Author Archives: symonhill

Celebrating a royal tyrant

Posted on by symonhill

While reading the Church Times in bed last night, I flicked over to the adverts and saw an announcement that disgusted me. It was advertising the “Commemoration of the martyrdom of King Charles I”. It listed two eucharistic services, in London and Edinburgh, each led by a bishop, to mark this “martyrdom”. 

All tyrants have their fans. Joseph Stalin is still popular with certain people both inside and outside Russia. I’m sure there are people who think that the Roman Emperor Nero was a good bloke. What is surprising is not that a tyrant is being celebrated, but that this celebration is listed in the official calendar of the Church of England and marked in church services led by bishops. 

The Church of England lists 30 January as the “Feast of King Charles the Martyr”. This was the date in 1649 when Charles I was executed following his conviction for treason. Charles was one of the most vicious and oppressive rulers that Britain has ever known. Convinced that God had given him the right to rule, he tried to exercise power without Parliament. He levied heavy taxes that hurt the poor and people in the middle rather than the rich. He used many of these taxes to fund very avoidable wars. Eventually, of course, he waged war against his own people.

I am not suggesting that Charles was solely responsible for the deaths of the thousands of people who were killed in the civil war. But no-one bears more responsibility for those deaths than he does. He was rightly found guilty of treason. This was an important moment, as treason had generally been defined as the betrayal of a monarch. Convicting a king of treason made clear that a ruler is expected to be loyal to the people; not the other way around.

As an opponent of the death penalty, I do not condone the execution of Charles I – or of anyone else. This was a time in which the death penalty was used for a wide range of crimes, certainly including treason and murder – and Charles was guilty of both of these. 

The services listed in the advert, which I assume take place every year, seem to be organised by a group called the “Royal Martyr Church Union”. I suspect they may be a very small group, as they don’t appear even to have a website. I would be inclined to dismiss them were it not for the people presiding at their services – Robert Ladds, Assistant Bishop of London and John Armes, Bishop of Edinburgh. 

More worrying still is that the “Feast of King Charles the Martyr” continues to be listed in the Church of England’s calendar. It was instituted after the republic was overthrown in 1660 and Charles I’s son returned from exile in France to take the throne as Charles II. He did so on the basis of promises of religious and political liberty that were almost immediately broken. 

I understand that high church Anglicans may share some of Charles I’s views on church government, although Anglo-Catholicism has included a strong left-wing strand since the nineteenth century. But it is one thing to agree with a ruler’s views on a particular issue, quite another to overlook oppression. I’m sure that many Anglicans find this celebration repugnant. Why are others continuing with it? 

No (tax) credit for Iain Duncan Smith

Posted on by symonhill

It’s New Year’s Eve, newsrooms are quiet and casual comments by ministers are enough to make top headlines. Today, Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, has made the news with some vaguely worded attacks on the system of tax credits.

Duncan Smith says that tax credits (government payouts to people on low incomes) are “not fit for purpose”.

Now, there’s very little about which I agree with Iain Duncan Smith. However, I agree that tax credits are not fit for purpose. I suspect that he and I have different reasons for thinking this.

Many tax credits are paid to people who are working in very low paid jobs. In other words, they are a taxpayer-funded subsidy for poverty pay. Employers can get away with paying people unreasonable wages because the taxpayer will foot the bill through tax credits. They are thus not a subsidy for the poor but for the rich (I accept that not all employers are rich, but most major employers certainly are).

However, other people receive tax credits because they can work only part-time, for example because of disability or childcare responsibilities.

Duncan Smith’s planned “universal credit” is likely to be far worse for many of these people than the existing tax credit system.

If Duncan Smith really wants to cut the tax credit bill – as he should – he needs not to introduce new systems that will penalise the poorest but to look to the real reason for such a high bill.

A considerable increase in the minimum wage would make many tax credits unnecessary. Of course, some will argue that this would lead to mass sackings from employers who claim they can’t afford it. This prediction was made when the minimum wage was introduced in 1998. It didn’t happen.

We can reduce the welfare bill, like so many other bills, in ways that cause inconvenience to the rich rather than suffering to the poor.

Homophobia is alive and well

Posted on by symonhill

It’s been a good Christmas for opponents of marriage equality. They managed to make headlines on both Christmas Day and Boxing Day. 

