ABC's Shari'a Row

The Archbishop of Canterbury has clearly overstepped the mark, once again, with his latest misunderstanding of the nature of Islam. However, Conservative MP Mark Pritchard is surely equally mistaken to suggest that the church should not get involved in politics.

The Bible is full of political guidance with contemporary significance on issues as diverse as education and economics, criminal justice and land reform, welfare and international relations — and, indeed, immigration and social cohesion. Rowan Williams' mistake was not his getting involved in politics, but his apparent confusion over some fundamentals of religion.

Collective Worship in Schools

Commenting on government proposals that will most likely abolish the statutory obligation upon schools to hold a daily act of collective worship, Cranmer asks, "is it any coincidence that those schools which take the Christian daily act of collective worship seriously, and do it very well, are invariably those with the highest educational standards, yielding best academic results, turning out some of the most reasonable and most excellent contributors to society?"

As we noted last month, the question is why this should be so. The Church of England's chief education officer suggested it "helps embed strong discipline, a caring attitude, and a sense of purpose." Looking for political guidance, we find that when he was Education Secretary, Alan Johnson noted collective worship in schools "can provide an opportunity not only to worship God but also to consider spiritual and moral issues and to explore their own beliefs. Collective worship can also help to develop community spirit, promote a common ethos and shared values and reinforce positive attitudes."

Assuming that still to be the case, don't we need this for our children now even more than ever?

Free Speech Under Threat

Apologies to everyone who has visited during the past week, expecting to find new comment for discussion and debate. I started a new job and had hoped to be able to continue blogging but have been to do anything very much on the computer at all! Life should settle down again in about a week though whether I'll be able to keep up the daily posts remains to be seen. So if anyone is interested in joining a team of bloggers for The Difference, do contact me via email.

In the meantime, my most recommended blog post of the past week is Archbishop Cranmer's British blogger to be arrested?:

While British mosques are free to distribute books and other materials that contain hate and disdain towards non-Muslims (and do so with impunity); and imams quote from the Qur’an vast passages which preach hatred, violence and paedophilia (and do so with impunity), a British blogger is to be arrested for daring to criticise Islam and Islamism. ...

It is actually difficult to see how Lionheart may be arrested for stirring up racial hatred, but there may be prima facie evidence under the Religious Hatred Bill . This could easily be deployed to challenge what may be termed the ‘Counter-jihad’ blogosphere. And even more concerning is the fact that as we move towards a ‘harmonised’ legal system throughout the EU, Lionheart could be arrested in the UK under an EU warrant and extradited to any EU country province which happened to find his writings ‘xenophobic’.

Belief in Politicians

If George W.Bush prays for guidance on invading Iraq, I want to know that. If (as we now know) Mr Blair would regularly choose biblical texts to contemplate in Downing Street, I want to know that. If a Cabinet minister whose government must take decisions on abortion, or homosexuality, or contraception, or embryo research, belongs to Opus Dei, I want to know that. And if a party leader is an unbeliever, a convinced Christian voter should equally want to know that too.

Following the admission earlier this week by the LibDem's newly-selected leader Nick Clegg that he does not believe in God, Matthew Parris claims in the Times that only two prime ministers in two centuries have been strong Christians.

I'm not sure that I accept all the unspoken assumptions that underlie his analysis and, if anything, would sense a parting of the ways between secular belief and reason (rather than between faith and reason), but I suspect we would all, believers and unbelievers, agree with his desire for greater "honest clarity" in our politicians.

Parris is also right that "in a political leader religious faith is not simply personal." Contrary to what some secularists would have us believe, of course religious belief significantly influences a person's outlook on how society should be structured — just as lack of belief in a creator God and moral absolutes significantly influences the worldview of those who ascribe to the faith of the atheist or humanist. And yet, though we might hope that our elected representatives would "stand up and be counted," I think we all know that's not going to happen.

For one thing, our party machines do not like their members to think freely, let alone express any opinions considered off-message. Prospective candidates unwilling to reign in their personal idiosyncracies tend not to succeed [the likes of Boris Johnson are the exceptions that prove the rule] which is why, to quote one former MP, the upcoming generation of MPs "all look and sound like clones of each other." As is evident from any dictatorship around the world, "honest clarity" often loses out to sheep-like obedience when career prospects are at stake.

