Episode 11 Sunday Morning Live

This week a couple defending their home against alleged burglars fired

a shotgun at them, injuring two. A disproportionate response, or do

intruders forfeit their human Good morning. I'm Samira Ahmed.

Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. This week a house owner picked up

his legally-registered shotgun and fired it at intruders in his home,

injuring two and frightening the intruders away. He and his wife

have been told they will not face charges. But were they right to

defend their property by force, or was their reaction dangerously out

of proportion? One of Britain's most famous

scientists, Professor Richard Dawkins, says God is a delusion,

that science and religion are incompatible. But the Chief Rabbi,

Lord Sacks, argues they do work together. Can science and religion

both be right? Also this week, four British

Christians have gone to the European Court of Human Rights

claiming they suffered religious discrimination at work. Andrew

Marsh of Christian Concern believes Christianity itself is under threat

in this country. Many of us think of Britain as a Christian country.

But I believe that a new and aggressive form of atheism is in

danger of making us an anti- Christian country.

A very warm welcome to all my guests this week. Francesca

Stavrakopolou is professor of Hebrew Bible and ancient religion

at the University of Exeter. She describes herself as an atheist

with huge respect for religion. Andrew Copson is chief executive of

the British Humanist Association. He campaigns for an open society

without faith schools, religious privilege or discrimination.

Businessman Malcolm Starr led the campaign to freeTony Martin, the

farmer who was convicted of shooting dead a burglar running

from his home in 1999. Welcome to all of you. We want to know what

Police this week arrested Andrew and Tracey Ferrie after two alleged

burglars were shot at their farmhouse in Leicestershire. The

Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to press charges

against the couple, but the incident has reignited the debate

on what counts as reasonable force in defending your home. Last Sunday

Andy Ferrie fired a shotgun at alleged Blairs, who then fled his

farmhouse in Leicestershire. No-one suffered life-threatening injuries

but Mr Ferrie and his wife faced lengthy questioning by police.

Later the Crown Prosecution Service announced they wouldn't be charged.

The CPS said they had acted in reasonable self defence. But other

high-profile case of homeowners defending their property have had

very different legal outcomes 2000 Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was sent

for jail. He killed a 16-year-old intruder by shooting him in the

back as the teenager and his accomplice were trying to flee. Now

new laws will come into effect strength technology rights of the

householder. The Ministry of Justice says will you be allowed to

use reasonable force to protect not just yourself but your property.

Burglary is a despicable and hateful crime. I've been burgled

twice. You feel violated. Burglary is not bravery. It is cowardice.

2010 the Prime Minister said burglars leave their human rights

outside the do, but how far should we go? If it is only our property

under threat, is it really right for us to be the aggressor and

possibly even kill? Many argue that a change to the law will just lead

to burglars arming themselves in the expectation of being attacked.

Do homeowner who is attack intruders just promote vigilantism?

Is it a disproportionate reaction, or should we all have the right to

defend our property using any force?

Malcolm, was it right for the Ferries to use a shotgun to protect

their property? Absolutely, they didn't have a rehearsal for what

was going to happen. The burglars had the advantage of a rehearsal.

It was disgusting that they were taken into custody for questioning.

They had the trauma of these people coming into their house and then

were taken away by police. It is an outrage and it is time a top judge

Francesca there is real anger about this case, particularly this judge

who talked about in a separate case it requiring a sense of courage to

carry out burglar ris. Do you think that you do give up your human

rights if you cross a threshold and start to carry out a burglary?

course not. If we get to a state where the state is endorsing

violence against anyone else, it's the thin edge of the wedge. Self

defence, if you are personally being harmed, can I understand the

will and the need to fight back, but to endorse it in law, it is

ridiculous. Malcolm, you campaigned for Tony Martin and you had your

own experience didn't you? The only people that can really judge this

is someone who has had that experience, because you don't know

how you would react. Some people would probably die of fright. Some

will run away and some will be so angry they will do something about

it. What happened in your place? had an intruder in the house

upstairs while we were in the kitchen. They had the audacity to

be in the house. In the hallway he got his arms around my wife. He a

two-foot metal torch. I hit him over the forehead, which seemed to

stun him momentarily. He said, "I've got a gun" at which point I

didn't take any further action. When the police arrived I was so

hyped up I said to one of the officers that it wouldn't have

bothered me if I had killed him. A year later you perhaps don't feel

like that and it has worn off, that experience. And the hatred. But at

that very point, how you do know how you are going to react. It's a

gut instinct. What do you think, Andrew? There is fear of the idea

thaw take violent action but can you see the idea of an instinctive

violent response? Yes, the fight or flight instinct is one that we have.

