Faith and the public sector

Statement of my interest/bias: I am, and have been for about 20 years, a Christian (although with somewhat unusual and arguably heretical views on some theological points).

I've just watched an interesting piece on Channel 4 News in which they invited a rabbi, a vicar and an imam to discuss whether it is getting harder to practice their faiths in Britain. I was a little disappointed that they only chose representatives of one faith tradition (the Abrahamic family), and none from the Dharmic (there are many Sikhs and Hindus in the UK, for example) or Taoic religions (although worldwide, 54% identify with the Abrahamic faiths, according to Wikipedia).

This segment of the programme was building on the recent court case outlawing the use of prayer to open council meetings; although I may have missed it, I don't think they mentioned the similar furore over the Christian guest house operators who were told they couldn't legally discriminate against gay couples on the basis of their faith. But it's part of the landscape in which some people, particularly White, middle and upper class Christians, are complaining about some perceived governmental bias against them.

Personally, I think that public organisations, particularly government organisations, have to be kept clear of any affiliation with particular religions; only in that way can such bodies operate to protect the faithful (of various faiths) within their borders, and to arbitrate fairly between the conflicting interests of the adherents of different faiths. If government aligns itself with a particular faith, then it compromises its ability to create a framework of human rights and assurances within which the faithful are welcome to practice as they choose.

But I feel that the individuals using or working in those organisations should certainly be permitted to make their own personal displays of faith (including faith in the idea there is no God) insofar as such displays do not cross over certain boundaries (for example, on dress-down Friday, it would not be okay to wear a t-shirt saying "GOD H8S GAYS" as a statement of religious faith, but a discrete crucifix or other symbol would be fine). This is why I am opposed to anything like the French ban on school children showing their religious faith symbols.

So, before getting back to the main points of the Channel 4 News item, this is why I have no sympathy for the homophobic guest house owners. They operate a business that, while "private sector", is still operating in a public space and under the umbrella of the same basic standards of human rights as everyone else, including gay folks. The price of being allowed to follow your own religion is that you have to live in the same society as, and do business with, people who believe other things.

Anyway, back to the Channel 4 News segment!

The rabbi seemed to believe that there was no problem at all and that the other two were making something out of nothing. Both the reverend and the imam believed that there was government discrimination against religious organisations, and in particular they both agreed that religious bodies applying for government funding for various projects in the community would be rejected for funding because of their religious affiliation. The rabbi made some classic "'splaining" type statements implying that the other two did not know what was really happening.

I don't know the facts of this, and maybe there were reasons why what looked like discrimination was not in fact what it looked like. For instance, maybe the organisations applied for the wrong grants and there was other funding specifically targeted for faith-based initiatives. I am disinclined to believe that was what was going on, but because I don't know the funds or grants, and what the rules are (or the reasoning behind those rules), I can't comment further on it.

What was interesting was that all three faith representatives agreed on one thing: Britain is one of the best countries in the world to practice one's faith. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all agreed on this. Of course, this is a big reason why I was peeved at not hearing from a Buddhist, Sikh or Hindu representative, because maybe there is a distinction between how easy it is to follow an Abrahamic religion versus a Dharmic religion (Taoic religions, IIRC, are much less common in Britain but it would have been interesting to learn how easy or hard it is to adhere to those faiths, precisely because their followers are fewer in number in this country).

Although there is still a bias towards Christianity in Britain (for instance, state schools are required to have a daily act of worship that is "broadly of a Christian character", as Channel 4 News reported after the segment) there is a general tilt towards the secular freedom that I described as the ideal earlier. A representative of a secularist organisation interviewed in the studio after the discussion between the religious representatives, identified this secular approach as being the reason why it is so easy for believers of these different faiths to live and worship as they choose in this country. I believe that it would become more, not less, favourable to Christianity if the "act of daily worship" requirement was dropped (heck, while ever that act of daily worship was foisted upon me, I rebelled against it and refused to learn more about Jesus because I don't like anything being forced on me like that!)

The best protection of religious belief is a secular government, because the choice of which faith to follow is freest in those conditions.