Category — Christianity

I am in the middle of prepare=ing to chair a meeting in Welwyn Garden City this evening on the theme of Faith in Government. The speakers will be the Rt Revd Christopher Herbert, Bishop of St Albans, Stephen Timms MP, Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform at the Department for Work and Pensions, Alistair Burt MP, Assistant Chief Whip and Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party. Stephen Timms, who describes himself as a Christian Socialist, is Labour Party Vice Chair for Faith Groups. Alistair Burt describes himself as an active Christian.

The meeting, which has been organized by the Welwyn Hatfield Inter Faith Group aims to tease out a better understanding of how faith perspectives are brought to bear on parliamentary and central government affairs.

The three panel members are all parliamentarians and all Christians. I will be the only non-Christian on the panel and, as chair, I will endeavour to ensure that non-Christian voices and viewpoints are heard. I will also have an opportunity to ensure that my viewpoint as a Baha’i is part of the mix. It’s a pity that there won’t be a Humanist or other secularist on the panel - there’s a very interesting debate going on in the UK about whether religion should have a role in public life at all.

I am really looking forward to the evening. There are so many fascinating questions to be discussed and I hope that the questions and comments from the audience will give the speakers a good opportunity to address topical issues such as:

• religion and sexual orientation
• prohibition of religious symbols
• abortion
• religious education
• mental health legislation
• the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
• the position of religious minorities in UK public life

More on this tomorrow.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Christian, inter-faith, Welwyn Hatfield, public life, parliament, government

British young people seem intent on drinking themselves and British society in a complete stupor. Our government believed that it could change the traditional British drinking culture of knocking back the booze until you fall over into a continental-style café culture of allegedly civilized drinking by allowing pubs and clubs to obtain licences to sell alcohol 24 hours a day.

This would, the story went, help regenerate run-down city centres into civilized piazzas with restaurants and bars and cafes frequented by well-heeled patrons eating and drinking moderately and enjoying their evenings out.

But the drinks industry, a monstrous beast whose main aim is to sky-rocket its profits, which it can do by selling vast quantities of cheap beer, wine, alcopops and spirits to 18-24 year olds, helped subvert the government’s café-culture dream world and turned it into a booze-filled nightmare of over-consumption and violence.

Of course, the drinks industry was swimming with a fast-flowing tide. A generation which was raised with a belief in its unlimited entitlement to whatever it wanted whenever it wanted it and which is the inheritor of a very long British history of binge-drinking (stand up and pour it down your neck until you fall over) was unlikely to resist the blandishments of the “happy hour” and cheap hooch. It was definitely not going to learn to sit for hours with its little finger crooked over a small white wine when it could blast its brains out 24-hours a day with high-alcohol-content drinks that tasted like lemonade.

in denial

Whose fault is this? The government’s? Well, I am sure that anyone with any brains left over after a stimulating night out could have told them the likely outcome of their strange fantasy about Britain becoming like an ad man’s version of France. According to Reuters, the government is in denial:

Despite violent crime between the hours of 3 and 6 a.m. rising by more than a quarter, the government will say the total amount of alcohol-related offences has fallen by three percent, the Daily Mail reported.

But Sir Simon Milton, the chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA) and leader of Westminster council, has labelled the new laws a “mistake”.

Is the fault of the drinks industry - manufacturers, pubs, clubs and retailers? Who’s going to turn down the opportunity of lots of lovely moolah when the government gives you such a legislative present?

What about local authorities? Shouldn’t they have exerted more control? Or the drinkers? Shouldn’t they have exercised more self-discipline?

There are plenty of people to blame for turning our city centres into weekend battlegrounds. And, what do you know? Everyone is passing the blame onto everyone else.

Anyway, we can be happy in the knowledge that 24-hour drinking will continue. The government has no intention of changing those laws. Instead, it will punish retailers who sell to underage drinkers and put out adverts warning of the dangers of excessive drinking. So that’s all right then.