Some choose to fight. In case supports what Francesca was saying

That case someone was presenting a physical threat to the person, your

wife, if not to yourself. There's a real ethical and therefore a legal

distinction to be made between threats to your person or property,

and whether or not the response is proportionate. If someone tries to

snatch your bag, it is proportionate to push them away and

to hold on to your bag and fight them off, but not to knock them to

the ground and kick their head in. You will have no idea any of you

what you will do. But the law will deal with you afterwards. People

kill on the streets in fits of rage even when they were not personally

threatened. There are in the moment. But what about someone coming into

your house when people are in there? They can become a threat to

people who are there. Steve is a former burglar and was a gambling

addict as well. We've heard the view of someone who suffered a

burglary. What's your view as someone who used to carry them out

about the idea of force being used against burglars? I believe it is

wrong to commit a burglary to start with. But to enforce violent

against the burglar is going to be a two-way thing that the particular

is prepared when he goes into the premise if the occupants are there,

he is going there to use force to take what he wants. Did you ever

use force or go prepared for violence? Yes. And that was part of

it, of the life that I had. But then again, what your panel are not

touching on at the moment is that I will have said 90% of burglar ris

today are committed to subsidise drug adifpblgts drug addiction is a

very powerful addiction. If you try to tackle somebody that is out

there to get their drugs, then it is not a matter of fleeing, it is a

matter of being able to take what you've gone there to get to feed

that drug addiction. So it wouldn't have made any difference to you if

you knew that a householder was likely to be allowed to use more

force, that wouldn't have been put you off because of an addiction?

Forensic criminal psychologists will tell thaw burglary is one of

the most addictive crimes that you can do. If I, I couldn't stop doing

the life that I did. It is as simple as that, until I got to

right kind of help. Malcolm? Sorry steefrbgs I want to get Malcolm to

respond. Thank you so much. A lot of burglaries are carried out by

addicts. It be that brave if you take drugs and can keep burglaring

people, that's nonsense what he said. Again we are talking about

the innocent householder not necessarily the problem burglars

have got. The last thing I'm bothered about when someone comes

into my property is the di dictions or problems the burglar has. They

should be dealt with separately and by some other means. But not

accusing the householder of committing a crime because he's

defended himself. I want to bring in Chris Birbeck, a professor of

criminology of Salford University. Malcolm raised an interesting point,

a sense of competing victimhood, that when a burglar is brought to

trial they are the victim and have the back-up and householders and

their situation is perhaps played down, and that's why they feel the

need to perhaps take forceful action in their homes. Yes, good

morning. There is that sense. You have to separate very carefully the

insdint from what happens afterwards. -- incident itself from

what happens afterwards. There is no doubt that as the home is a

private space, it is very difficult to predict how people will react. I

think everybody is in agreement that most people feel that an

intruder in their house is a very fright I think experience. But as

also your contributors have said, what the householder does depends

greatly on the circumstances, which is why the police and the Crown

Prosecution Service look very carefully at it. One thing is

reacting in a moment of panic and perceived imminent threat, and

another thing is pursuing somebody for example to vent punishment on

them for what you think has happened. There's a point at which

the person who has suffered a crime can themselves commit a crime in

response, if they are not careful. That's the problem. Francesca, what

do you think? That's an important point. Primarily, if we were to go

ahead with new regulations that would allow people to be forceful

in challenging burglars in their homes it is going to up the ante. A

burglar will come into the house knowing that the person they are

intruding on will be allowed to attack them. Where do you draw the

line between defending your property and pursuing a burglar

down the garden with a shotgun? should invite them in for a cup of

tea and be nice perhaps. We have Sarah Newton on the line, a former

police officer. Where do your sympathies lie in the situation,

with the offenders or the victims, who feel that the law perhaps is

more interested in the victimhood of the burglar? I think crime is a

horrible thing and there is more than one victim. There is the

victim that is in the home in burglary, but every criminal is

also a victim. Of some description. While crime is horrid, if we start

to say it is OK to do whatever you want, we are in an awful society,

one that I wouldn't want too live Have you had a situation where a

homeowner has used force, is it obvious when they have crossed the

line? The law says whatever is reached double, which will change

in every circumstance. -- reasonable. Reasonable force is

reasonable force. It is quite simple, that is not chasing

somebody down after a burglary to attack them, that is not reasonable.

I want to bring in Nick Freeman, a criminal defence lawyer. We have

heard from the police, from victims and we have heard from former

burglars. Is there a sense in which burglars have the best of both were

-- world? They can go armed, they can try it on and count on the fact

that house holders will be frightened of attacking them?

are right, it is a burglar's world. There is a load of detection rate

and the law is misplaced in favour of the burglar. The law allows

reasonable force, but through the eyes of the householder. The

difficulty is that it is a fluid situation. Do we trust a burglar

when he says, I am not going to harm you? What happens if he says,

where is the safe and we do not have one? In my view, house holders

should be able to use the force that they feel is reasonably

necessary. That is very different from the law as it currently stands.

