Lord Carey - Archbishop of Canterbury, 1991-2002 HARDtalk

That is the summary of the headlines. It is now time for

Britain's Christians are being encouraged to join a new crusade.

To defend their religion from an aggressive secularism said to be

threatening the country's Christian identity. Leading this fight back

of the faithful is the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George

Carey. From public prayer to Bishops in Parliament, he says it's

time to make a stand for religious rights. Stephen Sackur asks if

there is really a place for God in Lord Carey, welcome to HARDtalk.

is could be on your programme. me ask you this, do you resent the

fact that Britain in the 21st century has become of a largely

secular place? Can I begin by the word you used earlier, crusade? The

Church of England and the Anglican community is not usually noted for

a crusade. I am there for standing up for the rights of minorities of

all kinds. I believe today there is any for Christians to show their

backbone and to stand up for what they believe in. I used the word

crusade because I had been looking at some of the language you have

used in reason. You have called for, and this is your phrase, a call to

arms. Yet spoken about the place of Christians in Britain and how would

you think it is an ass and then battle between Christians and

secularists. In some cases, this is already happening. My book is a

defence of the Christian faith. When I say a call to arms, that

does not mean weapons. We must use argument. We must say something

about our faith today. We are not living in a secular country, that

is my point. We live in almost a halfway house. The Church has a

very strong civic role in this country. Historically undoubtedly

true. I am talking about Britain in the 21st century. Look across a

culture. Look across the value systems. It is a secular country,

isn't it? No, I resist that. If we take the word secular it - it

simply means world. Secular has come to mean NT God. We are not an

MP got a country by any way. We are celebrating the 60th anniversary of

the Queen to the throne. 60 years ago it began with a prayer and

devotion to her people. In other words, the Queen is the head of a

society in which Christianity is the established faith. Let me pick

you up on a phrase that you just use when you said that centralism -

- secularism is against God. That is not exactly true. Secularism is

keeping religion out of the public space. It is simply saying that in

the public space, religion should not feature. My point is that it is

already there. Our country has been influenced profoundly by it.

Parliament begins with prayers. Bishops speak out on things. The

freedom to speak is around. What I am saying is that we must be aware

of the forces which are pushing Christianity to the margins and I

give plenty of examples about this. Let's talk about some of these

forces. You seem to have a particular beef with the courts at

the moment. You seem to think that many of Britain's judges have some

sort of an investor wants religion and Christianity. I think in some

cases that seems to be the case. They have not come out and said

that in so many words, but if you have a look at... Of course it

isn't. It seems to be an interpretation of which there is no

evidence. Look at the language. We are not a theocracy, one judge says.

We are a secular society. I have never argued for a theocracy. All

that I have argued for is that judges have a little understanding

of how society, respect the Christian heritage. I even

suggested they may be an equivalent to setting up a team of judges

similar to Maric judges and other types. You impugning the quality of

many of the judges. Using to suggest that many of the British

judges are incapable of making decisions when it comes to the

place of police and religion in society. Why, as a bishop, we know

what to intervene in law. It was certainly intervene. Just the other

day he said, and this is a direct quote, the law has no link between

the law and Christian faith. That to me is a definition of a

theocracy. I am not interfering in natural laws and legal decisions.

They are making judgments that are highly theological. They are saying

that marriage is not a key element in Christianity. Let's just sort

this out then. Do you believe that judges should allow old Christian

values and beliefs to trump legal commitment to equality and human it

-- human rights? Put it the other way around. Equality itself is a

virtue and a virtue of freedom. At the moment, equality is tromping

everything else. All I am asking for is that the test of a democracy

is how we deal with minorities. In the cases I give, I think people

are being disadvantaged because they come with a strong faith. In

some cases I do not believe in the attitude they have taken, but I

want to preserve their right to respect. We had a recent case in

the UK, a small town in Devon had always begun its formal council

proceedings with a Christian prayer. Now, one of the councillors, who

was not a believer, dot this undermined his full rights to the

take of all council business because this was formal council

business and he could not prey because he was not a Christian. He

took his case to court and in the end the judge found that yes, in

terms of the interpretation of the Local Government Act of 1972, this

was an infringement. I do not see why you have spoken out against

this ruling. Here is a case of a person who is not a believer, and I

respect that, and asserted himself with a National secular Society. In

a recent comment, one of them has said they were to bring down

prayers in Parliament eventually. Because they want is a -- what they

want is a complete separation. they are ignoring is a whole

history of culture of this going on up and down the country. A

wonderful compromise could be made and that is simply a matter of

moving prayer before the agenda. Instead of having prayer on the

agenda. That is what they have said. If we have removed prayer as a

formal part of the agenda, we would not have a problem with it. This is

their convention. I see nothing wrong in it. I think they are

determined to do something about this. I will wait and see what

happens. By Boyd comes back to the primacy of law. You have said

things about living in digs the right way. You're not challenge the

judge's rolling, wooded? One of the great things about our country is

how democracy gives us the right to argue our point of view. I go

completely with the law. If the law says something, as a citizen, I

must follow it. What I am pleading for his accommodation. I think a

test of the democracy is the way we deal with minority opinion. I am

asking for accommodation. Recently, in Canada, they set up a commission

and so they said we need to bring in differences. I can see that on a

case-by-case basis they may be run for that, but I want to read the

year the judgement of a senior judge in 2010. He was dealing with

another case which was all about a Maric councillor who was asked as

part of his work to talk to a gay couple who were having problems and

he absolutely refused office services because he said he

contravened his own religious beliefs. Again, his own company

that he worked for was outraged by this. They talking to court. The

judge found against him. The judge said the precepts of any belief

system cannot sound any louder than the general law. If they did, those

out in the cold would be less than citizens. Our constitution would be

on the way to a theocracy. That is exactly it. I go part of the way

with the Lord Justice. At the idea of a theocracy is absolute nonsense.

