Episode 1 Sunday Morning Live

A million children are growing up in Britain today with no contact

from their fathers, but the head of the Catholic Church in England and

Wales says fathers are important role models and cold their rolls a

pressure gift. Good morning. Welcome to a new

series of Sunday Morning Live. Parts of the UK are becoming man

deserts according to the Centre for Social Justice think-tank who point

to the growth of single mother families and the shortage of male

primary school school teachers as the cause. Are fathers essential or

an optional extra? Here is what one mother thinks. My daughter is happy

and setled and most single mums would say the same about their kids.

Next week the governing body of the Church of England meets and once

again women bishops are high on the agenda. One retired bishop feels

the church is being held to ransom by a minority opposed to change.

the church is not to self-destruct if it must not oppose its

prejudices. We examine Nelson Mandela's legacy,

forgiveness, but is it always right to forgive? My guests this week are

Peter Hitchens, a columnist for the Mail on Sunday and a former atheist

who is now a member of the Church of England. Stephen low, now

retired, was the Bishop of Hume. And Bonnie Greer, a playwright and

novelist, she's lived in the UK since 1986, she is chancellor of

Kingston University and once played Joan of Arc on stage in Paris. We

want to know what you think. If you have a web cam, join us via Skype

and give your views on Twitter or A report by the Centre for Social

Justice says lone parent families are increasing at the rate of

20,000 a year and will total more than two million by the time of the

next general election. The vast majority are single mothers. At the

same time, the Archbishop of Westminster and the Pope have both

praised the roles of fathers when it comes to child development. Are

fathers under valued figures or can children gain just as much when

raised by a single mother? Sally has been dealing with the

realities of life as a single mum since she and her husband part

indeed 2007. She has been able to maintain a good relationship with

her ex-husband who has regular contact with his seven-year-old

daughter. From our experience my daughter doesn't see her dad every

day and while that would have been lovely, I think what has been

important and what is vital is she has lots of people around her who

care, who spend quality time with her and who she loves spending time

with. She is happy, settled, she's confident. I think most single mums

would say the same about their kids. The report says children that have

separated single or step parents are 50% more likely to fail

academically, or struggle socially. I don't think the problem here is

about being single or being married. It is about the challenges that

some of the single mums are experiencing. Sally also runs a

blog about parenting for a group of UK parent bloggers. This means she

talks to parents from all sorts of different backgrounds every day.

She feels there is a growing frustration at the way single mums

are portrayed. You would think that single mum is somebody in their

teens who has had a baby to get a council flat and now is on benefits

and might have another baby to get a new tele. Lots of single mums

want to work or are working or in education and it is edcredably hard.

One of the concerns the report raises is that many children also

lack male role models because of the shortage of men teachers in

primary schools. You would have to work hard to put your child in a

man desert. There are uncles and grandfathers. It is funny the idea

that you could raise a child and have them not meet 50% of the

population. Are fathers actually as important as the report, and many

religious and political leaders, would have us believe or is it just

fashionable to stigmatise single mums trying to do their best for

for their children? Peter she suggests it is about

stigmatise them. Virtue is learned by example and a lot of children

are not learning that men are capable of constantcy, Fidelity,

hard work or of restraint or responsibility. They simply aren't

seeing t so girls and boys are growing up without any idea that

this is the case. Unsurprisingly, our society is affected by that, if

people think it can't be done they don't do it and don't expect it.

That is the question for our text Results will be announced at the

end of the show. There is a lively debate online.

Bonnie, there is all this research which is showing there is a

connection between single parenthood overwhelmingly mothers

and the fact fact thairn children don't go on to do well in life.

This is a complex question. I grew up in a tradition of family. My

father was with us at home and stayed married to my mother until

his death. They were married for almost 50 years and I benefited by

knowing by father. I benefited by him being there. But it is not some

sort of generic benefit. I benefited because of his

personality and who he was. But we do know that fatherhood is a recent

invention, in the human society we... How do you meanGoing all the

way back in the millions of years of our species it took a long time

for people to were connected with birth. We didn't learn that until

the age of farming and so forth so it is a recent invention. It is a

social construct for fatherhood? is totally that, that is not to

denigrate t but I don't think we should mystify t because fatherhood.

