:00:01. > :00:11.That is the summary of the headlines. It is now time for
:00:11. > :00:13.
:00:13. > :00:16.Britain's Christians are being encouraged to join a new crusade.
:00:16. > :00:21.To defend their religion from an aggressive secularism said to be
:00:21. > :00:24.threatening the country's Christian identity. Leading this fight back
:00:24. > :00:29.of the faithful is the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George
:00:29. > :00:34.Carey. From public prayer to Bishops in Parliament, he says it's
:00:34. > :00:44.time to make a stand for religious rights. Stephen Sackur asks if
:00:44. > :01:12.
:01:12. > :01:18.there is really a place for God in Lord Carey, welcome to HARDtalk.
:01:18. > :01:22.is could be on your programme. me ask you this, do you resent the
:01:22. > :01:29.fact that Britain in the 21st century has become of a largely
:01:29. > :01:33.secular place? Can I begin by the word you used earlier, crusade? The
:01:33. > :01:41.Church of England and the Anglican community is not usually noted for
:01:41. > :01:46.a crusade. I am there for standing up for the rights of minorities of
:01:46. > :01:51.all kinds. I believe today there is any for Christians to show their
:01:51. > :01:54.backbone and to stand up for what they believe in. I used the word
:01:54. > :02:01.crusade because I had been looking at some of the language you have
:02:01. > :02:07.used in reason. You have called for, and this is your phrase, a call to
:02:07. > :02:10.arms. Yet spoken about the place of Christians in Britain and how would
:02:10. > :02:17.you think it is an ass and then battle between Christians and
:02:17. > :02:22.secularists. In some cases, this is already happening. My book is a
:02:22. > :02:27.defence of the Christian faith. When I say a call to arms, that
:02:27. > :02:32.does not mean weapons. We must use argument. We must say something
:02:32. > :02:38.about our faith today. We are not living in a secular country, that
:02:38. > :02:43.is my point. We live in almost a halfway house. The Church has a
:02:43. > :02:51.very strong civic role in this country. Historically undoubtedly
:02:51. > :02:57.true. I am talking about Britain in the 21st century. Look across a
:02:57. > :03:04.culture. Look across the value systems. It is a secular country,
:03:04. > :03:10.isn't it? No, I resist that. If we take the word secular it - it
:03:10. > :03:15.simply means world. Secular has come to mean NT God. We are not an
:03:15. > :03:19.MP got a country by any way. We are celebrating the 60th anniversary of
:03:19. > :03:26.the Queen to the throne. 60 years ago it began with a prayer and
:03:26. > :03:30.devotion to her people. In other words, the Queen is the head of a
:03:30. > :03:35.society in which Christianity is the established faith. Let me pick
:03:35. > :03:42.you up on a phrase that you just use when you said that centralism -
:03:42. > :03:47.- secularism is against God. That is not exactly true. Secularism is
:03:47. > :03:51.keeping religion out of the public space. It is simply saying that in
:03:51. > :03:58.the public space, religion should not feature. My point is that it is
:03:58. > :04:03.already there. Our country has been influenced profoundly by it.
:04:03. > :04:10.Parliament begins with prayers. Bishops speak out on things. The
:04:10. > :04:15.freedom to speak is around. What I am saying is that we must be aware
:04:15. > :04:21.of the forces which are pushing Christianity to the margins and I
:04:21. > :04:26.give plenty of examples about this. Let's talk about some of these
:04:26. > :04:29.forces. You seem to have a particular beef with the courts at
:04:29. > :04:35.the moment. You seem to think that many of Britain's judges have some
:04:36. > :04:41.sort of an investor wants religion and Christianity. I think in some
:04:41. > :04:46.cases that seems to be the case. They have not come out and said
:04:46. > :04:49.that in so many words, but if you have a look at... Of course it
:04:49. > :04:56.isn't. It seems to be an interpretation of which there is no
:04:56. > :05:00.evidence. Look at the language. We are not a theocracy, one judge says.
:05:00. > :05:04.We are a secular society. I have never argued for a theocracy. All
:05:04. > :05:11.that I have argued for is that judges have a little understanding
:05:11. > :05:16.of how society, respect the Christian heritage. I even
:05:16. > :05:22.suggested they may be an equivalent to setting up a team of judges
:05:22. > :05:26.similar to Maric judges and other types. You impugning the quality of
:05:26. > :05:29.many of the judges. Using to suggest that many of the British
:05:29. > :05:36.judges are incapable of making decisions when it comes to the
:05:36. > :05:40.place of police and religion in society. Why, as a bishop, we know
:05:40. > :05:47.what to intervene in law. It was certainly intervene. Just the other
:05:47. > :05:53.day he said, and this is a direct quote, the law has no link between
:05:53. > :05:59.the law and Christian faith. That to me is a definition of a
:05:59. > :06:07.theocracy. I am not interfering in natural laws and legal decisions.