That would enable them to deal with the problem instinctively, without

wrestling with the legal potential ramifications they could face.

These two people arrested last Sunday spent two or three days in

police custody before the CPS very sensibly decided that no action was

going to be taken. When you heard about the judge talking about it

taking courage to carry out burglaries, were you impressed?

think he is now being investigated. I think he probably very much

regret those words. They are the most ridiculous words I have heard

a judge say for many years and I have heard some ridiculous words

from judges before. What are your thoughts, having had a few

perspectives? Is it enough that the law gives a reasonable force

protection? This comes up every time an incident happens. I still

think that you have to perhaps put a wadding out to burgle us that

they are going to lose a lot of their rights the moment that they

step into somebody's property. -- put a warning out to burglars.

important thing is that we counter this social attitude that casts

burglars and people that commit minor crimes as somehow villains or

bad people. They are villains and bad people. But they are not

inherently bad, people are driven to these situations through their

circumstances. It is not my problem, if they come into my property. You

do not say, do you have a social problem that needs working out? You

have the problem yourself. But a pig we have a social problem when

we say that burglars should have their human rights amended. I think

it's better for them to go to court and see if they have rights, rather

than take innocent householders and put them in custody for three days.

That must be right. I am in sympathy with your general position,

the people that have said that everybody is a victim. These things

are very complex. These crimes are consequences of difficult

situations. But that is a job for society. It cannot be the role of

the person in the heat of the moment to double those things. I

think the only ethical questionnaire is if their self-

defence is proportionate or did they go too far and become the

aggressor. That is where I say that the law as it currently stands is

appropriate. Were you arrested? There was nobody injured. What I

said to the police officer, that moment, I could have killed him. He

said, you had better not do a Tony Martin. The police are almost

taking the attitude that you might have done something wrong yourself.

We have to leave it there. Thank you so much for your thoughts. That

is our poll question today. I will read a couple of comments before I

go into it. Burglars are still students, says Johnny. It is not

right for other human beings to decide if they live or die. Lee

says if you give homeowners the right to defend their property,

burglars are more likely to carry weapons. Another viewer says that

when resistance becomes aggression, we are in danger of using too much

Now, if you believe in God, can you really believe in science? Chief

Rabbi Lord Sacks believes that he can and that we need both science

and religion to answer The Big Questions. This week, a BBC

documentary pitches him head-to- head with the man best known for

leading the scientific attack on religion, Professor Richard Dawkins.

I think religion hinders science because religion is content to lie

down and accept supernatural explanations, whereas science sees

a challenge whenever we do not understand something. The challenge

is to try to understand it. Science gives those enormous power.

Religion gives us an almost heritage of human wisdom as to how

best to use that power. The conversation between them is a

conversation that may involve each of those moving outside of our

comfort zone. But it is a conversation that is a signal of

hope. Scientists and theologians are interested in big questions,

rightly so. That is where we agree. Religion answers on the basis of

faith, science on the basis of evidence and that is the biggest

difference. There are plenty of good and great scientists who

believe in God and still believe in God. Einstein had an almost

mystical belief in God, creator of the universe, although he did not

believe in the God of the prophet, who speaks to human beings. But his

religious belief was profound and almost mystical. You can point to

individual scientists and individual good scientists who do

have a belief in God. But we do know that the human mind is capable

of dividing itself into separate parts and of holding incompatible

beliefs. The mere fact that you can find individual scientists, even

good ones, that our religious, does not mean there is any kind of great

compatibility between science and religion. I think religion is our

greatest set of answers to the three fundamental questions.

Questions that any reflective human being must ask. Who am I? Why am I

here? How, then, shall I live? Those questions cannot be answered

by science. So, do science and religion play complementary roles

in society? What are they in competition? If you truly believe

in science, can you really believe You can see that documentary,

presented by Lord Sacks, this Wednesday on BBC One.

For if you have a webcam, you can make your point on Skype or join in

through Twitter, text, phone or e- mail.

Joining us is Steve Fuller, an American philosopher and

sociologist who believes in God and who has written about the Theory of

intelligent design. I want to start with you, Andrew, can a good

scientist really believe in God? Well, I think that is a question

that you can answer by looking around and saying yes. Obviously

there are people that are good scientists that also believe in God

and our religious. In the video you have just shown, Richard Dawkins

made a good point. People can believe in different things at

different times, human beings are complicated. They can believe on

one hand that there is a God and be a totally competent and brilliant

physicist, biologist or chemist or whatever. Is it legitimate, the

people that claim that religion can answer the same questions that

science can answer? Is that a legitimate claim for them to make?

