Episode 18 Sunday Morning Live

This week the gay rights group, Stonewall, gave their Bigot of the

Year award to the UK's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien,

after he described same sex marriage as a "grotesque subversion

of a universally accepted human right". Was Stonewall justified, or

were they insulting a man for simply expressing his sincere

Good morning, I'm Kate Silverton. Welcome to Sunday Morning Live. The

gay rights group, Stonewall, have awarded their Bigot of the Year

title award to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Head of the Catholic

church in Scotland, for his observations on gay marriage. But

is calling him a bigot an appropriate response? Or

unjustified abuse of the UK's most senior Catholic?

The prescription of anti- depressants is at an all time high.

But are they really needed, or are we becoming a nation of dependents

and malingerers? I think it is shocking that today

mental illness is the number one people white people are signed off

sick from work and claiming incapacity benefit.

And are our smaller and newer religions being given fair air time

compared with Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Should all our religions

be given equal status? A warm welcome to my guests this

week. Until his retirement in 2009, Stephen Lowe was the Bishop of

Hulme and the Church of England's first Bishop for Urban Life and

Faith. Patrica McKeever is the editor of the Catholic Truth. She

is a controversial figure in Scotland, due to her public

criticism of the modern Church. And Andrew Pierce is a columnist for

the Daily Mail and a former assistant editor of both the Daily

Telegraph and the Times. Andrew is a self-professed scourge of

politicians on the left and the right.

We want you to be able to join in today's debates, so call in to

challenge our guests. You can give your views on Twitter or by phone.

Phone calls cost up to 5 pence per minute from most landlines. Calls

from mobiles may cost considerably more. Texts will be charged at your

standard message rate. Gay rights charity Stonewall

brought a week long row to a head on Thursday night, when it awarded

the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith

O'Brien, its controversial Bigot of the Year Award for his observations

on gay marriage. In the build-up to the ceremony, it took sponsors of

Stonewall's awards threatened to pull out if the charity continued

to go to award the prize. Ruth Davidson won the award at the same

ceremony but criticised the title is saying that calling people are

big it was just wrong. But Stonewall highlighted the nasty

language used by eight some people and argued that it is right to

shine a light on what they see is discrimination particularly from

religious groups opposed to gay marriage. But some religious groups

claim that the award demonstrates Stonewall's disinterest in serious

debate and its inability to listen to any other point of view. Soap is

attack the best form of defence when fighting for equality? Or by

dishing out awards for bigotry, are they displaying the same

intolerance that they are fighting against?

The definition of a bigot is someone who is intolerant of

another's views or religion or lifestyle. So is Stonewall's Bigot

of the Year award innapropriate? Andrew, if you were at the awards.

I have been a member of the Stonewall for many years. I support

the right of the bishop or anyone else to criticise people's

lifestyles but I struggled with his definition of marriage. I think he

went beyond the limits of reasonable debate so I think it is

reasonable for Stonewall to fight back on behalf of many gay people

in loving relationships, just as loving as heterosexual people. I

think it is fair to call him the big it because he went to a bath. -

- he went too far. That's the question for today's vote. Is

Stonewall's Bigot of the Year award inappropriate? If you think it is,

then text the word VOTE, followed by YES. If you disagree, text VOTE

followed by NO. Our text number is 81771 and texts will be charged at

your standard message rate. You can also vote online on our website.

For full terms and conditions visit bbc.co.uk/sundaymorninglive. We'll

show how you voted at the end of the programme. I am passionately

against what Cardinal O'Brien said. I support gay marriage and gay

people. I am a member of changing attitude. But I do not think it is

helpful to descend to the level of the kind that used he issued

against gay people. When you start abusing the abuser you actually

descend to their level. And I agree with Ruth Davidson that it demeans

what Stonewall stands for by using that label. He may be bigoted but

actually to have used him in that way does not help the argument. I

wish instead that they would continue to argue back and take the

high moral ground in a sense over and against what the cardinal stood

for. There was a suggestion in your film at the beginning that

organisations have criticised stonewalled for not engaging in

debate, but they killed. They engage with ministers. But I think

once a year it is not a bad thing to look back and see how much

attitudes are changing. The car of all is in an exalted position of

and is an influential man. His opinions carry weight and it is

unacceptable I believe to describe people who want to go into a gay

marriage - and I have been critical of a marriage - I was deeply

offended by what he said. Because it is not be so version to say

people who want to go into a gay marriage are upsetting some people.