:06:07. > :06:13.They are making judgments that are highly theological. They are saying
:06:13. > :06:18.that marriage is not a key element in Christianity. Let's just sort
:06:18. > :06:25.this out then. Do you believe that judges should allow old Christian
:06:25. > :06:31.values and beliefs to trump legal commitment to equality and human it
:06:31. > :06:37.-- human rights? Put it the other way around. Equality itself is a
:06:37. > :06:42.virtue and a virtue of freedom. At the moment, equality is tromping
:06:42. > :06:48.everything else. All I am asking for is that the test of a democracy
:06:48. > :06:54.is how we deal with minorities. In the cases I give, I think people
:06:54. > :06:59.are being disadvantaged because they come with a strong faith. In
:06:59. > :07:04.some cases I do not believe in the attitude they have taken, but I
:07:04. > :07:14.want to preserve their right to respect. We had a recent case in
:07:14. > :07:17.the UK, a small town in Devon had always begun its formal council
:07:17. > :07:24.proceedings with a Christian prayer. Now, one of the councillors, who
:07:24. > :07:27.was not a believer, dot this undermined his full rights to the
:07:27. > :07:30.take of all council business because this was formal council
:07:30. > :07:34.business and he could not prey because he was not a Christian. He
:07:34. > :07:41.took his case to court and in the end the judge found that yes, in
:07:41. > :07:47.terms of the interpretation of the Local Government Act of 1972, this
:07:47. > :07:56.was an infringement. I do not see why you have spoken out against
:07:56. > :08:06.this ruling. Here is a case of a person who is not a believer, and I
:08:06. > :08:09.
:08:09. > :08:12.respect that, and asserted himself with a National secular Society. In
:08:12. > :08:19.a recent comment, one of them has said they were to bring down
:08:19. > :08:23.prayers in Parliament eventually. Because they want is a -- what they
:08:24. > :08:28.want is a complete separation. they are ignoring is a whole
:08:28. > :08:31.history of culture of this going on up and down the country. A
:08:31. > :08:41.wonderful compromise could be made and that is simply a matter of
:08:41. > :08:46.moving prayer before the agenda. Instead of having prayer on the
:08:46. > :08:51.agenda. That is what they have said. If we have removed prayer as a
:08:51. > :08:56.formal part of the agenda, we would not have a problem with it. This is
:08:56. > :09:00.their convention. I see nothing wrong in it. I think they are
:09:00. > :09:09.determined to do something about this. I will wait and see what
:09:09. > :09:13.happens. By Boyd comes back to the primacy of law. You have said
:09:13. > :09:21.things about living in digs the right way. You're not challenge the
:09:21. > :09:27.judge's rolling, wooded? One of the great things about our country is
:09:27. > :09:34.how democracy gives us the right to argue our point of view. I go
:09:34. > :09:39.completely with the law. If the law says something, as a citizen, I
:09:39. > :09:45.must follow it. What I am pleading for his accommodation. I think a
:09:45. > :09:52.test of the democracy is the way we deal with minority opinion. I am
:09:52. > :10:01.asking for accommodation. Recently, in Canada, they set up a commission
:10:01. > :10:04.and so they said we need to bring in differences. I can see that on a
:10:04. > :10:10.case-by-case basis they may be run for that, but I want to read the
:10:10. > :10:14.year the judgement of a senior judge in 2010. He was dealing with
:10:14. > :10:19.another case which was all about a Maric councillor who was asked as
:10:19. > :10:22.part of his work to talk to a gay couple who were having problems and
:10:22. > :10:26.he absolutely refused office services because he said he
:10:26. > :10:32.contravened his own religious beliefs. Again, his own company
:10:32. > :10:38.that he worked for was outraged by this. They talking to court. The
:10:38. > :10:43.judge found against him. The judge said the precepts of any belief
:10:43. > :10:48.system cannot sound any louder than the general law. If they did, those
:10:48. > :10:54.out in the cold would be less than citizens. Our constitution would be
:10:54. > :11:01.on the way to a theocracy. That is exactly it. I go part of the way
:11:01. > :11:06.with the Lord Justice. At the idea of a theocracy is absolute nonsense.
