HL Deb 20 December 2004 vol 667 cc1625-48

7.49 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the international situation, what steps they are taking to support enlightened religious attitudes in the United Kingdom and overseas.

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, for some time, President Musharraf of Pakistan has been calling for policies of enlightened moderation, both within the Muslim world and in the response of the rest of the world to Islam. There is thus an element of reciprocity in his call. An example of that is the recent exchange between the European Union and Turkey. The EU and others have long been encouraging Turkey towards a greater respect for fundamental human freedoms, including religious freedom. Turkey's positive moves in that direction have enabled the beginning of talks on accession.

Reciprocity is not tit for tat. It is about the identification of common values, even if they have origins in different belief and cultural systems, for the sake of the peace and good will that is a seasonal theme at this time. For people of faith, it means a commitment to fundamental freedoms in every part of the world. It is because I have experience of difficulties in building churches in parts of the Muslim world that I support the rights of Muslims and others to places of worship in this country.

Enlightened religious attitudes raise the question of the relation of religion to the state. Religious ideas have often under-girded theories of state and of polity. Today, some still hold that a religion should have coercive power in the governance and law-making of a state. The polity, if not always the practice, of post-revolution Iran is based on that assumption, and is at the root of the inability of that country to move towards reform. Some years ago, I engaged in fruitful dialogue with the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Pakistan, Dr Nasim Hasan Shah. Dr Shah was quite clear that the role of an Islamic state was not coercive but persuasive. It should enable Muslims to be good Muslims, but no one should be compelled to act against their conscience.

Islam is not necessarily theocratic. In fact, those who have championed theocracy, like the Kharijites, have often found themselves on the margins. There have been important intermediate institutions in Islamic polity, such as the Caliphate itself, jurists, the courts of rulers and the Sufi orders. In addition, there are strong traditions of government by consent, both Islamic and customary. If President Musharraf's programme is to succeed, it is vital that civil society is strengthened and the voluntary sector is encouraged to contribute to policy-making, especially in the areas of welfare, human rights and legal reform.

That brings me to religion and law. This relationship, as the one between morals and law, is not a simple one. Religious ideas about the nature of the world, the dignity, freedom and stewardship of human beings, as well as the common good, often underlie moral attitudes and those, in turn, have influenced the development of law, even secular law. Three points need to be made. First, moral awareness is not limited to religious people. People of no faith may be morally more aware than those who belong to a faith but, secondly, religions have often articulated and formalised moral codes—such as the Ten Commandments—by which generations have ordered their lives. Thirdly, if law is to be effective, it must have moral and not merely coercive force, and must be able to appeal to moral tradition.

In the context of Islam, that means that the interpretations, codifications and implementation of the Sharia by the classical schools of law—the madha'ib—will have to be revisited. Muslims regard the Sharia as the way of God for them. Christians also see themselves as followers of the way. The question is whether their devotion to the way can be expressed in terms of law which takes account of particular circumstances and changes in human understanding about, for example, penal law. There is a long tradition in Islamic law of ijtihad—of jurists going to the sources of law and relating them to the present situation—and of Maslaha, which is the necessity of taking account of the common good. If enlightened moderation is to make its mark, Islamic jurists will need to apply those principles to urgent issues such as apostasy and blasphemy, the legal and social position of women and the status of religious minorities. I am glad that some of those are being addressed in Pakistan and look forward to further developments.

Both Christianity and Islam have traditions about the justifiability or not of armed conflict. As Christians consider afresh how "just war" theory may work in a world where there is terrorism and a host of unconventional wars, it is particularly important that the Islamic tradition of jihad is not hijacked by extremists. Jihad can certainly be understood spiritually or as a struggle against social injustice but, where it relates to armed conflict, it can be thought of as either an aggressive war against the infidel or a defensive war when Islam is seen to be in danger. In the past 200 years, most mainstream Islamic thought has understood it in the latter sense. Some urgent dialogue needs to take place between Muslims and Christians on when armed conflict might be justifiable. Any convergence on the issue would be a huge resource for the international community.

The ideologues of terrorism are not from the poor. They are from the technocrats and the new business "elite" but, of course, they use the poor. That is seen starkly in the madrassas strung along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where children, sent by parents who could not afford any other kind of education, were radicalised and made fodder for the Taliban. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and the international community must not allow that to happen again. Widening the curriculum in the madrassas, diversifying educational opportunities for the poor and creating employment through micro-enterprise, as well as fiscal and governance reform which allows such issues to be addressed, are not only national but global responsibilities.

Finally, it is very important to keep the world in motion. We should not lightly accept a world where travel is a doddle for some and well nigh impossible for others. There is no surer way of kindling resentment against those seen as privileged. That has implications for policy on tourism, work permits and family visits, but I wish to focus on programmes of exchange. I am glad that in this country they are now being widened to include culture, history and religion. We cannot put all our eggs into the science and technology basket, especially as that has been shown to be morally neutral at best. Let us encourage exchange in all directions, so that people come to encounter the beliefs, values and customs of others. Those are what really matter and it is better appreciation of them which will move us closer to the enduring peace which we all desire, especially at this time of Christmas.

Seeing that I have a minute or two left, I want to urge the Government to consider allotting a longer time for a debate of this kind so that the views of the House and the expertise available in the House can truly be taken into account.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting

My Lords, as we now have 90 minutes for this Unstarred Question, noble Lords may speak for five minutes rather than the recommended two.

8 p.m.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the right reverend Prelate for having chosen this subject tonight an altogether fitting subject for the run-up to Christmas.

It has always struck me that there are two wonders of the creation. The first is its diversity and the second is its complexity. I believe that we must learn how to celebrate the first and recognise and enjoy the stimulus of the second. But against those wonders, the overriding challenges in the millennium ahead will be exclusion and the growing gap between rich and poor and the economic and political systems which emerge without ethical context.