He should be able to withstand some criticism. But what does it

actually contribute to Stonewall? It has bought the argument out into

the open in a way that we have not had for a long time. But then so

many of us know what Cardno of Ryan stands for and are unhappy about it.

-- Cardinal O'Brien. But respect, you are in the clerical world. I

think it is important what more people know what the most powerful

Roman Catholic cleric is St in the United Kingdom. I think people are

shocked that he used such inflammatory language. I am afraid

that he is bigoted. Strictly speaking, it means someone

intolerant of the beliefs of another. And Patricia commit

yourself have been nominated. I did was simply reported after a

large front page article in the Scottish tabloids by priests, a

priest saying that he was a gay priest and that there where a

network of them and we felt we had a right to know who they wear.

There were living a double life and we thought we had a right to know

and so we did an investigation. We did not publish all their names, up

we had a dialogue with them. Some of them said they really did not

want the publicity. But you wanted to highlight the hypocrisy? We did

and for that I was nominated the Bigot of the Year. I disagree with

your definition, it is not someone who is intolerant, but someone who

is filled with hate and I do not believe that that is Cardinal Bob

Bryan. I would be critical of him on various matters to do with the

Church but not on this matter. that is a dictionary definition.

is in the dictionary I have got. is completely intolerant. In the

past when I have written about my sexuality, I have had a couple of

letters from incredibly senior clerics from the Church of England

and the Roman Catholic Church saying, we have to be careful about

the language that we deploy. I hope now Cardle O'Brien will be more

careful about the language that he deploys because it is not

acceptable. The meaning of tolerance has changed in our modern

society. It used to simply mean putting up with something you do

not like. Now it means acceptance. We do not accept all kinds of

aberrations in society and if we do not then we are labelled intolerant

and bigoted. Did you find that damaging? We have said you were not

bigoted enough to win the award! But was it damaging to you? I had

the most incredible hate campaign mounted against me. You used the

word aberration, do you think homosexuality is an aberration?

do. I can see where your word nominated. Let me just say this,

and until hummus that Solti was legalised in the 1960s, it was a

legal offence. -- homosexuality. 1.5% of the UK population only

where identified as being a homosexual. And art exerting undue

influence on almost every aspect of life. Just responding to that,

calling it an aberration? As far as I'm concerned, that is totally

wrong. I profoundly disagree with what has just been said and with

what Cardinal O'Brien thinks. But I also assert their right to hold

that particular view. Although I would argue against it to the end

of my days. I think we need to be able to say, you are wrong but you

have the right to believe what you believe, in a free society. I'm not

sure that Andrew is allowing them the space to do that. I entirely

endorsed the right of the cardinal to speak in that way. We are a free

country and I believe in free speech and float the idea that we

should censor in any form. But it does not believe that stonewalled

just have to put up with it. Absolutely not was de I think

calling him bigoted has opened up a fantastic debate which we need to

have. I do not think anyone has the right to break got's law. But I do

not accept that it is God's law. That is a separate debate!

John Deakin is the parliamentary officer for the Scottish Catholic

Church. How does an award like this reflect an impact on the Christian

community? I think it does leave them with

some disbelief about this anger. People asking me how they can get

away with this. So much is said about tolerance. But this is built

on the distortion. The cardinal never said the words attributed to

him. Cardinal O'Brien is nothing like bigoted, he is a fantastic man.

He has done a lot of good and supported all kinds of communities.

He supports people in same-sex situations in a compassionate way.

This approach by Stonewall is a propaganda war are trying to

undermine Christians. Christianity is the last acceptable prejudice in

our society. And it is shameful that Stonewall has such influence

throughout society. So you now feel like the victim? We are the target

of a campaign which is trying to than a fight those who disagreed

about the meaning of sexual relationships, which are supported

in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The

Cardinal was identifying that right and saying the understanding of

family was built on human rights laws and to undermine that was it's

a version. That is what he said. -- 8 subversion. I heard the car nor

on the radio likening it to the return of slavery. -- the cardinal.