But a combination of a “two strikes and you’re out” policy for retailers and public health messages for the drinkers really seems to miss the hard core of the problem. Yes, retailers should make sure they keep within the law, and, yes, public health messages make us all feel better – even if they don’t change our behaviour. But the root of this particular complex of problems lies in a moral crisis and a cultural narrative that says that getting ratted = having fun.

a fundamental moral crisis

According to Udo Schaeffer (in Baha’i Ethics in Light of Scripture: An Introduction)

We are facing a fundamental crisis of morals with far-reaching impact on the stability of the body politic. (p. 101)

What is the cause of this process and where it is leading us? In my view, the crisis of morality is a consequence of the crisis of religion. (p. 103)

The crisis of the Christian faith is closely connected with the the crisis of morality. Norms and moral values are of an axiomatic nature and cannot be proved exclusively by reason. They are linked to convictions, to faith. One must believe in them. Religion has been able to create a system of transcendent values and ideals, to sustain a hierarchy of values, declaring some of them to be absolute and universal, others to be relative and particular. (p. 105)

In the absence of a strong religious foundation for ethics and people’s ethical commitment, we try to rely on reason to derive our ethical principles. But the rational justification of morals fails precisely because there is no guarantee that everyone will be convinced by any given reason for a particular norm, no matter how cogent; there is no longer any “public, shared rationale or justification” for morality, as Alistair MacIntyre states in After Virtue

This means that there are no unconditional duties and no universally binding norms. Each one of us becomes the judge of our own morality and the arbiter of social order.

When these notions are detached from human self-responsibility and from the commitment to the common weal, they become nothing more than expressions of egoism and selfishness. (Schaeffer, Baha’i Ethics, p. 107)

Zygmunt Bauman points up the conclusion of this relativisation of value:

In the plural and pluralistic world of post-modernity, every form of life is permitted in principle, or, rather, no agreed principles are evident which may render any form of life impermissible. (”Strangers: The Social Construction of Universality and Particularity.” Telos, no. 78, pp. 7-42.)

Says Schaeffer:

Society cannot survive once its members have lost the ability to share and sacrifice, once everyone emphasizes only his own rights and strives to serve only his own interests, once the highest aim in life is “fun”, once society is governed by hedonism and egoism…. The cultural crisis of the West … has developed into a global crisis of human civilization, one which gravely endangers the survival of mankind. (p. 108)

This is what Shoghi Effendi, Guardian of the Baha’i Faith wrote in in 1936 in one of his extraordinarily far-sighted World Order letters:

No wonder, therefore, that when, as a result of human perversity, the light of religion is quenched in men’s hearts, and the divinely appointed Robe, designed to adorn the human temple, is deliberately discarded, a deplorable decline in the fortunes of humanity immediately sets in, bringing in its wake all the evils which a wayward soul is capable of revealing. The perversion of human nature, the degradation of human conduct, the corruption and dissolution of human institutions, reveal themselves, under such circumstances, in their worst and most revolting aspects. Human character is debased, confidence is shaken, the nerves of discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled, the sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very feeling of peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished. (Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha’u'llah, p .187)

Future perfecting

This would be a downbeat note on which to end this post. However, I believe that a new, religiously and spiritually founded morality is possible. Well, more than possible, it actually exists in the sacred Writings of Baha’u'llah, embodied (in embryonic form) in the life of the Baha’i community. As Baha’u'llah writes:

The purpose of the one true God in manifesting Himself is to summon all mankind to truthfulness and sincerity, to piety and trustworthiness, to resignation and submissiveness to the Will of God, to forbearance and kindliness, to uprightness and wisdom. His object is to array every man with the mantle of a saintly character, and to adorn him with the ornament of holy and goodly deeds. (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u'llah, p. 299)

The alcoholic crisis of our city centres will never be solved by partial fixes to the licensing laws, nor, indeed, by a return to the status quo ante. No amount of policing is going to stop what is in fact a symptom of a deep spiritual and moral crisis. Nothing short of a renewal of a genuine and well-founded faith-based moral orientation is going to do the trick.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, alcohol, 24-hour drinking, licensing laws, morals, ethics, spirituality, Christianity

The Dean’s Yard, Westminster Abbey © Mirsasha under a Creative Commons licence.

