Category Archives: Religion

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? 

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.

UKIP: The respectable face of the far right

Posted on by symonhill

Members of the United Kingdom Independence Party must be rubbing their hands with glee today. They’re the subject of the day’s leading news story. The Education Secretary has described them as “a mainstream party”. The Leader of the Opposition has effectively defended them. They’re being portrayed as victims of discrimination, despite their own discriminatory policies.

According to the story that broke this morning, foster carers in Rotherham had non-British children removed from their care because they are members of UKIP. This is the claim of the couple concerned. Rotherham Council’s statements seem less clear, suggesting that membership of UKIP influenced the decision, but implying it was not the only factor. They have spoken of the children’s cultural needs not being respected.

Our primary concern in all this must be the needs of the children. I do not know whether Rotherham Council were right to remove the children. I have not been involved in the case. I do not know the children; I do not know the foster carers; I do not know about all the issues involved. Nor, of course, do the many people who have rushed to condemn the council’s decision. These include Michael Gove, who has already described it as “the wrong decision”.

It is utterly inappropriate and unprofessional for the Education Secretary to comment on the rightness or wrongness of a fostering decision on the basis of media reports, without thoroughly investigating the details. It is comparable to the Home Secretary commenting on the guilt or innocence of someone who is in the middle of a criminal trial. Gove’s behaviour is the real scandal in this story.

I am not arguing that UKIP members should be barred from fostering children. I am not even arguing that UKIP members should be barred from fostering children who are not British. I am not arguing that Rotherham Council made the right decision. But I do believe that it is legitimate to take foster carers’ beliefs into account when considering the needs of children. For example, it would be inappropriate to place children from a Muslim family with foster carers who were prejudiced against Muslims.

UKIP are using this case to portray themselves as a reasonable, credible, non-racist party. The reality is that they are a far-right party. On many issues, their policies are comparable to the British National Party. It is true that they do not share the BNP’s focus on skin colour, but their policies are similar on issues including immigration, education, criminal justice and climate change. On economics, they are way to the right of the BNP, calling for all sorts of policies that would benefit the richt at the expense of the rest.

I do not make these claims lightly. Two years ago, I analysed the polices of both UKIP and the BNP. I had expected some similarities but I was genuinely shocked by the extent of them. The article I wrote as a result can be read here.

UKIP want to end all permanent immigration for five years, and severely restrict if after that. In their own words, they oppose multiculturalism. They would abolish the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees. Their education policy includes the teaching of a pro-imperial view of British history. They want to increase military spending by 40%, reduce taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest of us and force all unemployed people to work without pay in order to receive benefits. They are keen to double the number of people in prison. Unlike almost every other party in Britain, they want to discriminate against gay and bisexual people by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. Until 2010, they wanted to make laws about what people were allowed to wear in public, by banning the niqab. Their attitude to the environment seems to be pure fantasy, based on the claim that climate change is not caused by humans.

I have come across many people who have voted UKIP because they oppose the European Union, but who are unaware of the rest of their policies. I have no doubt that some UKIP members are decent individuals. Indeed, I dare say that some of them would make good foster carers. I have no interest in encouraging personal hostility. But UKIP as a party is a far-right grouping with a twisted image of Britain, a strong stream of prejudice and policies that would benefit only the super-rich. I’m appalled that Michael Gove and Ed Miliband seem to be trying to claim otherwise.

Israelis against the bombing

Posted on by symonhill

I expected to be disappointed by Barrack Obama in his second term. I hadn’t expected it to happen so soon. Today, he backed the Israeli government’s vicious assault on the people of Gaza. UK foreign secretary William Hague was not so explicit, but he made clear where his sympathies lie.

Of course, some will try to portray those of us who criticise Netanyahu’s government as apologists for Hamas. The vast majority of us are not. I don’t support Hamas any more than I support Netanyahu. Many people have conveniently forgotton that Hamas was originally built up and encouraged by the Israeli government who saw it as a counterweight to the power of secular Palestinian independence movements.

In reality, the lives of innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being sacrificed by the Israeli government and Hamas on the altars of their long-term ambitions. It is vital that the Israeli government engages in dialogue with Hamas instead of attacking civilians and putting its own population at further risk of attack.

