In a week when the Prime Minister has been stung, twice – once by a malevolent jellyfish and then by public reaction to his observation “Britain is a Christian country,” there has been much analysis of polling and census data in support or denunciation of his statement.
Cameron supporters point to the 2011 census, where 59% ticked the box to describe themselves as ‘Christian,’ while his detractors preferred a YouGov poll where the question, “are you religious?” saw only 29% of respondents answer in the affirmative.
As the debate continues over whether the term Christian in Britain refers to cultural identity or spiritual conviction, one particular political party waited until ‘Holy Week’ was safely behind them to enlighten us with their particular interpretation of British ‘Christianity’.
UKIP launched its European Election campaign with a series of posters that many have described as ‘racist’ and ‘divisive.’ Liberal Democrat President Tim Farron denounced the posters as ‘immoral’ and factually inaccurate, and various spoofs have gone viral on Twitter, sparking a plethora of mocking parodies.
But UKIP’s posters are something more than iniquitous; they reject the message of Christianity, which is one of love, tolerance and compassion. This is a continuing theme with UKIP. For instance, when they demand that Britain ends foreign aid they are making the case that the Good Samaritan would have been better off had he stayed at home to aid his fellow Samaritans.
UKIP’s message, that millions of foreigners are coming to take our jobs, is designed to make people afraid, very afraid. The state of the economy has made many people feel vulnerable, and UKIP exploit this to generate anxiety. With that comes the need to blame someone (something that all the political parties have been guilty of to some extent), but where the main parties tend to blame each other’s actions while in power, UKIP blames specific groups of people for our problems.
Politicians and human rights campaigners have condemned UKIP, but there has been something of a muted response from some religious leaders. A scan of last weeks press suggests only the Catholics raised their heads above the parapet. If the Church of England said anything it was clearly so innocuous that no one thought it worth reporting. If the establishment church, enjoying, as it does, a powerful pulpit within the House of Lords, feels it shouldn’t get involved, then perhaps it is time to look at what exactly is their role in Government.
The Lords Spiritual argue that their role is to represent all people of faith, not just Christians. This surely places on them a responsibility to show leadership when a political party deliberately aims to divide the nation through fear and misinformation. I have recently blogged about UKIP’s leadership of the Europe for Freedom and Democracy group (EFD) in the European Parliament. It is clear that many in the EFD are anti-Islam and here at home UKIP supporters on Twitter and other social media make no secret of their Islamaphobia ( UKIP condemnation extends only to candidates who are exposed, not its supporters). If the Lords Spiritual cannot comment on this, the public is entitled to ask, ” what exactly is it they do?”
* Matt Gallagher is a Lib Dem activist in the Manchester Withington constituency. In 2012 he represented the party as its candidate for Police and Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester. He is a member of Amnesty International and a keen defender of civil and human rights. He is married with two grown up children and three grandchildren.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lord Bonkers: "Something less terrible than the truth"
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Tom Reeve
paul barker
Neil Hickman
Tom Bailey
expats
6 Comments
The reason there are bishops in Parliament is that the church, in the middle ages, used to be one of the biggest holders of land in the kingdom, with corresponding influence. This was not a generic question of ‘representing religion’; it was simply that the heads of large religious institutions were in fact as powerful as or more powerful than secular nobles, in economic terms: the area of land they controlled, the amount of grain produced, the number of serfs working the land. The Lords Spiritual, prior to the Reformation, consisted of both bishops and mitred abbots; while their number varied from parliament to parliament, the abbots outnumbered the bishops considerably, and together the Lords Spiritual outnumbered the Lords Temporal. This was probably a fair picture of the balance of power at the time, and also reflected the fact that the state bureaucracy (such as it was) was dominated by tonsured clerks.
With the Reformation, the abbots were swept away, and the balance of power in the Lords shifted to the temporal nobility, which was greatly increased in number; the bishops for a long time teetered on the brink of oblivion (actually being disposed of for several years during the Civil War) and owed their survival to their reliable support of the monarch and the government. After the Revolution, the bishops’ bench took on a Whiggish cast (in contrast to the Toryism of the parish clergy) which lasted far into the 18th century and perhaps beyond. But by that time, the political power of the bishops was much diminished, and they served a largely though by no means completely ornamental rôle, serving as a visible symbol of the Established Church.
Thank you, David.
This article seems to be attacking Bishops for not intervening in the Euro election and ‘taking a stand’ against a particularly popular right-wing party at the moment, although the leader of the Catholic Church, a non-established Church, has commented about anti-immigration attitudes, not UKIP as such.
Justin Welby did highlight the plight of poverty and suffering families in Britain and persecutions abroad in his Easter message but that has been drowned out by the media-driven din of claim and counter-claim regarding Cameron’s remarks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27089709
We Lib Dems know all about the din of media-generated storms in teacups, which drown out our message.
At the the beginning of this article it states that Cameron has been ‘stung’ by ‘public reaction’ to his desperate pre-Easter attempt to curry favour with Christians.
As far as I can make out, the only members of the public reacting strongly to his statements are a group of mainly London-metropolitan based secularist-humanists, media-savvy, who are making similarly strong claims in opposition to Cameron.
Here is the most sensible intervention I have yet come across in the press on the whole question of Christianity in Britain. It comes from a former Lord Spiritual, Dr. Rowan Williams and I think goes to show how reasonable and sensible at least one of them can be when interviewed:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/rowan-williams-says-britain-entered-7038155
Thank you for your input, Helen. My primary concern is that there are a lot of people belonging to non-Christian faiths in Britain who are feeling threatened by the rhetoric coming from UKIP’s supporters, the polls, and the dreadful people UKIP is in coalition with in the European Parliament. The Church of England states on its own website that its Bishops in the House of Lords are there to speak up on behalf of ‘all people of faith’, not just Christians. This is why I am worried by their apparent failure to stand up for non-Christians when they are under attack. Our Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and other fellow citizens should not feel that the establishment does not stand up for them when they are being singled out and denigrated for political purposes. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin; “religions need to hang together when under attack, or most assuredly, they shall all hang separately.”
In principle I’m in favour of removing the Lords Spiritual. They had perhaps a better justification for their presence while people could still vote in the Lords purely because of who their father was, but in a reformed Lords they make no sense.
Unfortunately, they’ve been among the more thoughtful and reasonable peers on many issues such as overseas development. But in a reformed Lords elected by STV, there would be room for religious strands of thought to be represented.
By the way, on those polls,the word “religious” has become almost as debased as the word “politics”. Many people who believe in God, consider themselves Christian (Hindu, whatever) and/or consider themselves spiritual deny that they’re religious, while doing essentially religious things.
Simon Banks
I’m not quite sure why speaking up for the poorest of the poor by the Lords Spiritual is ‘unfortunate.’ Surely this shows that they are performing a service.
If it’s just a matter of removing them as an anachronism of history, I would argue why pick on them? Why not single out those Lords who are convicted criminals or those Lords who contribute very little?
While there is a general argument to be had on Lords reform, I think it is very unfortunate to single out a group who appear to me to work very hard and in fact, are one of the few groupings in the Lords who represent particular areas and communities.
I agree with your thoughts about terms like ‘religious’ or ‘political’ in the final paragraph though. It’s very true that people who are very spiritual and in fact practice their faith, do not regard themselves as religious. The term seems to have connotations of being outwardly pious or being seen to be pious and so people tend not to use it about themselves, in my experience at any rate.