I should start by saying I’d intended to post this some days ago, but found myself overtaken by pressure of work.

On 14th February the Faith Communities Forum (which is part of the Inter Faith Network for the UK) met in Church House at the invitation of the Bishop of Bradford and the General Synod of the Church of England.

© Greycap under a Creative Commons licence.

After learning about the complex arrangements for the governance of the Church of England, those present at the FCCC meeting (a Baha’i, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, a Jain, a Jew, Muslims, a Sikh, and a Zoroastrian) trooped up into the gallery of the Assembly Hall in Church House to attend a session of the General Synod of the Church of England.

(Synod = an assembly of the clergy and sometimes also the laity in a diocese or other division of a particular church. ORIGIN late Middle English : via late Latin from Greek sunodos “meeting”, from sun- “together” + hodos “way”.)

Simply put, the Synod is the Church of England’s deliberative body, made up of three “houses”, the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity. Some of its debates are about internal Church affairs, but some are about public issues, and today - after the Archbishop of Canterbury had made speeches bidding farewell to two retiring bishops - we were able to listen to a debate about detention without trial and our government’s proposal to extend the current 28-day limit for detention without trial in cases of people suspected of committing or preparing to commit acts of terrorism to 42 days.

The Church’s style of decision-making is a considerable contrast to what Baha’is are used to. “Baha’i consultation” is a much more informal process. There are no formal speeches for and against the motion, no proposition and opposition. There may be a paper setting out such facts as are known and the issues that need decision; or the setting out of facts and issues could be done by one or more individuals. Everyone is free to speak to the matter under consultation, adding further facts and information and voicing their opinions. Members of the consultative body are free to speak without having to give advance notice; all they need to do is to indicate to the chair of the meeting that they wish to speak and take their turns when given permission.

When it works well, Baha’i consultation is a creative and exciting process. There comes a time when it feels as if a decision has emerged from the exchange of views. A good chair will be able to articulate what she/he thinks the decision is and members of the consultative body can help fine-tune the decision. Consensus is the ideal, but failing consensus a show of hands will identify the majority position. Once the decision has been made, all those who took part in the consultation are committed to it, whether they voted for or against.

Unlike an adversarial decision-making process (such as a debate), there’s no stacking up of votes, no attempt to persuade people to take one position or another. Those consulting set out the truth as they understand it. Others listen carefully; they may or may not be persuaded by what is said, but the decision (whether by consensus or by vote) is a matter of conscience, not of loyalty to a party or a position.

Of course, Baha’i consultation works well only when those involved are not trying to push through some agenda. Their interest has to be the good of humanity. However, done with self-seeking motives or in bad faith, Baha’i consultation can be a painfully negative, even destructive, experience. It absolutely depends on the personal virtues of those who consult.

The Church of England’s General Synod is a quasi-parliamentary body with 467 members and clearly cannot use an informal process such as the Baha’i community (whose elected consultative bodies generally have nine members) uses. However, it is clearly not a nimble body. It can take years before a decision may be finally confirmed - and if the decision is a “Measure”, it will have to go to a parliamentary committee for approval and submission to the Queen for Royal Assent.

I am fascinated by the way organizations govern themselves. The structure of the Church of England’s governance is complex - even those involved can find it difficult to understand. The structure of the Baha’i community’s governance is relatively simple and has a clear logic and is bound together by Covenant. Of course, as the Baha’i community grows, its system of governance is becoming more elaborate, but the principles that underpin it are those given in the Baha’i Sacred Texts.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Church of England, Christianity, government, governance, synod, Church House, Inter Faith Network, faith communities

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

I spent a lovely couple of hours yesterday afternoon at the Sion Centre for Dialogue and Enounter just north of Notting Hill Gate in London. I’d been asked to speak to the monthly dialogue group that meets at the Sion Centre about how the Baha’i scriptures have influenced my life.

