:00:07. > :00:11.This week a couple defending their home against alleged burglars fired
:00:11. > :00:21.a shotgun at them, injuring two. A disproportionate response, or do
:00:21. > :00:43.
:00:43. > :00:46.intruders forfeit their human Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed.
:00:46. > :00:48.Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. This week a house owner picked up
:00:49. > :00:51.his legally-registered shotgun and fired it at intruders in his home,
:00:51. > :00:54.injuring two and frightening the intruders away. He and his wife
:00:55. > :00:57.have been told they will not face charges. But were they right to
:00:57. > :00:59.defend their property by force, or was their reaction dangerously out
:00:59. > :01:01.of proportion? One of Britain's most famous
:01:02. > :01:06.scientists, Professor Richard Dawkins, says God is a delusion,
:01:06. > :01:08.that science and religion are incompatible. But the Chief Rabbi,
:01:08. > :01:13.Lord Sacks, argues they do work together. Can science and religion
:01:13. > :01:15.both be right? Also this week, four British
:01:15. > :01:17.Christians have gone to the European Court of Human Rights
:01:18. > :01:20.claiming they suffered religious discrimination at work. Andrew
:01:20. > :01:30.Marsh of Christian Concern believes Christianity itself is under threat
:01:30. > :01:31.
:01:31. > :01:36.in this country. Many of us think of Britain as a Christian country.
:01:36. > :01:40.But I believe that a new and aggressive form of atheism is in
:01:40. > :01:44.danger of making us an anti- Christian country.
:01:44. > :01:46.A very warm welcome to all my guests this week. Francesca
:01:46. > :01:49.Stavrakopolou is professor of Hebrew Bible and ancient religion
:01:49. > :01:58.at the University of Exeter. She describes herself as an atheist
:01:58. > :02:01.with huge respect for religion. Andrew Copson is chief executive of
:02:01. > :02:03.the British Humanist Association. He campaigns for an open society
:02:03. > :02:05.without faith schools, religious privilege or discrimination.
:02:05. > :02:08.Businessman Malcolm Starr led the campaign to freeTony Martin, the
:02:08. > :02:16.farmer who was convicted of shooting dead a burglar running
:02:16. > :02:26.from his home in 1999. Welcome to all of you. We want to know what
:02:26. > :02:35.
:02:35. > :02:38.Police this week arrested Andrew and Tracey Ferrie after two alleged
:02:38. > :02:40.burglars were shot at their farmhouse in Leicestershire. The
:02:40. > :02:43.Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to press charges
:02:43. > :02:52.against the couple, but the incident has reignited the debate
:02:52. > :02:57.on what counts as reasonable force in defending your home. Last Sunday
:02:57. > :03:02.Andy Ferrie fired a shotgun at alleged Blairs, who then fled his
:03:02. > :03:06.farmhouse in Leicestershire. No-one suffered life-threatening injuries
:03:06. > :03:09.but Mr Ferrie and his wife faced lengthy questioning by police.
:03:09. > :03:16.Later the Crown Prosecution Service announced they wouldn't be charged.
:03:16. > :03:19.The CPS said they had acted in reasonable self defence. But other
:03:19. > :03:24.high-profile case of homeowners defending their property have had
:03:24. > :03:29.very different legal outcomes 2000 Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was sent
:03:29. > :03:34.for jail. He killed a 16-year-old intruder by shooting him in the
:03:34. > :03:38.back as the teenager and his accomplice were trying to flee. Now
:03:38. > :03:42.new laws will come into effect strength technology rights of the
:03:42. > :03:47.householder. The Ministry of Justice says will you be allowed to
:03:47. > :03:52.use reasonable force to protect not just yourself but your property.
:03:52. > :03:59.Burglary is a despicable and hateful crime. I've been burgled
:03:59. > :04:02.twice. You feel violated. Burglary is not bravery. It is cowardice.
:04:02. > :04:06.2010 the Prime Minister said burglars leave their human rights
:04:06. > :04:10.outside the do, but how far should we go? If it is only our property
:04:10. > :04:14.under threat, is it really right for us to be the aggressor and
:04:14. > :04:19.possibly even kill? Many argue that a change to the law will just lead
:04:19. > :04:23.to burglars arming themselves in the expectation of being attacked.
:04:23. > :04:28.Do homeowner who is attack intruders just promote vigilantism?
:04:28. > :04:30.Is it a disproportionate reaction, or should we all have the right to
:04:30. > :04:33.defend our property using any force?
:04:33. > :04:37.Malcolm, was it right for the Ferries to use a shotgun to protect
:04:37. > :04:41.their property? Absolutely, they didn't have a rehearsal for what
:04:41. > :04:46.was going to happen. The burglars had the advantage of a rehearsal.
:04:46. > :04:50.It was disgusting that they were taken into custody for questioning.
:04:50. > :04:59.They had the trauma of these people coming into their house and then
:04:59. > :05:09.were taken away by police. It is an outrage and it is time a top judge
:05:09. > :05:29.
:05:29. > :05:34.Francesca there is real anger about this case, particularly this judge
:05:34. > :05:39.who talked about in a separate case it requiring a sense of courage to
:05:39. > :05:47.carry out burglar ris. Do you think that you do give up your human
:05:47. > :05:51.rights if you cross a threshold and start to carry out a burglary?
:05:51. > :06:00.course not. If we get to a state where the state is endorsing
:06:00. > :06:03.violence against anyone else, it's the thin edge of the wedge. Self
:06:03. > :06:08.defence, if you are personally being harmed, can I understand the
:06:08. > :06:12.will and the need to fight back, but to endorse it in law, it is
:06:12. > :06:17.ridiculous. Malcolm, you campaigned for Tony Martin and you had your
:06:17. > :06:20.own experience didn't you? The only people that can really judge this
:06:20. > :06:25.is someone who has had that experience, because you don't know
:06:25. > :06:31.how you would react. Some people would probably die of fright. Some
:06:31. > :06:37.will run away and some will be so angry they will do something about
:06:37. > :06:41.it. What happened in your place? had an intruder in the house
:06:41. > :06:48.upstairs while we were in the kitchen. They had the audacity to
:06:48. > :06:52.be in the house. In the hallway he got his arms around my wife. He a
:06:52. > :06:57.two-foot metal torch. I hit him over the forehead, which seemed to
:06:57. > :07:00.stun him momentarily. He said, "I've got a gun" at which point I
:07:00. > :07:04.didn't take any further action. When the police arrived I was so
:07:04. > :07:09.hyped up I said to one of the officers that it wouldn't have
:07:09. > :07:14.bothered me if I had killed him. A year later you perhaps don't feel
:07:14. > :07:21.like that and it has worn off, that experience. And the hatred. But at
:07:21. > :07:25.that very point, how you do know how you are going to react. It's a
:07:25. > :07:31.gut instinct. What do you think, Andrew? There is fear of the idea
:07:31. > :07:36.thaw take violent action but can you see the idea of an instinctive
:07:36. > :07:41.violent response? Yes, the fight or flight instinct is one that we have.