First, there was the news of comments made by Vincent Nichols, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, who said that proposals for legal recognition of same-sex marriage are “undemocratic”. His remarks achieved greater prominence because of inaccurate reports that he had made them in his Christmas sermon, whereas most of them were in an interview with the BBC at around the same time. 

Second, Paul Coleridge, a High Court judge, said that same-sex marriage is a “minority issue” that affected only “0.1% of the population”. It is not clear where this figure has come from, nor why Coleridge thinks that the rights of a minority should be less important than the rights of others. 

Although Colerdige’s comments were less well-reported than Nichols’, they are considerably more confused and offensive. At one point, he used the bizarre term “same-sex people”. I’m guessing this refers to people in same-sex relationships, or possibly to gay and bisexual people generally, but it’s not clear.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Salisbury, Mark Davies, made comments that were even worse, but less reported. He said that fascism and communism had been threats to “Christian civilisation” and that now it is threatened by same-sex marriage. Comparing marriage equality to fascism is all the more repugnant given the number of gay and bisexual people murdered by the Nazis. Not only did Davies make these comments in a Christmas sermon; he appears to have publicised them to the media in advance.

After all this came some good news. On Thursday – the day after Boxing Day – the latest ICM poll showed public backing for equal marriage by two to one (62% in favour, 31% against, 7% don’t know).

This undermines Nichols’ claim that the proposal is “undemocratic”. However, Nichols, like many other opponents of marriage equality, keeps pointing out that most people who responded to the government’s consultation on same-sex marriage are opposed to it. This is partly due to the efforts of anti-equality campaigners to mobilise sections of Christian opinion against the idea (in some cases, by whipping up fear about churches being forced to host same-sex marriage, a policy that nobody is calling for). However, it does seem that supporters of equality have a majority when the public are asked about it, but opponents may have a majority amongst those who feel strongly enough about it to speak up pro-actively.

This is a problem. This week’s headlines are a reminder that the anti-equality camp are prepared to make themselves heard as loudly as possible. This ranges from the relatively mild (but nonetheless discriminatory) arguments of Vincent Nichols to the extreme comments of Mark Davies. 

In contrast, it seems quite a lot of supporters of equal marriage are becoming complacent. I know a number of pro-equality campaigners who seem to assume that the battle is already won. A member of one of the faith groups that backs same-sex marriage said a few weeks ago that they had “achieved all that we set out to do” – missing the point that the bill has not yet been debated in the Commons, let alone become law. 

Of course, there are some people – both religious and secular – who are working as hard as ever for marriage equality, and who know that even this is only one small part of a wider struggle. Sadly, there are also campaigners who appear naive about the chance of the bill being watered down or thrown out by the Lords, and seem to have unrealistic faith in David Cameron’s support. 

I often hear people talk about homophobia as if it were dying out, as if it is simply a matter of waiting for it to expire completely. They seem unaware of the dedicated work of homophobic lobby groups, the growth in “therapy” to “heal” gay, lesbian and bisexual people and the successes that some campaigners have already achieved against equality laws. 

This week’s comments by the likes of Paul Coleridge and Mark Davies are a reminder that opposition to civil rights is alive and well. If we are not prepared to speak up as loudly and clearly as the homophobes, I fear that the battle for marriage equality will be lost. 

Beware of prime ministers quoting the Bible

Posted on by symonhill

Beware of politicians quoting random Bible verses at Christmas. Earlier this week, on Christmas Eve, David Cameron said:

“The Gospel of John tells us that [Jesus] was life, and that his life was the light of all mankind, and that he came with grace, truth and love… Indeed, God’s word reminds us that Jesus was the Prince of Peace. With that in mind, I would like to pay particular tribute to our brave servicemen and women who are overseas helping bring safety and security to all of us at home.”

The Prime Minister’s words remind me less of the Bible and more of George Orwell’s 1984, in which the government declares that “war is peace”.

When the word “peace” appears in the Bible, it means much more than an absence of violence.

In English translations of the Bible, the word “peace” is usually a translation of “shalom” (Hebrew) or “eirene” (Greek). “Shalom” refers to far more than a lack of violence. It is about justice, healing, wholeness and the restoration of right relationships at personal, social and political levels. The meaning of “eirene” is contested, but when Jesus speaks of leaving “peace” with his followers, he is clearly talking about something more than the fact that they are not killing each other (a practice that didn’t develop amongst Jesus’ followers until a few centuries later).