The group included some Sisters of Sion, who are truly delightful and spiritual, with warm hearts and open minds. It also included some who had been educated at schools run by the order, as well as others, mostly Catholic and one Jewish friend.

The subject was a challenging one, not because it is controversial or “difficult” in any way, but because there is just so much that I could have said in the relatively short time available. I’m afraid I made it all too abstract in the first part of the meeting. I read passages from the Writings of Baha’u'llah and told some of the story of Baha’u'llah’s life. I emphasized the individual spiritual life. But I made it too “out there”, too distanced, I think.

What the group wanted was the story of my spiritual journey and how the Baha’i scriptures had influenced that. So, in the second half of the meeting (after chatting and answering questions over a cup of tea) I spoke about my spiritual journey and answered all sorts of interesting (and interested) questions about different aspects of the Baha’i Faith.

A number of people had heard of the Faith or had Baha’i connections. In fact, the way I had been identified as a possible speaker for this meeting illustrates some of the curious links that our lives are full of. One of the Sisters, Tessa, has a sister who is a Baha’i. Tessa’s sister had served for four years at the Baha’i World Centre, working with Carolyn Wade in the Finance Office. Carolyn is a long-standing friend - we served together on the UK National Spiritual Assembly for several years and had known each other for quite a time before that. Anyway, Tessa asked her sister to suggest a Baha’i in the UK who might be invited to speak. Tessa’s sister had asked Carolyn, and Carolyn had suggested this humble servant.

The meeting was warm-hearted and generous in receiving what I was able to offer them. They were open to genuine dialogue and learning. This was rather a different experience from my recent participation in a studio discussion on Premier Christian Radio. (I may write about this at some point.)

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Sisters of Sion, interfaith dialogue, scriptures, spirituality

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Ahmadinejad meets Christian leaders in New York. Photo ©New York Times

According to this story in the New York Times, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held

a friendly, even warm, exchange yesterday with Christian leaders from the United States and Canada convinced that dialogue is the only way to prevent war.

The meeting on 26 September was organized by the Mennonites and the Quakers and took place in the Church Center for the United Nations. Questioners included a Quaker, a Catholic, an Anglican, a Baptist and a representative of the interfaith World Council of Churches. About 140 other religious leaders also attended, but no Jewish leader would agree to take part.

As the NYT reported:

“My heart was broken that there was so little support from other religions to be here,” said Mary Ellen McNish, general secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group that helped sponsor the event. “If we don’t walk down this path of dialogue, we’re going to end up in conflagration.

However, one faith group couldn’t take part in the meeting. The Baha’is had been invited to the prior meetings, according to the NYT, but the Iranians had refused to attend if the Baha’is were there.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Ahmadinejad, Iran, Christians, dialogue

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

La Mequita Mosque, Cordoba, Spain. Photo ©Steven J Dunlop

Just as the UN Human Rights Council is reconsidering the mandate for Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and with just over a week to go before Britain’s new Commission for Equality and Human Rights opens its doors for business, it seems that some people’s religious freedom is under threat from extremist groups in the UK.

Unholy War, Monday night’s programme in Channel 4’s Dispatches strand claimed that there may be as many as 3,000 people in Britain who have converted from Islam to Christianity. According to reporter Antony Barnett, many of these converts are living in fear, facing reprisals, violence and even death threats from members of their own former communities.

Barnett talked to a number of former Muslims who had converted to Christianity, including one family had been driven from their home in Bradford by violence and intimidation from groups of young Muslim men. Others worshipped in a church which supports converts from Islam to Christianity but whose whereabouts it was too dangerous to reveal. One church in Bradford where former Muslims had worshipped openly had, Barnett reported, been subject to concerted and systematic vandalism - windows repeatedly broken, threatening graffiti painted on the walls, congregants’ car windows bricked, and would-be worshippers intimidated by mobs of young Muslim men. One threat had even said that the church would be bombed, 9/11-style.