I think no. I think if you are a religious person that believes that

your religion will answer questions like where did human beings come

from, what is the behaviour of matter in the world, what is true

about the physical universe, and there are some religious people

that think that, I think religious people that think that are wrong.

The only way of answering those questions, what is this world

around us, or how do these things behave, even historical questions

about what happened in the past, what is the truth of this and that

in the past, you have to answer those with evidence, hypotheses and

scientific method. This is the big concern. Richard Dawkins is saying

we need evidence. There are creationists talking about

intelligent design, which he argues is not real evidence and is in

danger of damaging scientific thinking and rational thought?

think, in a sense, a history of this is completely wrong. In a

sense, we would not have modern science that it was not for certain

kinds of religious attitudes that took place in the 17th century.

It's not enough to say that is how it was then, bringing forward to

now, is there not a threat from creationists to science? I think

the bigger threat is if we believe in science at all, especially in

the large-scale sense of coming up with a unified Theory of Everything.

The whole meaningfulness of that kind of project is predicated on

the idea that we can actually get a rational grasp of the entire

universe. Why do we even have that kind of idea? That idea goes back

to the biblical idea that we have been created in the image and

likeness of God. That is the only clear precedent for the idea that

human beings are so special with the possibility for understanding

how the world works. Francesca, you are an atheist, what is your view

of the Richard Dawkins position? Firstly, I think he does a real

disservice to atheists. Though I am an atheist myself, I think he

represents a point of view that deliberately caricatures and

vilifies certain beliefs. I do not hold to those beliefs myself, but I

think he misunderstands what religion is trying to do,

particularly what these biblical ideas are trying to express about

the world. I am not a big fan of his. You think he deliberately

confuses what is a matter for... just don't think he understands

biblical literature at all. He has not been trained to read these

texts in their historical context. To back this up, I think that if

you go back to the 17th century, the people that were the founders

of modern science actually did read the biblical texts. These two

things have not always been so separated and in compatible as they

seem now if you listen to someone like Richard Dawkins. In the sense

that one needs to go to the late 19th century, when you start to see

this kind of schism taking place. If we go back in time to weigh. But

Owen which society was drenched with Christian ideas and also a

Christian ideas were very political, so you have to say a Christian at

to participate in public life, then of course you'll get this mix of

things. It is true that Isaac Newton believed in God. He also

believed in alchemy, that does not mean alchemy is legitimate and we

should be looking at that to confirm our scientific thoughts.

People like Richard Dawkins present science as somehow factual, this is

the truth, it is evidence was that he doesn't say it has the answers,

he says its job is to ask questions and where it does not have answers,

he is worried about faith, he thinks, making it started filling

the gaps. -- making that stuff. But he risks being as bad as

Steve Jones is a professor of genetics at University College

London. I know that you have written in the past about your

concern about a minority of students who were walking out of

biology classes because it clashed with their views on creationism.

Can you tell me what you think is your view about the relationship in

the modern world between some religious thinking and science? Is

there any danger in religious thinking? Yes, I think there is an

enormous amount of danger in religious thinking. I live in the

21st century, not the 16th century, as many of your contributors seem

to. If you look at the interaction between science and religion now,

there is a very useful word, endarkenment, the opposite the

opposite of the Enlightenment. There are pastors who do not really

believe in what they are saying, I don't think, that say what they

have to save. What happens to you, if you are at the age of eight, and

your religious leader tells you that the earth began 6000 years ago

in a magical way. You believe him, of course you do. Then you are

doing biology at University and you discover that he was not telling

the truth. Why should you believe anything else he said? I think he

is Miss characterising what has happened. What is taking place is

that people are getting knowledge about signs from many different

sources, more than before. Through the internet, through television

programmes like this and other related to things. I think people

are beginning to form their own views. In that context, religious

organisations have played a very important role. I would say that

this is not anti-science at all. Science is undergoing its own

Protestant Reformation, where there is a decentralisation of scientific

authority. People like Steve Jones represent the Pope and Archbishop

of the old Catholic Church, with regard to science. Now we are

getting a democratised science, which religion is contributing to.