I was therefore very pleased to hear of demonstrations in Tel Aviv by Israelis opposed to the bombing of Gaza. I was also pleased to be sent a copy of the following statement, produced the The Other Voice, a group of Isrealis living near Gaza:

“We, members of the villages and townships in the Gaza-enveloping region call on the Israeli government to stop mucking around with our lives and immediately enter into diplomatic and political contacts with the Hamas Government! We are sick and tired of being sitting ducks who serve political interests.

“Rockets from there and bombardments from here do not protect us. We have played around with those games of the use of force and war for long enough. And both sides have paid, and are continuing to pay, a high price of loss and suffering. The time has to come to endeavour to reach long-term understandings which will enable civilians on both sides of the border to live a normal life.“The Other Voice describe themselvse as a group of residents of Sderot and other places in the Gaza -enveloping region who have maintained a continuous link with residents of the Gaza Strip. The group advances “neighbourly and communicative relationships throughout the South and the entire land”.

A statement expressing similar views has been released by the Da’am Workers’ Party, a left-wing party that includes both Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel. I admit that my knowledge of the party is minimal, but I heartily agree with their statement on this issue. Here it is:
“The military operations in Gaza are a direct result of four years of time-wasting by Netanyahu’s right-wing government, which persistently refused to negotiate an agreement to put an end to the conflict. During this time, this same government continued to build settlements in the occupied territories.

“This latest military operation will not solve the security problems of Israel’s residents in the south. On the contrary, the operation will merely grant legitimacy to the Hamas government and its claims that Israel is not interested in peace. The operation weakens the Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), and makes his overtures to Israel the target of mockery and derision among the Palestinians. Israel is also putting Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood leadership in an awkward position, provoking President Mohammed Morsi. “Under cover of the warfare in Gaza, Netanyahu’s government is trying to marginalize demands for social justice and present the security issue as the only legitimate issue for public debate. Poverty, unemployment, the retrenchment of welfare services and of course the austerity programme and budgetary cuts planned by Bibi’s future government are presented as irrelevant.

“Furthermore, we must not ignore Defence Minister Ehud Barak’s manoeuvre in trying to use Gaza to win another term of office, as his prospects currently look poor.

“Two sides will benefit from Israel’s military action: the right-wing government in Israel and the Hamas government in Gaza. The extremism on both sides will continue to thrive while the two peoples, who seek peace and social justice, will pay the heavy price.”

Debating capitalism in Marlborough

Posted on by symonhill

Yesterday evening, I was very pleased to take part in a debate on “Can capitalism be made good?” in Marlborough. I argued “no”, alongside Stewart Wallis from the New Economics Foundation. On the other side were Will Morris, chair of the CBI’s tax committee and Anglican priest, and Hugh Pym of the BBC. The Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, presided.

I received a warm welcome and a friendly approach from organisers, audience members, the other speakers and the staff and sixth formers at St John’s School who were involved in arranging the event. Sandwiches beforehand were very welcome.

I argued that capitalism could not be made good because three central aspects of it are inherently immoral: it involves a few owning the world’s wealth that rightly belongs to us all; it relies on ever-increasing consumption that is destroying the planet; and it based on usury, treating money and markets as if they have a “real” existence separate from how people choose to use them.

The question “Can capitalism be made good?” was put to the vote before we started debating. 71 people voted Yes and 36 voted No. Stewart and I were disappointed, but we pressed on. There was another vote at the end of the debate; this time 63 voted Yes and 46 voted No (there were several abstentions on both occasions). So, while we lost the vote, the opposition to capitalism increased during the evening, which I was really chuffed about.

One of the most surprising moments came after the debate, when two students from Marlborough College – an extremely expensive, elitist private school – told me that they had voted aganist capitalism.

Five years ago, I think it would have been highly unlikely for over a third of an audience in an affluent area of south-west England to vote that capitalism could not be good. Indeed, at that time, it is unlikely the debate would have been held. The economic crisis has caused immense suffering, particularly to the poorest (while the rich largely carry on as before). But it has made many people aware that we have an economic system that is immoral, exploitative and based on lies. Thank God for that.