Episode 12 The Big Questions

Good morning. Thank you. Welcome to The Big Questions, live from King

Edward VI Handsworth School in Birmingham. I'm Nicky Campbell.

This week a Crown Court judge dismissed a woman from a jury

because she refused to remove her face veil, or niqab. Our first big

question, is a niqab a barrier to justice? This woman says wearing

the niqab has never interfered with her ability to communicate at work,

in public places or in social surroundings.

This week a Swansea University student pleaded guilty to posting

racist remarks on Twitter about Bolton midfielder Fabrice Muamba as

he lay fighting for his life in hospital. And on Wednesday, a

Newcastle University student was fined and sentenced to 240 hours of

community service after he pleaded guilty to tweeting racist remarks

about the football pundit Stan Collymore. Our next big question,

is the beautiful game bigoted? John Amaechi, the former basketball

player turned motivator, says the FA's Kick It Out campaign has done

nothing to stamp out racism in professional football.

And last, one of those age-old big questions, do we need religion to

create a moral society? The Bishop of Birmingham says he's not a

Christian because he's naturally a good person. We all need religion

to help us lead a moral life. Welcome, everybody, to The Big

Questions. APPLAUSE. On Monday, a judge at Blackfriars Crown Court

asked a woman to stand down from the jury because she was not

prepared to remove the veil, or niqab, covering all her head except

her eyes. The trial was for an attempted murder and the judge said

it was desirable that the court could see her facial expressions.

Is a niqab a barrier to justice? Three wadi you think it is?

judge was applying judicial guidelines given by the judicial

Studies Board for this situation. The judge was having to think about

the right of the defendant to a fair trial. The court process in

the UK space to face-to-face encounters. People call evidence in

front of a libel jury and judge and the jury have to assess that

evidence. I think the judge was thinking about, putting myself in

the position of the defendant, how comfortable would I feel giving my

side of the story in front of an audience, some of whose faces I

could not see. Do you have to see all of them? Perhaps people could

understand if the entire jury had their faces covered? That person's

these might be decisive in the jury room afterwards. The judge was

trying to ensure a fair trial. It may be that when that particular

lady was called to jury service, it may not have been explained to her

that the judge reserved the right to consider these issues. People

may not be happy with his decision, but it is his duty to make that

decision. Myriam Francois Cerrah, if it is a point of principle, do

you think that anybody should be allowed to cover their faces in a

court room and for whatever reason? I think there are very good reasons

that might be applicable for asking women to remove their face fell in

a quarter of loss. It is testimony to our judicial Service that there

are very fair guidelines in that regard. The only thing with regard

to this case is that I am not sure that the argument that he was not

able to read her facial expressions was a legitimate one. What about my

friend to is a fantastic poker player and has a fantastic Poker

Face. You would not be able to read his expressions. The this was not a

poker game. This was a trier for murder. We are talking about facial

expressions. What if you are misreading people's facial

expressions? You said this is not a poker game. It is a court of law

and are really formal process. It is a really important oral

tradition which needs respect. this country we have a fair system

which is based on a avoiding the tyranny of the majority. We do that

by protecting the rights of the minorities. That allows people to

live out their religious identity. I am not sure this particular case

convince me. It would not matter what her reasons were for wearing

the veil, whether it was for religious or some other reason, she

might have a facial disfigurement. In which case you may not be able

to read her facial expressions either. Should she be dismissed on

those grounds? The judge said that it was a jury of the courtiers.

She's been denied her rights. explore that. The there are certain

rules in the system in which she wants to engage. If she wants to

sit in judgment... The judge can also take other steps, rather than

just asking that the juror to stand down. He can ask for any adaptation

that the court can apply, for example, may be talking behind a

curtain. In if you are giving evidence, that is different. This

is crucial for the evidence or the victim. There are other ways, video

links, that they can use in court. Yes, special measures. Only been

shown to the judge. If you were serving on a jury, if I judge asked

you to remove your veil, would you remove it? It depends on the

situation. Each situation has to be considered individually. Sometimes

if it is crucial, for the interests of the victim. She sued the other

jurors be allowed to see your face if you are deliberating in the jury

room? Yes, if it is crucial, yes. If it is crucial for the victim's

interests. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE I think the problem here is that you

are making a preference for a minority.

The system has to be equal and formal. She we not have summer

cultural alliances in society? I think the niqab is about female

subjugation. This country has a long tradition of female rights.

What does it say that someone walks down the streets of Britain today

with equality of gender is almost a settled issue? I feel that this is

wrong today. He has broadened the issue. Myriam is not happy. I do

not think you are either. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE Are you are pressed?

Not at all. I should be given the option or the choice whether to

take it off, even in the court. THEY ALL TALK AT ONCE Were it a

minute, we are all speaking at once. You used to wear it, didn't you,

and you said that you felt incredibly protected? Yes.

