I posted on Saturday on a report due out today on the place of religion in Britain - "Faith in the nation". The Telegraph this morning has picked out the guts from the article by our Roman Catholic Archbishop:
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people - Telegraph.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor claims that the rise of secularism has led to a liberal society, hostile to Christian morals and values, in which religious belief is viewed as "a private eccentricity" and the voice of faith groups is marginalised. ...
.... Writing in a book on multiculturalism, to be published on Monday, the Cardinal argues that immigrants have a duty to adjust to British life, but expresses concern that they are faced with a culture that is increasingly repressive and intolerant. He says that while the country has become more diverse and pluralistic, the Christian values which have shaped its identity should not be abandoned.
.... In it the cardinal says: "Religious belief of any kind tends now to be treated more as a private eccentricity than as the central and formative element in British society that it is. ... Although the tone of public discussion is sceptical or dismissive rather than antireligious, atheism has become more vocal and aggressive. Britain's most senior Catholic leader says that the "unfriendly climate for people of all faiths" has united the country's three major faiths, Christianity, Judaism and Islam."
There is definitely more to be said on this theme if extracts from several of the authors on the press release from the Institute for Public Policy Research is any guide. Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi, writes as perceptively as ever on multiculturalism:
“Multiculturalism leads not to integration but to segregation. It deconstructs everything that goes into the making of a national identity: a shared culture, a canon of texts everyone is expected to know, a collective history and memory, a code of conduct and civility, and a sense of loyalty to the nation and its institutions. No society can long survive without these things.”
“Jews, like other minorities, integrated because there was something to integrate into. They did so because they respected British values... Multiculturalism … designed to make minorities feel more at home, has had the opposite effect. Britain is a less tolerant society today than it was fifty years ago…”
“The time has come for the religious groups in Britain to join in creating a covenant of the common good, a commitment to work together to promote active citizenship and a sense of shared belonging.”
I would by instinct tend to argue for a disestablishment of the church of England. However in recent months I have to say that I have been coming to a similar conclusion to the ideas put over by the Archbishop of York in his chapter that I wrote of on saturday: Church of England must serve all the faiths, says Archbishop . If we disestablish the church it is not a given that the secularist agenda will win. But it is quite likely. Much on the same lines as when everyone is in charge of cleaning up the dirty cups the result is that noone ends up doing it (see below). Leave all the faiths an equal space and probably everyone will take care not to be intrusive, the result being the secularist will claim the space.
Rather as the historical claimant of the position of established faith the Church of England does not have to leave everyone else in the cold. Instead we can act as guardian of the sacred space in the nation and offer hospitality and space for all. And I am not ashamed to say that in doing so maybe we will actually demonstrate the true nature of Christ and maybe even win lots of friends! This deserves a lot more thought.
For the record the everyone - noone - anyone paradox has various forms - google everyone none anyone. It shows up in various forms. This is a nice one:
There were once four brothers: Everyone, Someone, Anyone and Noone. They had a very important task to do. Everyone was sure that Someone will do it. Anyone could have done it, but Noone did it in the end. Someone was angry because it'd have been Everyone's job. Everyone thought that Anyone could have done it, but Noone realized that Noone will do it in the end. In the end, Everyone was angry at Someone because Noone did what Anyone could've done.
Comments