Do you accept that? Science is not a democracy, that is the one thing

it is not. If it was a democracy, you often hear this in the media,

top scientists interviewed, a mathematician has discovered that

two and two is four. Then you have somebody from the decimal

Liberation Front, he says it is five, then we have a compromise,

between four and five, probably closer to four. Science does not

work like that. If things are wrong, we throw them out. We do not work

by the majority. In the United States, more than half the

population believes that the earth began 4000 years ago. That is not

Steve Jones thank you. I want to bring in a Reverend Professor David

Wilkinson, now an ordained Methodist Minister. We heard this

discussion, we had Steve Jones there explaining his real concern

about how religion is messing the way that science is regarded. What

your view? My view is that sometimes religion can suppress

scings but in my experience as an astrophysicist and a Christian

believer, the two have liberated each other. I'm more excited about

science and Christian faith as I go on. That's because I believe that

evidence is involved in both science and Christian faith. You

have to look at it, although they look at the universe in different

ways, they share an interest in evidence. For instance I was drawn

to the Christian faith at the age of 17 as it happens, because of its

emphasis upon evidence. Religious experience and lots of different

people. The fact ta that the universe itself poses questions

where science can't answer, where do the beautiful physical laws come,

from and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

There is no evidence for that! Francesca will know about this more

than I do. There's a lack of evidence that most of the Bible is

true. This is just the sort of self deception that is a worry when

science and religion do comingle. I can't understand why claims about

things that happen in the Bible shouldn't be subjected to the same

tests of evidence as everything else. I feel that sometimes people

who say things like that are the victims of self deception. The

Francesca is a biblical scholar. Are you saying that Professor

Wilkinson is a victim of deception? I think so. What's the evidence.

think historically evidence does need the be sifted. I take

exception to being called self- deceived on this. I teach theology.

I'm part of the University of Durham, which takes theology and

historically evidence within the Bible extremely seriously and takes

the academic part of that... but teach theology about biblical

belief, and I teach from literature. We are approaching the evidence

from different perspectives. There is no evidence for a resurrection.

Thank you. What about religion giving a moral compass. On

fertility treatment science can do all sorts of things, don't we need

religion? Absolutely not. Sometimes I think that religious

organisations represented on those panels can have a deeply immoral

effect, by affecting the moral lives of people today. Why for

example with 80% of people in this country supporting assisted dying

for the terminally ill, why is it that ethicists in the media again

and again say no, people shouldn't be allowed to have assisted dying?

It is not because they carant people's choices but some script

ture tells them. So There's a slight going on here between

whether a religious authority should have a say in the matter,

and the answer is yet, versus one should believe automatically what

they say, a more contested issue. One thing that religion poses is a

clear sense of what a human being is and how it is placed in the

universe. That's incredibly damaging. You are going to have a

take a view on it somehow. Most of the major religions share a sense

of what basic human decency and being communal with each other is.

Most of them share the same views of life, you don't need a

particularly religious tradition to have a view on abortion. Where

secular people are quite fuzzy... Take the American example where

President Bush put a restriction on stem cell research because of his

religious reasons. One has to take these claims on their face. I don't

say we should be allowing down to particular religious views. I took

watt Andrew was saying, to try to rule religion out of having a say.

Absolutely not. Two things. I don't think clarity is always the best

thing. Sometimes we have to accept that moral questions are

complicated. True, religious conditions may have commendably

clear and strict rules and clear views, but clarity is not always

what we want. Sometimes we want acceptness that there are greys in

an argument. I don't want to keep religious people out of the

argument or discussion, I want to stop the views of one particular

group preventing... With me now is a physics teacher, brought up as a

strict Muslim. You are now an atheist and a scientist. What's

your view on where we are? Do you think there's a danger posed to

society by the power of religion? Sit damaging science teaching?

think really upset at the fact that none of the scientists have put

forward any evidence that religion is damage science. I teach many

religious students who go to University to study science. They

are perfectly capable of holding those two ways of looking at the

world simultaneously. We all do, that we all have cognitive

dissonance. The ideas that children grow up with, but we do a

disservice to children by thinking that children can't learn how to

arrive at their own ways of looking at the world. That's what it boils

down to. You are not concerned about the power of children. You

talk about being brought up with the fear of hell and restrictions

on what you could eat. I grew up to be an atheist. I'm evidence of the

fact that a good education with give you the freedom to think for

yourself. Excellent. That's what it should do. Do you think that the

debate is getting harder between religion and science. Yes, I do.

Science is the modern western world's answer to lots of different

questions that people have been wrestling with for years. What do

you believe in then! I believe in the goodness of people. OK. We need

to get a little bit beyond that. is not a bad place to start. Thank

you so much. Tom says faith is what you rely on

when you don't care about the evidence, that's why religion

teaches us nothing and science does. Rob, religion deals with how people

hope and fear things are. And science without religion is blind.