For another thing, as long as bureaucracy in our country remains "simply too big and ramshackle to function properly" and our "ministers are trammelled by EU treaties, ineptness and institutional inertia" (as the Telegraph puts it today, explaining why it is Gordon Brown appears to be in control of so very little), what our politicians think and say will make very little difference anyway. Consequently, faith in our increasingly eroded parliamentary democracy will continue to decline — unless our MPs heed the Telegraph's advice: "Put yourselves back in control. Seize power from the gentlemen in Whitehall and Brussels. Scrap the quangos. Abrogate the human rights codes. Make yourselves once again a sovereign Parliament."

Sadly, I fear that anyone waiting for that to happen might just as well believe in Father Christmas...

Where Are The Nativity Dragons?

You might be interested in this message from The Venerable Trevor Jones, Archdeacon of Hertford:

Royal Mail has traditionally alternated between sacred and secular designs for their Christmas stamps and this year it is the turn for a religious image. Royal Mail has issued two sets of designs this year. The main set of designs, available in all the main denominations is of angels, which is vaguely Christian but not explicitly so and certainly not specifically Christmassy. They have also issued a 'Madonna and Child' design for first and second class only. Post Office staff have been instructed only to sell this design if people specifically request it, but obviously people can't request it if they don't know it exists! If people don't buy these stamps, Royal Mail will claim there is no demand for religious Christmas stamps and not produce them in future. Please therefore ask for 'Madonna and Child' stamps when you do your Christmas posting and also tell your friends, contacts etc. to do the same. Thank You.

Sure enough, I asked my wife, who bought our supply of stamps about a week ago, and she knew nothing about the mother and child option, so came home with lots of angels.

My suggestion for next year, given the fascination with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, would be for various pictures of the ten-horned, seven-headed red dragon described in John's account of Jesus' birth in Revelation 12. After all, why is it we only ever hear Matthew and Luke's accounts? Shouldn't at least a few nativity scenes include John's red dragon lurking ominously, ready to devour the infant Saviour King?

The Royal Christmas Petition

Further to this week's Christianophobia debate in Parliament, non-Christian Asian religious minorities are petitioning The Queen to protect Christmas and Christian worship:

Your Majesty The Queen, you vowed in Your Coronation Oath to both defend Justice and also to Defend The Faith in Your Realm, therefore we the undersigned urge you to formally call in Your Government ministers and instruct them on pain of dismissal to do the following by Christmas 2008:

1. End by Law the evil libel that Asian religious minorities are offended by Christmas or of peaceful public Christian worship;

2. End by Law the evil libel that Asian religious minorities in Your Realm are enemies of Christmas and Christian worship and education;

3. End by law that anyone can ban carol services in public or private places, nativity plays performed by children in schools or other Christmas worship;

4. Stop Your Government Ministers seeking to divide Your People in your Realm by emphasising and even inventing and fabricating bogus disagreements which cause needless resentment between religious groups;

5. Do all in their power to emphasise the huge areas of agreement and sincere goodwill between different religious groups seeking to express their faith by love for their neighbour and through acts of mercy and charity;

6. Put Merry Christmas on all Government Seasons Greetings Cards and official letters and websites issued in the month of December;

7. We also bless you Your Majesty and your family with a Very Merry Christmas and an extremely Happy New Year in 2008 in which we all pray that HOPE, FAITH and LOVE will re-emerge in our nation.

The petition will be presented to The Queen on December 21st and already has the support of Members of Parliament, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Christian leaders. Anyone interested in signing it should send their name to petition@apnalounge.com

Primary School League Tables

Two thirds of the 250 primaries in England achieving "perfect" test results were Church of England, Roman Catholic or Jewish schools. Despite making up just a third of schools nationally, faith schools increased their hold on the top places from 44 per cent two years ago to 66 per cent in 2007. Last night, they hailed the results as a testament to good teaching and discipline.

Thus reports today's Telegraph. It goes on to note that critics claim the schools do so well by selecting talented, middle-class pupils, often at the expense of poor children living nearby. However, as David Jesson, Economics professor at York University, comments in the paper, studies have proven that this is not the case: "In a recent study of London secondary schools, it was shown that mainstream faith schools had socio-economic and ability profiles almost identical with that of the society they served - and still helped their pupils gain substantially better results at GCSE than their secular counterparts." The question, as Jesson points out, is: Why?