On the second issue of absence of ethical context, I tremble at what is happening in Russia. I believe that the whole world has a responsibility for the course that Russia has taken. Russia seems to have embraced the cause of economic liberalism without having recognised that Adam Smith brought forward his ideas with a deep commitment to ethics and principle. An economic machine without such an ethical context can become a nightmare. All these issues are related to global terrorism and the necessity of winning hearts and minds.

I believe that enlightened religion can play an important part in providing an ethical context and in overcoming exclusion. The major faiths have much in common to share in that task: love; charity; social responsibility and commitment. Noble Lords will forgive me for drawing on my past experience, but I spent half my life working in humanitarian agencies. I have always been impressed by the degree to which humanitarian work of the principal faiths is in the front line where the going is toughest. I think of Islamic Aid, of Jewish Relief, of the Aga Khan Foundation, of Christian Aid and of CAFOD. I wonder whether it would be possible for those organisations to get together and run a common programme and some joint projects. That would be a wonderful challenge and model for the rest of the world.

The right reverend Prelate—I nearly said my noble friend, which he is in many ways—has spoken about the challenges to Islam. I hope he will forgive me if I say as a Christian that we must face some of the challenges to Christianity. It is time that some of us who profess to be Christians spoke out in unqualified terms about how we see much that is being said and done in the name of Christianity as the antithesis of all that holds us to the Christian faith. What matters to me and to many other Christians is the context of love and openness and inclusion. This language of good and evil and exclusion is not what we believe our religion is about. We must put our own house firmly in order in that context.

Furthermore, in reflecting on the challenges and travails of the growing up of one's own family—one must face these issues in real terms—when considering truth the analogy of the mountain is a good one. Truth is a mountain whose summit has not yet been reached. Many of us hope that we are climbing that mountain and have chosen a route that suits us. But as we climb, we must remember that others are climbing at the same time on routes they have chosen and that their routes are every bit as valid and important as ours. Truth is somewhere there at the summit and we should all be striving to reach it.

Finally, for the past 10 years I have been privileged to be honorary president of the YMCA in England and I have learnt a great deal. When I took on the task, I was a little fearful that I was not evangelical by temperament. However, I discovered that in that organisation many deeply sincere evangelicals do not see their task as winning a battle for Christianity—winning souls for Christianity—but that their faith demands of them social engagement in the front line of the social challenges that face us. That is the essential message in my own religion to which we must all return with urgency.

8.6 p.m.

Baroness Perry of Southwark

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating such an important debate. His Question asks Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to help enlightened religious attitudes. I do not believe that making a crime of incitement to religious hatred will be a step towards enlightened attitudes. I believe that it will threaten the open and free debate on which religious tolerance has long been built.

We in this country have seen not only the appalling rise of anti-Semitism, but also since 9/11 the vicious and appalling verbal attacks on the Islamic faith by extreme groups such as the BNP. But we should not forget that we are also seeing an attack on Christianity much more by the politically correct who seem to fail to understand the deep sense of national identity which is bound up with the Christian tradition in the United Kingdom.

I want briefly to describe an experience of tremendous light and hope in religious enlightenment and tolerance in an organisation of which I am most honoured to be a patron. It concerns a village in the heart of the Arab/Israeli conflict, in Israel itself, a village called Neve Shalom Wahat al-Salem—NSWaS, as we call it for short. It was founded by a Dominican as an oasis of peace, which is what its name in both Arabic and Hebrew means, in the very midst of the worst of the conflict around 1970.

In this village, 50 families, approximately half Jewish and half Arab, live together. They are all Israeli citizens. They are all working together and running the village together. Some 300 families are now on a waiting list to come and join them. There is neither political nor religious affiliation in the village. The fundamental principle is that each person should know their own religious and cultural identity and understand and respect that of others.

The village has no synagogue, church or mosque, but a House of Silence where each faith can conduct its own meditation and prayer. The Spiritual Centre, shared by all, conducts seminars to study religious texts and traditions. But for me the most inspiring part of the entire experience is the school, which runs from kindergarten through primary. The teaching and administration are shared equally by Jews and Arabs. The teaching is in both Hebrew and Arabic so that all the children attending—90 per cent of whom come from surrounding villages—become bilingual and therefore able to communicate freely and openly with each other.

The School for Peace, which is where Jewish and Arab high school students come to the village for an intensive three-day dialogue, has done pioneering work with young people and adults from the two communities, helping them to understand the roots of their conflict and, most importantly, the ways towards resolution, dialogue and peace.

One British visitor observing such an encounter from behind the one-way window in the newly built classroom describes her experience thus: The young people came in and sat in heavy silence. There was antagonism we felt. The teachers worked hard at getting them to talk. More silence. Then suddenly one young person broke it and the discussion flowed and warmed and continued throughout the day, so much so—they were all staying overnight—that at 2 a.m. these young people were roaring round the compound together shrieking with laughter and we sleepless older guests chalked this up to huge success". The initiative that NSWaS has so successfully pioneered in Israel is an example of how enlightened religious attitudes can be fostered even in the most difficult of times and places. Most particularly, it shows that if the young are brought together and allowed to get to know each other as real people and as faces then all that antagonism and hostility can go and the more enlightened religious attitudes can be built.

I commend the initiative not only to the Government but more specifically to the Department for Education as the kind of programme which in very different circumstances we could well adopt in this country to bring about the enlightened religious attitudes we all seek.

8.11 p.m.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, I should like to thank not only the right reverend Prelate but also the government Whips, for giving us a little more time, and echo his call that we should have a fuller debate on this extremely important issue. We cannot, after all, separate politics entirely from religion. We are learning that in the Middle East at present. We cannot separate society entirely from religion. The moral and ethical dimension in politics and in social relations are built on past religion. I am very conscious that my own party grew out of the nonconformist Churches and their deep commitment to individual liberty and to equality and to work both of those together.