This is where we bring in Stephen Lowe. I am not sure I agree with

Bonnie on that. I do think - I don't want to stigmatise a single

parent, be it or even gay parents, I don't want to stigmatise them

because they are involved in a single sex relationship with

children, but I do think fathers do bring something important, as

Bonnie has said, to a relationship, which is an important part of a a

child's flourishing. I think the loss of that role is a loss to a

family, whereas I think even that single parent we heard just now

acknowledged that they do need male figures in their life. I am not

saying that. I am saying the idea of father we talk about now is a

couple of hundred-years-old construct that dads were there,

they took care of their children. Isn't it better I don't know what

it is like not to have a dad. But we have to separate out the

mistification of fatherhood and the fact that it is good to have a dad.

I empathise with men who want to be fathers, I really support them, but

let's not mystify father. Mother Mother hood is the essential

connection humans have. Can we shift away from the suggestion that

this is about stigmatising single parents. It is nothing to do with

that. Single patients made a rational choice given the social

attitudes of our society and tax and benefits system which

encourages the formation of fatherless families, it is nothing

to do with them as individuals. What we are addressing is the way

in which politicians and parliaments since the late 60s has

encouraged this form of family. We find the whole point of the Centre

for Social Justice report is that this has been a failure. Why is it

having experienced this enormous failure and round the results are

in many cases worse than they would have been, we don't do anything

about it. It is diverted into you are attacking single mothers. I am

not attacking single mothers. me go back to what Peter is saying,

governments made decisions about not defining families. It didn't

say you are family because you have a daddy and mummy. It said you are

a family if you have a child. The child is what we are going to focus

on. Of course I agree, it hasn't been perfect, it's decayed it needs

to be looked at. But governments decided to focus on children and

not defining families. It is worse for children, the victims of this

great experiment in which a lot of adults have had a great deal of fun,

have been the children. The the worsiness of it has to do with the

fact in our society machine make more money. Men are able to do more

things than women. If women had job equality, first of all, it does

begin with Monday. -- money. have to be very careful about

saying that politicians have created single parent families. It

is very often the violence of men that have created single parent

families and that is an important factor in many breakdowns. Many of

those men have not had good fathering themselves. That is one

of the things I would disagree with Bonnie about. It is important that

people like you, and you said it, your father provided you with a

good model of what a good father was, and we need more of that.

do, but I am not going to say because of woman chooses to raise

her child without the father of that child, that somehow enately

that is going to be a bad thing. That child is going to be rue I had.

We have a President of the United States whose father was not there.

Isn't it better that there should be both parents there rather than

saying it is a bad thing. It is better in a society where that is

rewarded, not genrically, not enately. That is my argument.

interesting the way I find myself being more religious than bishops.

Isn't it something the church believes strongly in, that parents

of children should be married. And the whole basis of this is actually

the divorce law reforms and made marriage less central. It is easier

to get out of a marriage than a car leasing agreement.

David, there's two interesting aspects to this, one is how far, or

living proof you don't need to have had a father to have grown up

successfully, but also how far marriage is the issue rather than

whether two parents are the issue. I was very lucky, I grew up in a

tough inner city environment. I went to a boarding school, I got a

scholarship, it was a Billy Elliot moment, I had uncles and an older

brother 14-years-older and I had some great male teachers. But it

does seem to me the issue is not about marriage, it is about

fatherhood. If you are old old enough to become a father, then

that is something that most continue throughout life. Whether

your relationship breaks up or not, you need a relationship with the

child assuming there isn't domestic violence. I do think the emphasis

should be on fatherhood, because we know that the tendency towards

criminality, the outcomes in relationship to poverty for

children without that stable father relationship, is absolutely

fundamental and is going up in our society. The ingenius method we

developed and worked over century for making sure fathers did stick

around with the children of the women with whom they lived, is

called marriage. By Abandoning marriage we have made it almost

certain that many fathers will disappear at crucial points in

those children's lives. I married and I believe in mairning but I

recognise in 2013 there are couples who are co-habiting, they are

relationships that breakdown and there are relationships in children

who are born by virtue of casual sex. In those circumstances I place

my my emphasis on father hoofed, on staying corrected. David, thank you.