Jan Ainsworth, the Church of England's chief education officer suggests the schools' "Christian character helps embed strong discipline, a caring attitude, and a sense of purpose." Not so many years ago, that might have seemed like stating the obvious, but with the PC brigade being what it is, I suppose such things cannot be taken for granted any longer.

The Christianophobia Debate

Amidst the latest findings that four fifths of schools are not staging Nativity plays this year, the now common practice of rebranding Christmas as Winterval / Winter Lights / Celebrity Lights, and perennial reports that another council has ordered the removal of a wooden cross from a crematorium chapel over fears of giving offence, Conservative MP Mark Pritchard has called a Westminster debate tomorrow on Christianophobia, suggesting that attempts to move Christian traditions to the "margins" of British life have "gone far enough" and that the "politically correct brigade" run the risk of Christianity being hijacked by extremist parties.

Some have questioned whether this is a proper use of Parliamentary time, but perhaps the debate should be broadened to consider the extent of the Christianophobic problem in countries of our allies, such as Saudi Arabia (with whom, you'll recall, we supposedly enjoy so many shared values), where the government continues to bar Jews and Christians from bringing items such as Bibles, crucifixes and Stars of David into the country, threatening to confiscate them on sight; or Turkey, whom we are told should be allowed to join the European Union, despite continued attacks against Christians within its borders.

Lights Under Bushels

"There is no point in me denying it, I happen to have religious conviction. I don't actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction – on the contrary, I think it is a strength for people."

Our former Prime Minister, "who takes a Bible with him wherever he goes and last thing at night he will read from the Bible," now tells us that "the job is as much about character and temperament as it is about anything else. For me having faith was an important part of being able to do that." Given that 23% of our country's MPs admit to being Christian, it is a pity Blair didn't have the faith to say so while he was in his position of influence and leadership. Maybe Blair never got to reading his Lord and Saviour's exhortation in Matthew 5:14-16:

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

Dialogue Or Debate?

Do not miss Adrian Pabst's comments in today's IHT on last month's Common Word letter, which are worth quoting from fairly extensively:

To suggest, as the authors of "A Common Word" do, that Muslims and Christians are united by the same two commandments which are most essential to their respective faith and practice - love of God and love of the neighbor - is theologically dubious and politically dangerous.

Theologically, this glosses over elementary differences between the Christian God and the Muslim God. The Christian God is a relational and incarnate God. Moreover, the New Testament and early Christian writings speak of God as a single Godhead with three equally divine persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This is not merely a doctrinal point, but one that has significant political and social implications. The equality of the three divine persons is the basis for equality among mankind - each and everyone is created in the image and likeness of the triune God.

As a result, Christianity calls for a radically egalitarian society beyond any divisions of race or class. The promise of universal equality and justice that is encapsulated in this conception of God thus provides Christians with a way to question and transform not only the norms of the prevailing political order but also the (frequently perverted) social practices of the Church.

By contrast, the Muslim God is disembodied and absolutely one: there is no god but God, He has no associate. This God is revealed exclusively to Muhammed, the messenger (or prophet), via the archangel Gabriel. As such, the Koran is the literal word of God and the final divine revelation first announced to the Hebrews and later to the Christians.

Again, this account of God has important consequences for politics and social relations. Islam does not simply posit absolute divisions between those who submit to its central creed and those who deny it; it also contains divine injunctions against apostates and unbelievers (though protecting the Jewish and Christian faithful).

Moreover, Islam's radical monotheism tends to fuse the religious and the political sphere: It privileges absolute unitary authority over intermediary institutions and also puts a premium on territorial conquest and control, under the direct rule of God.

The scary thing is, if I were to ask you whether you thought modern, Western society more closely resembled a relational society or a centralised, controlling one, I think you'd agree we're closer to the latter. Perhaps we really are at risk of losing our Christian roots after all?

Forget Christmas ... And Forget Democracy

The suggestion that Christmas should be "downgraded" to help race relations, made by the Labour think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research really does defy belief. The leaked report into identity, citizenship and community cohesion suggests, "Even-handedness dictates that we provide public recognition to minority cultures and traditions. If we are going to continue to mark Christmas - and it would be very hard to expunge it from our national life even if we wanted to - then public organisations should mark other major religious festivals too."