We face at present the twin dangers of empty secularism and of fundamentalism—of those who worship on Sunday mornings at Ikea or Asda, and those who reject the modern world completely and with it the toleration and the open society that are part of the modern world. I agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that what we currently see in the United States—particularly in the pre-millennial dimensions of the Southern Baptists and the insistence that it is good versus evil and there is nowhere in between—is extremely dangerous. As Christians we should be saying very vigorously, as I assure you I do whenever I go to the United States, that that is not the sort of faith that we understand or with which we have any sympathy.

Let us also be aware that there is Jewish fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism as well as Muslim fundamentalism, which is a crabbed and intolerant version of Islam. Thankfully that is not the whole of Islam, no more than the Southern Baptist Convention or the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster are in the mainstream of Christianity, thank God. The theology of hatred, exclusion and fear is, of course, closely linked to the politics of fear from which the United States now suffers.

What do we want the Government to do? I believe we want the Government, in their teaching in the national syllabus, to impart much more of a sense of history and of comparative religions, to impart the sympathy of the different paths to God, and to impart our understanding of history in which the darker sides of the Christian past and some of the more glorious parts of the Muslim past are included.

I am rather fed up with meeting Christians who assume that Christians never slaughtered each other, who assume that we were never intolerant of each other and who seem to have forgotten that Christians used to insist that our women covered their heads. My mother never went out without putting on a headscarf. I do not believe she remembered that that was originally a religious custom. Now that we have all forgotten that, we attack our Muslim friends for being a couple of generations behind us. Muslim civilisation at its greatest period had a great deal to offer the world and at that time it was much more tolerant than most Christian civilisations were.

In June, I am due to give a paper to a conference—the Archbishops' Council of the Church of England and the Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church— on "Just War". Listening to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, it struck me that perhaps we should invite Jewish and Muslim contributions as they also have traditions of a just war with which it would be useful to compare.

The most important thing is to include Islam more clearly among British religions. On Friday evening, I had a very interesting conversation with a British Muslim who said, "I feel myself to be British and I am also a Muslim". He was talking about the need to have proper training for imams in British universities. I believe that the Government should certainly consider whether in our theological faculties in the major British universities we fully include Islam as one of the three religions that come from Abraham. There is nothing worse than that dreadful term "Judaeo-Christian" which excludes Islam and pretends that only two of the religions of the Book are worth having.

I have one final comment and a compliment. Fifty years ago I sang at the Coronation, a deeply Protestant ceremony in which the Moderator of the Church of Scotland was the only person who participated in the service who was not in the Church of England. Last year, I went to the 50th anniversary service at which the Cardinal Archbishop read a lesson with the Orthodox Archbishop standing behind him and under the transept sitting below them were representatives of the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai and Zoroastrian faiths—I did not know we have an organised Zoroastrian faith in Britain—as part of a celebration of what it means to belong to British society, to the British community and to have a relationship with the British state. We need that and the Government should encourage it.

8.17 p.m.

Lord Weatherill

My Lords, a measure of the importance of this debate is that it has attracted so many speakers, and at this time of night. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester will return to this topic on another occasion, hopefully when we have a little more time. However, we have each been given five minutes to speak instead of two, so I shall enlarge my modest contribution.

When I was chosen as Speaker in 1983, I inherited from Speaker Thomas the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. I well remember my initial address to the Christian wives fellowship when I said, "There are many roads to God". I saw pursed lips and at the end of my address someone came up to me and said, "Many roads to God, Mr Speaker? Only one". I said, "Not if you were in the Indian Army".

Some noble Lords may know that I had the privilege of serving for five of the most formative years of my life with Indian troops. We had a squadron of Sikhs and I fully understand and appreciate the Sikh community's distress and anger about the play being performed in Birmingham which I hope has been stopped. We had a squadron of PMs—Punjab Mussulmen—and we had a squadron of Javs—Hindus. Despite religious backgrounds, all worked in the closest harmony and all were volunteers. I mention that because it is a small but practical example of what can be achieved with the right leadership in calling those of different faiths to work closely together.

I had the privilege of representing Croydon North-East for 28 years. There are few more diverse communities in our country than Croydon. Very few people will know that Addiscombe, in the heart of my old constituency, had been the training college of the Honourable East India Company from 1700 to 1850. So we have very close contacts with the Indian subcontinent. Perhaps because we have Lunar House in the constituency, we have diverse other races and religions.

In my time I was able to support the building of the local mosque by raising substantial sums of money for it. It is a flourishing mosque today. We established a gurdwara for the Sikhs; and we obtained a redundant church for the Jains. There is an important and large parish church in Croydon. Through Canon Colin Boswell and his predecessor Canon Colin Hill, there were few community problems in Croydon.

My second point reinforces the matter touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I believe that the only way to overcome and to defeat terrorism is to transform the conditions in which it flourishes. I refer to the dangerous disparity between rich and poor nations. It is a horrific statistic that more people have died of hunger in the past year than were killed in World War I and World War II. We have an urgent and absolute duty to redress the imbalance between rich and poor countries in our world.

Debates of this kind are of course to be welcomed, but we need practical action as well. I commend to your Lordships an old Punjabi truth: Good words will earn you honour in the marketplace, but good deeds will win you friends amongst men". In relation to this debate that is peace in our world.

8.22 p.m.

Lord Parekh

My Lords, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate for initiating this fascinating debate. Whenever we talk about religion, we need to bear two things in mind. First, every religion has two opposite tendencies. Religion is dogmatic and is hound to remain so because it believes that God's will is revealed in scriptures that human reason is not at liberty to alter. Therefore, every religion has a built-in dogmatic tendency.

Secondly, no human being lives by religion alone. Human beings are endowed with reason, which itself is a God-given faculty, and they have a responsibility to account to others what use they make of that reason. Every religion therefore is caught up in an interesting paradox: having to choose between faith and reason. But since it cannot choose and as both are important, it has to find a way of combining faith and reason.

I say that because it is important to bear it in mind that no religion is inherently peaceful or inherently militant, inherently violent or inherently non-violent. It has impulses that push in both directions and which way it turns depends on the historical and social forces surrounding it.