I think someone famous said that. Later on Sunday Morning Live: As

four Christians appeal to the European Court Of Human Rights

about what they see as an attack on their religious freedoms, we ask,

are Christians being persecuted in Keep voting in our poll. The

question.. Should we be allowed to You have five minutes before the

poll closes. Or you can vote online - bbc.co.uk/sundaymorninglive.

It is time for our moral moment. This week we are giving our

panellists of a sneak Peru of analysis of faith in Britain

commissioned by the BBC religious festival Rethink, taking place in

Salford this week. I will be chairing the discussion. The

research has thrown up interesting facts about young people.

Two thirds of 16-25-year-olds claim they don't belong to any religion.

And young white British citizens are the ethnic group least likely

to belong to a religion. Andrew, what are your thoughts about what

this says about the status and importance of religion in Britain

today? What's most interesting about it, it is an analysis of the

existing data, so we already knew for example that young people are

really unlikely to be a member of any religion. What's interesting is

the analysis that maps that trend over time. We can see that it is

not just that when they grow up and get older they are likely to

believe in religion. It is not the case that young people don't

believe in religion and the older are more likely to. It's the

decline of religion identification. In other surveys there've been on...

It looks pretty terminal. With an American background there is much

more religious onance. What do you make that there is much more of a

decline? The first thing I would make about surveys of this kind is

that they are really looking for membership in well-organised

churches and religious groups A sense this survey doesn't address

the more general issue of whether people believe in God or have more

spirit at. I think more data will be released next week. This is a

question about the institutionalisation of belief. I'm

not surprised by the figures the myself. There's a sense in which

religion in this survey is providing a sense of cultural

identity. If cultural identity can be golden through other aspects of

secular society, then I think that that is where the identification

will come and there won't be a need for religion. You asked me about

the United States. It seems that there is still very strong

religious cultural identification. If you look at the two nominated

conventions for both political partys that have taken place in the

past couple of weeks, both of them invoked God in serious ways and

trying to mobilise groups. The interesting thing about the United

States is it has official separation of Church and state. One

of the consequences of that has been to allow for flourishing of

different group which is occupy the political space. The survey about

Britain, what's your view on the status of the Church of England

compared to other groups? Some of the stats suggesting that, to me it

reflected the idea that if younger generations don't seem to affiliate

themselves with right British religion, which historically is

Church of England, it reflects the fact that the Church of England is

decalf Diet Coke Christianity now, wishy washy and there is nothing

appealing about it to younger people. I notice that with the

ethnicity breakdowns, 95% of young Bangladeshies and 95% of young

Pakistanis had an affiliation, and Indians too. Sit religious

observance? We are a very urban society in Britain and

multiculturalism in these major cities I think perhaps there's a

different kind of identity that young white British people are

taking from their culture and their society than perhaps different

sorts of ethnic groups for whom perhaps second or third generation

families have more of a sense of identity. Sadly we have to leave it

there. There'll be more research out on Wednesday.

Thank you. You've been voting in our poll this

Four British Christians have gone to the European Court of Human

Rights, appealing against what they see as religious discrimination in

the workplace. They include a check-in clerk who clashed with

British Airways over wearing a cross, and a registrar who said she

couldn't carry out civil partnerships. This is Sunday Stand.