:07:41. > :07:45.Some choose to fight. In case supports what Francesca was saying
:07:45. > :07:53.That case someone was presenting a physical threat to the person, your
:07:53. > :07:56.wife, if not to yourself. There's a real ethical and therefore a legal
:07:56. > :08:01.distinction to be made between threats to your person or property,
:08:01. > :08:04.and whether or not the response is proportionate. If someone tries to
:08:04. > :08:09.snatch your bag, it is proportionate to push them away and
:08:09. > :08:14.to hold on to your bag and fight them off, but not to knock them to
:08:14. > :08:19.the ground and kick their head in. You will have no idea any of you
:08:19. > :08:24.what you will do. But the law will deal with you afterwards. People
:08:25. > :08:29.kill on the streets in fits of rage even when they were not personally
:08:29. > :08:34.threatened. There are in the moment. But what about someone coming into
:08:34. > :08:39.your house when people are in there? They can become a threat to
:08:39. > :08:43.people who are there. Steve is a former burglar and was a gambling
:08:43. > :08:46.addict as well. We've heard the view of someone who suffered a
:08:46. > :08:56.burglary. What's your view as someone who used to carry them out
:08:56. > :08:58.
:08:58. > :09:04.about the idea of force being used against burglars? I believe it is
:09:04. > :09:09.wrong to commit a burglary to start with. But to enforce violent
:09:09. > :09:14.against the burglar is going to be a two-way thing that the particular
:09:14. > :09:19.is prepared when he goes into the premise if the occupants are there,
:09:19. > :09:25.he is going there to use force to take what he wants. Did you ever
:09:25. > :09:31.use force or go prepared for violence? Yes. And that was part of
:09:31. > :09:38.it, of the life that I had. But then again, what your panel are not
:09:38. > :09:43.touching on at the moment is that I will have said 90% of burglar ris
:09:43. > :09:47.today are committed to subsidise drug adifpblgts drug addiction is a
:09:47. > :09:51.very powerful addiction. If you try to tackle somebody that is out
:09:51. > :09:55.there to get their drugs, then it is not a matter of fleeing, it is a
:09:55. > :09:59.matter of being able to take what you've gone there to get to feed
:09:59. > :10:04.that drug addiction. So it wouldn't have made any difference to you if
:10:04. > :10:09.you knew that a householder was likely to be allowed to use more
:10:09. > :10:13.force, that wouldn't have been put you off because of an addiction?
:10:13. > :10:17.Forensic criminal psychologists will tell thaw burglary is one of
:10:17. > :10:21.the most addictive crimes that you can do. If I, I couldn't stop doing
:10:21. > :10:30.the life that I did. It is as simple as that, until I got to
:10:30. > :10:40.right kind of help. Malcolm? Sorry steefrbgs I want to get Malcolm to
:10:40. > :10:47.respond. Thank you so much. A lot of burglaries are carried out by
:10:47. > :10:51.addicts. It be that brave if you take drugs and can keep burglaring
:10:51. > :10:54.people, that's nonsense what he said. Again we are talking about
:10:54. > :10:58.the innocent householder not necessarily the problem burglars
:10:58. > :11:03.have got. The last thing I'm bothered about when someone comes
:11:03. > :11:08.into my property is the di dictions or problems the burglar has. They
:11:08. > :11:11.should be dealt with separately and by some other means. But not
:11:11. > :11:17.accusing the householder of committing a crime because he's
:11:17. > :11:21.defended himself. I want to bring in Chris Birbeck, a professor of
:11:21. > :11:26.criminology of Salford University. Malcolm raised an interesting point,
:11:26. > :11:31.a sense of competing victimhood, that when a burglar is brought to
:11:31. > :11:35.trial they are the victim and have the back-up and householders and
:11:35. > :11:40.their situation is perhaps played down, and that's why they feel the
:11:40. > :11:45.need to perhaps take forceful action in their homes. Yes, good
:11:45. > :11:50.morning. There is that sense. You have to separate very carefully the
:11:50. > :11:54.insdint from what happens afterwards. -- incident itself from
:11:54. > :11:58.what happens afterwards. There is no doubt that as the home is a
:11:58. > :12:01.private space, it is very difficult to predict how people will react. I
:12:01. > :12:06.think everybody is in agreement that most people feel that an
:12:06. > :12:10.intruder in their house is a very fright I think experience. But as
:12:10. > :12:14.also your contributors have said, what the householder does depends
:12:14. > :12:18.greatly on the circumstances, which is why the police and the Crown
:12:18. > :12:23.Prosecution Service look very carefully at it. One thing is
:12:23. > :12:29.reacting in a moment of panic and perceived imminent threat, and
:12:29. > :12:36.another thing is pursuing somebody for example to vent punishment on
:12:36. > :12:39.them for what you think has happened. There's a point at which
:12:39. > :12:44.the person who has suffered a crime can themselves commit a crime in
:12:45. > :12:50.response, if they are not careful. That's the problem. Francesca, what
:12:50. > :12:55.do you think? That's an important point. Primarily, if we were to go
:12:55. > :13:00.ahead with new regulations that would allow people to be forceful
:13:00. > :13:06.in challenging burglars in their homes it is going to up the ante. A
:13:06. > :13:10.burglar will come into the house knowing that the person they are
:13:10. > :13:13.intruding on will be allowed to attack them. Where do you draw the
:13:13. > :13:19.line between defending your property and pursuing a burglar
:13:19. > :13:25.down the garden with a shotgun? should invite them in for a cup of
:13:25. > :13:28.tea and be nice perhaps. We have Sarah Newton on the line, a former
:13:28. > :13:31.police officer. Where do your sympathies lie in the situation,
:13:32. > :13:37.with the offenders or the victims, who feel that the law perhaps is
:13:37. > :13:40.more interested in the victimhood of the burglar? I think crime is a
:13:40. > :13:44.horrible thing and there is more than one victim. There is the
:13:44. > :13:50.victim that is in the home in burglary, but every criminal is
:13:50. > :13:54.also a victim. Of some description. While crime is horrid, if we start
:13:54. > :14:03.to say it is OK to do whatever you want, we are in an awful society,
:14:03. > :14:07.one that I wouldn't want too live Have you had a situation where a
:14:07. > :14:11.homeowner has used force, is it obvious when they have crossed the
:14:11. > :14:15.line? The law says whatever is reached double, which will change
:14:15. > :14:18.in every circumstance. -- reasonable. Reasonable force is
:14:18. > :14:22.reasonable force. It is quite simple, that is not chasing
:14:22. > :14:27.somebody down after a burglary to attack them, that is not reasonable.
:14:27. > :14:30.I want to bring in Nick Freeman, a criminal defence lawyer. We have
:14:30. > :14:38.heard from the police, from victims and we have heard from former
:14:39. > :14:44.burglars. Is there a sense in which burglars have the best of both were
:14:44. > :14:46.-- world? They can go armed, they can try it on and count on the fact
:14:46. > :14:51.that house holders will be frightened of attacking them?
:14:52. > :14:56.are right, it is a burglar's world. There is a load of detection rate
:14:56. > :15:00.and the law is misplaced in favour of the burglar. The law allows
:15:00. > :15:03.reasonable force, but through the eyes of the householder. The
:15:03. > :15:08.difficulty is that it is a fluid situation. Do we trust a burglar
:15:08. > :15:12.when he says, I am not going to harm you? What happens if he says,
:15:12. > :15:16.where is the safe and we do not have one? In my view, house holders
:15:16. > :15:20.should be able to use the force that they feel is reasonably
:15:20. > :15:23.necessary. That is very different from the law as it currently stands.