He did not say that. If you will impose a law on society, it affects

everyone. You are deliberately trying to marginalise and

stigmatise people. Amy Lamay and joins us now. You're at the wards.

Just put it into context, it was it given in a them and don't or more

tongue-in-cheek? -- a vehement There was a lot of shouting when

Ruth Davidson got up to receive her award for Politician of the Year

and assaulted Stonewall for having the Bigot of the Year award. The

audience were unimpressed. Then things quietened down by Gok Wan

and the chief executive of Stonewall. Ben and Gok very calmly

explained this specific language used by the nominees for Bigot of

the Year. I don't think there was any question in the room that that

kind of language they used was inflame may Tory and completely

qualified them as a bigot. What I find disturbing is the notion that

somehow or other Christianity involves now opposition to

homosexuality and gay behaviour. I found that in what John said from

Scotland quite extraordinary. One of the award winners was a good

friend of mine, who is one of the award winners at the Stonewall

event. There are many Christians who hold the same view as I do. In

fact I think the majority of Christians, certainly in my own

church now believe that, despite the resistance there is because of

the worldwide Anglican Communion and the problems it will have. The

majority of people in the pews think this is a non-issue now and

we ought to move on beyond and this sort of thing aligning Christianity

with anti-gay views, I find quite offensive. Can I say this - this is

completely wrong, because from the very beginning of Christianity,

homosexuality has been believed to be a sin, one of the four sins. The

idea we can somehow liberalise everything now is a nonsense.

There's nothing in scripture from the first to last page - the

demands of Gods.... Have we not moved on? We cannot move on from

what is right. I believe in a Jesus who was a loving, accepting, man

who embraced people, particularly outsiders. That is the sort of

faith I believe in. I tire of people quoting the Bible who say

homosexuality is not allowed in the Christian world. I was brought up

as a Catholic. Do we believe the Book of Genesis? People like

Patricia McKeever can pluck bits out of the book to say it.... While

they use this language I think it is right that Stonewall keep this

to the fore to show there are people who think like that and talk

like that. Every Catholic Church had a pastoral letter written to

them opposing gay marriage from the pulpit. If you like almost

politicising it. Bob Callaghan is from the Inclusive

Church - are we in danger though, based on what we have heard here

today of having a liberal fassism because two people who have

entrenched views are danger of labelling each other bigots because

they disagree? I don't think we would encourage liberal fassism. I

think we would encourage sharing of different views. Interesting for us,

as the Inclusive Church, Giles Fraser is President of the Church.

On one hand we have Giles as a priest encouraging honesty and

hopeness and then we have this Bigot of the Year award. So, for us,

as Inclusive Church and our members and individuals, there's a tension

between those two extremes. On one hand we see a priest who speaks

openly in support of those who are gay, lesbian, transgender. Then we

have the Cardinal saying these amazing things which are really

quite hurtful. I think we, at the Inclusive Church, want to encourage

Stonewall to have the right to say what they have to say and sometimes

to challenge and that is quite right. Also we want the Cardinal

the right to defend himself. We would encourage compensation there.

It gets us to a good closer there. Is there any way to find some

resolution - any middle ground? Christ said the way to life is

narrow. He didn't say we have a broad church. He said the way to

life is narrow and few there are find it. I am shut out now!

Finished! All I would say is, as far as I am concerned, that, what I

believe may be one way forward is actually to really look at the life

of Jesus Christ, upon whom Christianity is based and look at

what he stood for - that is openness, exclusivety and the

embrace of all. He talked about love and it wasn't man or woman or

heterosexual love. It was about love. Let's work on that one.

I said at the beginning, I defend the Catholic Church's opinion. I

understand high they oppose gay marriage but I would appeal to the

Cardinal and the leaders of this church to mind their language.

