolerance.

"There are those who argue - paradoxically with the intention of eliminating discrimination - that Christians in public roles should be required at times to act against their conscience.

"These are worrying signs of a failure to appreciate not only the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, but also the legitimate role of religion in the public square."

He invited his audience to seek ways of promoting and encouraging dialogue between faith and reason at every level of national life.

It was, said one newspaper, the first time in many a year that religion and its role in modern society had been raised so forcibly in the UK.

Isn't it a pity that someone had to come all the way from Rome in order to say it? It is sincerely to be hoped that politicians will take notice.

On a papal visit in times past, the focus would probably have been the difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths. The focus on this visit seemed to be Christian unity in the face of militant secularism.

Shortly before the Pope's arrival in the UK, the Guardian published a letter signed by 50 people, many of them left wing atheists, protesting at his visit. Some of the people who signed the letter have said some pretty awful things about the Pope.

Atheist Richard Dawkins called him "A leering old villain in a frock. . . whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless Aids victims in Africa." Vice president of the British Humanist Association Claire Rayner called him "this creature."

Why are atheists so vituperative? I came across a quote by Christian apologist Dinesh D'Sousa that I found interesting.

He says: "One reason I think is that they are God-haters. Atheists often like to portray themselves as 'unbelievers,' but this is not strictly accurate. If they were mere unbelievers they would simply live their lives as if God did not exist.

"I don't believe in unicorns, but then I haven't written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion.

"Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective."

Do you think this might be the reason atheists speak the way they do?

To pray or not to pray

In case you haven't heard, the UK's National Secular Society has instructed lawyers to take Bideford Town Council to the High Court. The reason: the council begins its council meetings with prayer, and the NSS doesn't like it.

The society says it has had a complaint from a Bideford councillor, one Clive Bone, who is an atheist. He says the prayers are "embarrassing," and he knows people who might have become council candidates, but are put off by prayer.

The society says it wrote to the council without satisfactory result, and it wants a judicial review of the situation. It will argue that prayer at the beginning of council meetings contravenes human rights legislation.

Keith Porteous Wood, the NSS's executive director, is reported as saying that the majority of people in this country do not enter a church, except perhaps for weddings and funerals, from one year's end to the next, and it is not appropriate in modern-day Britain for councillors to be put in the uncomfortable and embarrassing position of being subjected to "this archaic practice." The council's purpose was to provide local services, not church services.

George McLaughlin, clerk to the council, said the issue of prayers at the beginning of council meetings was a national one, not a local one. He did not know why the NSS had picked on them. In fact, the society, or its supporters, has approached some 140 councils regarding their habit (or not) of opening proceedings with prayer. The case, if it comes to the High Court, could set a precedent.

The council, which has been opening meetings in prayer since the days of Queen Elizabeth I, has voted by a majority to continue to open its meetings with prayer in the meantime.

Christians and the law

Gary McFarlane is a Christian who worked as a relationship guidance counsellor for Relate. When he qualified as a psychosexual therapist, he raised concerns about a potential clash between his work and his Christian views. He was unwilling to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

A lawyer concerned with his case said Mr McFarlane wanted his religious beliefs to be accommodated by his employer, "which in the specific facts of the case was not unreasonable." Instead, he was sacked.

He complained to an employment tribunal, which decided he had not suffered religious discrimination. Mr McFarlane, who said that his treatment was "without a doubt" an example of Christians being persecuted in modern Britain, asked the Appeal Court for permission to appeal the employment tribunal ruling.

Last week permission was refused. Lord Justice Laws said legal protection for views held on religious grounds was "deeply unprincipled."

"In the eye of everyone save the believer," he said, "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true, but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society.

"Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who alone is bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, a preferring of the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary."

Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, concerned with other senior church leaders that in past cases judges had disparaged Christianity and had in effect called Christians bigots, had asked that the case be considered by judges with an understanding of religious issues. The judge rejected his request also.

Lord Carey said the judgment heralded a "secular" state rather than a "neutral" one. "It says that the sacking of religious believers in recent cases was not a denial of their rights even though religious belief cannot be divided from its expression in every area of the believer's life.

"While with one hand the ruling seeks the right of religious believers to hold and express their faith, with the other it takes away those same rights."

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said the judgment was "alarming" and in effect sought to rule out Christian principles of morality from the public square. It seemed a Christian who wished to act on his Christian beliefs on marriage would no longer be able to work in a great number of environments.

Melanie Phillips, writing in the Daily Mail, said the judge arrived at his conclusion by cherry-picking human rights law. He said human rights law conferred upon believers the right to "hold or express" religious views, when in fact the European Convention on Human Rights gives people the right to manifest "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" through "worship, teaching, practice and observance."

Writing in the Telegraph, Michael Nazir-Ali, former Bishop of Rochester, said Lord Justice Laws' judgment "has driven a coach and horses through the ancient association of the Christian faith with the constitutional and legal basis of British society.