:15:23. > :15:30.That would enable them to deal with the problem instinctively, without
:15:30. > :15:33.wrestling with the legal potential ramifications they could face.
:15:34. > :15:37.These two people arrested last Sunday spent two or three days in
:15:37. > :15:42.police custody before the CPS very sensibly decided that no action was
:15:42. > :15:46.going to be taken. When you heard about the judge talking about it
:15:46. > :15:50.taking courage to carry out burglaries, were you impressed?
:15:50. > :15:54.think he is now being investigated. I think he probably very much
:15:54. > :15:57.regret those words. They are the most ridiculous words I have heard
:15:57. > :16:01.a judge say for many years and I have heard some ridiculous words
:16:01. > :16:05.from judges before. What are your thoughts, having had a few
:16:05. > :16:08.perspectives? Is it enough that the law gives a reasonable force
:16:08. > :16:12.protection? This comes up every time an incident happens. I still
:16:12. > :16:15.think that you have to perhaps put a wadding out to burgle us that
:16:15. > :16:23.they are going to lose a lot of their rights the moment that they
:16:23. > :16:28.step into somebody's property. -- put a warning out to burglars.
:16:28. > :16:34.important thing is that we counter this social attitude that casts
:16:34. > :16:39.burglars and people that commit minor crimes as somehow villains or
:16:39. > :16:44.bad people. They are villains and bad people. But they are not
:16:44. > :16:48.inherently bad, people are driven to these situations through their
:16:48. > :16:53.circumstances. It is not my problem, if they come into my property. You
:16:53. > :16:57.do not say, do you have a social problem that needs working out? You
:16:57. > :17:01.have the problem yourself. But a pig we have a social problem when
:17:01. > :17:05.we say that burglars should have their human rights amended. I think
:17:05. > :17:09.it's better for them to go to court and see if they have rights, rather
:17:09. > :17:13.than take innocent householders and put them in custody for three days.
:17:13. > :17:17.That must be right. I am in sympathy with your general position,
:17:17. > :17:21.the people that have said that everybody is a victim. These things
:17:21. > :17:26.are very complex. These crimes are consequences of difficult
:17:26. > :17:30.situations. But that is a job for society. It cannot be the role of
:17:30. > :17:33.the person in the heat of the moment to double those things. I
:17:33. > :17:36.think the only ethical questionnaire is if their self-
:17:36. > :17:40.defence is proportionate or did they go too far and become the
:17:40. > :17:50.aggressor. That is where I say that the law as it currently stands is
:17:50. > :17:52.appropriate. Were you arrested? There was nobody injured. What I
:17:52. > :17:57.said to the police officer, that moment, I could have killed him. He
:17:57. > :18:01.said, you had better not do a Tony Martin. The police are almost
:18:01. > :18:07.taking the attitude that you might have done something wrong yourself.
:18:07. > :18:11.We have to leave it there. Thank you so much for your thoughts. That
:18:11. > :18:16.is our poll question today. I will read a couple of comments before I
:18:16. > :18:20.go into it. Burglars are still students, says Johnny. It is not
:18:20. > :18:22.right for other human beings to decide if they live or die. Lee
:18:22. > :18:26.says if you give homeowners the right to defend their property,
:18:26. > :18:30.burglars are more likely to carry weapons. Another viewer says that
:18:30. > :18:40.when resistance becomes aggression, we are in danger of using too much
:18:40. > :19:01.
:19:02. > :19:05.Now, if you believe in God, can you really believe in science? Chief
:19:05. > :19:12.Rabbi Lord Sacks believes that he can and that we need both science
:19:12. > :19:15.and religion to answer The Big Questions. This week, a BBC
:19:15. > :19:19.documentary pitches him head-to- head with the man best known for
:19:20. > :19:28.leading the scientific attack on religion, Professor Richard Dawkins.
:19:28. > :19:31.I think religion hinders science because religion is content to lie
:19:31. > :19:35.down and accept supernatural explanations, whereas science sees
:19:35. > :19:40.a challenge whenever we do not understand something. The challenge
:19:40. > :19:44.is to try to understand it. Science gives those enormous power.
:19:44. > :19:50.Religion gives us an almost heritage of human wisdom as to how
:19:50. > :19:53.best to use that power. The conversation between them is a
:19:53. > :19:57.conversation that may involve each of those moving outside of our
:19:57. > :20:05.comfort zone. But it is a conversation that is a signal of
:20:05. > :20:10.hope. Scientists and theologians are interested in big questions,
:20:10. > :20:13.rightly so. That is where we agree. Religion answers on the basis of
:20:13. > :20:17.faith, science on the basis of evidence and that is the biggest
:20:17. > :20:21.difference. There are plenty of good and great scientists who
:20:21. > :20:27.believe in God and still believe in God. Einstein had an almost
:20:27. > :20:34.mystical belief in God, creator of the universe, although he did not
:20:34. > :20:39.believe in the God of the prophet, who speaks to human beings. But his
:20:39. > :20:42.religious belief was profound and almost mystical. You can point to
:20:43. > :20:48.individual scientists and individual good scientists who do
:20:48. > :20:52.have a belief in God. But we do know that the human mind is capable
:20:52. > :20:56.of dividing itself into separate parts and of holding incompatible
:20:56. > :21:01.beliefs. The mere fact that you can find individual scientists, even
:21:01. > :21:06.good ones, that our religious, does not mean there is any kind of great
:21:06. > :21:13.compatibility between science and religion. I think religion is our
:21:13. > :21:19.greatest set of answers to the three fundamental questions.
:21:19. > :21:24.Questions that any reflective human being must ask. Who am I? Why am I
:21:24. > :21:30.here? How, then, shall I live? Those questions cannot be answered
:21:30. > :21:34.by science. So, do science and religion play complementary roles
:21:34. > :21:44.in society? What are they in competition? If you truly believe
:21:44. > :21:49.in science, can you really believe You can see that documentary,
:21:49. > :21:53.presented by Lord Sacks, this Wednesday on BBC One.
:21:54. > :22:00.For if you have a webcam, you can make your point on Skype or join in
:22:00. > :22:03.through Twitter, text, phone or e- mail.
:22:03. > :22:07.Joining us is Steve Fuller, an American philosopher and
:22:07. > :22:12.sociologist who believes in God and who has written about the Theory of
:22:12. > :22:16.intelligent design. I want to start with you, Andrew, can a good
:22:16. > :22:19.scientist really believe in God? Well, I think that is a question
:22:19. > :22:23.that you can answer by looking around and saying yes. Obviously
:22:23. > :22:27.there are people that are good scientists that also believe in God
:22:27. > :22:30.and our religious. In the video you have just shown, Richard Dawkins
:22:30. > :22:34.made a good point. People can believe in different things at
:22:34. > :22:39.different times, human beings are complicated. They can believe on
:22:39. > :22:45.one hand that there is a God and be a totally competent and brilliant
:22:45. > :22:48.physicist, biologist or chemist or whatever. Is it legitimate, the
:22:49. > :22:52.people that claim that religion can answer the same questions that
:22:52. > :22:56.science can answer? Is that a legitimate claim for them to make?