Thank you. We've had text and calls. The B word is an easy way to

denigrate people with a different opinion. "as a gay man h priest is

not a bigot." "The bullied have become the bully." Thank you. That

is our poll today - is Stonewall's Bigot of the Year award in'

proipiate? -- inappropriate?

You can get in touch. Texts are charged at the standard

rate. You can vote online. You have around 20 minutes before

This week, the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, called for a mental

health strategy to change the way society is tackling the issue. The

comments have focused opinion on what many regard as the last taboo

- how mental health is regarded and treated. With one in ten digging a

nosed with depression it is the most prominent illness. Are we

sleep wauxing into a US -- sleepwalking into a US way

dependency culture? Andrew Pierce thinks we should show

some true grit and man up. I think it is shocking that mental illness,

Mr Than a bad back or the flu -- more than a bad back or the flu is

the main reason why people are claiming incapacity benefits.

The cost of mental illness is mnds 105 billion a year in -- �105

billion a year in England alone. We cannot afford to go on like this.

What we need is a return of the British stiff upper lip.

The truth is, there isn't an easy solution and there never has been.

A friend of mine, for heavens sake, was prescribed anti-depressions

because he was suffering anxiety because he was moving house. That

tells you all you need to know about the mind set, not just of

some of the doctors, but of some of those who claim they are suffering

from depression. This mass diagnosis of depression

merely cheapens it for those who are suffering clinical problems,

which I know can cripple their lives. GPs, they are creating a

dependency culture by dishing out pills rather than using

psychological therapies, which the NHS's own guidelines say are far

more effective. It is why the number of

prescriptions for drugs like Prozac have actually doubled in the last

decade. So, it is time those people

complaining of stress, or even depression, got things into a bit

of perspective. That means we would have more money to treat those

people who genuinely need our help. Do you agree with Andrew? If wow

want to join the conversation you can on Twitter, phone, text.

Details on the screen. She's checking on the screen! We are

joined now by the author and journalist Kishwar Desai. Thank you

for joining us. Let's start with you as our new guest this morning.

What did you make of what Andrew had to say? I disagree with Andrew.

I think that depression unlike many other diseases, it's not a physical

ailment, however it can become one if you allow it to get out of hand.

It is vr important for us to understand that -- very important

for us to understand that life has changed. People start by feeling

unwell. They need to go to a doctor urgently because often you don't

know what it could lead to. We've had a sad case of a woman who was

suffering from depression and she went on to kill her two children

because she was not advised as to whether she could give it all up.

Because life is stressful now people need to go to doctors.

we all labelling ourselves depressed. Somebody else may be

under the weather and we seek help for it, when we could have a cup of

tea and chat? There is nobody to talk to. In the old days, when

Andrew spoke about the stiff upper lip, in the old days that is what

we did. We spoke to a family member or somebody around. Now life has

changed. People lead more isolated existences. They don't... Should

they medicate for that? medicated. I am saying they need to

go to the doctor, whether the doctor gives them the right advice

or not, that is another matter. They need to go to somebody to talk

it out. People are going to the doctor and the doctor is reaching

for the prescription pad too hasteedly. It cannot be right that

within a decade a number of people are on incapacity benefit, because

of mental illness has doubled. I don't believe life has become that

much more stressful in ten years. I can argue people were more stressed

40 years ago. The therapies are more expensive than doling out the

anti-depressants. Anybody who believes that living on anti-

depressants is wrong. They have their side effects. They actually

produce all sorts of undesirable side effects for people, including

dependency. One would not want to go on that unless you are ill. The

other thing I would want to say about clinical depression is it is

a very serious illness. It is for some people quite as serious as any

physical illness, including cancer. A friend of mine nearly died of

clinical depression because he stopped eating, drinking. It was

not until he had a therapy on the head and so on that actually it

turned around. Others would argue that tablets can help.... We have

to be depression at looking at depression in this blanket way. It

is a very serious illness. It is why you need to go to a profession.

It is difficult if a person thinks of him or herself as being

depressed by themselves. It is a question for the medical fraternity.