"Everything from the Coronation oath onwards suggests that there is an inextricable link between the Judeo-Christian tradition of the Bible and the institutions, the values and the virtues of British society. If this judgment is allowed to stand, the aggressive secularists will have had their way.

"We have already had a rash of cases involving magistrates unable to serve on the bench because of their religious beliefs, registrars losing their jobs because they cannot, in conscience, officiate at civil parnerships, paediatricians unable to serve on adoption panels. . . Will this trickle gradually become a flood, so that rather than conforming to the Church of England, the new discrimination tests will involve conforming to the secular religion as promoted by Lord Justice Laws? . . .

"I fear that we are entering an absolutist era where there is no room for believers."

The day after news of the judgment came news of a 21-year-old Muslim's appearance in court for defacing a war memorial in Burton-on-Trent with graffiti proclaiming "Islam will dominate the world," "Osama is on his way" and "Kill Gordon Brown." The court was told his actions had nothing to do with religious belief and he was given a conditional discharge for criminal damage.

Then Dale McAlpine (described in some newspapers as Dale McAlpine and elsewhere as Dale Mcalpine) was arrested in Workington, about which more shortly. . .

Lord Carey takes on the judiciary

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey says senior judges in the UK should be prevented from ruling in religious rights cases because they are biased against Christianity.

He claims that some have made disturbing and dangerous rulings that could lead to Christians being banned from the workplace, and that they should stand down from Court of Appeal hearings involving religious rights to make way for judges with an understanding of religious issues.

Writes Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail: As an insult to some of the biggest wigs in the land, this could hardly be exaggerated.

By throwing down the gauntlet to the judiciary in this way, Lord Carey is mounting a full-frontal challenge to some of those who most influence our society.

The last of several final straws for these clerics [Lord Carey has the support of other church leaders] was the case of Lilian Ladele, a registrar who was sacked by Islingtron council after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies because they were against her Christian beliefs.

Led by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger - the second most important judge in England - the Appeal Court ruled that it was unlawful for her to refuse to do so.

It might be argued that these judges were merely ruling on the basis of anti-discrimination law and that they were right to do so.

But in fact, these judges had discretion to rule in Ms Ladele's favour because the law upholds not one principle relevant to this case, but two - and they compete with each other. For enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights is the right to exercise religious conscience.

Why, then, did the judges in this case set aside the Human Rights Convention, which they normally revere as Holy Writ? Because, said Lord Neuberger, it only protected those religious beliefs which were 'worthy of respect in a democratic society and are not incompatible with human dignity.'

So what the Master of the Rolls effectively seemed to be saying was that Christian beliefs are unworthy of respect in a democracy, and incompatible with human dignity - a truly preposterous claim, since Judeo-Christian precepts invented the concept of human dignity upon which Western civilisation is based.

Indeed, such a ruling comes very close indeed to criminalising Christianity. For if putting Christian belief into practice is outlawed, it won't be long before Christian believers find themselves outlawed.

This issue is particularly topical because Gary McFarlane, formerly a Christian relationship counsellor for Relate, is due to appear at the Court of Appeal today to appeal against an employment tribunal ruling that upheld his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples.

Lord Carey has prepared a witness statement in support of Mr McFarlane, and will back an application by Mr McFarlane's lawyers for the case to be heard by a panel of judges with understanding of religious issues.

Melanie Phillips again: No wonder Lord Carey and his colleagues have been galvanised into militant action. For under the guise of promoting 'tolerance' and 'liberal' social attitudes, anti-discrimination law is deeply intolerant and illiberal.

That's because it has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with ideology. It is innately on the side of minorities on the basis that they are by definition vulnerable to the majority. So in the hands of the judiciary, it has turned into a fearsome weapon against Britain's mainstream attitudes and faith.

The result is that Christianity is now in danger of being turned into a despised and marginalised creed practised only by consenting adults in private.

Christians are already being forced into renouncing their religious beliefs if they want to remain in certain jobs.

This is simply intolerable in a liberal society where freedom of religious conscience is a bedrock value.

Ironically, news of Lord Carey's stand came the same day that it was reported that the Department of Health will allow female Muslim doctors and nurses to wear long sleeves to protect their modesty - despite the fact that guidance that all staff should be bare below the elbow was introduced after long sleeves were blamed for spreading MRSA.

New guidance says staff can wear long sleeves provided they roll them above the elbow to wash and when on the wards. Those wanting to stay covered on the ward can use disposable over-sleeves. Sikhs are also to be allowed to wear Kara bangles.

Said Shirley Chaplin, the nurse who got into trouble with the NHS for wearing a cross she had previously worn every day for 38 years without problem: "It seems like life is stacked up against Christians these days."

Christianity under siege

Christianity is under siege in this country. Britain's national religion has never been so marginalised and derided, especially by the public institutions that should be defending it.

So says Dr Taj Hargey, imam of an Oxford Islamic congregation and chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, writing in a national daily newspaper. (You can read the full article here.)