:22:57. > :23:00.I think no. I think if you are a religious person that believes that
:23:00. > :23:05.your religion will answer questions like where did human beings come
:23:05. > :23:08.from, what is the behaviour of matter in the world, what is true
:23:08. > :23:11.about the physical universe, and there are some religious people
:23:11. > :23:15.that think that, I think religious people that think that are wrong.
:23:15. > :23:18.The only way of answering those questions, what is this world
:23:18. > :23:22.around us, or how do these things behave, even historical questions
:23:22. > :23:26.about what happened in the past, what is the truth of this and that
:23:26. > :23:31.in the past, you have to answer those with evidence, hypotheses and
:23:31. > :23:35.scientific method. This is the big concern. Richard Dawkins is saying
:23:35. > :23:39.we need evidence. There are creationists talking about
:23:39. > :23:42.intelligent design, which he argues is not real evidence and is in
:23:42. > :23:46.danger of damaging scientific thinking and rational thought?
:23:46. > :23:49.think, in a sense, a history of this is completely wrong. In a
:23:49. > :23:53.sense, we would not have modern science that it was not for certain
:23:54. > :23:57.kinds of religious attitudes that took place in the 17th century.
:23:57. > :24:02.It's not enough to say that is how it was then, bringing forward to
:24:02. > :24:07.now, is there not a threat from creationists to science? I think
:24:07. > :24:11.the bigger threat is if we believe in science at all, especially in
:24:11. > :24:14.the large-scale sense of coming up with a unified Theory of Everything.
:24:14. > :24:18.The whole meaningfulness of that kind of project is predicated on
:24:18. > :24:22.the idea that we can actually get a rational grasp of the entire
:24:23. > :24:25.universe. Why do we even have that kind of idea? That idea goes back
:24:25. > :24:29.to the biblical idea that we have been created in the image and
:24:29. > :24:32.likeness of God. That is the only clear precedent for the idea that
:24:32. > :24:37.human beings are so special with the possibility for understanding
:24:37. > :24:42.how the world works. Francesca, you are an atheist, what is your view
:24:42. > :24:46.of the Richard Dawkins position? Firstly, I think he does a real
:24:46. > :24:49.disservice to atheists. Though I am an atheist myself, I think he
:24:49. > :24:54.represents a point of view that deliberately caricatures and
:24:54. > :24:56.vilifies certain beliefs. I do not hold to those beliefs myself, but I
:24:56. > :24:59.think he misunderstands what religion is trying to do,
:24:59. > :25:03.particularly what these biblical ideas are trying to express about
:25:03. > :25:07.the world. I am not a big fan of his. You think he deliberately
:25:07. > :25:14.confuses what is a matter for... just don't think he understands
:25:14. > :25:18.biblical literature at all. He has not been trained to read these
:25:18. > :25:21.texts in their historical context. To back this up, I think that if
:25:21. > :25:25.you go back to the 17th century, the people that were the founders
:25:25. > :25:28.of modern science actually did read the biblical texts. These two
:25:28. > :25:33.things have not always been so separated and in compatible as they
:25:33. > :25:37.seem now if you listen to someone like Richard Dawkins. In the sense
:25:37. > :25:41.that one needs to go to the late 19th century, when you start to see
:25:41. > :25:44.this kind of schism taking place. If we go back in time to weigh. But
:25:44. > :25:50.Owen which society was drenched with Christian ideas and also a
:25:50. > :25:53.Christian ideas were very political, so you have to say a Christian at
:25:54. > :25:57.to participate in public life, then of course you'll get this mix of
:25:57. > :26:01.things. It is true that Isaac Newton believed in God. He also
:26:01. > :26:06.believed in alchemy, that does not mean alchemy is legitimate and we
:26:06. > :26:10.should be looking at that to confirm our scientific thoughts.
:26:10. > :26:13.People like Richard Dawkins present science as somehow factual, this is
:26:13. > :26:17.the truth, it is evidence was that he doesn't say it has the answers,
:26:17. > :26:21.he says its job is to ask questions and where it does not have answers,
:26:22. > :26:31.he is worried about faith, he thinks, making it started filling
:26:32. > :26:34.
:26:34. > :26:41.the gaps. -- making that stuff. But he risks being as bad as
:26:41. > :26:45.Steve Jones is a professor of genetics at University College
:26:45. > :26:49.London. I know that you have written in the past about your
:26:49. > :26:52.concern about a minority of students who were walking out of
:26:52. > :26:57.biology classes because it clashed with their views on creationism.
:26:57. > :27:01.Can you tell me what you think is your view about the relationship in
:27:01. > :27:05.the modern world between some religious thinking and science? Is
:27:05. > :27:10.there any danger in religious thinking? Yes, I think there is an
:27:10. > :27:13.enormous amount of danger in religious thinking. I live in the
:27:13. > :27:19.21st century, not the 16th century, as many of your contributors seem
:27:19. > :27:29.to. If you look at the interaction between science and religion now,
:27:29. > :27:34.
:27:34. > :27:38.there is a very useful word, endarkenment, the opposite the
:27:38. > :27:41.opposite of the Enlightenment. There are pastors who do not really
:27:41. > :27:46.believe in what they are saying, I don't think, that say what they
:27:46. > :27:50.have to save. What happens to you, if you are at the age of eight, and
:27:50. > :27:54.your religious leader tells you that the earth began 6000 years ago
:27:54. > :27:58.in a magical way. You believe him, of course you do. Then you are
:27:58. > :28:03.doing biology at University and you discover that he was not telling
:28:03. > :28:06.the truth. Why should you believe anything else he said? I think he
:28:06. > :28:10.is Miss characterising what has happened. What is taking place is
:28:10. > :28:14.that people are getting knowledge about signs from many different
:28:14. > :28:18.sources, more than before. Through the internet, through television
:28:18. > :28:21.programmes like this and other related to things. I think people
:28:22. > :28:25.are beginning to form their own views. In that context, religious
:28:25. > :28:31.organisations have played a very important role. I would say that
:28:31. > :28:35.this is not anti-science at all. Science is undergoing its own
:28:35. > :28:40.Protestant Reformation, where there is a decentralisation of scientific
:28:40. > :28:43.authority. People like Steve Jones represent the Pope and Archbishop
:28:43. > :28:48.of the old Catholic Church, with regard to science. Now we are
:28:48. > :28:52.getting a democratised science, which religion is contributing to.
:28:52. > :28:58.Do you accept that? Science is not a democracy, that is the one thing
:28:58. > :29:02.it is not. If it was a democracy, you often hear this in the media,
:29:02. > :29:06.top scientists interviewed, a mathematician has discovered that
:29:06. > :29:11.two and two is four. Then you have somebody from the decimal
:29:11. > :29:15.Liberation Front, he says it is five, then we have a compromise,
:29:15. > :29:19.between four and five, probably closer to four. Science does not
:29:19. > :29:23.work like that. If things are wrong, we throw them out. We do not work
:29:23. > :29:28.by the majority. In the United States, more than half the
:29:28. > :29:38.population believes that the earth began 4000 years ago. That is not
:29:38. > :29:39.