Many oufs think of Britain as a Christian country. But I believe

that a new, aggressive form of atheism is in danger of making us

an anti-Christian country. For centuries Christianity has provided

the house in which we as a society live. Christianity has given rise

to our common values, our laws, our freedoms. But,000 that house is

under attack. A new form of secularism has arisen. It is

atheistic, aggressive and antagonistic. It tells us that

Christianity is a danger to our society, a virus that needs to be

eradicated. It is seeking to dismantle our Christian heritage

and to remove expressions of Christianity from public life. And

it reserves special hostility for those who dare to stand up against

it. Christian nurses, doctors, foster carers, a magistrate,

teachers, local council workers. All have been pushed out of their

jobs. This new aggressive atheism preaching its doctrine of survival

of the fifthest is producing a society that is increasingly cold,

competitive and cruel. I fear for what our children will inherit if

We are joined by Andrew Marr Show of Christian Concern, an

organisation campaigning, they say, to infuse a biblical world-view

into every aspect of society. I am sure you enjoyed our last

discussion. Are we in danger, taking the perspective seriously,

are we in danger of becoming anti- Christian? Absolutely not. I cannot

see any evidence or any reason to believe almost any of the

assertions or claims that were made in that video just now. I think

it's completely the opposite of reality. Firstly, I do not think it

is the case that Christianity is somehow a victim or under attack,

or that this house... It's an interesting metaphor, given the

first discussion, that the house is under attack. The question being

what forced is proportional, and who the victim is. Christianity is

not being attacked in that structural political way. Quite the

opposite. Look at examples of how Christianity still retains enormous

power. Look at our state-funded schools. A third of our state

funded schools are run by religious groups, most of them by the Church

of England. There are bishops in our Parliament. Christianity

retains a political power totally out of proportion to the number of

people in the country that are Christian. A loss of this fiction

about Christians being persecuted, I think, is a narrative designed to

whip up a sort of reaction amongst Christians. Well, the issue is

about trajectory. It's about the direction of travel. There is no

denying that we still enjoy many aspects of Christian heritage, for

the good of all. But things have changed. I think there is a

deliberate agenda, particularly prevalent in the last decade or so,

that presents Christianity as hostile and as a danger to society.

That has caused a widespread anxiety in society, more generally.

It has also allowed Christianity to be ridiculed and not given the

chance to respond. There is a hostility. These cases that have

gone to the European Court of Human Rights, very unusual for the Court

of Human Rights to hear freedom of thought, and that is what we are

talking about, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, very few

cases. A lot of detail of the cases, in the cases of the British Airways

clerk, she got permission to wear it and they changed the rules. Is

there a question about Christians trying to make a visual point about

their identity, because Muslims wear a turban or head where?

was allowed to wear it, but underneath her clothes. She claimed

she was being discriminated against and compared herself to Muslim

women, able to wear... They changed the rules and she can now wear

these things. So, why is she going? Is that religious discrimination if

the problem has been sorted? Well, it was as a result of media

coverage around the case. British Airways took the sensible decision.

How is it persecution if it is sorted? The critical issue at stake

is whether these four Christian individuals should have been

respected and her Christian faith accommodated without any risk of

damage... I have to say, I'm so sorry, but I think the context of

the Western world, where Christianity is still the main

cultural religion, to claim persecution and discrimination when

in other parts of the world religious and non-religious groups

really are being persecuted and discriminated against, I think it

is bordering on the offensive. agree with that. I also think it is

worth saying that these cases, they have been lost again and again in

English courts. They have been lost frequently because courts are found

there was not any persecution or discrimination going on. Again and

again, political Christian lobby groups have used them to create a

totally false narrative. It's actually good for your cause when

these cases are lost. The more they are lost, the more it shows that

people... First, Francesca's point about persecution, absolutely,

there are not Christians being killed in this country. We give

great thanks for that. We do remember that more Christians lose

their lives for their faith than any other religious believers

around the world. But the reality of these cases is that people are

losing jobs, livelihoods, reputation and career. If I can

just make a quick analogy, if you have two people with cancer and one

is in the early stages and one is in the latter stages, of course

this is the one that you give attention to and devote attention

to helping them. But you don't say well, that is no problem at all.

It's an outrageous analogy. These cases highlight what is happening.

They do not. They are being abused. They did not highlight what is

happening because they do not demonstrate Christian persecution.

They are taken strategically and the persecution layer is added on

by the media and by lobby groups like yours. I want to bring in a

couple of contributors. Catherine Heseltine is joining us from the

Muslim Public Affairs Committee. What do you make of the idea that

Christians are exaggerating a situation for their own agenda?

Well, I can understand what it is like to have religious beliefs that

are important to you and that you live in accordance with. I think

Muslims still feel solidarity with Christians that want to safeguard

their rights to practise their religion. In fact, in Islam

Christians have a special place in the book. It has the same Abraham

wreck tradition and the same prophets. Not in other countries, I

am sure you would agree, like Saudi Arabia? But according to the Koran,

they have a special place as people that work alongside Muslims.

briefly, focusing on how it works in law, do you think that

Christians are fighting back because maybe they think that

Muslims have a special status? Sharia law has been talked about as

having special status, head scarfs and so on? I think this is

something where we have issues in common when it comes to religious

dress. My head scarfs does not affect my ability to do my job.

Equally, a Christian wearing something is not stopped from doing

their job well. To sack them for wearing it would be pure

discrimination. I want to bring in Peter Tatchell, the human rights

activist. You are familiar with the issues of groups that have been

regarded as marginalised or persecuted in the past. Do you have

sympathy with cases like these Christians? Well, I think the issue

is one of freedom of expression. So, I would defend the right of people

of faith to wear discreet religious symbols. But I do have some anxiety

about what door that might open. If Christians can where symbols, why

not supporters of the BNP or PDL? I would hate to see that. That would

be very offensive and threatening to many people. There is also of

course the issue of persecution. I concur totally, Christians are not

being persecuted in this country. It is an insult to Christians that

are being persecuted in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and elsewhere, who