They are under enormous amounts of pressure. Let's bring in a doctor,

a GP. First ltly, what evidence is there that -- firstly, what

evidence is there that people are diagnosed. How can you diagnosed in

seven or eight minutes? I think, as you alluded to, the statistics are

undeniableable. The number of people taking -- undeniable. The

number of people taking anti- depressants has increased three-

fold. That needs to be accounted for. There seem to be two factors

here. I mean, the first is that doctors are much reader to diagnose

depression than in the past. Indeed they are encouraged to do so by the

Royal College of Psychiatrists and other organisations, on the basis

that a lot of those systems which used to be dismissed in the past,

or marginallised were due to depression and what they did was

diagnose this other underlying mental illness and treat it

accordingly. There seems to be no doubt that people have much lower

tolerance for what used to be called "the blues." And I think

this is also related to the fact that this - there is a tendency to

miss interpret, what one in the past called an exeast ten shall -

what is the purpose of life? So on and so on - it's due to, as it were

deeper spiritual problems. Oliver James, I will bring him in now. How

big a problem is it in your experience? What reasons would you

The scientific evidence shows that we have five times more likely to

be diagnosed now with depression than in the past. It all began with

Margaret Thatcher come up we became a nation of consumer junkies.

Politicians and advertisers created inflated ambitions. We always want

what we have not got. We have confused will need we are desires.

And the massive wealth of a tiny minority is put ahead of the well-

being of the majority thanks to Andrew Pierce and is duly dished on

the newspaper where he works for supporting Thatcherism. That is a

major cause why some of us are more of mentally ill than we used to be.

Glad you're not sitting on the fence! I have heard Mrs Thatcher

being accused of many things, but I have never heard of her being

responsible for the rise in mental illness. It is a complete left wing

right. -- rant. It is completely absurd. I am not trying to limit

the effect of people who have suffered from mental illness

because it has happened to some of my close friends. But I think the

statistics are extraordinary that so many people are now on Prozac

which creates a sense of dependency. Oliver, from a more traditional

viewpoint, glottal therapists will say that these problems of

depression, it manifests later in life because of problems in

childhood. What do you think about that? The latest evidence shows

that your genes play little part in it. My book is called, we'd set

your child's emotional thermostat. You take your child away from the

family and give it a very intense, condensed experience of feeling

completely loved and in control. You tell the child constantly how

much they are loved. I first tried that during a television series and

I was amazed at the effect that it had. It seems to change the way the

parent feels about the child as well as how the child behaves. And

it is incredibly good fun. Just to add one thing to what the bishop

said earlier, doctors simply do not have the time. And he must

recognise that as a genuine problem. That is where the problem arises,

not that people are not going to a doctor but that they do not have

the time to do the proper diagnosis. That needs to be addressed.

means that people do not get to the root cause. The real problem is

never dealt with. I didn't think Oliver touched on something quite

important. Individualism has been something of the recipe of our

society for the past 20 or 30 years. The breakdown of community, of

sensible longing, the way in which people pursue the individual goals

has meant that often it has led to much higher family breakdown. And

the sense that actually your own identity and sense of being

valuable to somebody has been lost in that process. Undoubtedly that

sense of isolation leads to depression. But that has nothing to

do with Thatcherism. Thinking of ourselves and not of the wider

family. And also the demise in religious attendance may also be

part of it. It may be part of it because church provides a sense of

listening and being cared for for many people. Not necessarily the

Church, it could be the family. That is one place. These are the

others support structures which unfortunately do not exist anymore.

They do exist, but people do not take advantage of them was do of to

bring it back to that issue, it seems we all accept there is a

problem, but are we to a quick to claim depression? Is there any

solution? I think it is just too easy, it is a quick fix solution,

you are depressed common I will give you some pills. You had a

friend who was described pills for moving house? I think it is

ridiculous. You are not depressed, you're just suffering some anxiety.