The IPPR clearly have no concept of how our national heritage and shared experiences contribute to a personal sense of identity in community. As for the suggestion that "We can no longer define ourselves as a Christian nation, nor an especially religious one in any sense" and that we "should recast the civic oaths and national ceremonies, or institutions like Parliament and the monarchy, in a more multi-religious or secular form and make religious education less sectarian" ... Where do they think the ethical foundation of our legal and political system is rooted - Hans Christian Andersen? Which book do they believe was the inspiration for modern democracy and the human rights we both hold so dear and so take for granted - Aesop's Fables?

How are we supposed to respect any other culture, when we're not even supposed to treasure our own?!

Cash For Muslims

In an effort to tackle extremism among young British Muslims in "ungoverned spaces" such as internet chat rooms, Communities Secretary Hazel Blears is to give £70m of tax-payers' money to set up websites to encourage young Muslims to talk about their identities and grievances.

Nice work if you can get it ... and we thought it was just oppressive governments such as Sudan's that offered cash incentives exclusively to Muslims! Of course, we are assured, this funding in no way discriminates against people of other faiths. Yet, as with providing a successful service to prisoners or some of the country's most needy children, or simply expressing one's faith through the wearing of small items of jewellery at school or in the workplace, this does come across as yet another case of double standards and a playing field in serious need of levelling.

What next ... state-funded madrasahs?

Iran Has The Last Word

Is there not a degree of irony that, while the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has now welcomed last week's "Common Word" claims by 138 of the world's top Muslims that Islam is a religion of "peace", Iran's top cleric, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged Muslim countries to boycott a US-sponsored international peace conference on Palestinian statehood next month?

Muslim Leaders' "Common Word" Letter

This week's letter, "A Common Word Between Us and You," by 138 of the world's most powerful Muslim clerics, scholars and intellectuals to leaders of the worldwide Church is being hailed by many as something of a miracle. However, such a response is not just overly optimistic but hopelessly naive.

In a display of supposedly unprecedented unity, the letter calls for peace between Christians and Muslims, arguing that the most fundamental tenets of Islam and Christianity are identical: love of one (and the same) God, and love of one's neighbour.

There are two crucial points to make in response. Firstly, the Muslims who penned the 29-page statement are in fact seeking a one-way dialogue on their own terms: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." Yet, as the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, quoted by Archbishop Cranmer, rightly notes:

"What the Qur’an condemns, we do not believe. Whatever our doctrine of God, there are fundamental issues that must be addressed, such as refugees fleeing because of their faith and because of persecution ... But what I would stress is that dialogue between partners must be conducted in the integrity of each faith. One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted ... We may disagree about the nature of God but there are many other important areas of dialogue as well. There is justice, compassion, fundamental freedom, freedom to express beliefs, persecution of peoples. All these are matters of dialogue. Only one of them, the need for peace, is mentioned here."

Secondly, there is more to Islam than simply "peace" — there is also "jihad." And to quote the new Baroness Cox biography, "Eyewitness to a broken world" by Lela Gilbert:

"A key development in the concept of jihad is contained in this verse in the Koran:

Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Prophet, nor acknowledge the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizya (tax) with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29, Medina)

... It must be noted that there are other verses in the Koran that speak of peace and respect for other people, especially "People of the Book" — Jews and Christians... However, traditional Islamic teaching has resolved any inconsistency between the verses of peace and the verses of war by adopting the principle of "abrogation", whereby the later revelations of the Prophet abrogate, or override, the earlier revelations. Unfortunately, this means that the more aggressive militaristic interpretations of jihad, associated with violence and terrorism, prevails over peaceable interpretations.

The most fundamental tenets of Christianity have given rise to Western democracy as we know it. Yet the most fundamental tenets of Islam set it on a course of conflict with what we all believe (believers and unbelievers alike) on a whole range of human rights issues, from the freedom of religion to equality of the sexes. As Baroness Cox warned earlier this year, "The time has come to draw a line in the sand: to say that, while we in Britain value cultural diversity and enshrine the principle of tolerance, we must also ensure that such values and principles are not used in ways that destroy the fundamental freedoms on which our democracy is built."

Is Pakistan Really Democratic?

If you are lucky enough to see any real news today (i.e. anything besides Gordon Brown's decision not to give us a general election), you might chance upon report from Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has won a controversial presidential vote — controversial because the country's Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the General was able to stand while still serving as the head of the army.