Some Islamic texts and traditions teach that apostates from Islam should be killed. In a number of Islamic states, apostasy is a death-penalty offence (as is the case, for example, in Iran - a threat that hangs over the heads of the Baha’is there). However, British laws, notably the Human Rights Act, unequivocally uphold freedom of religion and belief in line with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So how is it that extremists are allowed to try to deny this freedom, one of the universal human rights, to those who wish to cease being Muslims?

Michael Nazir-Ali, Anglican Bishop of Rochester (whose father converted from Islam to Christianity in Pakistan), called on Muslim religious leaders to condemn these threats and attacks. One Muslim leader, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra, Chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, did make an unequivocal statement on camera during the programme, condemning any attempts to harm or threaten people who had converted from Islam to Christianity or any other religion or who had forsaken religion altogether.

All of this makes a sad contrast with Cordoba (Qúrtuba) in the 10th and 11th centuries C.E. in this paper by Boris Handal. Handal writes:

In current days when religious fundamentalism makes people sceptical about the purpose of religion, it is encouraging to look back at times in history where various faiths came together and lived in peace. Cordova, the seat of the great caliphate (929-1031 CE)[1], was one of these cases becoming the embodiment of a tolerant Islam embracing Muslims, Christians and Jews alike. During its golden age sciences, humanities, arts, commerce and industry flourished due to the collective contribution of these three congregations. The inspiration for such development was certainly drawn from those verses of the Qur’án emphasising acceptance and tolerance. On exploring these issues, this paper also reviews the ominous situation of the Bahá’ís of Iran who have been persecuted on a religious basis for the past hundred and sixty years.

In her report to the Sixth Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, affirms that freedom to change one’s religion is part and parcel of the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice. In doing so, she cites general comment No. 22 by the Human Rights Committee (the body that monitors adherence to the various human rights conventions):

the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief.

The Special Rapporteur states that violations and limitations of the freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief are unacceptable and still occur too often. She identifies four broad types of situations in which this occurs. These include:

Situations, where members of majority religious groups seek to convert or reconvert members of religious minorities by violent means, including cases where believers attack members of minority religious groups or their places of worship with the aim of converting them;

Now, this is not exactly the case in the north of England, where conversions are from a minority religion to a nominally majority religion. However, in the places where these attacks and threats are taking place, Muslims may well be in a majority or close to a majority. It is worth noting that Ms Jahangir expresses concern in her report about the vulnerability of those in places of worship to physical attacks and of groups such as women, children, minorities and refugees. She calls on States to ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion to all without distinction and that effective remedies are in place for cases in which the right is violated.

Ms Jahangir recommends positive action to prevent violations of this important freedom. Education, inter- and intra-religious dialogue, meetings and exchanges, particularly by children and teachers from different faiths, would all contribute to developing tolerance and respect for pluralism.

Would this do the trick for converts who are suffering the abuses highlighted by Unholy War? Not in the short run, for sure. In the long run the actions Ms Jahangir recommends are essential. But they could never be sufficient by themselves. What is needed, it seems to me, is the kind of spiritual transformation (within one’s existing faith or belief or by conversion to another one) that leads one to “call none a stranger; think none a foe” and to be “as if all men [and women] were your close kin and honoured friends.” [From the writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha]

Technorati Tags: religion, faith, religious freedom, Islam, Christianity, Baha’i, Bahai, conversion, transformation, spirituality

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

A poll reported in yesterday’s Guardian newspaper claims that most people in Britain think religion does more harm than good.

The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of thosequestioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

The Guardian report continues:

Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as “a religious person”. A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian.

Older people and women are the most likely to believe in a god, with 37% of women saying they are religious, compared with 29% of men.