There are many fathers who want to father and many obstacles in our

society, including maternity wards, children's centres and schools that

almost are hostile to those often young fathers being engaged. That

is very interesting. Let's go back to that, because it

is young fathers who want to be dads who want to be fathers, who

want to be engaged and I encourage that should happen and that's going

to take a shift in the way the families is looked at. But the

Labour government, new Labour decided it was going to be children

it was going to focus on. It was not going to define what a family

was. I think that, that to me is important. Children are the most

important. It took marriage out of the equation. Officials documents

under new Labour remove the word husband from official documents, it

is no there any more. It is not true they took marriage out of the

occasion. Fatherhood remains, everything David said, a very

important part of the flourishing of a child and one of the things

our system does now is sometimes impose prejudices against fathers,

exercising their responsibilities, and I am not saying that I support

Fathers 4 Justice and so on, but there are issues about the way in

which our courts still continue to treat fathers and keep them out

very often of the proper contact they should have and want with

their children. This is a big issue for many viewers from home. A

couple of comments now. This is Bob, it is not about motherhood or

fatherhood but adults to provide nour I shallment and security.

Another says families need fathers. Evil is done to fathers and their

children by wrong assumptions of professionals.

Another one, calling fathemother families families traditional is

old-fashioned. We have one more I would like to

bring in on web cam. Sally, we saw your film earlier. You can see

people feel passionately that you are doing really well, but having a

dad around would be better. I think to be honest talking about it in

those terms, the horse has bolted for lots and lots of families in

the UK, there isn't a married father. Rather than just

discounting that and writing off people like my daughter or saying

that somehow I am not a family because I am not married, that's

just, it's pointless. You are missing a massive opportunity to

help support those families and help encourage those. I personally

feel very demoralised seeing all of this coverage about single mothers

and how I have made the wrong choice and therefore that is now

determined by daughter's future. I don't think that is what counts. It

is about my daughter is in a love, supportive, family with lots of

male role models, including her dad. Nobody is making these assumptions.

Nobody has said these things. What we are discussing here is public

policy. 50 years ago, there was a strong pressure for a change in the

marriage laws so they would be weakened and the idea of life-long

marriage would be God rid of. -- got rid of. Now we see the

measurable results of this. The report measures the results. They

have been disastrous. Wouldn't it be the rational, sane thing for

society to do to go back to the mistake it made and say actually we

got this wrong, we need to reform it. You cannot have a society where

one way or another men are abusing women and women having to withdraw

from married relationship and say we have to keep them together with

a dores law which is rigorous and prevents people separating when

there is that abusive relationship. A woman raising a child has always

been the way it was. It is only recently that men have been

involved with children. So to make it some sort of mystical thing...

Joseph was involved with Jesus. That was a couple of thousand years

ago. You were raised by a single parent and your parent chose to

have you on her own, she chose donor conception. Do you feel you

have missed out, you have nefeded a father? Not at all. Naturally I

have always been curious about my donor, I never felt at a

disadvantage being raised by a single parent. I understand that no

family situation is perfect. My mum did the best she could in difficult

circumstances, as do many single mothers who are stigmatised because

their family doesn't fit into the structure.

If we separate off abusive relationship, and the idea that the

state has made single motherhood more attractive, isn't there an

issue about man manhood here, men are putting off marriage, I know of

women who say I have to have a kid on my own or they will never never

have a kid. Marriage is very unattractive now to men, there is

almost no point in in them getting married. They take on a legal

commitment and if they get divorced they will usually lose the custody

of the children and also the family. There are millions of families

functioning with good fathers in loving relationships. Let's not

paint a picture of a world where it's all made up of single parents

or men who are feeling very angry. Read the report. I have read the

report. We will end the discussion there, but that is a good place to

end it. Thank you to everybody. We know it is a big topic of the day.

Our poll is open. Do vote. Is You can only vote once. If you

think families do need fathers text You have 20 minutes before the poll

Next week the General Synod the ruling body of the Church of

England meets and high on the agenda is what many see as the

biggest challenge facing the church today. The on going dispute over

allowing women bishops. Traditionalists feel the fabric of

church and gospel is being eroded. Others feel the church is lagging

woefully behind the times and that its very survival is at stake. This

is his Sunday Stand. If I was in my 20s now, I couldn't

ever see a reason for my setting foot in a building like this. The

church I have given the best part of my life to is killing the gospel

of Jesus Christ that I passionately believe. It is a gospel that speaks

of love, acceptance, and a welcome to all. The church continues to

discriminate against women, by refusing them the opportunity to

join the leadership of the church as bishops. Gay and lesbians are

told their lifestyle is not welcome. This is not reflective of the tor

nt society in which we live. If the church is not to self-destruct,

then it must reflect that torrent society and not impose its

prejudices upon it. My church, is either to change or

die. It has to become more tolerant and change with society.