Although Musharraf has again given an "offer of reconciliation to all political parties," Pakistani Christians are now saying that the election commission rejected the nomination of their presidential candidate, Joseph Francis, the leader of the Pakistan Christian National Party, citing article 42 Pakistan's constitution, which bars non-Muslim candidates from running for president. At a time of heightened religious tensions, with violent attacks against churches and some Christians being threatened to convert to Islam, if the president is serious about wanting to create stability in the country and "to eliminate terrorists and eradicate extremism," he will need to work not just with his political rivals but also with the country's religious minorities. Given that Musharraf is one of the West's strongest regional allies in the New Great Game (aka what used to be called the "fight against terrorism"), one can but hope that quiet diplomatic pressure will be exerted to persuade the one-time coupe leader to include all Pakistani citizens in his "National Reconciliation Plan."

Conservative Muslims May Be Right

When it comes to issues such as the importance of family and marriage in society, Christians can find that they have more in common with people of other faiths than they do with people of no faith. So, although you may not find me agreeing with Muslims on any points of theology, the Conservative Muslim Forum may well be right in their response to the Globalisation and Global Poverty Policy Group's report An Unquiet World:

"Regardless of the foreign policies of the United States, hostility to Iran is not in Britain's national interest. A constructive engagement with Iran offers many possibilities for progress... Instead of joining the United States in demonising Iran, Britain should assist Iran in addressing these legitimate security concerns in a manner that improves our security rather than weakening it."

In the current issue of The Difference, Christopher Catherwood argues that neither a military strike nor economic sanctions would be likely to provide a solution to the threat posed by Iran:

"To attack Iran would be to unite all Iranians against us, even those who might otherwise be deemed progressive. An attack on Iran would also, the experts claim, be logistically almost impossible to win, as the relevant nuclear material can be hidden in thousands of underground places all over the country, even if the two major installations could successfully be taken out in a large-scale strike.

But if we cannot attack Iran, and the hardliners and even moderates seem to want a nuclear capability, what can the West do? Russia refuses to get involved, as it considers anybody who damages the US or its interests as its friend, however dangerous they might be. Not only that but if Iran’s neighbours, including a majority Shia Iraq, refused to operate sanctions, then no matter how harsh the financial measures the rest of the world might want to impose, they would be unlikely to provide a solution."

So, what options are left? Well, as the GGPPG intimated in An Unquiet World, there is the possibility of applying diplomatic pressure through India which, despite having voted twice against Tehran at the IAEA, maintains a strategic relationship with Iran and "is extending ties to other countries in the region with an equal interest in restraining Iran, including Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom is India’s largest provider of oil and is home to an estimated 1.5 million Indian nationals. As important, it is one of the few Islamic theocracies viewed favourably by the West, which has worked for a demilitarised Kashmir and has supported India’s observership in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference."

As this blog argued earlier in the year, there is also an opportunity for America to undermine the mullahs' theocratic regime and promote democratic reform by lifting economic sanctions. So, to answer the question about whether or not to engage with Iran, I am inclined to agree with the CMF that while we should continue to oppose Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions, our approach "should be one of negotiation and mutual dialogues, not threats" and "our primary goal should be assisting in the strengthening of Iranian state institutions to avoid any risk of the transfer of nuclear technology to non state actors."

Islamic School For Kent

Tonight's local news that Muslim leaders are calling for a state-funded Islamic school to be set up in Kent saw me turning to Martin Parsons article in this month's edition of The Difference, examining how Western educational values unwittingly contributed to the rise of Islamism.

The BBC quotes a spokesman for Kent Muslim Welfare Association, Anwar Khan, who runs Islamic classes outside school hours for about 100 children at Jamia Mosque in Gillingham, as complaining, "We run our schools for 10 hours a week - two hours a day, for children across the ages and from different schools. It is an extra burden for them, coming back from school, doing some work at home and having their evening meal and then coming to the mosque."

Parsons concludes his article by considering this very issue of demands from Islamic organisations for state funding of Muslim schools. Let us know what you think:

When Labour came to power in 1997 the government began to approve the creation of Muslim schools in a similar manner to voluntary aided Anglican and Catholic schools. However, the question which needs to be answered is whether these schools are inspired by a philosophy that is compatible with western democracy and seeks to promote tolerance and freedom, or Islamism, which combines western education's critical thinking with Islamic political values?