There have been occasions on which UK troops have been used to contain or limit violence, although this in itself requires coercion and the threat of violence. Whether or not this is justified, it is certainly nothing to do with “peace” in the biblical sense.

However, recent use of troops by UK governments has gone way beyond this. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been acts of aggression that have done nothing to make the British people safer and have added to death and suffering in other parts of the world. The young men and women sent to their deaths by Cameron and Blair have been sacrificed in the name of values and powers that Jesus firmly rejected.

The notion that violence is the best, or ultimate, answer is contrary to Jesus’ active nonviolence. John’s Gospel, the book that Cameron quoted, records that Jesus’ last instruction to his disciples before his death was “put away your sword”. 

Disability, abortion and UKIP

Posted on by symonhill

What must life be like for UKIP’s press officers? Just as the party’s support is rising, their candidates keep expressing views that are even farther to the right than UKIP’s official policies. Last month, UKIP’s culture spokesperson described adoption by same-sex couples as “child abuse”. Now one of their local government candidates in Kent has suggested that disabled children should face compulsory abortion.

Geoffrey Clark, who is contesting a council by-election in Gravesham, believes that the NHS should (you might have to brace yourself before reading this) “consider compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Down’s, spina bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, will render the child a burden on the state as well as the family”.

He also wants the NHS to offer “free euthanasia advice to all folk over eighty” because their treatment is “extremely costly”.

Clark has chosen a bizarre moment to make these disgusting suggestions. He’s not even standing for Parliament but for local government. Does he want the power to carry out compulsory abortions to be put into the hands of Gravesham Borough Council?

Clark’s views are too much even for some members of UKIP to stomach. He has been thrown out of the party, with a UKIP spokesman saying that “the party was not aware of these views when it allowed him to stand under our name”. The fact that someone who believes in eugenics can be selected as a UKIP candidate – even without going into his views on certain issues – says a great deal about far to the right UKIP is.

One of Clark’s oddest claims is that he wants to promote “Christian values”. Some socially conservative Christians share his view that same-sex marriage is an “abhorrence”. They might back his desire to ban the niqab. They may well applaud his attacks on the Qur’an. But they would not back compulsory abortion, or – in the cast of some of them – any abortion at all.

Nonetheless, many anti-abortionists overlook some of the concerns that Clark is exploiting. His claim that disabled people are a “burden”, implying that they only take from society and give nothing to it, is both morally repugnant and demonstrably untrue. Presumably he means that being disabled often costs more. This is true. The answer is not to abort babies but to ensure that society and the state provide adequate support so that individuals and families are not punished for something over which they have no control.

Exactly the opposite is happening. The government is cutting benefits for disabled people and local councils are cutting disability services. It is almost certain that this will lead to more parents choosing to go ahead with an abortion when they discover their child has spina bifida, Down’s syndrome or one of several other conditions. Indeed, the rise in poverty caused by the economic crisis and the government’s cuts will lead to an increase in abortions generally, as more people decide they can’t afford to bring up a child. For most of these parents, that decision will not be made lightly. It will be horribly traumatic.

But in the face of all this, debates over abortion are still conducted with little if any reference to poverty or disability. Some talk of the rights of unborn children, but condemn mothers making unimaginably horrific decisions. Others are suspicious of any talk of the rights of unborn children. This is understandable given how that rhetoric has been used to attack women, although it is possible to believe in the rights of mothers while still valuing unborn children.

Banning abortions wouldn’t stop them happening. It would simply condemn mothers already facing trauma and pain to receiving more trauma and pain at the hands of backstreet abortionists. If anti-abortion groups really want to reduce the number of abortions – or at least to stop the number increasing – they need to campaign against poverty, prejudice and the government’s cuts. Only when they do so will they have any moral claim to describe themselves as “pro-life”.

Equal marriage: We need campaigns, not court cases

Posted on by symonhill

I’m disappointed to see that a same-sex couple in Essex say that they plan to sue the government over the ban on same-sex weddings taking place within the Church of England.

My position may surprise some people, given my enthusiastic support for marriage equality. However, the government’s proposals for the legal recognition of same-sex marriage have not even passed the Commons yet, let alone the Lords. I suggest we should concentrate on trying to change the proposals before they reach the statute book. Suing the government at this stage implies that the bill has already become law.