I support and defend. Those are real victims of persecution. In

this country, Christians are not being persecuted. They are simply

being denied the right to discriminate against others that

they used to. Until fairly recently, with the new anti-discrimination

laws, Christians used to be able to discriminate against Muslims and

Jews, gay people and women. Now the law says that they can't. To deny

them the right to discriminate is not persecution, it is saying that

Christians should abide by equality laws like everybody else. Let me

put that to Andrew Mudge. There are equality laws, our democracy has

agreed on them, if somebody does not want to do civil partnerships,

they should change jobs. The issue is about how we can balance various

rights. There is strong protection under the European Convention of

Human Rights for freedom of thought, conscience and religion. When it

clashes with the law and the law says gay people are entitled to get

counselling and they are entitled to a civil partner should, you're

saying, no, I don't have to do that? I don't believe in gay

people's rights? It's the issue, the detail of the case...

principle? We had a relationship counsellor who gave relationships

cancelling to anyone who came to him. He took a course in a new kind

of therapy. In the process of that course, he expressed that he might

have a hesitation about giving sex therapy to homosexuals couples. It

was hypothetical. It was in the context of a private... This is

contested. He was expressing his view? Was he confusing it somewhat?

We cannot get into all the facts of cases because they have gone

through employment tribunal and the courts. Is it about thought, rather

than actions? If a counsellor who has signed on, when he signed his

contract of employment, to say he will abide by equal-opportunities

comet that person then says I am not going to, would not or will not,

I would not give treatment to people because I did not agree with

their lifestyle, I am happy to discriminate against them on the

basis of race, sexuality, whatever. The employer saying, sorry, you

have ditched your contract of employment, that certainly does not

amount to religious persecution of Christians. Robshaw we is a pastor.

Would you break the law if it conflicted with your Christian

belief? Yes, it is not one of my life ambitions. But as a Christian,

I believe that the word of God is final. If the law contradicted that,

to me, it is the word of God every time. As an ex career criminal and

drug addict, I know that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was the only

message, after searching for many other messages, that was able to

set me free. I believe passionately in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and

that no raw will change it. Would you refuse to cancel a gay couple

or fair sex therapy as part of your job? -- offer sex there are people

stopped I would invite anybody into my office for counselling. But I do

believe the word of God is final and promotes man and wife, not two

men or women. The other question would be if he was willing to bear

the consequences. I might really want to be a vicar because you get

a house, you get a nice job and you talk to people. I can't, because I

don't believe in the Christian God. I accept the burden of my beliefs

is that I cannot be that, in. It opportunity denied, it's a shame,

but there you are. They are still dithering about whether to have

women bishops. The idea that you could have had a woman boss would

be illegal anywhere else in law. Are there enough opt-outs without

trying to impose them? Too many. This is about the importance of

religion. In the European Convention of Human Rights there

are strong protections for freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The reason for that is that it is widely recognised that those things

are important for a sublime society. You think we have the balance

wrong? -- civilised society. One of the reasons they have had to go to

Europe is because there is an attitude issuer with not

recognising the value of our Christian heritage and the freedoms.

It gives us a foundation and framework for society. I think this

basically reflects the fact that there is a bit of a disinterested

the Church of England and its Christian culture in this country.

There has been for quite a few years, as those statistics

demonstrate it. In Christianity and in particular what is called the

Gospel of Jesus, there is a sense in which Christians need to be

prepared for persecution. This is all about Moreton Bay Christians

trying to identify with their Christian ancestors and to make

themselves feel a little bit more special. A couple of the viewer

comments. Anonymous, people are being made to feel ashamed for

being Christians. It's not acceptable. Make a change from

Britain being persecuted... I doubt there if I will read that one.

Sarah says turning mount -- molehills into mountains does

Christianity no favours. The votes are in, strong views as in the last

First word on that, Andrew Marsh. Are you surprised? No, I think we

recognise that people and property are important and it is a difficult

area. I would hope that would reflect people's belief that there

is a response that is justified, but it should be proportionate. I

hope that if you asked if it is important that the proportionate,

people would say yes. I'm just surprised that people are not in

church at this time of the day. Turning the other cheek! It's

interesting, the perception in advance. Have another go, you have

another 20 seconds. Do you have any sympathy with people that worry

that it ups the ante? I think there are risks involved. But we

recognise it is an infringement of property and people, and those are

important to protect in a free democracy. Reasonable, last resort.

Thanks to all of you that have taken part in today's discussions.

De Francesca Stavrakopoulou, Andrew Copson, Andrew Marr Show and T

Steve Fuller and Malcolm Starr, who were with us earlier. Thanks to

everybody who took part through text lines and phones. Do not call

any more, the phone lines are closed. You can continue the