We already have a basis in Christianity. That gender meant was

doing his job when equal opportunities came in. Instead of

actually having a compromise, the man was pushed out of his job. It

would have been easy to accommodate the gentleman. Law comes down as a

very harsh thing in the case of individuals. These cases are very

telling. Let's talk about one more. Another very telling case recently

was the couple who ran a guesthouse, a bed and breakfast. They refuse to

offer their accommodation to a gay couple. That went through the

chords as well. I wonder whether you, as a religious man of

influence, supported their case. am much more ambivalent about that

because I think that if you offer your home as a business it is very

difficult to say you will only accept certain types of people.

When you operated a bed and breakfast, digit taking gay

couples? I did not know. If you knew that they were gay, which you

have? We were much more innocent back then. My wife and I offered

hospitality, which is a form of Christianity. We had all kinds of

people come into our home. We did not ask questions of them, which is

why I am more ambivalent. They do not see why you are end of lead at

all. When you offer a public good or service, you do not have a right

to discriminate. If somebody said they were not offering a run to a

black person, you would not be ambivalent about that. Mind ember

that comes from not knowing enough about that situation. -- my

ambivalence. But supposing the case of a bed-and-breakfast someone

comes to you totally drunk and you have to say it, you are not welcome

here because you are drunk. In their case, they took an exception

to a couple because in terms of their belief the couple was not

welcome. I am ambivalent because I do not know about the situation in

terms of the law. I would not have It bitching continues down a path

which involves more commitment to equality legislation is an, perhaps

it goes even further weight challenges things like prayer in

Parliament. -- if Britain continues. If all about were stripped away,

why would that really matter to the Church of England? The Church of

England and all the churches will go on doing their jobs to the best

of their abilities. It would be better for the Church in many ways.

It would make them focus more purely on what matters which is

bringing people, individuals, to the fates. -- the faith. It is an

opportunity for us all. We have a hospitable democracy. The essence

of why you're here is to bring people to your face. -- faith.

said it might work, we are here to help everybody. We are providing a

service in terms of a contribution. With respect, it is all about

history and the history of this nation. What made sense 300 years

ago does not necessarily make sense today. 72% of the last census says

there are Christian. If you want to trade numbers, we can. The numbers

of people attending church has been dwindling. It doesn't mean they are

not Christian. My parents did not go to church. But they would have

been offended if anyone said they were not Christian. Let's not judge

people on their attendance. question wants - why does it matter

if the Church uses it established status? In the US, there is a

strict separation of church and state. It was one of the pillars of

the American constitution. Religious belief is much stronger

over there. More people go to church as the percentage of the

population. It is not affecting the ability of Christians to get their

message out there and to persuade people to follow that message.

That's right. Why do you need it? It is a big if. There is a

significant appetite to end the automatic selection of more then

two dozen bishops into the House of Lords. You will find a great deal

of support for the present number of 26. If we're going into the

house, there is not a great appetite for that agenda at the

present moment. We have more problems on our hands then we can

cope with. Would it be fair to say that part of the anxieties in the

direction of where Britain is going because you are out of step with

the changing court will values of the country? -- cultural values.

You seem very worried about how more and more Muslims are entering

the country and practising their face. -- faith. When I was

Archbishop, I was very much in the four of welcoming was mums. That is

not the issue in terms of immigration. -- Muslims. I am

worried about the numbers are coming into our country. I believe

they should be a tapping, in that sense. It kind Archbishop suggested

-- the kind Archbishop suggested they should be some sort of deal

made between British law and practices are some sectors of Islam.

He said they can be no accommodation. I was one of many

voices. I believe in any nation they should be one law that fits

all of us. Area, you said they should be some sort of

accommodation for Christians. Even if a ran counter to what is the law.

-- Earlier. You said. -- earlier, That is probably where the debate

was in the case of the Archbishop. You got yourself into a position

where you are asking for special treatment of Christians but when it

comes to the discussion of special treatment for Muslims you adamantly

reject it. No special treatment for any group, due misunderstanding. We

need to protect the rights of individuals. That was my argument.

There is special treatment for questions. You explained it

yourself. We cannot start with a blank sheet of paper. There is an

established church in his country. We have to work without. It is a

hospitable establishment. We want everyone to be treated as equal

citizens. How does the Church of reinvigorate itself? Over the last

50 years it has suffered an enormous fall in support. The book

addresses that question. We have to be more aggressive, we have to get

out there and be confident. We have to carry on serving people. We had

a very good record at the moment. We believe in education. We are

everywhere where people are. It is interesting that you want to be

more aggressive. You have to be aggressive with a coherent purpose.

I look at statements from church leaders and I cannot decide what

kind of church are they think they are leading. You have been

supporting the coalition's government cuts in welfare benefits.

Meanwhile the currents archbishop has been rallying against global

capitalism. I did take exception with a polite way with the five

bishops. Typically for the people at home, the bishops in the House

of Lords they voted against the government's welfare benefit

reforms. You said they were wrong because you said the welfare system

has encouraged dependency. You said they wring money at people on

benefits does not help. -- throwing money. My argument was not against

supporting the poor. But I discreet -- disagree on two perceptions.

They seem to ignore the mountain of debt this country has. As a

Christian in the House of Lords, I felt I had the rights to give them

an alternative point of view. are mixed messages here. Your

successor talks about the plane here. -- plain fear. He talks about

how the kind policies could harm ordinary people. -- currnt policies.

-- current. We are allowed to have different opinions. I am now out of

the Church. I am an individual. I am speaking for myself. 20 years

from now - the the Church will be stronger or weaker? Who can say? I

had my book argues that if we carry on speaking out for the Christian