:29:39. > :29:44.Steve Jones thank you. I want to bring in a Reverend Professor David
:29:44. > :29:48.Wilkinson, now an ordained Methodist Minister. We heard this
:29:48. > :29:52.discussion, we had Steve Jones there explaining his real concern
:29:52. > :29:57.about how religion is messing the way that science is regarded. What
:29:57. > :30:03.your view? My view is that sometimes religion can suppress
:30:03. > :30:09.scings but in my experience as an astrophysicist and a Christian
:30:09. > :30:13.believer, the two have liberated each other. I'm more excited about
:30:13. > :30:15.science and Christian faith as I go on. That's because I believe that
:30:15. > :30:20.evidence is involved in both science and Christian faith. You
:30:20. > :30:23.have to look at it, although they look at the universe in different
:30:23. > :30:28.ways, they share an interest in evidence. For instance I was drawn
:30:29. > :30:33.to the Christian faith at the age of 17 as it happens, because of its
:30:33. > :30:40.emphasis upon evidence. Religious experience and lots of different
:30:40. > :30:45.people. The fact ta that the universe itself poses questions
:30:45. > :30:51.where science can't answer, where do the beautiful physical laws come,
:30:51. > :30:59.from and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
:30:59. > :31:03.There is no evidence for that! Francesca will know about this more
:31:03. > :31:09.than I do. There's a lack of evidence that most of the Bible is
:31:09. > :31:13.true. This is just the sort of self deception that is a worry when
:31:13. > :31:17.science and religion do comingle. I can't understand why claims about
:31:18. > :31:23.things that happen in the Bible shouldn't be subjected to the same
:31:23. > :31:29.tests of evidence as everything else. I feel that sometimes people
:31:29. > :31:34.who say things like that are the victims of self deception. The
:31:34. > :31:43.Francesca is a biblical scholar. Are you saying that Professor
:31:43. > :31:47.Wilkinson is a victim of deception? I think so. What's the evidence.
:31:47. > :31:52.think historically evidence does need the be sifted. I take
:31:52. > :31:57.exception to being called self- deceived on this. I teach theology.
:31:57. > :32:02.I'm part of the University of Durham, which takes theology and
:32:02. > :32:09.historically evidence within the Bible extremely seriously and takes
:32:09. > :32:14.the academic part of that... but teach theology about biblical
:32:14. > :32:21.belief, and I teach from literature. We are approaching the evidence
:32:21. > :32:27.from different perspectives. There is no evidence for a resurrection.
:32:27. > :32:32.Thank you. What about religion giving a moral compass. On
:32:32. > :32:38.fertility treatment science can do all sorts of things, don't we need
:32:38. > :32:42.religion? Absolutely not. Sometimes I think that religious
:32:42. > :32:46.organisations represented on those panels can have a deeply immoral
:32:46. > :32:51.effect, by affecting the moral lives of people today. Why for
:32:51. > :32:55.example with 80% of people in this country supporting assisted dying
:32:55. > :32:59.for the terminally ill, why is it that ethicists in the media again
:32:59. > :33:06.and again say no, people shouldn't be allowed to have assisted dying?
:33:06. > :33:11.It is not because they carant people's choices but some script
:33:11. > :33:14.ture tells them. So There's a slight going on here between
:33:14. > :33:19.whether a religious authority should have a say in the matter,
:33:19. > :33:26.and the answer is yet, versus one should believe automatically what
:33:26. > :33:30.they say, a more contested issue. One thing that religion poses is a
:33:30. > :33:34.clear sense of what a human being is and how it is placed in the
:33:34. > :33:39.universe. That's incredibly damaging. You are going to have a
:33:39. > :33:44.take a view on it somehow. Most of the major religions share a sense
:33:44. > :33:50.of what basic human decency and being communal with each other is.
:33:50. > :33:55.Most of them share the same views of life, you don't need a
:33:55. > :34:01.particularly religious tradition to have a view on abortion. Where
:34:01. > :34:07.secular people are quite fuzzy... Take the American example where
:34:07. > :34:12.President Bush put a restriction on stem cell research because of his
:34:12. > :34:19.religious reasons. One has to take these claims on their face. I don't
:34:20. > :34:24.say we should be allowing down to particular religious views. I took
:34:24. > :34:27.watt Andrew was saying, to try to rule religion out of having a say.
:34:27. > :34:31.Absolutely not. Two things. I don't think clarity is always the best
:34:31. > :34:34.thing. Sometimes we have to accept that moral questions are
:34:34. > :34:38.complicated. True, religious conditions may have commendably
:34:38. > :34:42.clear and strict rules and clear views, but clarity is not always
:34:42. > :34:46.what we want. Sometimes we want acceptness that there are greys in
:34:46. > :34:53.an argument. I don't want to keep religious people out of the
:34:53. > :35:01.argument or discussion, I want to stop the views of one particular
:35:01. > :35:05.group preventing... With me now is a physics teacher, brought up as a
:35:05. > :35:09.strict Muslim. You are now an atheist and a scientist. What's
:35:09. > :35:15.your view on where we are? Do you think there's a danger posed to
:35:15. > :35:19.society by the power of religion? Sit damaging science teaching?
:35:19. > :35:23.think really upset at the fact that none of the scientists have put
:35:23. > :35:28.forward any evidence that religion is damage science. I teach many
:35:28. > :35:32.religious students who go to University to study science. They
:35:32. > :35:38.are perfectly capable of holding those two ways of looking at the
:35:38. > :35:42.world simultaneously. We all do, that we all have cognitive
:35:42. > :35:45.dissonance. The ideas that children grow up with, but we do a
:35:45. > :35:49.disservice to children by thinking that children can't learn how to
:35:49. > :35:55.arrive at their own ways of looking at the world. That's what it boils
:35:55. > :35:58.down to. You are not concerned about the power of children. You
:35:58. > :36:03.talk about being brought up with the fear of hell and restrictions
:36:04. > :36:08.on what you could eat. I grew up to be an atheist. I'm evidence of the
:36:09. > :36:14.fact that a good education with give you the freedom to think for
:36:14. > :36:19.yourself. Excellent. That's what it should do. Do you think that the
:36:20. > :36:24.debate is getting harder between religion and science. Yes, I do.
:36:24. > :36:29.Science is the modern western world's answer to lots of different
:36:29. > :36:33.questions that people have been wrestling with for years. What do
:36:33. > :36:37.you believe in then! I believe in the goodness of people. OK. We need
:36:37. > :36:41.to get a little bit beyond that. is not a bad place to start. Thank
:36:41. > :36:45.you so much. Tom says faith is what you rely on
:36:45. > :36:50.when you don't care about the evidence, that's why religion
:36:50. > :36:57.teaches us nothing and science does. Rob, religion deals with how people
:36:57. > :37:05.hope and fear things are. And science without religion is blind.
