More on equality diversity and monolithic uniformity

Well I thought I would provoke a debate and for the most part I think I provoked a reaction!

posting my piece to the VSSN list has generated a thread of nearly a dozen replies! you can read them in the archives at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A1=ind0701&L=vol-sector-studies-network

This is my response

If you read carefully what I was trying to say the "problem" is not gay adoptions or equal rights for gay couples, but whether government should impose a monolithic model of provision of any service on a sector which by nature includes a wide diversity of groups, with strongly held values.

Tony Hermann latched on to this in a most helpful way and the example of the diverse translation services and the pragmatic solution is an excellent one. In the real world of course this pattern of service operating through consumer choice will lead to de facto discrimination

In the same way I would support state funding of various telephone help line services for particular niche markets, e.g. one for women at risk of domestic violence, child line and a gay and lesbian help line. And of course similar patterns do occur in the case of state aided faith based schools, or the tax relief given to almost every religious congregation and place of worship even though membership is only open (either de jure or de facto) to those who share particular beliefs and rituals.

So why do secular equal rights activists want to impose uniformity on religious groups who have a conscience on particular issues that are not shared by the whole of society..?

Equality Law Contradicts Diversity Policy

The decision by the UK government not to allow an exemption on the regulations on gay adoptions seems to me a perverse and dangerous one, threatening the whole concept of the independence of civil society organisations who work from a strong value base... For the full news story see the Guardian article at.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2001834,00.html#article_continue

It doesn’t really matter what one thinks of the RC church and its supporters who included the two Anglican Archbishops in general, or in the case of this political protest. My view (as I’ve already blogged) is that this was the wrong (minor) issue for Christians to get fundamentalist about. The reality is that the secular fundamentalists have imposed their will in a manner which has rarely been seen since the French Revolution or the demise of Joseph Stalin.

I never feel comfortable to be in agreement with Ann Widdecome but this time I am. According to the daily Telegraph

the former Home Office minister, said she was not surprised that Mr Cameron had not intervened in the debate so far but added: "I would hope that he will come out in favour of freedom of conscience. "It’s one thing to say that gay people can adopt and quite another to say they must be able to adopt from a specific agency. It’s like saying someone not only has the right to have an abortion but they also have the right to demand an abortion from a specific doctor, regardless of that doctor’s freedom of conscience."

There is a supreme irony in that it was the secular enlightenment that fully developed the idea of diversity and toleration in civil society, though its roots in England go back to the religious tradition of Christian Dissent. Voltaire I think it was who said "I may disagree with your belief but I will fight to the death for your right to believe it". But now the state seems to be saying that all religious and voluntary groups must believe in and practice equality as set out in the law, even if this is anathema to the individual and group conscience.

There seems then to be an inherent contradiction, or at least tension, between the diversity and equality agendas. We are still encouraged to celebrate diversity and ensure public services reach all sections of society. I was at a seminar today where the local NHS mental health service for children and adolescents was enthusiastically trying to communicate with, learn from, and build partnership with, the representatives of many of the diverse faith communities in the city. But we can only wonder if clergy and religious youth workers really are going to be allowed to counsel and work with youngsters with clinical depression along cultural and faith lines they are familiar with, or whether the state is going to step in and insist on some treatment with some universal Prozac.

The other current example of this state control freakery is around the social cohesion agenda. Multiculturalism is being attacked from all sides and the very ideology that led to gay pride is overwhelmed by the revived rhetoric of citizenship and integration. Only the not so new Labour government seems to be able to determine what is appropriate and permitted behaviour for the “good” British citizen. Implicitly their definition means you can’t be a committed Muslim, a faithful Catholic, a born again Christian or even a Scots Nationalist and still remain a true Briton. Still less can you be an asylum seeker or refugee, a hoodie, a kid who hangs out on street corners etc. But apparently you can be a casino entrepreneur, an arms trader paying bribes to secure business, or David Beckham, and still present a perfect image of a good citizen. There is either a whiff of hypocrisy or a corruption of values in this approach.