The question therefore before us is: if a religion has a tendency to be open-ended, to be a religion of love, as well as a tendency to be an instrument of war, and militancy, what should we do, so that religion's positive tendencies are fully exploited and its negative tendencies are countered? That raises an important question that I want to address. Under what historical or social conditions does a religion tend to become militant and fundamentalist? Once we identify those conditions, it becomes easier for us to address them and to develop an enlightened religious attitude.

I suggest that there are four conditions under which a religion's militant tendencies—or what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, called fundamentalist tendencies—become manifest and get exploited. First, they appear when injustice is operating in society and no institutions, associations or political parties are available to fight it, so that people are forced to turn to religious organisations to do the job that political and civic organisations should be doing. The second condition is where religion is an all-pervasive presence that dominates society and there are no alternative, secular cultures to check it. Then, religion has a tendency to hijack the entire social fabric because it is not checked. The third is when there is no freedom of expression and therefore no opportunity to examine religion critically and to challenge and debate the various interpretations. Finally, when a society feels besieged, frightened and fearful of losing its identity and integrity, it tends to turn to what it calls nonnegotiable fundamentals in the hope that they will be the anchor that will allow it to navigate its way through difficult times. Here the West has much to answer for.

Western policies have often humiliated other societies, tried to mould them in their own image, imposed their values on them and manipulated them. as a result of which those societies have felt threatened, besieged and inevitably drawn to the power and pressure of religion. What do we do about that? Each religious community must obviously fight its own fundamentalist tendencies; it cannot be done by outsiders. But outsiders can help in a variety of ways; I wish to suggest three.

First, we should resist the temptation to try to mould other societies in our image. Whether it is a question of exporting democracy in a missionary spirit, exporting capitalism or liberalism, we should show some humility in recognising that other civilisations might have their own values from which they would benefit far more than any export that we might make. Secondly, we must do everything that we can to foster civil society and a regime of basic human rights, so that there is freedom of expression and excesses of religion can be challenged. Finally, we must enter into sympathetic dialogue with other societies and civilisations to understand their deepest concerns and anxieties.

In that context, I wish briefly to show how a dialogue can proceed and achieve wonderful results. A few months ago, I wrote a piece in which I tried to explore a dialogue between Mahatma Gandhi and Osama bin Laden, both religious people, each trying to understand the world from a religious point of view. I was able to show that in spite of their differences there is a common ground. I was pleased to hear that not only the Gandhians but many of my Muslim friends are also beginning to understand how the world looks at them and the direction in which they need to change.

8.27 p.m.

Baroness Neuberger

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for initiating the debate. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Multifaith Secondary School Educational Trust, which was founded by a rabbi colleague of mine and has been supported since its inception by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, Dr Zaki Badawi of the Muslim College, known to many noble Lords, Deva Samaroo, of the London Borough of Brent, and many others. I propose to speak about multi-faith education in the UK.

Despite their support of single-faith schools, the Government have been lukewarm in their support of this initiative thus far. There have been various attempts to find locations for such a school where local education authorities have been less than enthusiastic. There is confusion on the part of local education authorities between secular, non-denominational schools, which they mistakenly regard as multi-faith, and a multi-faith school, where faith is taken seriously and pupils learn about their own faiths and each other's. In such a school, Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus, for example, study their own faith and each other's, their own moral values and each other's, and critique literature and history through the eyes of each other's cultural and religious experience.

That is very different from a non-denominational school. The pupils would be asked to use their friendships and shared experiences to understand other people's points of view. Just as integrated education in Northern Ireland tries to tackle stereotyping and unfair prejudice, so a multi-faith school in England would tackle intolerance and promote enlightened religious attitudes.

For that to happen, the Government need to send out supportive signals. They need to encourage local education authorities to explore multi-faith education that is genuinely faith-based. They need to encourage multi-faith city academies, where societal gain would be vast, even where it is hard to raise the initial funding. They need to state that they support multi-faith education as a key component of the educational offering available in the United Kingdom. That would truly support enlightened religious attitudes in the UK.

I very much hope therefore that the Government will see their way to giving serious encouragement and funding to multi-faith schools. I hope too that they will see them as a way of tackling rising religious intolerance, which is experienced particularly by Muslims but also by other religious groups, including my own.

I hope that the Government will see that other multi-faith activities, such as the North London Hospice, the Maimonides Foundation, the Council of Christians and Jews, the Three Faiths Forum and many others, need cherishing and encouraging. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I believe that many single-faith aid organisations would do well to work together, and all sorts of other organisations to boot. Of them all, schools are the most important, and our young are the key to a tolerant, inclusive society.

When I trained to be a rabbi many years ago, I learnt to preach from the then head of Westcott House, Mark Santer, who was later Bishop of Birmingham. Rabbinic students at Leo Baeck College, where I trained and later taught, study briefly at the Muslim College. Muslim and Christian students spend a Jewish Sabbath with students from Leo Baeck College and surrounding families.

The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, spoke movingly of Neve Shalom—Wahat al-Salam in Israel. My son was a volunteer there in his gap year, and a wonderful place it is. But we need many more such endeavours, especially for the young, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said. I urge the Government to support such projects in the UK and abroad, to support multi-faith schools, and, as my noble friend Lord Wallace has said, to encourage our universities and theological faculties to include Muslims and Islamic teaching alongside Christianity, Judaism and other faiths. Inclusion and tolerance, rather than legislation against incitement to religious hatred, are vital for all religious groups to feel a part of our society.

8.31 p.m.

Lord Ahmed

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverent Prelate for initiating this very important and timely debate. Although enlightened moderation and religious teachings have become quite a fashionable sound-bite for many leaders, diplomats and politicians these days, I hope that we genuinely want to discuss important issues surrounding this topic and issues that incite hate and violence, including controversial writings, such as articles, plays and international events—for example, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir—that lead to extreme and violent reactions.