Otherwise what's the point of being left with empty churches and a few

old bigots sat in the pews. The views of Stephen low. Do you

agree or disagree. You can join in at home on Twitter or e-mail. I am

going to have to start with you, because you do go to the Church of

England, but are you in danger of being one of those bigots who is

going to help it die. Why didn't the bishop take up social work.

Because I I believe in the love of Jesus Christ. Good for you. Your

view of it is your view and mine is mine. Which of us is right we will

find out later. But I don't think it is necessarily the case that

someone should - put it like this, that if the church maries the

spirit of the age it will pretty quickly find itself widowed. The

spirit of the age is exactly what the church is not going to be

fought. To pursue the fashions of the time, it is exactly what

churches are not supposed to do. If has to stand for eternal verities.

Jesus Christ spent his time with outsiders, the people rejected in

society. He preached a gospel of love, tolerance and acceptance. He

preached a gospel about justice. We are in a situation at the moment

where the church discriminates against women, it discriminates

against gay and lesbian people. As a result in a society which largely

has become more loving and toll tolerant towards these groups, the

church is out of step and losing relevance to those under the age of

30, around those issues. Christianity is the biggest

globalisation project that ever was in the history of human kind. As a

Roman Catholic, I know that what Christians did was a roll up into a

community. There would be a Goddess up there and the priest would say,

keep her there, not like Islam that says get rid of statue, but

Catholics say keep her there, and call her saint Mary of the whatever.

Christianity's definition is change. 600 years ago if you were to say

the word Christian, you would be like me a Roman Catholic, there

wasn't anything else. Christianity splits, it changes, and to go

back... The Catholic Church's attitude to women is arguably more

conservative. I am talking about Christianity, the flew which hadity

is built into T Its Church of England is arguing

over whether to allow a woman boss misrepresented. The Church of

England has been modernising, frantically, like a dancing dad at

a disco, for 50 years. You were founded by a king who decided he

was going to break away. Just a minute Peter, you have made a point

about that. The church has been modernising for 50 years, it has

been losing the congregation. church is not modernising, it is

trying to preach the Christian gospel to a modern society and

culture. We got rid of slavery, which was part of the teaching

within the new New Testament. We have to recognise that the

Christian gospel has to address the It always has. I want to bring in

Suzy, who is a lay member of the General Synod. My understanding is

you are you are against women bishops and you are one of those

people who is holding the church to ransom perhaps when it needs to

modernise or it won't flourish. is sad to think that the churches

which have a third of their congregation its under the age of

30 are the ones saying they want to maintain leadership within them. We

are called to reflect God of the church and called to take God's

word seriously. God's word is an acceptance of all people, as

children of God, regardless of Christ there is neither male nor

female. That is wuned of the misunderstandings. Absolutely true

in salvation there is no male or female, it is true, all can come to

God through Christ and that is what Paul is teaching, it is in a whole

passage of how are we saved, not how do we order our churches. He

also talks about in the church and family we need male male

responsibility and female submission. Female submission!