One can understand why a government so desperate to retain votes goes down this route as they continue to listen to polls and focus groups. In a post 9/11 context, in response to the discontents of globalization, in the maelstrom of diverse and ever changing social identities many in the mainstream feel insecure, and clutch for straws of imagined traditional certainties. And it is the mainstream groups that swing elections. Of course the media, especially the tabloids develop the theme. Or more often trivialize it around celebrities as in the recent Celebrity Big Brother case.. see http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1994828,00.html And the politicians give us all a pat on the back for our supposed “tolerance” as a Great British virtue.

It is very disheartening that a government who for ten years have been pushing the benefits of partnerships involving faith communities and religious social welfare organisations should have ended up like this. Perhaps it always was a sham and they only wanted to take us over on their secular terms. There have been plenty of policy reports that have picked up the issues and tensions that were unresolved in these policy areas and in my view the policy makers just haven’t understood.

Faced with a strengthened secular establishment what are churches and value based groups going to do? Inevitably some will continue to sup with the devil as government funding is the only way their organizations can survive? Others will try to remain in critical solidarity, at least on the issues that they agree with the government, but I suspect will find it increasingly difficult to remain true to their own ethos. And some will decide on the purist option refusing to take government money with strings attached and closing down some of their services. A few may even decide to carry on in their own sweet way, either retreating into their own silo, or engaging in various levels of civil disobedience.

The law of unintended consequences will surely apply. In seeking to impose equality the government is attacking liberty, and fracturing fraternity/ community. The very policies they see as enhancing social cohesion and building social capital are leading to even lower levels of trust and fragmentation.

Research documents on community life in Preston in 2007

This is just a selection of web resources about community life in Preston... useful for anyone wanting to understand the local social and economic context.


Most of my own research stuff about Preston is at or linked to
http://www.arts.manchester.ac.uk/cit/preston/

or http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/bridgebuilderpreston/index.htm

PSP Quality of Life Survey

In 2005, the PSP commissioned MORI to carry out a Preston wide Quality of Life survey. This included over 1,500 face to face in home interviews with people from across all 22 wards in the City during winter 2005. http://www.prestonstrategicpartnership.org.uk/News.asp?id=SX9B6B-A77F56C9

Community Mapping Report 2003 \t http://www.avencentral.org.uk/aven_central_area.php
The Community Mapping Report identifies all community facilities that are situated in the AvenCentral area.
The report lists community facilities by neighbourhood and contains information regarding staffing, the premises and what activities are available at the centres, is available online by clicking the following link. Note that you will need Adobe Reader to view this file:
Community Mapping Report - PDF Format 323Kb

You also need to know about Neighbourhood Management
see
http://www.prestonstrategicpartnership.org.uk/Category.asp?cat=797

and the wider development context and issues around unitary authorities.. see
http://www.preston.gov.uk/news/News.asp?id=SX9452-A780A140

and the central Lancs. city consultation
http://www.centrallancscity.org.uk


a lot of the crime stuff is covered at
http://www.saferlancashire.co.uk/local_areas/preston/


For a zany idea in public art!!!!! look at
http://www.flocktothecity.com/


and for what the Vision Board is plotting
Please have a look at SAVE THE RIBBLE http://save-the-ribble.blogspot.com/

More on anti discrimination and sin

David Barratt wrote in response on the socrel list

I don't think anyone suggested the obvious solution to the Christian B&B owner in the Lake District: put twin beds in the bedrooms rather than double beds. That way he'd be giving the opportunity to two straight men, or two straight women, to share a twin room to save money, as probably most of us have done over the years -- or would he quiz them as to their sexual orientation as they stood on his doorstep? (I wonder whether he asks every male-and-female couple whether they are married before allowing them upstairs?) But if he provided twin beds he would be providing both homosexuals and the unmarried with the option of not sinning, surely a thoroughly blessèd thing for him to do.... :-)

To which I responded

Good point David...... you have actually highlighted the point that some evangelical theologians have often made in the past that it is not orientation or sexuality / identity that is the issue it is the behaviour and even as Jesus would have it in the sermon on the mount even the inner heart attitude that is the problem...

It's not that long ago in our culture in situations of poverty that it was commonplace for people of the same sex to share a room and/or a double bed without any suggestion that they were doing anything other than sleeping.

It should be easy enough to understand that it needs neither a double bed, or any bed for any of us to sin in the area of sexual practices... My theology (and experience) would suggest sin is all too possible even for a married couple or a celibate heterosexual. The Christian doctrine of total depravity/ original sin makes it clear that we are all "living in sin" and every aspect of life needs divine grace, redemption and transformation which is not fully achievable this side of heaven.