The play shown in the Midlands recently that provoked a violent demonstration by the Seikh communities, the play in Scotland which depicted Jesus Christ as a homosexual or the Koranic verses that were written on a woman's naked body were deliberately designed to provoke a reaction from the ordinary, peace- loving Seikh, Christian or Muslim. In a free and democratic society, I am totally committed to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, that has to be balanced with responsibility.

We all know that journalists, reporters and writers sometimes sensationalise headlines to sell newspapers and sometimes write deliberately derogatory columns that are abusive, insulting and incite hatred, such as the one that was published recently in the Daily Telegraph. Although I condemn violence and physical attacks by any individual or group, I can understand the feelings of the Seikh community of objecting strongly to the notion that a place of worship, like the Gurdawara, is depicted as a place where sex, homosexuality and violence occurs and therefore becomes a behazati (dishonour) and offensive. Naturally, there will be a reaction from those communities.

Although my religion of Islam has time after time ordered the Muslims to adopt a middle way, Islam is the most misunderstood religion in the world today, which is why sometimes one will see that extremism and terrorism have become interchangeable with the peaceful religion of Islam. Tonight, the right reverend Prelate concentrated on Islam and Pakistan, but I am sorry that America and the Christian right have not been mentioned. I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, with which I totally agree.

The Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Him, said that the middle course is the best course of action. The Koran says: We will you to be a community of the middle way, so that (with your example) you might bear witness before all mankind". However, there are many reasons for the unrest in and reactions of the Muslim community today. Some relate to poverty, illiteracy, lack of democracy and dictatorships, the abuse of human rights and the struggle for the right of self determination. Others relate to the continued suffering of the Palestinian and Kashmiri people; the "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad and the destruction of Fallujah; while the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib provided an incentive for some to recruit young people to fight in the name of religion.

I do not need to mention that Islam has the most modern values. The Constitution of Medina was agreed 1,400 years ago. A justice system was established and I believe that today's British jury system is based on the Islamic system of justice. Turning to rights and responsibilities, I refer to human rights and women's rights—I remind the House that the wife of the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon Him, was an entrepreneur and businesswoman who traded in those days. I refer to animal rights as well.

The Koran says, ridicule not other people's objects of worship lest they ridicule your God". The teachings of Islam, along with other religions, preach tolerance, coexistence and love for others.

The men who murdered Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister Rabin and Lord Mountbatten and his wife, and the men who carried out the massacre at Srebrenica and the attack on the twin towers may all have given the impression that they committed those crimes in the name of religion. But I believe that political ideologies and political extremism also play a part.

Enlightened moderation should not mean diluting the fundamental beliefs or attempting to change the basic principles of any religion. I believe that the state should not impose a particular type of religious education, like in the Netherlands or France, but should first deal with the injustices in our society of racism, Islamophobia, unemployment and deprivation. We must engage with young people who feel alienated and reach out to the disaffected.

Finally, London has 13 major world religions and over 270 languages are spoken. Yet thank God we have a peaceful city in which everyone can coexist.

8.37 p.m.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and to have listened to all those who have spoken in this most interesting debate.

I grew up in the Church of Scotland, a Presbyterian church, and in my adolescence was much influenced by the Iona Community and its attempts at a social gospel. I remain a relatively enthusiastic churchgoer in Clackmannan.

I have already mentioned my next point to the right reverend Prelate. I was attracted to the title of this Unstarred Question as it is constitutionally incorrect: religion, blasphemy and religious hatred are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We will have to act as though a Sewel Motion has been passed, thus allowing the debate to touch on Scottish matters. I should also remind the House that sovereignty was returned to the Church of Scotland in 1932 by an Act of this Parliament.

That said, there is no doubt that, in part, central Scotland wallows in bigotry, which is certainly bigger than racialism in the central Scottish psyche. It is, of course, a relic of 19th century immigration or return from Ireland. This inter-denominational bigotry is supported and fuelled not only by Rangers and Celtic, but also by the continuance on the statute book of the Act of Settlement 1701, a pre-Union Act passed by this Parliament when it was the parliament of England and Wales. It was only relevant to deal with James Francis Edward Stuart, who should have inherited the English and Welsh throne in that year.

Since I am having a go at this Parliament, why not have a go at the Scottish Parliament as well? It is for the Scottish Parliament to repeal the Education (Scotland) Act 1918, which created denominational schools paid for by the state, thereby continuing the Protestant/Catholic divide.

I presume that an enlightened religious attitude is a tolerant attitude. One should meet other religions or denominations on the basis that they may be right—after all, who knows? However, I draw the line at tolerating religions or religious sects which preach physical harm or death to non-believers.

The one point I wish to make is that there is a need for heresy and heretics to be identified so that everyone can come to know whether and how a heretical view diverges from the orthodox view. There is a need for boldness from mainstream religious leaders, whether it is an Islamic sect, the Order of Hibernians or the Orange Order that we are considering.

8.41 p.m.

Lord Chan

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for being absent when he opened the debate. This was due to confusion in the advice I was given about when the end of the day's business would be. As a result, I listened to the speech of the right reverend Prelate on the television.

I acknowledge all the positive observations made by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have spoken. I shall focus on what I believe is important—that is, the need to inform people in the community, particularly those who provide services in both the public and private sectors, about the cultural and religious beliefs prevalent in our population. I have been doing this—I declare an interest—since the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 was passed and after the Stephen Lawrence inquiry in 1999.

I have three proposals in regard to the way forward. First, we need to maintain enlightened religious attitudes in the UK, finding a delicate balance between our freedom of expression and respect for the beliefs and views of other people in the community. We need systematically to inform people about cultures and religions. This can be done through a number of media: electronic means, the printed word and seminars. Over the past five years, I have found that this has given people, particularly from the majority population, confidence in their dealings with people from diverse backgrounds.

Secondly, we need publicly to explore the balance between freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs. The danger of upsetting some religious communities would be reduced if discussion took place between people who hold specific religious beliefs and those with other values and beliefs. This has been taking place on Merseyside. I am personally involved where groups of people meet together in order to understand each others' religions. This mirrors the school curriculum to which the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred.