:37:05. > :37:08.I think someone famous said that. Later on Sunday Morning Live: As
:37:08. > :37:11.four Christians appeal to the European Court Of Human Rights
:37:11. > :37:21.about what they see as an attack on their religious freedoms, we ask,
:37:21. > :37:23.
:37:23. > :37:33.are Christians being persecuted in Keep voting in our poll. The
:37:33. > :37:40.
:37:40. > :37:49.question.. Should we be allowed to You have five minutes before the
:37:49. > :37:53.poll closes. Or you can vote online - bbc.co.uk/sundaymorninglive.
:37:53. > :37:58.It is time for our moral moment. This week we are giving our
:37:58. > :38:02.panellists of a sneak Peru of analysis of faith in Britain
:38:02. > :38:06.commissioned by the BBC religious festival Rethink, taking place in
:38:06. > :38:12.Salford this week. I will be chairing the discussion. The
:38:12. > :38:16.research has thrown up interesting facts about young people.
:38:16. > :38:20.Two thirds of 16-25-year-olds claim they don't belong to any religion.
:38:20. > :38:25.And young white British citizens are the ethnic group least likely
:38:25. > :38:29.to belong to a religion. Andrew, what are your thoughts about what
:38:29. > :38:33.this says about the status and importance of religion in Britain
:38:33. > :38:37.today? What's most interesting about it, it is an analysis of the
:38:37. > :38:41.existing data, so we already knew for example that young people are
:38:41. > :38:44.really unlikely to be a member of any religion. What's interesting is
:38:44. > :38:49.the analysis that maps that trend over time. We can see that it is
:38:49. > :38:53.not just that when they grow up and get older they are likely to
:38:53. > :38:59.believe in religion. It is not the case that young people don't
:38:59. > :39:08.believe in religion and the older are more likely to. It's the
:39:08. > :39:14.decline of religion identification. In other surveys there've been on...
:39:14. > :39:19.It looks pretty terminal. With an American background there is much
:39:20. > :39:24.more religious onance. What do you make that there is much more of a
:39:24. > :39:28.decline? The first thing I would make about surveys of this kind is
:39:28. > :39:32.that they are really looking for membership in well-organised
:39:32. > :39:37.churches and religious groups A sense this survey doesn't address
:39:37. > :39:42.the more general issue of whether people believe in God or have more
:39:42. > :39:45.spirit at. I think more data will be released next week. This is a
:39:45. > :39:49.question about the institutionalisation of belief. I'm
:39:49. > :39:53.not surprised by the figures the myself. There's a sense in which
:39:53. > :39:57.religion in this survey is providing a sense of cultural
:39:57. > :40:01.identity. If cultural identity can be golden through other aspects of
:40:01. > :40:05.secular society, then I think that that is where the identification
:40:05. > :40:09.will come and there won't be a need for religion. You asked me about
:40:09. > :40:13.the United States. It seems that there is still very strong
:40:14. > :40:16.religious cultural identification. If you look at the two nominated
:40:16. > :40:22.conventions for both political partys that have taken place in the
:40:22. > :40:27.past couple of weeks, both of them invoked God in serious ways and
:40:27. > :40:31.trying to mobilise groups. The interesting thing about the United
:40:31. > :40:36.States is it has official separation of Church and state. One
:40:36. > :40:40.of the consequences of that has been to allow for flourishing of
:40:40. > :40:43.different group which is occupy the political space. The survey about
:40:43. > :40:48.Britain, what's your view on the status of the Church of England
:40:49. > :40:53.compared to other groups? Some of the stats suggesting that, to me it
:40:53. > :40:56.reflected the idea that if younger generations don't seem to affiliate
:40:56. > :41:02.themselves with right British religion, which historically is
:41:02. > :41:06.Church of England, it reflects the fact that the Church of England is
:41:06. > :41:13.decalf Diet Coke Christianity now, wishy washy and there is nothing
:41:13. > :41:20.appealing about it to younger people. I notice that with the
:41:20. > :41:28.ethnicity breakdowns, 95% of young Bangladeshies and 95% of young
:41:28. > :41:32.Pakistanis had an affiliation, and Indians too. Sit religious
:41:32. > :41:36.observance? We are a very urban society in Britain and
:41:36. > :41:40.multiculturalism in these major cities I think perhaps there's a
:41:40. > :41:44.different kind of identity that young white British people are
:41:44. > :41:47.taking from their culture and their society than perhaps different
:41:47. > :41:51.sorts of ethnic groups for whom perhaps second or third generation
:41:51. > :41:53.families have more of a sense of identity. Sadly we have to leave it
:41:54. > :41:59.there. There'll be more research out on Wednesday.
:41:59. > :42:09.Thank you. You've been voting in our poll this
:42:09. > :42:14.
:42:14. > :42:17.Four British Christians have gone to the European Court of Human
:42:17. > :42:27.Rights, appealing against what they see as religious discrimination in
:42:27. > :42:27.
:42:27. > :42:32.the workplace. They include a check-in clerk who clashed with
:42:32. > :42:37.British Airways over wearing a cross, and a registrar who said she
:42:37. > :42:41.couldn't carry out civil partnerships. This is Sunday Stand.
:42:41. > :42:47.Many oufs think of Britain as a Christian country. But I believe
:42:47. > :42:52.that a new, aggressive form of atheism is in danger of making us
:42:52. > :42:57.an anti-Christian country. For centuries Christianity has provided
:42:57. > :43:04.the house in which we as a society live. Christianity has given rise
:43:04. > :43:10.to our common values, our laws, our freedoms. But,000 that house is
:43:10. > :43:14.under attack. A new form of secularism has arisen. It is
:43:14. > :43:20.atheistic, aggressive and antagonistic. It tells us that
:43:20. > :43:23.Christianity is a danger to our society, a virus that needs to be
:43:23. > :43:28.eradicated. It is seeking to dismantle our Christian heritage
:43:28. > :43:32.and to remove expressions of Christianity from public life. And
:43:32. > :43:37.it reserves special hostility for those who dare to stand up against
:43:38. > :43:44.it. Christian nurses, doctors, foster carers, a magistrate,
:43:44. > :43:49.teachers, local council workers. All have been pushed out of their
:43:49. > :43:55.jobs. This new aggressive atheism preaching its doctrine of survival
:43:55. > :44:00.of the fifthest is producing a society that is increasingly cold,
:44:00. > :44:10.competitive and cruel. I fear for what our children will inherit if
:44:10. > :44:10.