So if the hotel owner wants to impose morality or holiness on his guests he needs to have a much more rigourous "thought police" approach.

To be fair though I suppose what he is really objecting to is that gay couples who are "out" are acting in a way which he finds offensive to his sense of morality (and of course by denying them a room he is being offensive in return.

But there is the issue that if a hotel or a conference centre is specifically promoted as "christian" there is an implicit assumption of a set of traditional norms that customers will stick to... and the safety of those norms is actually a selling point to potential customers from within the Christian community. Such norms also often include restrictive behaviours around alcohol, drugs, gambling and what activities are permitted on Sunday. And presumably there are Muslim and Hindu conference centres which also cater for a parallel niche market and have their own norms and house rules (dietary, worship and prayer times etc.)

So the difficult question remains as to whether the law should allow a religious community to run institutions of hospitality which are not genuinely open to the public as hotels?

Are You a Humanist?

A Recent Email I received said this

Subject: BHA Job Opportunity: Campaigns Officer
Campaigns Officer
British Humanist Association, London WC1
Permanent full time post, salary in the range £21,000 - £23,000

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the national organisation supporting and representing the non-religious. Our campaigning work is based on our commitment to human rights, democracy, equality, and mutual respect and we work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech, and for an end to the privileged position of religion in law, education, broadcasting and wherever else it occurs. In recent years the profile of issues to do with religion and belief, equality and human rights has increased and so has the volume of campaigning work we take on. The BHA is now seeking to employ an additional member of staff to work in this area.

You will need to have excellent oral and written communication skills excellent communication, administration and IT skills, and be able to produce press releases, research papers, briefings, and submissions to Government or other external political audiences.

I couldn't resist a comment so I wrote and posted to various lists thus

Interesting job advertised here

But does the title / subject line mean that as a Christian I am not encouraged to apply for this post.. Does the law on religious discrimination allow Muslims, Christians and Hindus to be excluded from consideration? Should it?

It would be really ironic if indeed the BHA campaigning work is based on our commitment to human rights, democracy, equality, and mutual respect and we work for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech,

And there were several responses which I distilled and recirculated

Readers of these lists probably realised I wanted to stir a debate... and of course I wouldn't really want to apply for the job with the BHA. I've had several responses from various quarters and the whole issue demands a more considered response.

My question I believe raises an interesting policy issue... both in terms of the law and the practice of Voluntary and Religious organisations.


The reply that came from Ray Thomas who had posted the ad was clear and fair enough

No-one is barred. But I imagine that the BHA would assume that applicants had read the job description and would show in their application that they had read it.....If you do subscribe to these values, you have until 5 February to get in an application for this modestly paid job.

Mike Reddin then asked me

If I were resolutely committed to blocking off the Ribble and turning it into a 6 lane motorway would you accept my application for a post as Publicity Officer for 'Save The Ribble'?

It's an interesting point to debate whether Save the Ribble could employ an anti-environementalist but the whole profession of the law is based on the idea you can employ a barrister who doesn't believe in your case...to say nothing of the case of the PR person or professional spin doctor..

Both comments raise a philosophical issue for any value driven organisation (be it religious, anti-religious, political or charitable. Does a person need to be a "Believer" in order to work (in a paid or unpaid capacity) to promote the cause? The short answer of course is "not necessarily" although it sure helps in terms of extra commitment, job satisfaction and integrity of conscience and public perception.

The problem with the original ad is the subject line of the email which implicitly excludes this possibility... and in some ways is to be lauded for its up front honesty..which I know is not always the case for religious organisations advertising posts or seeking funding...

There is a policy issue at stake in terms of the current law.

As Graham Bowpitt wrote

My understanding of the law is that believers cannot be prevented from applying (for the humanist post) because there is nothing in the nature of the post that would render them incapable of performing its duties.

and David Voas helpfully spelled it out thus

Under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion or beliefs.

The job specification for this post says that candidates must have 'Humanist beliefs, or an empathy with humanism sufficient to explain and promote humanism, humanist policies, and the aims of the BHA.' I doubt that (as a Christian believer) you'd be a good candidate, but if you felt comfortable promoting the non-religious agenda of the BHA then you're not excluded.