The faith communities in the UK have been living off the 2001 Census figures, in which some 72% of people in England and Wales claimed to consider themselves Christians. The secularists have been claiming for ages that the Census figures do not record any kind of reality other than the default position of many when faced with a form that asks what their religion is: “Church of England“. Now this poll adds fuel to their particular fire, which is that the religions have unjustly gained a privileged position in British society and that they, the secularists, are unjustly kept away from the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party of the government’s consultations with faith community representatives.

I suspect that this poll highlights a problem with polls: the answers they get depend on the wording of the questions they ask. Many years ago I took a course on social surveys as part of my sociology degree; one of the things we learned was that it is extremely difficult to ask questions that do not presuppose a particular answer.

Of course, the Census faces exactly the same problem and the religious question in the 2001 England and Wales Census was badly constructed.

Religion and faith are complex matters. Those who do not habitually think about faith and religion may assume that someone asking them about their faith wants to know what religion they belong to, what place of worship they attend. But formal attendance at a place of worship does not necessarily define one’s beliefs. People may have spiritual beliefs without belonging to any formal religious group; likewise people may formally belong to one or other religious group without believing what that group formally believes.

A final point: humanists and secularists are given to implying that their organizations “represent” those who do not have any particular religion or who do not consider themselves “religious”. This is an invalid claim. People who do not have any particular belief or religious affiliation may not, because of that, consider themselves to be actively atheist or secularist. Religion, faith, belief may just not be part of their lives. It’s a “non thing” for them; it does not imply an active commitment to what the humanists and secularists themselves believe.

Blogged with Flock

Technorati Tags: religion, non-believers, Christian, Christians, secularists, Church of England, humanists, atheist

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

It’s difficult to keep up with the coverage of the Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court’s judgement against the Baha’is. Here are some links to a few of the news media and blogs that have covered or commented on the story:

Al Jazeera English
…Or Does It Explode?
arabawy
Spero News
Dhimmi Watch

There’s loads more in the mainstream media as well. A search for “Baha’i” on Google News will trawl you up plenty of stories.

If you want to understand why this adverse judgement is so serious and threatening for the Baha’i community in Egypt, you really have to read this post on Bilo’s excellent blog. Bilo gives one of the clearest expositions of the central facts and issues surrounding the ID card case and shows what the implications are. He has also provided a translation of the application form for the ID card.

As things stand, if you are a citizen of Egypt you have to be (or call yourself) a follower of one of the “recognized” religions: Islam, Christianity or Judaism. It is utterly against Baha’i principle to lie about one’s religion. In the last 160 years or so, thousands of Baha’is in Iran gave up their lives rather than deny their faith. As Bilo points out:

Egyptian Baha’is must have in hand the new National ID Card before the deadline of 31 December 2006, on which all Egyptian citizens must carry the new ID Card at all times. The application form requires the applicant to state his or her religion. It also requires the applicant to declare “that all details in this application are correct and real; I accept responsibility for consequences, with the full knowledge that providing any incorrect information in this application is considered forgery of official documents and is legally punishable according to the articles of the penal code”. This, of course, places the Baha

Technorati Tags: Egypt, Baha’is, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Iran

Further to my earlier post on winter festivals, a friend who lives in Thailand has emailed:

I see you talked on your blog about the growing PC concern about not having religious holiday Z because it might offend religionists X. From a Thai point of view this is quite strange as we try to maximize the number of holidays and celebrations that we celebrate. So most Thais are Buddhist, but we still have Christmas (with carol singers in the department stores), the Western and Chinese new years in addition to the Thai one, and Haloween is now becoming popular.

Quite so! Let’s welcome a plurality of festivals and be less straight laced!

Technorati Tags: Thai, Buddhist, Christmas, carol singers, Chinese, new year

People in the UK are getting into a state about Christmas. And I don’t just mean about the shopping. No, sir (and, of course, madam), they are getting worked up because the politically correct have claimed that public celebration of this festival is offensive to “other communities”.