I strongly believe that same-sex couples should have the same rights as mixed-sex couples. I also believe that no-one should be obliged to participate in or host an act of worship in which they do not believe. Therefore, I do not want to see any faith group forced to carry out same-sex marriages against their will.

The government’s proposals go further than this. They give the Church of England a special status and make it harder for pro-equality Anglicans to achieve change within their own denomination. Rather than have a system in which churches can “opt in”, I would rather they were able to “opt out”.

Certain anti-equality groups have been claiming for a long time that churches will be forced to host same-sex marriages against their will. For a long time, I have been asking them to name any group that believes this. They have been unable to do so. They have claimed that campaigners are planning legal actions – but not named any. It is significant that this action has been brought not by a campaign group but by an individual couple (who, incidentally, are wealthy enough to embark on legal action).

While I do not think the couple have chosen the right course, I can understand their anger. Also, I think it is vital to recognise that they are not demanding that a church should be forced to host a same-sex wedding against its will. They want to be married by a pro-equality priest in the church in which their children were baptised. They are practising Anglicans.

I want to see the Church of England treated the same in law as other religious groups. This is difficult when several Anglican leaders want the privileges of establishment (e.g. bishops in the Lords) without the obligations (e.g. conforming to equality laws). Disestablishment would make this whole issue a lot easier. However, even with establishment remaining, it should be possible for the law to allow each faith group, including the CofE, to make its own decision. I wish the CofE would allow individual congregations and clergy the freedom to follow their consciences. If they won’t, I recognise their right not to host marriages on an equal basis, however abhorrent I find this position.

The government’s proposals, by giving special status to the Church of England, are discriminatory. Their bill might be passed as it is; it might be improved by amendments; it might not pass at all. There are several good reasons to challenge the government’s proposals. But let’s do that on the streets, in the media and in Parliament. Let’s not imply we’ve lost already by going straight to the courts. 

Miller’s marriage mess-up reveals ministers’ ignorance and contempt

Posted on by symonhill

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would be tempted to believe that the government’s current proposals for same-sex marriage have been designed with the intention of scuppering the whole idea. But this government seems far too disorganised for a decent conspiracy.

In the space of less than 24 hours, ministers have revealed the UK government to be clueless about religion, contemptuous of civil rights and bizarrely ignorant about the history, culture and politics of Wales.

To recap: the government conducted a consultation on same-sex marriage in England and Wales. Cameron’s ministers had been expected to propose only civil ceremonies for same-sex marriage, a sham equality that would have maintained discrimination against religious same-sex couples. Last week, Cameron said he had changed his mind. He backed the right of faith groups to hold religious same-sex weddings if they choose to do so. This followed years of hard work by Unitarians, Quakers, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and other pro-equality groups.

But after the two steps forward came one step back. “Gay marriage to be illegal in Church of England” roared yesterday’s headlines. The headline was basically true, but the situation is more complicated – and far worse – than it suggests.

Appeasing prejudice

Ever since marriage equality was proposed, its opponents have argued that churches will be forced to host same-sex weddings against their will. This claim has no basis in reality. These scaremongers are unable to name a single organisation that wants to make it compulsory to host same-sex marriage ceremonies. Most churches have no legal obligation to marry anyone at all. Of all the countries that have legalised same-sex marriages, none has witnessed the courts forcing them onto churches. A religious marriage is an act of worship and nobody should be forced to participate in an act of worship in which they do not believe. This is a scare story spread by a combination of the ignorant, the prejudiced and the deceitful.

Miller suggests a “quadruple lock” to prevent same-sex marriages being forced on unwilling churches. Two of these concern the right of churches not to host marriages they don’t believe in. The other two reveal a worrying ignorance about British churches.

One states that a faith group can carry out same-sex marriages only if its governing body has applied for permission. This is problematic for denominations such as the United Reformed Church, who may resolve to leave the decision to each congregation. In the Baptist Union, there are calls for individual churches and ministers to be allowed to celebrate same-sex weddings if they choose. A positive response to such calls is less likely if the Baptist Union as a whole has to apply to the government for permission, thus appearing to be endorsing same-sex marriage.

Insulting Wales

The worst provision concerns the Church of England and the (Anglican) Church in Wales. Miller proposes that it should be illegal for them to host same-sex weddings, although the leaders of both have already said that they do not wish to do so.