Peter says sectarian rubbish, it is not sectarian rub rish the the

change is a modernisation project. I am not a practising Catholic but

I am saying to mystify this, to make this into an idea that goes

back thousands of years, it is not true about Christianity. Something

the bishop said about how Christ mixed with and met the wrong-doers

and sinners in society, it is true, and St Matthew, whose gospel we

still read was one of them. And saint Mary mag delain. He said to

them stop doing those things, go and sin no more. The fact he went

and spoke to them and mixed with them didn't mean he approved of

what they did. There seems to be the attitude that is now being put

forward is somehow the church by accepting the existence of wrong-

doers accepts their sins as well. The church is not a social work

body. It says some things are wrong. You should know that. I don't

accept that any way shape or form. Vicky joins us. I remember when

women priests were first approved in the Church of England 20 years

ago. Have you thought about being a priest? I have, my work means I

have actually clocked up more years of study than it would take to

become a priest. So lots of people ask why I haven't become ordained

and for me it is partly about the church's attitude to women. It is

such a foundational element of the gospel. I don't think it is about

the modernisation of the church. I was reading Peter's piece in the

Mail about how those arguing for women bishops are watering down the

gospel and chasing culture. For me it is about stripping off that

culture. For me the culture we are talking about is the patriarchal

culture. I would see women bishops would be a return to the original

church. I want the church to return to its original essence N that

sense Peter is the reformer and I am not. I didn't say what I have

been alleged to have said. I am in favour of women bishops, I have no

problem with them at all. My problem is how those who don't

agree with it should be treated. They should be tolerated as people

with strong views which should be accepted. That is all that argument

was about. It is much, much more. The Church of England is

practically run by women. The idea it has some hostility towards women

is rubbish. The attitude to women in the church and the fact they are

not allowed to key roles of leadership is the issue. They could

have been bishops year ago, f the pro-women bishops faction had been

more tolerant. That is the issue and that is why Christianity for me

is inconsistent. You saying that God made two teeres of humanity, it

doesn't make sense. There has been an interesting distinction, whereas

an overwhelming feeling that the the the church should change that,

the attitudes have have only changed in the last few decades.

I think the church has lost an opportunity. We should have

supported civil partnerships more effectively five, ten years ago

when they were going through. The nonsense now that the bishops and

archbishops are saying yes to civil partnerships, this is better than

gay marriage for the church but we are not prepared to bless them in

churches, we are not going to provide lit jis for people who want

to celebrate their partnership within the life of the church, I

find astonishing. The decision next weekend to actually put off a

debate about this is frankly cowardly by the Church of England

and disgraceful. I am interested in the fact that these are people who

say they are Christians. You feel that they don't belong in the

Church of England if they want to have a gay marriage? No, I am a

broad church person. Anybody who believes in God and particularly in

the Christian gospel should be part of our church. The difficulty is,

that those who want women bishops want to have total victory over

those who oppose them. That is not true. It is absolutely true. In all

conscience, there are people, I don't agree with them, some Roman

Catholics, they can't accept the idea that women should be bishops.

They should have a corner left in which they can continue, they are

not being allowed it. Can I bring in one other other contributor.

I gather that you are very keen on bringing young people into the

church. What do you make of the argument that the church needs to

move with the times, needs to be more tolerant of the status of

women and homosexuality, too. think it is very much dependent on

people's concepts of modernisation. If that means to be depart from

your defining values, if it means to depart from the truth of

scripture, if it means to reinterpret scripture and redefine

the substance of who we are, I wouldn't believe in modernisation.

I am looking for certainty, people are looking for awe then tisity and

so when Christians begin to reinterpret and redefine the text

of scripture which they are able to access freely, it suggests of being

self-contradictory. There are ways the church can move forward and be

engaging without having to be bib kally unfaithly. Christian has been

successful because it is able to change, as oppose today other

religions, it can accommodate you. Will women be able to participate

in the full life of the church. We will have to leave it there.

Thank you to all our contributors. Later on Sunday morning Live,

forgiveness is part of the doctrine of many of the world's great

religions but is it always right to forgive? Remember, you can keep

voting in our text poll, do Remember, you can only vote once

and you have about five minutes It is time for our moral moments

where we look at some of the big stories of the week. We are going

to look first at the story three person IVF. Pioneered in London and

promoted by... It is a very exciting development in terms of

providing the opportunity for people who have maybe genetically

lines within them which would produce illnesses within their

children, and this is a way of actually enabling them to have

children without those genetic problems. All I would say is,

although I welcome this move, it is something we have to keep our eyes

on, because there is always within the whole scientific community a

desire to move things on bit by bit by bit. The bottom of this is the

designer baby concept and the public needs a sense of confidence

in a system that will be able to manage this particular flow of the

scientific world in a way which prevents that sort of manipulation

of the human gene to produce the designer baby who is the footballer.