The case of nurse Shirley Chaplin, he says, who has been banned by Devon and Exeter NHS Trust from wearing her crucifix while caring for patients, is a graphic illustration of this insidious trend.

Indeed, it is surely an affront to the very concept of religious liberty, which was once regarded as a cornerstone of our democratic, respectful and tolerant nation.

For make no mistake, a new form of virulent secularism is sweeping through society - and its target is Christianity.

I am a Muslim. But even as a non-Christian, I can see all too clearly the shameful way in which Britain's national faith is being eroded. Indeed, banning a crucifix makes a mockery of our treasured right to religious freedom.

With a typically bureaucratic mix of arrogance and authoritarianism, the Devon and Exeter Trust has claimed that the ban is not an attack on Christianity because wearing a crucifix is not an essential requirement of the faith.

But who appointed these quangocrats to pronounce on matters of religious doctrine? What right do they have to lecture a devout woman about her cherished beliefs?

And why can't they accept that Ms Chaplin's deeply religious convictions, which she chooses to express by wearing the crucifix, also inspire her compassionate work in the NHS?

As a Muslim, I am filled with despair at the attitude of our politically correct officials towards Christianity. . .

It is no coincidence that as Christianity is repeatedly attacked, so the social fabric of Britain becomes increasingly frayed. As we lose our strong moral compass, family breakdown and violent crime are at record levels, while our once famous sense of community spirit is evaporating. . .

Without the restraining, selfless morality that ultimately stems from faith, the triumph of either social anarchy or totalitarianism becomes a worrying possibility.

But what is sickening about this case is the PC brigade's outrageous hypocrisy.

For in the public sector, normally so hypersensitive to allegations of prejudice against ethnic minorities, it is unimaginable that bureaucrats would wade in with the same bullying ferocity against a Muslim or Hindu nurse who wanted to wear a symbol of her faith in the workplace. . .

Many schools have been sidelining Christianity, while celebrating other religions, so much so that in some areas we have a generation of pupils who know more about the Hindu festival of Diwali than about the religious meaning of Christmas. . .

These politically correct busy-bodies don't even have the courage to be open about their fanatical loathing of Christianity.

Instead, they often cravenly cite 'health and safety,' that catch-all term so often clutched at by bureaucrats when they want to shut down something they disapprove of. . .

Too often the PC brigade support overt demonstrations of faith by minority religions, while coming down hard on quiet religious gestures by Christians.

This must change. Mutual respect is the only way forward for Britain - and that has to include respect for Britains's ancient Christian civilisation. . .

And it takes a Muslim to tell us this?

Persecution for Britain's Christians?

"Are Christians Being Persecuted?" was the title of an hour-long documentary, presented by Nicky Campbell, on BBC TV on Easter Sunday.

Christians in the title, of course, referred to Christians in the UK. The programme looked at cases of Christians being suspended or sacked for offering to pray, wearing Christian symbols or talking about God at work. For 99.9% of its time, it seemed to be trying not to express an opinion of its own: but some of the people interviewed had some interesting views.

"Rights," said Britain's Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, "are a good thing. They arose really in England in the 17th century. . .

"The major question was how can people of strongly conflicting religious beliefs live peaceably together. People stopped saying 'Religious faith is supremely important, therefore everyone should have my religious faith' to saying 'Religious faith is supremely important and therefore everyone should have the right to the faith that they in conscience believe,' and with that one simple move religion turned into a friend of liberty instead of being its enemy.

"That's why it becomes ironic when rights themselves become a threat to religious liberty."

Said the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, referring to religion and secular ideology: "One way in which to understand the tensions around equality legislation is not to think that one is a matter of doctrine and the other isn't.

"Secularism is a doctrine and it can be as forceful and it can be as narrow minded as the worst of a doctrinaire Christian position."

Professor Roger Trigg, of Oxford University, commenting on the case of the Christian registrar at Islington Council who got into trouble for asking not to conduct same-sex civil partnerships, had this to offer: "Principle wise, they were against discrimination, but they were against discrimination of people on grounds of their sexual orientation.

"They weren't, it seems, very concerned about discrimination on grounds of religion. And yet that is just as crucial. It seemed to me in that case there is a balance between two different things; but they didn't see it that way, they just only saw discrimination on one side.

"There is a kind of view among some people that would say if you don't like it, you are free to give up your profession: you must do as you are told.

"I think that kind of overriding of deep feelings of conscience is very dangerous. Indeed I think democracy depends on these deep feelings of conscience; if people actually in democracy are not acting basically in accordance with what they believe is right, it all just becomes a power struggle between people of different ideas, with no idea that anybody is acting for the common good. And that will destroy it."

In the closing seconds of the programme came the programme's verdict: "So, are Christians being persecuted? No, they are not being tortured and killed, like Christians in Pakistan and the Sudan. But a minority believe they are being sidelined and victimised. By the standards of a liberal society, that can feel like persecution."

Some people would think differently.