Who are these “other communities” who, allegedly, find Christmas offensive? In a word, Muslims.

Those who are getting into a state assert that Britain is a Christian with a Christian heritage stretching back more than a thousand years. Christmas, they say, is a Christian festival and we should be free to celebrate it openly, with those well-known Christian symbols, the turkey, the Christmas tree, Father Christmas, the yule log, mistletoe…

Oops, I seem to have gone off track there, straying into the pre-Christian mists of time in the midwinter darkness of the British Isles.

One of the world-renowned Neocrats has posted a thought-provoking reflection on what? On Saturnalia. Our friendly Neocrat points out that there is really no religious imperative to celebrate the Birth of Christ at this time of year, since we do not know when in the year Jesus was born. It seems very likely that the early Christians adopted the midwinter festivals that already existed as a suitable time to celebrate the birth of their religion’s Founder.

Now, this does not tell us whether Christmas is “really” a Christian festival. Most Christians mark it in some way or another, so by custom it has become a Christian festival, and it has a long history in Britain (with a notable gap during the Cromwell years, when the Puritans forbade the celebration of Christmas as pagan).

Nor does it tell us whether or not Muslims or those of other faiths really find it offensive. I heard commedian on the radio yesterday, who claimed to be a gay, atheist Hindu (?!), say that his family celebrated Christmas, not with turkey samosas but with the full gear: turkey, roast potatoes, veg (but not, he stressed, brussels sprouts - he was not psychiatrically deranged), etc.

What I hear on the street and in the corridors of powerlessness tells me that followers of non-Christian faiths do not, by and large, find the public celebration of Christmas offensive. Far from it. In fact, they are rather puzzled about the fuss. After all, more and more people celebrate Diwali in November, so why not Christmas in December? Each year I take part, with senior representatives of all the major faiths, in the Commonwealth Day Observance in Westminster Abbey. We process up the nave, Muslim and Jew, Hindu and Buddhist, Baha’i and Sikh, Roman Catholic and Salvationist, side by side, and the holy words of all the great faiths are heard in this iconic Christian house of worship.

Of course, most people who espouse no particular faith or who are what we might call “residual Christians” celebrate Christmas in a way that would seem to have more in common with the pre-Christian than with a religious festival.

Interestingly, numbers attending Christmas services in our great cathedrals are, apparently increasingly. Last year, so I heard on the radio, St Paul’s Cathedral in London had to turn people away.

I was brought up in the Church of England. Although I have been a Baha’i all my adult life, I still have a hankering at this time of year for Midnight Mass, the mystery, the processions, the carols, the myth of Christmas. I love our Baha’i holy days, most of which mark real and important events in the collective spiritual journey of humankind, but they haven’t yet embedded themselves in European culture and Baha’is in European countries don’t yet have the sense of sharing what they love with the majority of the population.

When we lived in the Shetland islands we celebrated another, completely non-religious, winter festival, Up Helly Aa. On the last Tuesday in January up to 1,000 “guizers” parade with burning torches through the Lerwick streets to sound of the town band. The parade culminates in the spectacular burning of a replica Viking longship, lovingly built over (and seaworthy, although it never goes to sea), as the guizers chuck their torches into the open boat.

Needless to say, the parade burning are not the end of the matter. All Lerwick’s public halls are open for parties that last until seven o’clock the next morning. The guizing squads visit each hall in turn, performing skits to entertain the party-goers. Vast quantities of alcohol are consumed, and the next day is a public holiday in Lerwick!

Anyway, my closing question is this: would anyone find the public celebration of non-religious winter festivals objectionable? Should we in the UK have an equivalent of Thanksgiving?

Technorati Tags: Christmas, festival, Muslims, Christian, Saturnalia, religious, Christ, Jesus, Puritans, pagan, Hindu, Diwali, Jew, Buddhist, Sikh, St Paul’s Cathedral, Church of England, Baha’i, spiritual, Shetland, Up Helly Aa