We ininsurance, our politicians have got a hold on this and able to

manage that does not happen. already have three-parent families,

you can have a surrogate taking a donor egg. We have these

magnificent brains, it's beautiful this has happened and I hope it

goes as far as it can, because we are defining humanity. If we can

create human beings who are free from suffering, free from lives of

pain, why shouldn't we do that. We have to do that, because that is

the goal of science. To make it possible for us to live on this

earth. Do you see a difference between a choice of having a baby,

the situations in India where women are paid and this about preventing

terrible conditions. I am told there are terrible things that can

be avoided and I can't help feeling there are other implications of

this we are not exploring. We don't really know what the end of this

would be. It does involve the destruction of what I regard as a

life and that is a very dangerous thing to start licensing. The other

story you have chosen is that of magistrate Yvonne Davies, who gave

a personal opinion in a judgment in a cannabis sentencing case and has

stepped down. Stepped down under pressure. She was reprimanded by

the Lord Chief Justice and Secretary of State for justice.

seems to be astonishing but very telling that in this country

officially cannabis is against the law, it is illegal to possess it,

to grow and sell it. But a magistrate who tells somebody who

has been convicted of farming cannabis she feels that he would be

advised to steer clear of t because of her own brother's terrible

experience after smoking can cannabis, how can it possibly be

that this is wrong. I think it is a very, very important discovery for

those of us who think we have a serious criminal justice system,

that a magistrate doing her job, giving somebody good advice based

on herb own hard experience is rebry manneded? There is an

argument made there is a pro- cannabis soft drug lobby. In a

secular society the people who dispense our justice have no

business telling us about her life is about. It didn't matter. What

matter was the law. The fact she decides to tell us her story, which

is a horrible story, was out of order. She shouldn't be on the

bench. I agree with that. I think the the magistrate stepped beyond

the responsibility she had been given by the state to exercise the

law, by using her own personal judgment and personal opinion about

that. Once we go into that role, we shall have judges and magistrates

putting their own personal stories this their judgements, and we don't

need it. Judges are always commenting. Not from personal

experiences joo. There is no suggestion that the conduct of the

case was any way improper. There is no suggestion there was any

prejudice. Purely after the conviction of sentence she

expressed an opinion which technically is the opinion of the

law. No place in court.You wouldn't say that if the matter

were reversed. It is prejudiced on your part. It is not prejudiced on

my part. We have another discuss to You have been voting in the text

poll this morning. Do Do families need fathers. The poll is closing

now, so don't text as your vote This week relatives of Nelson

Mandela have sat at his bedside as he remains in a critical condition.

He is still a revered figure who led South Africa out of the dark

days of apartheid to true demock si. He spent 27 years in prison,

branded a terrorist by the regime. When she was freed his greatest

weapon was not the bomb or bullet but simple forgiveness.

Every day they have come to pray for and praise the man that many

South Africans regard as a member of their own family. With the

release of Mandela, the world changed. It was no longer possible

for apartheid to rule in the old way. People don't relate to Nelson

Mandela purely as a great political leader or as a liberation hero.

They relate to him at a personal level. He led the nation to a new

beginning, rejecting the recrimination and revenge for a

doctrine of peace and reconciliation.

Mandela revisited his old cell in Robin island with President Bill

Clinton. But despite his years behind bars Mandela wrote "As I

walked out of the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom,

I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I I

would still be in prison." This weekend another American

President Barack Obama, is in South Africa. He paid tribute to the man

he described as his hero, and a hero for the world. President Obama

said his legacy will linger on throughout the ages.

In many people's eyes the greatest part of that legacy is forgiveness.

President Obama is visiting Robin island today. Mandela said hate has

no future but is it always right to forgive. You can join in by web cam

or make your point by text or online.

Bonnie, this narrative, 27 years in jail, comes out and truth and

recognise recognise sings. But -- reconciliation.