Are you prepared to encourage the government to spend the extra money

on the measures that are really necessary? If you stopped giving

out all the skills you would save a lot of money and that releases the

resources for proper therapies that people need. But they are actually

more expensive in the end. If you're talking about a course of 10

or 20 sessions. Someone who has actually done the research on this

is Lisa Appignanesi. Our should depressives being lost in the

crowd? I think it is a complicated area. Your speakers have touched on

quite a few of the issues. It is true that we have become a society

which has more of a medical basis. And we turn took medical solutions

for cultural problems. So I agree about the need for more

psychological help. One of the things that has happened with the

medical profession, we used to have time with patients but also doctors

had more psychological training. Around the 1950s this whole

movement was there for doctors to learn from. It enabled them to

actually treat their patients psychologically as well as looking

at the physical symptoms of their ailments. And the whole kind of

case history, the story of life problems that they brought. So they

were better trained to deal with this and did not immediately have

to reach for the pills. We have become increasingly at drug society.

We think of happiness as being like a drug, a high. But in fact you

know we're not that simple and cannot be reduced to that. Is that

where the consensus lies? thinks so. But it is more to do

with the medical community and how they are dealing with it instead of

people going for help. Because people need to go for help because

the other structures no longer exist. One text saying, I have

suffered with depression for years. There was no other treatment on the

NHS. People are too quick to prescribe medication.

Coming up, with Christianity, Islam and Judaism dominating the

religious landscape, are newer and smaller religions being

overshadowed? Should all religions be given equal status, including

more funding, support and ultimately, recognition? You can

make your views known by phone, email or online. Remember, keep

voting too in our poll. The question, is Stonewall's Bigot of

the Year award innapropriate? Our text number is 81771. Texts will be

charged at your standard message rate. You've got about five minutes

before the poll closes. Or you can vote online by visiting our website.

It's time for our Moral Moments of the week. One of the biggest

stories this week is Hurricane Sandy. Some claim it is an act of

God. This is part of the nonsense of the far Right in America. In

terms of their views and even bishops have been accused of

blaming the floods on homosexuals. The notion that God punishes people

somehow through the weather it seems to me quite extraordinary. It

seems to be a piece of Arak nonsense. Or a god who helps

President's?! That is slightly different. The notion that anyone

has a hotline to God. People are saying that at the moment it plays

in favour of President Obama. Obviously it has got to do with

climate change. But regarding what the bishop said about right-wing

fantasies and so one comic in 1934 when the once an earthquake in the

heart mahatma Gandhi actually said it was an act of God. So you can

have a perfectly rational human being taking recourse to a kind of

symbolism to express something for what he feels might make a larger

point. It did annoying the Duke rationalists at that time. - Jack

the true. Everyone was upset by that. So there is a history, people

don't use these moments. The same in the Tsunami and the masks that

were left standing because they were so well constructed. That was

the same way. -- mosques. I just agree with the Bishop completely.

What kind of God would inflict wicked things on people. It is just

one of those things. I was intrigued by how it impacts on the

American election. But it makes life more interesting! It also

raises questions about the theology behind this. Do we believe in a

loving God? It does not hold together. Also in the news this

week, the NHS giving contraceptive jabs to 13-year-olds without their

parents' knowledge. I do not understand why the state is

conniving in allowing people to break the law. The age of consent

is 16 so why are schools giving out breath control, encouraging them if

you like to have sex before they are legally entitled. I just think

it is the wrong way around. should they approach it could that

they should certainly consult the parents. Patient confidentiality?

She is not old enough. I thought that until three days ago when I

had a conversation with someone who has spent a lot of time working

with young people. She said you have to realise that for a very

small number, of young girls actually getting this advice, they

are largely in the care of the local authority. There are no

parents around. They are running wild. And the only way to protect

them, because often they have such low self-esteem that they see their

bodies as being something that could be abused in all kinds of

ways, it is actually providing them with that help. There are no

parents. And what you and I might regard as quite a Rangers, it does

not quite apply where there are no parents around. -- out wages.

parent I am worried about this because it can go across the board

to everybody. And even when the parents are there there often not

consulted. So I think definitely it should not be done because the it

is stealing people's childhoods. We need to address this as a society.

Not looking at it just through a liberal prison but something more

of a structured approach, how we can Council these kids and not take

the easy way out. You've been voting in our poll this morning. Is

Stonewall's Bigot of the Year award innapropriate? The poll's closing

now, so please do not text, as your vote will not count, but you may

still be charged. The online vote is now closing as well. We'll bring

you the result at the end of the If you were to be asked to name the

religions which practise in the UK, you may say Christianity, Islam and

others. Should all our religions be given e qual status? Today a new

Pope will be enthrowned to oversee a congregation of millions.