:44:10. > :44:14.We are joined by Andrew Marr Show of Christian Concern, an
:44:14. > :44:20.organisation campaigning, they say, to infuse a biblical world-view
:44:20. > :44:23.into every aspect of society. I am sure you enjoyed our last
:44:23. > :44:29.discussion. Are we in danger, taking the perspective seriously,
:44:29. > :44:33.are we in danger of becoming anti- Christian? Absolutely not. I cannot
:44:33. > :44:36.see any evidence or any reason to believe almost any of the
:44:36. > :44:40.assertions or claims that were made in that video just now. I think
:44:40. > :44:45.it's completely the opposite of reality. Firstly, I do not think it
:44:45. > :44:50.is the case that Christianity is somehow a victim or under attack,
:44:50. > :44:53.or that this house... It's an interesting metaphor, given the
:44:54. > :44:59.first discussion, that the house is under attack. The question being
:45:00. > :45:03.what forced is proportional, and who the victim is. Christianity is
:45:03. > :45:07.not being attacked in that structural political way. Quite the
:45:07. > :45:11.opposite. Look at examples of how Christianity still retains enormous
:45:11. > :45:14.power. Look at our state-funded schools. A third of our state
:45:14. > :45:18.funded schools are run by religious groups, most of them by the Church
:45:18. > :45:22.of England. There are bishops in our Parliament. Christianity
:45:22. > :45:26.retains a political power totally out of proportion to the number of
:45:26. > :45:30.people in the country that are Christian. A loss of this fiction
:45:30. > :45:36.about Christians being persecuted, I think, is a narrative designed to
:45:36. > :45:39.whip up a sort of reaction amongst Christians. Well, the issue is
:45:39. > :45:42.about trajectory. It's about the direction of travel. There is no
:45:42. > :45:46.denying that we still enjoy many aspects of Christian heritage, for
:45:46. > :45:50.the good of all. But things have changed. I think there is a
:45:50. > :45:54.deliberate agenda, particularly prevalent in the last decade or so,
:45:54. > :45:58.that presents Christianity as hostile and as a danger to society.
:45:59. > :46:03.That has caused a widespread anxiety in society, more generally.
:46:03. > :46:07.It has also allowed Christianity to be ridiculed and not given the
:46:07. > :46:11.chance to respond. There is a hostility. These cases that have
:46:11. > :46:15.gone to the European Court of Human Rights, very unusual for the Court
:46:15. > :46:18.of Human Rights to hear freedom of thought, and that is what we are
:46:18. > :46:24.talking about, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, very few
:46:24. > :46:30.cases. A lot of detail of the cases, in the cases of the British Airways
:46:30. > :46:34.clerk, she got permission to wear it and they changed the rules. Is
:46:34. > :46:41.there a question about Christians trying to make a visual point about
:46:41. > :46:44.their identity, because Muslims wear a turban or head where?
:46:44. > :46:47.was allowed to wear it, but underneath her clothes. She claimed
:46:47. > :46:51.she was being discriminated against and compared herself to Muslim
:46:51. > :46:56.women, able to wear... They changed the rules and she can now wear
:46:56. > :47:00.these things. So, why is she going? Is that religious discrimination if
:47:00. > :47:04.the problem has been sorted? Well, it was as a result of media
:47:04. > :47:10.coverage around the case. British Airways took the sensible decision.
:47:10. > :47:14.How is it persecution if it is sorted? The critical issue at stake
:47:14. > :47:17.is whether these four Christian individuals should have been
:47:17. > :47:24.respected and her Christian faith accommodated without any risk of
:47:24. > :47:27.damage... I have to say, I'm so sorry, but I think the context of
:47:27. > :47:31.the Western world, where Christianity is still the main
:47:31. > :47:35.cultural religion, to claim persecution and discrimination when
:47:35. > :47:37.in other parts of the world religious and non-religious groups
:47:37. > :47:42.really are being persecuted and discriminated against, I think it
:47:42. > :47:45.is bordering on the offensive. agree with that. I also think it is
:47:45. > :47:48.worth saying that these cases, they have been lost again and again in
:47:48. > :47:52.English courts. They have been lost frequently because courts are found
:47:52. > :47:55.there was not any persecution or discrimination going on. Again and
:47:55. > :47:58.again, political Christian lobby groups have used them to create a
:47:58. > :48:02.totally false narrative. It's actually good for your cause when
:48:02. > :48:08.these cases are lost. The more they are lost, the more it shows that
:48:08. > :48:13.people... First, Francesca's point about persecution, absolutely,
:48:13. > :48:15.there are not Christians being killed in this country. We give
:48:15. > :48:18.great thanks for that. We do remember that more Christians lose
:48:18. > :48:22.their lives for their faith than any other religious believers
:48:22. > :48:26.around the world. But the reality of these cases is that people are
:48:26. > :48:30.losing jobs, livelihoods, reputation and career. If I can
:48:30. > :48:33.just make a quick analogy, if you have two people with cancer and one
:48:33. > :48:37.is in the early stages and one is in the latter stages, of course
:48:37. > :48:43.this is the one that you give attention to and devote attention
:48:43. > :48:45.to helping them. But you don't say well, that is no problem at all.
:48:45. > :48:49.It's an outrageous analogy. These cases highlight what is happening.
:48:49. > :48:52.They do not. They are being abused. They did not highlight what is
:48:52. > :48:56.happening because they do not demonstrate Christian persecution.
:48:56. > :48:59.They are taken strategically and the persecution layer is added on
:48:59. > :49:03.by the media and by lobby groups like yours. I want to bring in a
:49:03. > :49:07.couple of contributors. Catherine Heseltine is joining us from the
:49:07. > :49:11.Muslim Public Affairs Committee. What do you make of the idea that
:49:11. > :49:15.Christians are exaggerating a situation for their own agenda?
:49:15. > :49:20.Well, I can understand what it is like to have religious beliefs that
:49:20. > :49:24.are important to you and that you live in accordance with. I think
:49:24. > :49:30.Muslims still feel solidarity with Christians that want to safeguard
:49:30. > :49:34.their rights to practise their religion. In fact, in Islam
:49:34. > :49:39.Christians have a special place in the book. It has the same Abraham
:49:39. > :49:45.wreck tradition and the same prophets. Not in other countries, I
:49:45. > :49:49.am sure you would agree, like Saudi Arabia? But according to the Koran,
:49:49. > :49:54.they have a special place as people that work alongside Muslims.
:49:54. > :49:56.briefly, focusing on how it works in law, do you think that
:49:56. > :50:00.Christians are fighting back because maybe they think that
:50:00. > :50:03.Muslims have a special status? Sharia law has been talked about as
:50:03. > :50:06.having special status, head scarfs and so on? I think this is
:50:06. > :50:12.something where we have issues in common when it comes to religious
:50:12. > :50:16.dress. My head scarfs does not affect my ability to do my job.