The moral life which I think is above anything that has to do with

religion, the moral life is a decision to live as a human being

in spite of, and one of the highest things we can do is to forgive. It

is probably the hardest thing we can do. Forgiveness only only

begins with the human being but spreads into the community as an

example and creates a legacy. I for one am astounded at the number of

people in my life who have forgiven me and forgiven in circumstances

that are very, very difficult to do. I think that forgiveness implies a

desire on the part of the wrongdoing to be forgiven. I find

it difficult verging on impossible to forgive somebody who doesn't

want to be forgiven. There is all too much easy give away forgiveness

being handed out in our society at the moment. When you are faced with

somebody who has done something wrong to you, then as far as I am

concerned forgiveness can only be given when it is sought. This

devalued soppy type of forgiveness which seems to be common these days

doesn't seem to be worth very much. Forgive us our sins as we forgive

those who sin against us, is a prayer that is said by Christians

hopefully every day, and to me the notion of forgiveness is central to

the Christian faith. And what man Mandela offered in South Africa was

a sense of reconciliation to a nation which had been split apart

by hatred and division and prejudice. The notion of a rainbow

nation which he brought in where people came together in peace and

reconciliation which is something again that archbishop Tutu has

played his part in creating that, is a model for the world about how

we reself issues where we need that sense of forgiveness and even now,

this programme coming from Northern Ireland, that need for forgiveness,

within the communities here is a vital part of the energy which we

ought to be create nothing our world. Many religions talk about

forgiveness being central, but also, the example of Northern Ireland,

the issue is whether you need truth with reconciliation. Perhaps what

Peter is talking about, it is easy to say one should just forgive but

there needs to be an honest accounting. There is too much of

that word being thrown around. It has been devalued. Like love.

Forgive sns an action, it isn't sitting back and saying it. It

begins a process, part of that process is the sinking out of

reconciliation. We must reconcile when forgiveness comes in. When a

government apologises, as the Australian government has, for

historical abuse of Aboriginal peoples or slavery, are those

meaningless? Not always, because sometimes they have a political

purpose. When the British Government apologised for the Irish

famine, part of me said there is a shameful failure among a lot of

English people to recognise to this day what a terrible thing that was,

and it was probably worthwhile. It is the extent of recognising past

wrongs, yes, but you can't apologise for things you didn't do.

I want to bring in a couple on web cam who have been kind to join us,

who have been through an experience, thank you for speaking to us. Your

son was murdered by a gang of people and three men were convicted

in 2001. You have heard us discussing this idea of forgiveness.

Can you tell us what it was like to have that experience and how easy

it was for you to forgive, because you have met one of his murderers?

We met three of them. Tell us about how you came to do it? We met

through a programme called called Restore To Justice. They are out of

prison now. We met three of them on three different occasions.

understand that one of them, he's gone to visit the grave of your son

with you. You have a relationship. He said his life has changed as a

result. How does that work, how do you feel about that? P Initially we

wanted answers to our questions, we wanted the truth from him. We chose

to forgive and forgiveness is a conscious decision. It is how you

understand forgiveness. It is not saying he didn't do it, it is

saying I choose to forgive you. It is not about how you feel. We

remember that and we chose to forgive and it is an everyday

choice. We went to the grave with him. We wanted him to come to terms

with that. We wanted him to move on as well as we needed to move on,

and that is why we did it. You have heard the argument that perhaps in

some circumstances actually you can't forgive and if they don't

seek forgiveness, perhaps you don't give it either. What is your view

on that? Load of nonsense. They took Christopher, they are not

taking my life. Forgiveness is - fur looking for revenge, be

prepared for digging two graves. is a remarkable story. I think that

is very interesting, because the lack of forgiveness actually can

bind you and you end up bitter and that sense of needing revenge all

the time can destroy your life as well. That is the great gift that

we heard from them, that actually they have given us an example of

how to forgive under those circumstances. What is most

important they chose life, they chose to continue to live. They are

not missionaries, not trying to convert anybody. They chose to live

in the wake of their son's dae. It is a very high human choice, it is

very, very difficult, but it does give back and they are the examples

of it. We have choices to make. It is not easy to do, it is not even a

typical thing to do, but the fact that they did it actually has

enlarged their community in many ways. I don't want to intrude into

private grief but the fundamental person who was offended against was

the murdered boy. He is in no position to forgive, we do not know

what he thinks. Ray and V Vi may forgive the murderer, but it

doesn't seem to be within their power to to forgive on behalf of

the murdered boy. It is a specific concern. The idea that end there is

a certain bit of forgiveness that only your son could give, what do

you make of that? Peter doesn't know my son, he can't speak on

behalf of my son. I turned to that young man, I said we're hear, if

Christopher was alive he would say get on with your life and move on.