Note that 'employers with an ethos based on a religion or belief' can specify their religion as a job requirement even if it isn't actually necessary to do the work.

In that respect the BHA, the National Secular Society and other campaigning non-religious groups suffer from unequal protection under the law: they could only require job candidates to be non-religious if it's a 'genuine occupational requirement'. Your church, by contrast, could legally refuse to hire a cleaner who didn't share your beliefs.

And Helen Meads gave an example : When Friends (Quakers) advertised for a new Recording Clerk (equivalent to a charity CEO) exemption from the relevant discrimination legislation was obtained on the grounds that one had to understand Quakerism from within in order to be able to do the job.

As I read it then the BHA are within their rights to claim the exemption and specify that candidates shared secular humanist beliefs.. But the irony in that is that they would be admitting that they held a belief system that was in some sense a religious world view... yet if they barred anyone because they held a supernatural world view they would be contracting their values about equality etc... So it is necessary to rely on something more implicit.. the commonsense assumption that potential candidates will have at least an affinity towards the BHA set of beliefs and values..

Yet if a Christian or Muslim organisation advertised a post in, say youth or community work (especially if it had any element of public funding), under the heading "are you a committed Christian/Muslim ?" I suspect the secular fundamentalists would be the first to cry foul and bring a test case under anti-discrimination law. True, they might be a bit more tolerant if the post was that of "preacher" and all the salary came out of the pockets of the congregation. And I can see there is a valid distinction there, although there are many cases in real life where it is hard to draw clear boundaries between religious and social activity.

David Voas also added:As the demonstrations last week illustrate, some religious groups in the UK are far from happy with moves to promote equality, mutual respect and an open and inclusive society where attributes like homosexuality are concerned.

Obviously this is the case and in my view it is unfortunate in that it shows a desire to control and dominate others in terms of the beliefs, values and behaviours that are allowed rather than the grace and tolerance which are central to my understanding and practice of Christianity in face of the question "what would Jesus do?".

I understand of that homosexual practices are condemned in the Bible and Christian tradition, (together with many other sins from unbelief in God to murder, to coveting your neighbours ox most of which, in the light of the sermon on the mount, we are all in our hearts guilty. There is of course a Christian response in terms of grace and forgiveness available through trust in Christ's death...which is mumbo jumbo to the BHA yet life transforming to many of us.).

I am in sympathy myself with Malcolm Duncan of Faithworks (an ulster pentecostal by origin) who has critiqued the approach of Anglican Mainstream and other non anglican conservative evangelicals who are livid about the gay rights issue..and anti discrimination law currently before Parliament.. http://www.faithworks.info/SubSection.asp?id=7305


Theres also a bit more of news and my views in this area on my blog http://gregsnewblogcredo.blogspot.com/2006/10/christians-inciting-hatred.html

In short my view is that, while I understand that many Christians have a conscientious objection to personally promoting or condoning homosexual activity I don't think they have a right or duty or responsibility to demand these standards of others, let alone to discriminate in the provision of services (or the offer of jobs). I sympathise with their dilemma but believe they should spend their time doing more constructive things that reflect and faithfully follow their beliefs and values, such as living in loving, faithful, monogamous marriage, graciously promoting the faith, and following Christ's teaching and example of caring for the poor, healing the sick and liberating the oppressed.

In terms of policy and practice I think there is much common ground between me and the BHA... Maybe we should simply recognise and allow communities and organisations to operate on the basis of affinity, shared values or constructed identity and be honest about it rather than imposing legal requirements.

Yet if we hadn't got anti-discrimination law we might return to the days of signs saying "no coloureds, no Irish". The hope expressed in the first Race Relations act was that it would be educative..The best law indeed is the one that is so widely accepted it is never broken and never comes to court.

I'd love to hear other people's reaction to these musings...

