If the Church of England is still ‘the Tory Party at prayer’ is Cameron done for?

There have been many examples of David Cameron ‘doing God’ in recent times, from his speech celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible last December to him hosting a reception for Christian leaders at Downing  Street to celebrate Easter (not Holy Week in his words but Easter week, though let us not quibble).

Keen to burnish his Christian credentials, this self-professed ‘committed’ but ‘vaguely practicing’ Anglican stated during his Easter reception that “I think there is something of a Christian fight-back going on in Britain and I think that’s a thoroughly good thing”.  Unfortunately, Dave appears to have neglected to mention this to James Eadie QC, the barrister representing the Government in landmark cases currently being heard before the European Court of Human Rights.

Amongst the human rights challenges being considered, Shirley Chaplin and Nadia Eweida – a nurse and a British Airways worker respectively – argue that their employers’ refusal to allow them to openly wear crucifixes at work contravened Articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion.

However, speaking for the Government, James Eadie QC countered that wearing a cross was not a “generally recognised” act of Christian worship as “a great many Christians do not insist on wearing crosses, still less visibly”.  More ridiculously, he claimed that neither Chaplin nor Eadie had been discriminated against by their employers as they were free to “resign and move to another job”.

So how closely do the Government’s words in Court marry to Cameron’s recent proclamations on faith? Well, not remotely so; not even close.

During his Easter reception, Cameron said, “I think we see this fight-back in this very strong stance that I’ve taken and others have taken in terms of the right to wear a crucifix. I think this is important.”

Such a strong stance in fact that his Government’s lawyers are currently arguing that as there is no ostensible obligation for Christians to wear a crucifix then their ‘rights’ could not have been impinged.

With poll after poll, decade after decade, supporting the 18^th century perception of the Church of England being the ‘Tory Party at prayer’, then Cameron has problems.

Without a party co-Chairman who he can any longer instruct to ‘do Allah’ on the Government’s behalf, Cameron’s ability to ‘do God’ is undoubtedly going to be of more importance come the next general election than it was a week ago.

Based on his, and his Government’s, record so far, he’s in trouble…

Can't provide excellence? Buy a press release...

Stockton Council’s recent bout of self-backslapping is well under way (see here) after having been shortlisted for a third successive year for the “prestigious” Council of the Year Award in the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) awards.

What is it that makes these awards so prestigious? Well, pretty much nothing.

To shamelessly steal the words of another (from here), "those councils that can provide excellence do so; those that can’t join APSE".

In order to be a part of this far-from-exclusive club, Stockton Council paid £3,159 in “Membership Fees” to APSE in 2011/12. (This is despite a draft report completed last month which could only name, at a push, three 'benefits' of APSE membership, one of which was involvement in APSE events and awards!)

In addition to the annual subscription to APSE, member organisations have the opportunity to hand over yet more taxpayers’ hard-earned cash to participate in APSE’s award ceremonies.

Sponsored by that bastion of efficiency that is UNISON, these awards ‘celebrate’ the least bad organisations that have duly paid their subs and nominated themselves in such illustrious categories as Best Catering Service, Best Transport & Fleet Servicing, and Most Fatuous Piece of Self Publicity (Okay, I made that last one up, but only the last one!).

I do have some sympathy with Stockton Council though. A press release saying “After handing over thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, Stockton Council has nominated itself multiple times to be considered amongst the least useless organisations that subscribe to APSE” is hardly likely to gain much traction.

That said, being voted Council of the Year from amongst APSE members such as Haringey, Nottingham and South Tyneside councils, is akin to being voted as the least hated ‘celebrity’ on Big Brother.

The lesson to be learned? If you can’t provide excellence, buy a press release.

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.