Thank you so much for speaking to us about your family's experience,

we really appreciate it. It is this idea idea about choices

and I can see many people could see, the distinction between parental

forgiveness and the idea of the crime itself and victim might be

something different. I want to bring in one other

contributor if I can, who is well- known, she has spoken out a lot.

Kitty, I know you are only on the phone able to speak to us, many may

have heard before about your experiences because you survived

Auschwitz and you saw all the atrocities carried out there. You

have chosen to speak out about it and campaign on it still. It is

important we never forget, but should we forgive? First of all we

must not confuse revenge with forgiveness, because that came up

in your discussion. They are two totally different aspects. I was in

Auschwitz for two years as an eyewitness to the greatest crime in

human history. My opinions have not changed over the years. There are

crimes that are unforgivable. Who am I to forgive. This came up

actually in your discussion. I have no right to forgive, all these

people that have died. Anyone who witnessed what I have seen would

pretty well feel the same. Let me just, if you give me two minutes, I

will explain. As briefly as you can. Out of my two years, in my second

years in Auschwitz I was taken to work near the gas chambers, four

gas chambers. I watched the murder of something like 10,000 people,

each day, every day, which is quite difficult to comprehend. Very

difficult. I was made to sort out their belongings. These people who

were brought in totally innocent, were sitting in the wood, across

the way from the gas chambers. They had no conception of what was going

to happen to them. They were just sitting there, having tumbled out

of the cattle trucks, which they were in for several days. In groups

they were led into a building, the next thing was, the corpss were

laid outside waiting to be burnt, then you saw the ash come out.

These are murders of innocent people that cannot be forgiven by

anyone else here. Some higher authority maybe, but not here.

would like to have response from the panel. Bear with us.

There is this idea the Holocaust is something unforgivable. There are

Nazi who showed remorse. I wonder from the panel if this is something

different, set aside as the exception that proves the rule?

is a larger example of the simple point. The person who has to

forgive is the person against whom the offence has been committed. If

that spern dead you are -- spern dead, you are bsh if that person is

dead, you cannot forgive on behalf of that person. That is for a

higher authority to do. Of course we can't, but a community has been

offended against as well. A family has been owe offended against. Of

course you can't make it better for an individual, but a community can

make a decision about whether it forgives and I agree with kitty, I

have been to Auschwitz, I couldn't forgive the Nazis for that, there

is no way. But a community can make a decision about itself in relation

to its own history and its own being and that's what Vi and Ray

have done. They have made that decision on behalf of their family.

They can't do it for their child, but they can do it for their family.

It was the German nation against the Jewish people in a sense, an

act that was extraordinary in human history but in the end, there's had

to be reconciliation between those two peoples and a sense of coming

together in a world where they actually have to learn from the

disaster of Auschwitz, and the genocide, to a world where people

can actually live in harmony and peace. There has to be punishments

too in that case. Thank you very much kitty for speaking to us. It

is never ideal to discuss something like this so briefly, but thank you.

We do have to end it there because your text poll votes are in.

Here is what you told us. 85% of those who who texted said yes, and

15% said no. I think we always knew this

discussion was going to be one that would rouse strong emotions. But I

think it is interesting the wording was fair enough. Because of this

issue of whether the state has made fatherhood an optional extra.

don't think it's made fatherhood an optional extra. I still think

fathers play an important role in families. Our poll suggests that is

the case in the minds of most people. But that is not denying the

value of families where fathers aren't there for one reason or

another. That is my point. The most important thing are children and

making the families families that they are born into, however they

are born into as stable and safe as possible. This includes a father

and I I grew up with a dad, I support fatherhood but the most

important thing is children. What is the way forward? Reform, we have

to recognise that we have made a major mistake. Why don't we put it

right. What would you change?I would make marriage stronger, I

would make it harder to... Its Its current weakness was legislated in

1969 and it has not been seriously reformed since. Actually, the

quality of a marriage is based on the relationship between two people,

and the way that relationship functions, tolerance, acceptance.

That is what is vital in a relationship, not what the law says.

Marriage again this idea the traditional family is a modern

construct, it doesn't go all the way back in our history and I have

lived long enough to see marriage redefined in relationship. Thank

you to everybody who has taken part. Thank you to Peter, Bonnie and

Bishop Stephen Lowe and to Kitty who spoke to us earlier. Don't text

or call the phone lines any more, they are closed but you can