The London-based media noticed the English provision first, but it is the inclusion of the Church in Wales that is more shocking. The Church of England is the established church and its rules are governed by law. Yesterday, Maria Miller spoke of the Church in Wales as an established church. She is 92 years too late. There has been no established church in Wales since 1920.

It says a great deal that Miller and her civil servants appear to be so ignorant about an important political, cultural and religious difference between the two countries to whom their law will apply. I applaud the Church in Wales for responding to the news by saying that they don’t want to be treated differently to other churches.

When it comes to the Church of England, it can be argued that the church’s laws are the state’s laws. Also, the Church of England is the only church that has a legal obligation to marry certain people. This is a consequence of the absurdity of establishment. Many Anglican leaders seem to want the benefits of establishment without the obligations. We will see them enjoying those benefits when certain bishops rise from their unelected seats in the House of Lords to argue that other churches should be denied the same freedom that they demand for themselves – the freedom to choose who to marry.

Freeing ourselves

We do not need “quadruple locks”, designed to appease scaremongers and homophobes who will never be satisfied with any provision that extends gay and bisexual people’s rights. We do not need special provisions to privilege certain religious groups over others. We need a law that states that marriage is open to all regardless of gender and that no faith group (established or otherwise) is obliged to perform a wedding in which they do not believe.

We could also do with an investigation into the unfairness of marriage law more widely, including the fact that some faith groups have far more rights than others to solemnise marriages.

We stand at a crucial juncture in the struggle for gay and bisexual people’s civil rights in the UK. We have come so far – it’s only 45 years since sexual relations between men were legalised on the British mainland. But a long journey is no reason to give up while inequality still remains. Complacency would be grossly immoral when homophobic violence is rife and gay and bisexual teenagers are far more likely to kill themselves than their straight counterparts. Unequal treatment in law sends out the message that unequal treatment in society is morally acceptable.

Miller’s bill risks being laughed through the Commons and bogged down in the Lords. Certain Tory politicians and right-wing lobby groups are determined to fight it all the way. Cameron and colleagues, offering the bill as a sop to the LibDems, may have little incentive to fight for it. The defeat of marriage equality remains a very real possibility.

I do not want future history books to write that civil rights campaigners failed to act at a crucial moment, that we complacently thought that victory was in the bag, that pro-equality Christians were too concerned with passive unity to stand up for active justice. The future of marriage equality is not up to ignorant ministers, duplicitous Tories or celebrity “role models”. It is up to you and me.

The great Facebook switch-off: Saturday 1st December

Posted on by symonhill

From midnight tonight, I will not be using Facebook for 24 hours (for the duration of Saturday, 1st December). More importantly, I will be setting my “status update” to explain that my 24-hour boycott is due to the company’s tax dodging.

While only a relatively small number of people will join in the boycott, many more will hear about it through their friends’ status updates. If you join in, your friends will hear about the issue.

The action has been called by Church Action on Poverty. This is a great case of using Facebook to campaign against Facebook. You can read my article about it on the New Internationalist website. You can also read more about the campaign here.

 

 

UKIP candidate misleads voters on same-sex marriage

Posted on by symonhill

I have today sent the following letter to Winston McKenzie, the UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election (due on Thursday):

 

Dear Winston,

I am writing in relation to a misleading statement you have made in the course of your campaign in the Croydon North by-election.

Amongst your tweets opposing same-sex marriage, you sent the following on 17 November:

“Why should churches be forced to go against their religion to marry same-sex couples? Other parties back it. VOTE UKIP + SAY NO GAY MARRIAGE”

The government’s proposal to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage includes an offer only of civil ceremonies, not religious ones. The Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green Parties have policies of allowing faith groups to host same-sex marriage ceremonies if they choose to do so. However, no party of which I am aware wishes to force religious groups to host same-sex marriage ceremonies if they do not believe in them.

I am aware that certain groups, of which UKIP is one, have argued that giving legal recognition to same-sex marriage will lead to churches being forced to host them. I have long pointed out there is no evidence for this and that almost nobody wants it. However, it is one thing to argue that this will happen. It is quite another to state – untruthfully – that other parties want it to happen.

Your tweet refers to churches being forced to marry same-sex couples and then states “Other parties back it”. This is not true. It is a lie.

Will you please withdraw this comment and acknowledge that you have misled the voters of Croydon North and the public generally?

Yours sincerely,

Symon Hill