:50:16. > :50:20.Equally, a Christian wearing something is not stopped from doing
:50:20. > :50:25.their job well. To sack them for wearing it would be pure
:50:25. > :50:29.discrimination. I want to bring in Peter Tatchell, the human rights
:50:30. > :50:32.activist. You are familiar with the issues of groups that have been
:50:32. > :50:39.regarded as marginalised or persecuted in the past. Do you have
:50:39. > :50:43.sympathy with cases like these Christians? Well, I think the issue
:50:44. > :50:50.is one of freedom of expression. So, I would defend the right of people
:50:50. > :50:55.of faith to wear discreet religious symbols. But I do have some anxiety
:50:55. > :50:59.about what door that might open. If Christians can where symbols, why
:50:59. > :51:04.not supporters of the BNP or PDL? I would hate to see that. That would
:51:04. > :51:08.be very offensive and threatening to many people. There is also of
:51:08. > :51:12.course the issue of persecution. I concur totally, Christians are not
:51:12. > :51:16.being persecuted in this country. It is an insult to Christians that
:51:16. > :51:20.are being persecuted in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere, who
:51:20. > :51:23.I support and defend. Those are real victims of persecution. In
:51:23. > :51:26.this country, Christians are not being persecuted. They are simply
:51:26. > :51:30.being denied the right to discriminate against others that
:51:30. > :51:33.they used to. Until fairly recently, with the new anti-discrimination
:51:33. > :51:39.laws, Christians used to be able to discriminate against Muslims and
:51:39. > :51:41.Jews, gay people and women. Now the law says that they can't. To deny
:51:41. > :51:45.them the right to discriminate is not persecution, it is saying that
:51:45. > :51:48.Christians should abide by equality laws like everybody else. Let me
:51:49. > :51:51.put that to Andrew Mudge. There are equality laws, our democracy has
:51:51. > :51:56.agreed on them, if somebody does not want to do civil partnerships,
:51:56. > :52:00.they should change jobs. The issue is about how we can balance various
:52:00. > :52:04.rights. There is strong protection under the European Convention of
:52:04. > :52:07.Human Rights for freedom of thought, conscience and religion. When it
:52:07. > :52:10.clashes with the law and the law says gay people are entitled to get
:52:10. > :52:14.counselling and they are entitled to a civil partner should, you're
:52:14. > :52:19.saying, no, I don't have to do that? I don't believe in gay
:52:19. > :52:29.people's rights? It's the issue, the detail of the case...
:52:29. > :52:31.
:52:31. > :52:35.principle? We had a relationship counsellor who gave relationships
:52:35. > :52:39.cancelling to anyone who came to him. He took a course in a new kind
:52:39. > :52:44.of therapy. In the process of that course, he expressed that he might
:52:44. > :52:51.have a hesitation about giving sex therapy to homosexuals couples. It
:52:51. > :52:56.was hypothetical. It was in the context of a private... This is
:52:56. > :53:00.contested. He was expressing his view? Was he confusing it somewhat?
:53:00. > :53:05.We cannot get into all the facts of cases because they have gone
:53:05. > :53:09.through employment tribunal and the courts. Is it about thought, rather
:53:10. > :53:14.than actions? If a counsellor who has signed on, when he signed his
:53:14. > :53:19.contract of employment, to say he will abide by equal-opportunities
:53:19. > :53:23.comet that person then says I am not going to, would not or will not,
:53:23. > :53:27.I would not give treatment to people because I did not agree with
:53:27. > :53:37.their lifestyle, I am happy to discriminate against them on the
:53:37. > :53:40.basis of race, sexuality, whatever. The employer saying, sorry, you
:53:40. > :53:47.have ditched your contract of employment, that certainly does not
:53:47. > :53:50.amount to religious persecution of Christians. Robshaw we is a pastor.
:53:50. > :53:55.Would you break the law if it conflicted with your Christian
:53:55. > :53:59.belief? Yes, it is not one of my life ambitions. But as a Christian,
:53:59. > :54:04.I believe that the word of God is final. If the law contradicted that,
:54:04. > :54:07.to me, it is the word of God every time. As an ex career criminal and
:54:07. > :54:10.drug addict, I know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was the only
:54:10. > :54:14.message, after searching for many other messages, that was able to
:54:14. > :54:19.set me free. I believe passionately in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and
:54:19. > :54:25.that no raw will change it. Would you refuse to cancel a gay couple
:54:25. > :54:29.or fair sex therapy as part of your job? -- offer sex there are people
:54:30. > :54:33.stopped I would invite anybody into my office for counselling. But I do
:54:33. > :54:37.believe the word of God is final and promotes man and wife, not two
:54:37. > :54:41.men or women. The other question would be if he was willing to bear
:54:41. > :54:44.the consequences. I might really want to be a vicar because you get
:54:44. > :54:49.a house, you get a nice job and you talk to people. I can't, because I
:54:49. > :54:53.don't believe in the Christian God. I accept the burden of my beliefs
:54:53. > :54:58.is that I cannot be that, in. It opportunity denied, it's a shame,
:54:58. > :55:01.but there you are. They are still dithering about whether to have
:55:01. > :55:05.women bishops. The idea that you could have had a woman boss would
:55:05. > :55:11.be illegal anywhere else in law. Are there enough opt-outs without
:55:11. > :55:15.trying to impose them? Too many. This is about the importance of
:55:15. > :55:17.religion. In the European Convention of Human Rights there
:55:17. > :55:21.are strong protections for freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
:55:21. > :55:26.The reason for that is that it is widely recognised that those things
:55:26. > :55:31.are important for a sublime society. You think we have the balance
:55:31. > :55:34.wrong? -- civilised society. One of the reasons they have had to go to
:55:34. > :55:38.Europe is because there is an attitude issuer with not
:55:38. > :55:43.recognising the value of our Christian heritage and the freedoms.
:55:43. > :55:46.It gives us a foundation and framework for society. I think this
:55:46. > :55:49.basically reflects the fact that there is a bit of a disinterested
:55:49. > :55:53.the Church of England and its Christian culture in this country.
:55:53. > :55:57.There has been for quite a few years, as those statistics
:55:57. > :56:00.demonstrate it. In Christianity and in particular what is called the
:56:00. > :56:03.Gospel of Jesus, there is a sense in which Christians need to be
:56:03. > :56:06.prepared for persecution. This is all about Moreton Bay Christians
:56:06. > :56:12.trying to identify with their Christian ancestors and to make
:56:12. > :56:15.themselves feel a little bit more special. A couple of the viewer
:56:15. > :56:18.comments. Anonymous, people are being made to feel ashamed for
:56:18. > :56:23.being Christians. It's not acceptable. Make a change from
:56:23. > :56:29.Britain being persecuted... I doubt there if I will read that one.
:56:29. > :56:35.Sarah says turning mount -- molehills into mountains does
:56:35. > :56:45.Christianity no favours. The votes are in, strong views as in the last
:56:45. > :56:49.
:56:49. > :56:52.First word on that, Andrew Marsh. Are you surprised? No, I think we
:56:52. > :57:01.recognise that people and property are important and it is a difficult
:57:01. > :57:04.area. I would hope that would reflect people's belief that there
:57:04. > :57:07.is a response that is justified, but it should be proportionate. I
:57:07. > :57:13.hope that if you asked if it is important that the proportionate,
:57:13. > :57:17.people would say yes. I'm just surprised that people are not in
:57:17. > :57:21.church at this time of the day. Turning the other cheek! It's
:57:21. > :57:26.interesting, the perception in advance. Have another go, you have
:57:26. > :57:30.another 20 seconds. Do you have any sympathy with people that worry
:57:30. > :57:34.that it ups the ante? I think there are risks involved. But we
:57:34. > :57:38.recognise it is an infringement of property and people, and those are
:57:38. > :57:43.important to protect in a free democracy. Reasonable, last resort.
:57:43. > :57:46.Thanks to all of you that have taken part in today's discussions.
:57:46. > :57:52.De Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Andrew Copson, Andrew Marr Show and T
:57:52. > :57:57.Steve Fuller and Malcolm Starr, who were with us earlier. Thanks to
:57:57. > :58:01.everybody who took part through text lines and phones. Do not call
:58:01. > :58:04.any more, the phone lines are closed. You can continue the