Labour clearly needs the votes of Islamic groups but doesn’t appear to want all of their agenda. It has been willing to grant some requests – such as government subsidies for courses in Islamic theology and Arabic and considering approval for a Muslim City Academy in Bradford – but has now made a significant u-turn on faith schools. First came an announcement that all faith schools would have to allocate 25% of their places to pupils from another faith or no faith, a proposal that was finally dropped after a concerted campaign by the Catholic Church. Then the government legally required all schools to promote “community cohesion”, with Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, suggesting faith schools should twin with those of other faiths.

Many have suggested that this attempt to create “community cohesion” by targeting all faith schools instead of just Muslim ones is driven by Labour’s desire to hold onto its share of the Muslim vote, which slumped in the 2005 general election. However, there is also a marked secularising tendency in liberal-left politics, coupled with an ideological assumption that the state, not churches or parents, should educate children. The recent vote of the left-leaning teaching union, the NASUWT, to oppose new faith schools well illustrates these ideological assumptions.

Yet whoever heard of voluntary-aided Church of England or Catholic schools in mainland Britain creating problems of community cohesion? They don’t for two reasons. First, because as part of the majority community – 72% according to the last census – voluntary-aided Christian schools by definition cannot create an educational ghetto. Secondly, unlike the Islamic scriptures, the Bible does not set out a distinct political system, still less require one to be imposed on non-believers. Tragically, this is a nettle that the Labour government and other members of the liberal left seem unable or unwilling to grasp.

For more on this issue, also see The Rise Of Islam.

Religion's Place in Politics

Those who claim that religion has no place in politics need to take a look at the latest developments in Burma's continuing demonstrations, where thousands of Buddhist monks have taken to the streets in defiance of Burma's oppressive military regime. Despite violence used against earlier rallies by pro-democracy activists, hundreds of monks are now leading protests right across the country's cities. The monks have also excommunicated the government and its supporters by refusing alms or donations from anyone linked to the junta.

Once again, it seems that when the going gets tough, people of faith get going. On the other hand, can you imagine similarly large groups of Christians or church leaders in this country taking such a lead on fundamental issues affecting society?

Liberalism and Christianity Project

"From a political perspective ‘liberal’ is often used as shorthand for ‘soft on crime’ or ‘wishy-washy’ and ineffective. Theologically the term ‘liberal’ can be used to stand for a rejection of various Christian doctrines including that of the Resurrection or the Trinity. The stereotypes linked to these uses of the term are unhelpful at the best of times, but when applied across the political/religious divide they lead to additional confusion."

Ekklesia is reporting on a fringe event at the Lib Dem conference tonight that will seek to encourage Christians that it is possible to be a political Liberal without compromising their personal faith.

As someone who is theologically and politically conservative, I can't say I would disagree with the above characterisation, put out by the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum (the LibDem equivalent of the Conservative Christian Fellowship). Nevertheless, given that I believe our political system is all the more healthy for having Christian representation across the whole political spectrum, I will be interested to see what comes out of their project.

Ethical Business Pioneer Roddick

I don't usually do obituaries or tributes, but since a precedent was set (Lord Deedes) while the reins for this blog were handed over during my recent Venetian break, I thought I would reproduce a Church Times interview of relevance to this blog's themes with Body Shop founder and Fair Trade supporter, Dame Anita Roddick, who died yesterday aged 64 after a major brain haemorrhage. I particularly commend the final two paragraphs to you:

Speaking to the Church Times, ahead of coming to the Festival in 2004 for the second year running, Dame Anita said: “What’s wonderful about being my age is having to face your prejudices."

And she continued: "I had no idea how big Greenbelt was. I had no idea how organised it was; how free it was; how joyful it was. And I had no idea that there was such a strong activist, trade justice plank in its platform."

“It’s really hard, when you have had your antennae up for most of these movements, to have completely ignored it. I have fallen for the zeitgeist that says anybody who has a religious inclination has no sense of rationale or intellectual understanding and therefore should be dismissed."

“I am cheering the Greenbelt festival from the top of every bloody mountain…for me, it’s like a heartbeat. And it’s youth. I’m ashamed of my bloody prejudices, but I’m delighted to be a convert. I find it wonderful.”

Source: Greenbelt Festivals