A tolerant society? Not any more...

I have to start by saying that, contrary to some press headlines today, Christians in Britain today are not being persecuted. But yesterday’s High Court ruling seemingly banning the saying of prayers at the start of council meetings is an attack – or more accurately, the most recent attack – on the idea that Britain is a tolerant society.

By definition, tolerance is the acceptance of the differing views and opinions of others. The key word here is ‘differing’. It is not a demonstration of tolerance to allow something with which you agree; tolerance is demonstrated by refusing to suppress something which you find disagreeable.

Yet increasingly we see cases brought before the courts, such as the judicial review brought by atheist former councillor Chris Bone and backed by the National Secular Society, motivated by nothing more than his intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.

If it is not already clear, I profoundly disagree with Chris Bone and his militant atheism. The whole questions of Christianity, of religion, of the existence of God are ones on which he and I are diametrically opposed, and almost certainly intransigently so.

Yet whereas I wouldn't even consider forcing my beliefs and opinions on Mr Bone, and would never seek to suppress his beliefs, unfortunately he feels unable to do the same. Because, we are told, he felt ‘embarrassed’ to be present whilst prayers are being said.

If there is a weaker argument for the banning of prayers in council meetings, I have yet to come across it.

It’s important to recognise that the High Court did not find that councils should not continue to say prayers at the start of meetings because they offend the sensibilities of people such as Mr Bone. It ruled they were unlawful because of a technicality in Local Government Act 1972; a matter which I believe can, and should, be easily remedied through the Localism Act.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that this won’t be the end of the matter. Mr Bone and his ilk will not rest until they have brought their intolerance to bear upon the rest of us.

Unfortunately, this case is indicative of the society in which we now live. The whole idea that we are a tolerant society has been consigned to the dustbin of history, if it was ever anything more than a fiction.

Instead of tolerating the differing views and practices of others, we appeal to the courts and legislators to ban them.  Instead of turning the other cheek, we seek legal protection from anybody saying anything that offends us.  And God forbid we should be made to feel embarrassed.

In short, Heaven forfend I should need to tolerate anything.

In recognising that the reader may disagree with my argument, I am more than happy for you to post a comment to that effect. I may disagree with you; I may even feel embarrassed by your comment; but, unlike Mr Bone, I will tolerate our differences.

Banker-bashing: our unofficial national sport?

Unless you have spent the past two weeks living in a cave, it will have been nigh on impossible not to have seen at least some of the coverage of the Stephen Hester and Fred Goodwin furores.

Whilst both stories have the obvious common thread of the Royal Bank of Scotland running through them, in one respect they could not have been more different.

As is widely reported today, Fred Goodwin is to be stripped of his knighthood (awarded for 'services to banking') for the catastrophic decisions which contributed to, if not directly caused, the near collapse of RBS.  Last night's announcement comes just days after Stephen Hester bowed to relentless pressure from politicians and the media to forego a bonus worth £963,000.

Where the debate on Fred Goodwin surrounded on the idea that he shouldn't be rewarded for his failures at RBS, for that is how his knighthood has been painted, the debate on Stephen Hester concentrated on how and to what extent he should be rewarded for his successes at RBS.

It does not matter that Fred Goodwin was not solely responsible for the fall of RBS, nor that he has not been charged with any crime or misconduct.  Nor does it matter that Stephen Hester is widely regarded by his peers to be doing a good job at RBS (although granted, how you measure and judge his performance is highly subjective).

All that matters in the eyes of the media, and seemingly now politicians, is that both men share the ignominy of being bankers.  More than that, they are/were bankers at a bank largely owned by the taxpayer, a fact which seems sufficient to give politicians carte blanche to call the shots depending on which direction they think the wind of popular opinion is blowing.

Whilst the dead tree press appears to have been largely as one in their criticism of both men, opinion polls show that public opinion is much more divided.  But what is clear is that most people have an opinion on the subject; and an unflappable, intractable opinion at that.  Either bankers are bad and should be made to live in penury and wear sackcloth and ashes until the end of time, or bankers whilst having made mistakes are being scapegoated by politicians to distract from the wholesale failings of the FSA and the last government in the events leading up to the 2008 bailouts.

Whilst there will undoubtedly be some that genuinely couldn't give a damn either way about bankers, I'd wager such individuals are relatively few and far between.  Therefore given that large swathes of society, if not a majority of people, couldn't give a fig about football, with all other popular bloodsports now banned, and as it's something we as a nation would appear to have a real flair for, perhaps it's time for us to finally recognise banker-bashing as our official national sport?