It's not the Roman Catholic Church we are talking about, but the

Christian Coptic Orthodox Church. Worldwide there are 16 million

Coptic Christians, with a large population in Egypt. Here in the UK

little attention will be paid to the appointment, leading some to

suggest we have too insular attitude towards religion. Many

minority or new religions feel they are not taken as seriously as more

established religions. Minority and spiritual movements such as

Scientology can be the but of jokes or dirigs. Shouldn't we give

smaller religions more thought? Members of established faiths argue

a true religion is one which has stood the test of history and is

based on the teachings of God or a prophet. They claim some of these

new groups do not deserve to be called religions and dilute the

power of what they need as a true religion. In the 2001, UK census

almost 400,000 people listed their religion as Jedi Knight, making it

the fourth biggest belief in the country. Does that make it a faith?

In a modern world, should we embrace new and minority religions

and treat them as equal as traditional faiths? Or should all

believers unite under the traditional message of God?

What do you think? You can join in by phone, text, e-mail or online.

How inclusive or embracing should with be? If you think I will

support Jedi Knights as being a religion - you are wrong. It is a

natural humorous response to a draft census question. Some

religions are dangerous. There are cults around and we must be very

weary of people getting caught up in things that do real harm to them.

And we can mention some - but I think I better be careful about the

BBC's lawyers before going down that road. I would appreciate that.

Your deaf -- definition of a cult not somebody else's!

For example, the Church of Scientology has had a lot of

criticism about itself and some of its beliefs. I personally have got

reservations about President Romney's particularly faith. My own

view is that it is the major historic religions and the Cops are

a part of that - they are a may -- Coptics are a part of that. Age

based on scripture in a sense the community of people worshiping God,

as far as I am concerned a common God, not different Gods. Jedi

Knights - if they exist in a few hundred years will that be more...

I don't know what they believe in. They believe in a greater force of

nature. Well, I completely disagree with

the Bishop on the grounds that I think religion is completely a

private thing. It is a pact between you and your God, if you happen to

be religious or spiritual. Therefore the concept of equal

status or no status does not apply because you should be having to be

able to keep your religion private, away from the larger community.

That is, for me, a real religion. It sort of demonstrates itself in

the way you live n the way you act twartdz other people. That is a

different -- towards other people. That is a different matter. People

worshiping a particular God - all the criteria he has set down for

the things which should be accepted as against those which should not

be accepted. Could be destroyed, as you said, tomorrow. As religions

develop over the years, what we consider to be a cult today may be

a major religion tomorrow. Should all religions be able to have a

peaceful co-existence and acceptance of each other?

disagree with both. I would like to bring some theological intelligence

here. This is a difficult subject. People scream bigotry and

intolerance. It does not make any sense to me to find out that God -

the only religion, found a claim to be God, left us with clear

instructions, clear church and went back to heaven and said it does not

matter what you believe, there were nice people on Earth before Christ

came. What do you think - Hindus, Muslims? Hinduism is pre-Christian.

Excuse me using this term, but this is the term that has always been

used, Pagan religions, religions which do not adhere to Christ and

Islam came 600-700 centuries after Christ. It beggars believe that God

would send the Angel Gabriel to the virgin Mary to tell her she would

be mother and then send him to the Prophet Mohammed and give him a

different set of rules and whatever. It does not make any theological

sense either. Either the Christian, as - Christianity is true in its

original, not in liberal format. no room for Islam in your book? I

am trying to understand what your.... Christianity is an

absolute - God has, Christ is God and Christ founded the Church.

Therefore, it does not seem to make sense to me that Christ left a

whole sack ca mental system, a structure.... Can I interrupt you.