Thirdly, more discussions and consultation should be encouraged to take place between and among people more openly in order to find out more about their religious beliefs and their views of the world. If these measures were implemented, there would be no need to initiate legislation about incitement to religious hatred. Such legislation would do more harm than good.

Lord Roberts of Llandudno

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating this debate and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it in so many different ways.

For many people, their religious faith is the central factor in their lives. For many millions of people, their faith is far more important than their politics. For many people, in certain circumstances, that faith is the only thing that they have. I think of the Jewish people, who were turned out of Jerusalem in 72 AD, and who for 18 centuries were without a place to call their own. They suffered pogroms and the devastation of the Holocaust, which was the climax of everything. I believe that the only thing that held them together was their religious faith. So when we talk of faith, we are talking of something that is central to the lives of many people.

We might not agree with the convictions that people hold, but that faith must be respected every time. We might disagree on principles or attitudes, but we must say that we will get to a personal understanding of other people. An attempt at respect, understanding and tolerance are much more likely to win hearts and minds than suspicion and hostility. In the United Kingdom and many other countries, we have seen how people of different faiths are getting together. They are talking together and are beginning to understand one another. I well remember the first anniversary of September 11 in my own town of Llandudno. We are not a large multicultural community, but people came from the mosque, the synagogue and all the Christian Churches. Together we remembered and wept. Together we begin to understand one another and, in that understanding, we begin to overcome our differences.

Noble Lords can possibly tell that I am Welsh. There was a time when people would ask the denomination to which one belonged. If one said, "I am a Methodist", the next question would be whether one was a Wesleyan Methodist or a Calvinistic Methodist. It was vitally important. Over the years, attitudes have changed. As people get to know and respect each other, there will be much greater tolerance and understanding. That is the major direction in which I want to go this evening. It is that we should respect each other and learn so that when new, often frightened, people come to our country, we are able to give them a welcome and to embrace them at the heart of their faith, which is those things that are important for them.

I am a great believer in the United Nations. There I see more than 190 nations coming together and talking. There are massive disagreements between some of them, but they keep on talking. As they keep on talking, perhaps they begin to understand and tolerate. Instead of war and hostility, there is talking and a search for understanding. The world is a much safer place because there is a United Nations, although the UN has to be modernised and there are many changes to be made.

I sometimes wonder whether we could think of a united nations of the faiths of the world, a continuing, consistent gathering together of people of different faiths so that they could share their concerns and air their differences. They might not all agree. Perhaps not every faith would come. Is there not a possibility that, by talking together on a world level, we might be able to avoid so much of the horror of the past? I would like to see that happen but at least I am allowed to dream about it.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Kilclooney

My Lords, I wish to contribute briefly to this debate and I thank the right reverend Prelate for initiating it. I am sorry I was not here for his introductory speech, and that I did not hear it on television.

As someone with a Scottish background, and therefore Presbyterian, living in Ireland, I am very conversant with the problems we have in the island of Ireland. As I have said before, that island was called Scotia in Roman times, and then the Irish invaded it and drove the Scotis out. We were sent across to a place which we then called Scotland, taking its name from the Scotis who lived in Scotia. The Irish took over, and our island was renamed Hibernia. Then in the 17th century the Scots returned to Northern Ireland. My family returned from Scotland to Kilclooney, hence my title.

The Irish Presbyterian Church is the largest Protestant Church in Northern Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland is even larger. Our task in that divided society is for members of the Protestant and the Roman Catholic communities to live and work together for the good of Northern Ireland. I say that as a member of the Orange Institution; as one who believes that one renders unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. I say that as one who believes in freedom of religion for everyone.

I wish to touch on one subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, seemed to be giving her assent to the suggestion that state finance should be withdrawn from Church schools and that we should solely support integrated or mixed-religion schools. I disagree with that totally, as an Ulster Presbyterian. We have a wonderful education system in Northern Ireland, controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and financed 100 per cent by the state.

It is quite wrong that parents should not have the freedom of choice to send their children to a Roman Catholic, a Muslim, a Jewish or an integrated school. I would defend the right of the Churches in England—where, surprisingly, I find from the recent census, 75 per cent of the people are Christian, although I have not experienced that in my visits to England—to have the right to have their own schools. The state should not discriminate against religions and simply favour integrated education. I just wanted to make that brief comment, as an Ulster Protestant supporting Roman Catholic schools in Northern Ireland.

8.52 p.m.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, we come to the concluding part of this important debate. I add my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for securing the debate.

When I first came to this country in the late 1950s, it was said that the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. I remember my very first meeting with the local vicar in Brighton, who asked me whether I was a Catholic or a Protestant. My reply was, "It's bad enough being an immigrant without being one of those things". Things have changed a lot since then.

I hope that the enlightened religious attitude that we are talking about will stretch to House of Lords reform, so that before long we can see on the Bishops' Benches people of other faiths.

Next Saturday we celebrate Christmas; last month we celebrated the festivals of Eid and of Diwali, the festival of light. In September 1965, the Labour government proclaimed that Britain was a multi-racial society. We were not sure then, but we can now confirm that the United Kingdom is a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. The enlightened attitude of many people in our society who celebrated this event confirms that. But celebration seems to me to be the wrong word. In the aftermath of the Cold War, fundamentalism seems to have replaced communism.

Fundamentalism is always identified with strongly held religious beliefs. It exists in all religions, but Islam seems to have been singled out, and I suspect that the events of 9/11 are responsible for that.

I am a Hindu, but Islam is one of the great religions of the world. It is a peaceful religion, although it is not always interpreted as such by some of its followers. We need to explain events such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the western media condemn Islamic fundamentalism, little is said about Christian fundamentalism and its grip on the White House. We no longer talk about war; we talk about crusades; we talk about international communities by saying, "Either you're with us or you're against us".