:11:06. > :11:11.We already have a basis in Christianity. That gender meant was
:11:11. > :11:16.doing his job when equal opportunities came in. Instead of
:11:16. > :11:21.actually having a compromise, the man was pushed out of his job. It
:11:22. > :11:26.would have been easy to accommodate the gentleman. Law comes down as a
:11:26. > :11:31.very harsh thing in the case of individuals. These cases are very
:11:31. > :11:41.telling. Let's talk about one more. Another very telling case recently
:11:41. > :11:47.was the couple who ran a guesthouse, a bed and breakfast. They refuse to
:11:47. > :11:52.offer their accommodation to a gay couple. That went through the
:11:52. > :11:57.chords as well. I wonder whether you, as a religious man of
:11:57. > :12:03.influence, supported their case. am much more ambivalent about that
:12:03. > :12:13.because I think that if you offer your home as a business it is very
:12:13. > :12:15.
:12:15. > :12:19.difficult to say you will only accept certain types of people.
:12:19. > :12:25.When you operated a bed and breakfast, digit taking gay
:12:25. > :12:34.couples? I did not know. If you knew that they were gay, which you
:12:34. > :12:39.have? We were much more innocent back then. My wife and I offered
:12:39. > :12:45.hospitality, which is a form of Christianity. We had all kinds of
:12:45. > :12:50.people come into our home. We did not ask questions of them, which is
:12:50. > :12:53.why I am more ambivalent. They do not see why you are end of lead at
:12:53. > :13:01.all. When you offer a public good or service, you do not have a right
:13:01. > :13:04.to discriminate. If somebody said they were not offering a run to a
:13:04. > :13:09.black person, you would not be ambivalent about that. Mind ember
:13:09. > :13:14.that comes from not knowing enough about that situation. -- my
:13:14. > :13:20.ambivalence. But supposing the case of a bed-and-breakfast someone
:13:20. > :13:25.comes to you totally drunk and you have to say it, you are not welcome
:13:25. > :13:31.here because you are drunk. In their case, they took an exception
:13:31. > :13:34.to a couple because in terms of their belief the couple was not
:13:34. > :13:44.welcome. I am ambivalent because I do not know about the situation in
:13:44. > :13:48.
:13:48. > :13:54.terms of the law. I would not have It bitching continues down a path
:13:54. > :14:04.which involves more commitment to equality legislation is an, perhaps
:14:04. > :14:05.
:14:06. > :14:14.it goes even further weight challenges things like prayer in
:14:14. > :14:18.Parliament. -- if Britain continues. If all about were stripped away,
:14:18. > :14:22.why would that really matter to the Church of England? The Church of
:14:22. > :14:28.England and all the churches will go on doing their jobs to the best
:14:28. > :14:33.of their abilities. It would be better for the Church in many ways.
:14:33. > :14:43.It would make them focus more purely on what matters which is
:14:43. > :14:46.
:14:46. > :14:56.bringing people, individuals, to the fates. -- the faith. It is an
:14:56. > :14:58.
:14:58. > :15:08.opportunity for us all. We have a hospitable democracy. The essence
:15:08. > :15:10.
:15:10. > :15:18.of why you're here is to bring people to your face. -- faith.
:15:18. > :15:25.said it might work, we are here to help everybody. We are providing a
:15:25. > :15:31.service in terms of a contribution. With respect, it is all about
:15:31. > :15:41.history and the history of this nation. What made sense 300 years
:15:41. > :15:50.ago does not necessarily make sense today. 72% of the last census says
:15:50. > :15:55.there are Christian. If you want to trade numbers, we can. The numbers
:15:55. > :16:03.of people attending church has been dwindling. It doesn't mean they are
:16:03. > :16:08.not Christian. My parents did not go to church. But they would have
:16:08. > :16:14.been offended if anyone said they were not Christian. Let's not judge
:16:14. > :16:19.people on their attendance. question wants - why does it matter
:16:19. > :16:27.if the Church uses it established status? In the US, there is a
:16:27. > :16:32.strict separation of church and state. It was one of the pillars of
:16:32. > :16:38.the American constitution. Religious belief is much stronger
:16:38. > :16:43.over there. More people go to church as the percentage of the
:16:43. > :16:46.population. It is not affecting the ability of Christians to get their
:16:46. > :16:56.message out there and to persuade people to follow that message.
:16:56. > :16:58.