An angel said... Apart from being told I belong to a Pagan religion -

the question of equal status - that is the problem with that thing you

have set out, then it is a question of competition, you know my

religion is better than your religion. Can I just finish? As a

result of which, what happens is that people begin to fight amongst

each other. This is a very, very divisive premise that you have put

forth, which is why I am saying that people should be allowed to

worship whichever God they want, but in privacy. An Imam now joins

us. You have heard Patricia McKeever saying only one true

religion - if I can paraphrase. Your views? As a person who is a

consultant for a Christian charity, campaigning in support of

persecuted Chrison minorities in Muslim countries and has taken a

stand against it the views do not correspond to the teaching of the

Christian church. Pope pope expressed in article 3 of the Roman

Catholic Church, views Muslims with respect, with respect and regards

Muslims and Jews as worshiping the one same God, in Artle 4, the same

declaration says the Church wishes to decry anti-Semitism against Jews

and other faiths. Imam, thank you... They teach in

the Vatican too. The Catholic Church is necessary for salvation

and anyone who knows that and refuses to either enter or remain

within the Church cannot be saved. Of course, we respect people. I am

glad you mentioned that point. Respecting people is different from

respecting their beliefs. Should we respect.... It is the same thing.

How can you respect a person and not their beliefs? That is the

basic premise! -- From the air time, from

charitable status, tax breaks and so on - should that be afforded to

all religious groups? To echo the previous speaker, I completely

disagree with the suggestion that Christianity is the only religion

and the only one worth talking about. That would be worth noting.

For me, it is about representation. If you have somebody making up a

religion in their garage which has an adhere rant population of

precisely three, to suggest that they should have equal status is

obviously ludicrous. So, what does equal status mean? Does it mean

they should be included in the RE curriculum. Are we going to add

Jedi to the curriculum? 400 members in the UK, I think is a bit of a

joke. I mean that literally. People think it is a joke. But, the second,

the third is to say, I also disagree with the idea that

religion is a private undertaking. The reality is this country is

shaped very largely by that Christian background. It's a

country in which we have a commitment to Freedom and Justice

and that grows out of our Christian background... I am afraid... I will

come back to you in the studio. Let me bring in you because you can

pick up on the point of battling for charitable status which would

give you an equal status. You are one of the elders, you are one of

the elders. You have been actively fighting for charity status. How

much do you get involved and contribute to society? This is one

of the arguments that if you are not prepared to do that why should

you be given the same level as other religions? That is an

interesting question. Thank you. The proposition that we live apart

from society is just a ludicrous fallacy. It is absolute nonsense.

We live at peace with all men. Our lives survive and progress in the

mainstream of society. So, if you take an area like

business, for instance, we have customers and employers.

We have a lot of interaction with the world.

And we've got into a fight with the Charity Commission, basically,

because they are saying we are not for the public benefit.

And there's lots of... And your fight continues. I know your fight

continues. A final word to you - you believe Christianity, you need

to evanlise and bring people the truth. Why does your truth take

presidence over anybody elses? Catholic Church, is the Christian

dispensation. That is where it is to be found. Christ said t only

religious leader said, anyone akin to this - I am the way - no-one

gets to heaven apart through me. If someone is saved they are saved

through the merits of Christ. It is a theological nonsense to say

there's... We don't all believe in the same God. We do not believe in

the same God. This thing about we all have - Christ said before aib

bra ham was, I am. -- Abraham was, I am. Thank you

very much. We will have to come back to this. It has been a

fascinating debate. Thank you for all your contributions. Your text

and on line votes are in. Here is what you told us in our vote. 52%

Right. So, why don't we get reaction. We have more time. Are

you surprised by the quality of the poll? No. I am not. What the

Cardinal said was unfortunate, to put it mildly. I am very angry with

him because I feel he does not represent Christianity, as I

understand it. It is reflected in that particular vote. I hope the

Roman Catholic Church will learn that you cannot treat people who

are members of our society with such abuse. I want to take up from

this point and link it to what we were discussing earlier about

religion being given equal status. I want to say it is important that

people are treated equality and therefore their religions are

treated as equally as possible. I want to leave the religion bit out

of daily life and say we should emphasise more on other facilities

like good hospitals, good schooling. What we do in society? Yes that

equates one religion with the other. Thank you for your contributions

and thank to you for taking part today, Bishop Stephen Lowe, Kishwar