We can have all those arguments, but I shall cite just three examples, all of which lead us to the belief that an enlightened attitude is important. The first relates to Salman Rushdie, the author of The Satanic Verses. The book caused deep rumbling among faithful Muslims offended by its content, prompting protests, book burning and even riots, in which several people were killed. The second example, rightly mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Weatherill, happened last weekend. The loyal Sikh community laid siege to a theatre with the intention of cancelling a play depicting sex abuse and murder in a Sikh temple. They were not against the play as such, but against identifying such an incident in a gurdwara, which is sacrosanct to their beliefs.

The third relates to the evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 14 December. A statement was made by Mr Jagdeesh Singh against the Swaminarayan Hindu mission alleging that the Neasden temple had become a base for the terrorist activities of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. It is the most majestic temple, visited by over a million people since its inauguration, whose principal belief is in nonviolence. Its record on the reintegration of the inner-city area is second to none; its poverty alleviation programme abroad and its contribution to victims of earthquakes in Gujarat is also very much appreciated. Its spiritual leader, Pramukh Swami, prevented communal violence after one of the temples was attacked by terrorists.

What do all those incidents point to? They have all hurt the deepest feelings of those who practice those different religions. That should cause no surprise to anyone. I do not question our freedom of speech or liberal values, but we often fail to understand that free speech in a libertarian society also carries responsibilities with it. We cannot condemn Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as being illiberal in a society in which racial and religious discrimination is rife and people often take shelter within their religious structure. We need enlightened attitudes to ensure that in a democracy we do not isolate communities and leave them to fend for themselves. These three incidents beg for a debate to be opened up with our minorities.

8.58 p.m.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for tabling this important debate. The question has relevance to many events of this and the previous century; I am thinking here of Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. One could even go as far back as the Crusades. The current situation in our world is very serious and also very depressing, as it would sometimes seem that we had been here before and—although I hesitate to say it—that we have learned nothing.

We are all well aware of the destructive nature of Muslim extremists with deference to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, this evening, I stress the word "extremist"—who are currently using their religion as a force for evil in the Middle East and in western countries. However, we must not become too focused on them alone. We should also be aware that most if not all religions have extreme wings, groups that use their ideology in a way that most find abhorrent. We must conclude that no one religion is blameless and that no one religion has the answer.

We on these Benches would like the Government to support and indeed promote tolerance for all religions, races and ways of life. Indeed, I do not even care for the word tolerance; it tends to connote something with which we must all contend rather than embrace. The Government clearly believe that the best way in which to approach the matter is to create yet more new laws that will target, for example, incitement to religious hatred. We have genuine concerns that such laws, if introduced, could have a totally negative impact on our culture and on our beloved freedoms in this country.

We on these Benches feel that the right path to enlightened religious attitudes and to having a regard for religious differences is to raise awareness from an early age and to educate society into a better understanding of those differences. I wholeheartedly support all that my noble friend Lady Perry and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said with regard to having such education from a young age. It is all about having a better understanding of our differences. However, that religious teaching must not be conducted in isolation; clearly it is now also crucially important to articulate in our schools and in our communities some of those core freedoms that we enjoy in this country—freedoms that many have fought for, that most of us believe are crucial to our society and that we can no longer take for granted.

There is no doubt that we must be careful when dealing with how best to tackle attitudes to the international situation and how best to promote acceptance of religious differences. I come back to the point that I have just made—legislating on this matter is not the right solution. Legislation will almost certainly lead to the unintended consequence of curbing freedom of speech and freedom of expression. We must be careful that our reactions to extremists are not extreme in themselves. We would not want to be so afraid of what others might do or say that we start to chip away at the foundation principles of our great society.

We agree with the sentiment of the argument expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. The Government should promote and support religion, and it should be of all faiths. We should not make the mistake of confusing religion with terrorism itself. We in this country are fortunate to have a free and fair society. It is built on such principles as the rule of law and freedom of speech. We must ensure that in order to combat extremists we do not destroy what they are seeking to undermine. What happened this weekend in a theatre in the Midlands with regard to a Sikh play should strengthen our resolve to leave the law well alone. Should we not have allowed "Murder in the Cathedral"?

Besides, we could go on legislating to try to stop people saying all sorts of things that may offend others. Surely the right path is to focus on encouraging people of all faiths to think positively about each others' differences and to respect each others' differences. We should get to know each other, and this must be a two way street for all of us of all faiths. I noticed that a number of noble Lords used the expression "get to know each other". The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested having a United Nations for all faiths. I often think how brilliant it would have been if, instead of having the Dome to mark the millennium, we could have had one ecumenical church representing all faiths to mark it. What a tragic waste that we missed that opportunity.

In saying that, I turn to the right reverend Prelate and say with great respect that the Church of England has a very powerful and proactive part to play without diluting its own religion—it is my religion—and its own beliefs. Two weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend an Advent carol service with the Archbishop of Canterbury. During the service the Archbishop spoke of, learning to find hidden harmonies". Those simple, powerful words echo those of Martin Luther King who, 40 years ago, said that we must all focus upon learning the practical art of living in harmony. When will we learn? However difficult and however painful, we must all keep trying.

9.3 p.m.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

My Lords, I say immediately how grateful I am to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester for the debate. A number of noble Lords commented on its shortness, but quantity is not always the final determinant of quality. Length is not always the only thing that counts. We have had a very insightful and, if I may say so, erudite debate.

Several themes have come out of the debate: love, spoken of by my noble friend Lord Judd; partnership; working together; understanding each other; and getting to know each other better. Those are extremely powerful indicators of what defines us as human beings, but also as the basis for all faiths. It is extremely important that we are having this debate tonight, and noble Lords will know that it is not in my gift or the gift of the Government as to when we have another debate. I am sure that, as a result of the quality of this debate, the usual channels would probably not be forgiven if more space were not found at some stage for such a debate.