:16:58. > :17:03.That's right. Why do you need it? It is a big if. There is a
:17:03. > :17:11.significant appetite to end the automatic selection of more then
:17:11. > :17:19.two dozen bishops into the House of Lords. You will find a great deal
:17:19. > :17:23.of support for the present number of 26. If we're going into the
:17:23. > :17:27.house, there is not a great appetite for that agenda at the
:17:27. > :17:33.present moment. We have more problems on our hands then we can
:17:33. > :17:36.cope with. Would it be fair to say that part of the anxieties in the
:17:37. > :17:46.direction of where Britain is going because you are out of step with
:17:46. > :17:54.the changing court will values of the country? -- cultural values.
:17:54. > :18:04.You seem very worried about how more and more Muslims are entering
:18:04. > :18:06.
:18:06. > :18:11.the country and practising their face. -- faith. When I was
:18:11. > :18:18.Archbishop, I was very much in the four of welcoming was mums. That is
:18:18. > :18:23.not the issue in terms of immigration. -- Muslims. I am
:18:23. > :18:33.worried about the numbers are coming into our country. I believe
:18:33. > :18:37.
:18:37. > :18:44.they should be a tapping, in that sense. It kind Archbishop suggested
:18:44. > :18:53.-- the kind Archbishop suggested they should be some sort of deal
:18:53. > :18:57.made between British law and practices are some sectors of Islam.
:18:57. > :19:04.He said they can be no accommodation. I was one of many
:19:04. > :19:12.voices. I believe in any nation they should be one law that fits
:19:13. > :19:22.all of us. Area, you said they should be some sort of
:19:23. > :19:24.
:19:24. > :19:34.accommodation for Christians. Even if a ran counter to what is the law.
:19:34. > :19:51.
:19:51. > :19:56.-- Earlier. You said. -- earlier, That is probably where the debate
:19:56. > :20:00.was in the case of the Archbishop. You got yourself into a position
:20:00. > :20:03.where you are asking for special treatment of Christians but when it
:20:03. > :20:13.comes to the discussion of special treatment for Muslims you adamantly
:20:13. > :20:23.reject it. No special treatment for any group, due misunderstanding. We
:20:23. > :20:25.
:20:25. > :20:28.need to protect the rights of individuals. That was my argument.
:20:28. > :20:38.There is special treatment for questions. You explained it
:20:38. > :20:41.
:20:41. > :20:49.yourself. We cannot start with a blank sheet of paper. There is an
:20:49. > :20:52.established church in his country. We have to work without. It is a
:20:52. > :21:01.hospitable establishment. We want everyone to be treated as equal
:21:02. > :21:09.citizens. How does the Church of reinvigorate itself? Over the last
:21:09. > :21:15.50 years it has suffered an enormous fall in support. The book
:21:15. > :21:20.addresses that question. We have to be more aggressive, we have to get
:21:20. > :21:30.out there and be confident. We have to carry on serving people. We had
:21:30. > :21:31.
:21:31. > :21:38.a very good record at the moment. We believe in education. We are
:21:38. > :21:43.everywhere where people are. It is interesting that you want to be
:21:43. > :21:46.more aggressive. You have to be aggressive with a coherent purpose.
:21:46. > :21:50.I look at statements from church leaders and I cannot decide what
:21:50. > :21:58.kind of church are they think they are leading. You have been
:21:58. > :22:03.supporting the coalition's government cuts in welfare benefits.
:22:03. > :22:11.Meanwhile the currents archbishop has been rallying against global
:22:11. > :22:17.capitalism. I did take exception with a polite way with the five
:22:17. > :22:23.bishops. Typically for the people at home, the bishops in the House
:22:23. > :22:28.of Lords they voted against the government's welfare benefit
:22:28. > :22:32.reforms. You said they were wrong because you said the welfare system
:22:32. > :22:42.has encouraged dependency. You said they wring money at people on
:22:42. > :22:47.
:22:47. > :22:57.benefits does not help. -- throwing money. My argument was not against
:22:57. > :22:59.
:22:59. > :23:07.supporting the poor. But I discreet -- disagree on two perceptions.
:23:07. > :23:11.They seem to ignore the mountain of debt this country has. As a
:23:11. > :23:17.Christian in the House of Lords, I felt I had the rights to give them
:23:17. > :23:27.an alternative point of view. are mixed messages here. Your
:23:27. > :23:31.
:23:31. > :23:41.successor talks about the plane here. -- plain fear. He talks about
:23:41. > :23:45.
:23:45. > :23:55.how the kind policies could harm ordinary people. -- currnt policies.
:23:55. > :24:03.-- current. We are allowed to have different opinions. I am now out of
:24:03. > :24:08.the Church. I am an individual. I am speaking for myself. 20 years
:24:08. > :24:14.from now - the the Church will be stronger or weaker? Who can say? I
:24:14. > :24:18.had my book argues that if we carry on speaking out for the Christian