New published paper based on an old piece of work

[FIR 1.3 (2005) 291-311] Fieldwork in Religion (print) ISSN 1743-0615
Fieldwork in Religion (online) ISSN 1743-0623

Greg Smith

Religious Identities, Social Networks and the Power of Information:

Fieldwork Issues in Mapping Religious Diversity in London

If you'd like a pdf copy please email me at greg@maister-smith.fsnet.co.uk

More Photos from the Lake District: January 2007

Mainly Derwentwater at Keswick, the Honister Pass and Crummock water

Riverworks Preston

The debate about the plans to "regenerate" our local river have surfaced again with last nights front page story in the Lancashire Evening Post see http://www.prestontoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=73&ArticleID=1953277

The story and editorial comment is not that bad and will help provoke much needed debate: But I'm a signed up supporter of SAVE THE RIBBLE and their blog is great http://save-the-ribble.blogspot.com/

My Letter to The lancashire evening post:

Dear Sir

I appreciated the fairness of you leader article of 3rd January although I felt the news coverage in the same issue relied over much on the viewpoints, language and press releases of Mike Brogan and the Preston Vision Board. Ever since I first heard of the Riverworks Project I (as a riverside resident) have been convinced of two things : Firstly that any barrage or weir that destroys the flowing stream and the tidal nature of the Ribble would be an environmental disaster, especially for the precious wildlife living there. Secondly that destroying the greenbelt on the Penwortham side by the injudicious building of housing on the floodplain would rob us of one of the greatest attractions of our neighbourhood. Open country so close to our city is probably the greatest environmental asset we have (and my dog and hundred's of others agree!).

There may well be a number of good ideas for useful urban regeneration to be found elsewwhere in the Riverworks report. We could certainly make more of the River Corridor, Canal and Docks in economically beneficial and environmentally sensitive ways. How about for example developing the docks rail corridor into a tram system with a huge new park and ride at the western edge of the city and a wall across the Blackpool Road to keep out unwanted polluting traffic from the Fylde?

However, it is hard to judge the value of the proposals since until now the report appears to have been treated as a top secret document. It seems to me the unelected Vision Board who most probably represent big business, and well paid planning consultants and senior council officers much more than local residents, have shot themeslves in the foot by denying us the chance for proper consultation at an early stage. They may not wish "to raise false hopes or fears" over a pre-feasility study, but they have achieved just that in a remarkable way by their cowardly secrecy. An early consultation would make it clear from the outset what the public will or will not stomach. It would probably knock on the head any crazy ideas such as a barrage, without the need to waste further public money on investigating the idea. And it might generate a number of exciting and more feasible suggestions for improvement from the people who know the neighbourhood far better than any of the external consultants.

At least some of our local councillors, claim that they have not yet sold out to the Vision Board's ideas and are engaging in the debate. I am no fan of New Labour either at the national or local level, but it is to the credit of the local members for Riversway ward that they have invited residents to contribute, in a fairly open ended way to a consultation exercise covering at least a part of the Riverworks proposal. It is to be hoped that many local people will make their views heard, that the council will listen carefully and respond to the good sense of the majority of local people who oppose much of the scheme.

The Bible tells us that "without a vision the people perish". I fear that the with the mistaken and blurred vision of the Vision Board it will be Preston's people who suffer, and the river Ribble that will die.

Liverpool in Winter Sun

Liverpool has long been an iconic city, now nominated European City of Culture and in the winter sunset light of December 30th 2006 (for five minutes at the end of a gruesome wet grey day) looked magnificent.

How should one react to Liverpool... ? I honestly don't know if I love it or hate it... But at least I enjoyed taking the photos..

The city that ran the Slave Trade when 2007 marks the bicentenary of abolition (for Christian response see http://www.setallfree.net/index.html)

The regenerated docks with the galleries, museums and cafes now a rather pleasant tourist attraction. http://www.albertdock.com/

The city of the Beatles and "Ferry Cross the Mersey"

Mersey Ferries - Home of the world famous Ferry Across The Mersey
Operates in the River Mersey, will take you on a journey past all the fascinating waterfront of Liverpool and Wirral, also available to hire privately for

Ferry 'Cross The Mersey
Fan site for Gerry and the Pacemakers includes news, discography, history, filmography, and

A city of two cathedrals, once strongly divided between orange and green... less so since the work of Bishops Sheppard and Worlock see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1260179.stm

And two football clubs The Reds http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/ and the Blues http://www.evertonfc.com/index.php both of whom regularly beat my team http://www.whufc.com/index.php

But it's also the city of the "Toxteth Riots" of 1981... of the Miltant struggles of the 1980s and of continuing poverty and deprivation... Lots of interesting research reports on

http://www.liverpool.ac.uk/University/arts_ses/civdes/msio/