We have ranged across some important issues. Noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to generating good relations, understanding and tolerance between people of all faiths and of none, as part of building a cohesive society. We work with faith communities, with media bodies, with the Local Government Association and with governmental and non-governmental agencies to deal with prejudice and hatred. It is only by us all working together that the changes that we so desperately seek can be made.

Understanding the role that faith plays in people's lives is vital to community cohesion and good race relations. Many faith groups reach out to the wider community, providing facilities, undertaking practical projects and harnessing their commitment and drive to improve everyone's life. Therefore, it was right that the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, gave out the injunction that it is not just words that we will be judged by, it is deeds that are the basis of real understanding. The Government recognise that faith communities have a vital role to play in civil renewal and promoting active citizenship. As part of the commitment to building a tolerant and cohesive society, we actively support interfaith dialogue in the UK, which is achieved through support for a number of interfaith activities. Therefore, I very much understood my noble friend Lord Judd's exhortation for all religious groups to work together in humanitarian endeavours. I am sure that there is the burgeoning of that as an idea, and I agree with him.

One example is the core funding being provided by the Home Office to the Interfaith Network for the UK, the sole national body linking interfaith initiatives and faith representative bodies. Government funding has enabled the Interfaith Network to map patterns of local interfaith activity, resulting in a set of guidelines for local authorities wishing to foster interfaith activity. We are also committed to supporting interfaith activities for young people. Past examples include the Golden Jubilee Young People's Faith Forum and the three model Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings for young people of faith in association with the Royal and Commonwealth Society.

Another important initiative, and one that noble Lords will be interested in, is the Imam-Rabbi dialogue, which I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, is more than familiar with, facilitated by the Home Office. It brings together orthodox ministers of religion from those two communities to talk about commonalities between the two Abrahamic faiths. It also provides an opportunity for religious leaders to demonstrate that, despite differences, it is still possible to engage with and exchange views in the spirit of learning and mutual respect. Although we do not quite have the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, we have the seeds of that development, which is important.

The Government have worked in partnership with faith communities in the delivery of initiatives such as faith-based celebrations of the millennium, the Golden Jubilee and the Working Together review, published in March 2004, of co-operation between the Government and faith communities. In addition, Ministers regularly visit places of worship and attend faith-based celebrations and will continue to do so.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, that I understand her vision of interfaith schools, which is not a separation of faiths but bringing each faith together; each faith honoured; and all faiths participating together in a common space. I do not think that idea does violence to the importance of single-faith schools, which are very much part of the scene, and which we have supported. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that his fear that somehow that will be expunged is not well founded, because we honour those traditions.

As everyone has made declarations, I suppose that I should say that I am probably the embodiment of ecumenical activity, having a Methodist father and a Roman Catholic mother, and being married to the son of an Ulster Protestant. To be full and frank, I should also say that I was a Shabbas goy for many years, so I have most bases covered. Such bringing together is of enormous importance, because it enriches our communities.

As the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Dholakia, made clear, the media play an important role in promoting understanding between communities and in building community cohesion—or not, as the case may be. We are working with the Society of Editors and the Media Trust to produce guidance for editors and journalists reporting on issues of faith, race and community cohesion. The guidance for both print and broadcasting media will be available in February 2005. It follows the publication of a toolkit in May 2004 for local authorities on the need to build relationships with the media to promote wider understanding between communities, particularly at neighbourhood level.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Buscombe, have fears in relation to our new proposals on incitement to religious hatred. However, those concerns are not well founded. We are committed to tackling and eradicating discrimination and inequality wherever they occur. As noble Lords will be aware, we have recently announced a plan to introduce legislation to protect people from religious discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services and premises. The measure will close the loophole that currently means that although people are protected against discrimination on the basis of race, nationality or national or ethnic origin, they are not protected against discrimination on grounds of religion except in employment.

The Government's proposal includes a new offence that will close the loophole that Jews and Sikhs are protected from incited hatred. The courts have ruled that they are covered by the existing offences of incitement to racial hatred, whereas other faith groups are not so protected. The new offences will address that without doing violence to our community or culture, or impinging improperly on other matters.

I am aware that concerns have been expressed that the new offence will restrict free speech, particularly the telling of jokes about religion or religious leaders. I reassure noble Lords that the proposed offence will not criminalise the telling of such jokes. Some would like us to criminalise the telling of bad jokes, which would be a more challenging matter, particularly for some of us in this House. The offence will maintain the necessary high thresholds of incitement to racial hatred. Material must be knowingly threatening, abusive or insulting and either intended or likely to stir up hatred, with all prosecutions requiring the consent of the Attorney-General. The then Home Secretary's statement on 7 December, made with the agreement of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, ought to reassure people that free-speech concerns are unfounded.

The right reverend Prelate raised some powerful issues in relation to the wider international dimensions, such as those about Turkey and its EU membership. This is an important moment for us, because the negotiations with Turkey are likely to last a decade. Throughout Turkey, we will need to demonstrate continuing progress on a number of issues, including religious freedoms. The United Kingdom Government will place particular emphasis on effective implementation, because that will make the difference.

Of course we understand that, in Sharia law, there are extreme punishments such as stoning, amputation and execution that are wholly inconsistent with international human rights standards. Those matters need to be addressed. The United Kingdom is concerned about the plight of apostates throughout the world, and we take every opportunity to urge states to pursue laws and practices that foster tolerance and mutual respect.

We can all make a contribution in relation to world matters and I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to playing their part. I want also to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, that one-fifth of all respondents considered religion to be an important part of their self identity. For Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and black Christians, religion was ranked second only to family and Jewish respondents ranked religion highest. Therefore, the importance of faith to self-identity is particularly strong. Two-thirds of Sikhs and Hindus viewed religion as important to their identity. That analysis, if nothing else, underscores for us the real importance that faith can play.

Each participant in the debate has made a valuable contribution. I do not neglect my noble friend Lord Ahmed, who spoke so powerfully not only about the beauty of the religion but also the importance of partnership and truth, as indeed did the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We can be proud of the debate because it was a good one.