explain that. I wore the niqab for a personal, spiritual reasons. It

has nothing to do with anyone else. I put it on and I felt special,

closer to God, I felt that this was the way I wanted to express my

religious beliefs. I took it off because I began to suffer from

abuse from people, spitting at me in the street. I have had stones

thrown at me. I am quite used to being called names, I do not care

about names. We should all care about that. If it can I ask you

about the modesty aspect of it? We had a conversation over a very

pleasant couple coffee earlier on, and it also takes a certain thing

out of the conversation with a man. You call did the, I would do ha,

factor. What do you mean? It is not just men, you are taking away that

judgment. I do not want to have a stranger say to me at Worthing, I

would kick that out of bed, I will tell you that. I do not think she

put her make-up on well today. it not insulting of men take say

that. I did not say men, I said women as well. It mentally, we all

judge. I do not want to be judged on my appearance. It is all about

choice and a woman's right to choose. Women have a right to

choose. The tradition that my friend has been talking about, this

great tradition of feminism, is actually about women having the

right to choose. If women are saying that they want to weigh it,

we are proud of our democratic tradition that says, yes, you can

wear it. We should be tolerant. APPLAUSE The what would you like to

say? I am a Muslim. I agree with the

fact the reason why they are wearing the niqab. It is their

choice. They have the courage to make the choice. In which policy

does it stayed that you are entitled not to wear a certain item

are you have to remove a certain item? Where does it stayed at?

are not likely to wear a crash helmet or balaclava in court.

can coming to court and remove a turbine, you could remove a Jew's

cat. This is a barrier to Islam. speak as a magistrate. We deal with

these issues daily. I believe in the rights of women. I am a woman

myself. I have come from the Commission for the Status of Women

where we are working for women's rights and the right to choose, but

in a court situation, one of the problems we have is that people

cannot be identified. This is an issue for us as magistrates. People

who are accused, we do not work with the jury in a magistrates'

court, but certainly witnesses, if a person is making an accusation

against someone, the person who is the defendant has a right to know

who that is. APPLAUSE I totally agree with that.

If you are going into a court of law and the judge asks you to

remove your niqab, I do not see a problem with that. We are living in

the United Kingdom and he is part of our judge and jury. I cannot go

over to Dubai and do what I would like to do. These are English

citizens. The what would you like to do? Obviously I have to abide by

that. They are not foreign, they are you a fellow British citizens.

They are entitled to have an opinion on how their judicial

services run. There is a unanimity here in fact, if I judge asks for

it a niqab to be lifted, it should be. The problem is us as us aside -

- we are the problem as a society. Death there are 0.083 % of women

This is about what the traditional values of openness and transparency

are in British culture. You have other cultures coming in and it is

up to them to change the standards of this country, it isn't about

everybody changing. Do we cherished traditions in this country as well?

Do we cherish freedom of expression? Is this not a

manifestation of that? The best is a specific gender stigmatisation.

First of all, we have to know and that wearing the niqab is an act of

worship before modesty. I am wearing it to freely practised what

something is that I deeply believe in and I think I should have the

right to practise it. Then, modesty comes as a second reason so that is

different between men and women and for me, it is just an act of

worship. It is good to contrast the enlightenment through discourse and

to remove the problem a Test nation, which is a word to use. When we see

somebody completely covered up with her husband and he is wearing a

designer jeans and the open-necked short-sleeved shirt, why is he not

being modest? That is his choice. There is an inconsistency in

modesty? They are two different people with a totally different

relationship with God and they have chosen a different way. Because my

sister is wearing the niqab, do not think she is any better a Muslim.

It is a cultural practice which treats women differently. Even if

it is religious, we should not treat women differently to men.

What are you saying? We have to open up the traditions of this

country, that women do not cover themselves. Freedom of expression?

This is about saying that women are different to men and that is

fundamentally wrong. You have to be really careful. As an atheist I

perhaps don't have a place to talk on this but I will say this... We

have to be careful when the Pontificate about the traditions of

any country because if you look like in our history and you don't

have to go far in Britain, all of a sudden, some ugly things, buy-out

and the idea that some cultures subjugate women becomes absurd

because you don't have to look far back on our own history to realise

we did the same things. We don't do that anymore because we had the

Enlightenment. We put religion on the spot and decided that it should

not affect aspects of our society and this is a minority that has not

gone through the process and then add the mint, of David Hume, the

whole idea of Westernisation. was the Muslim community in Spain

that introduced this to Western Europe. Also, if you just want to...

There is a cleric and Saudi Arabia that says the niqab does not go far

enough. He said that women should only show one alive. -- eye. How

enlightened is that? You have got British women, girls, wearing not

even Shorts. Their underwear is in public. And the boys walking around,

they have got proper trousers on and girls are being sexualised and

we are in an insane position at the highest rates of teenage pregnancy.

That is also freedom of choice. are not complaining about that, if

a girl sits there, as a juror, on their sexualised in the jury? A Yes,

it makes sense that we need to be able to see their face, but the

juror was making a decision and does not be to make any sort of

facial... If you have ever been in front of an audience, you need to

see how they react to what to say and if one person's face is covered,

then they have an unfair relationship with the person who is

being tried and the person who is being tried, their rights are

paramount because they could go to jail and their lives can be

destroyed. That is why it is important in court. This is

pregnant... Whoever wants to address this, there is a case a few

years back, 2010, wear a woman had been abused by her partner and she

wore the niqab and that was required that she take it off in

court and she did not want to to testify and by keeping that on,

that was an impediment to justice? Washy giving evidence? Against her

husband? She was. That makes sense because if they do not want to show

any signs of emotion, if anybody is giving evidence, it makes sense, it

is a juror that does not make sense to me. The juror is deciding and

the jury plays a public function so it isn't like going along to meet

your friends in the pub. You are performing a public function and if

the rule in his... I am sorry, what did Gerard does is very important.

I do not recall ever having eye- contact with the judge, we went

into a separate room. The jury is supposed to be impartial and the

idea that you could be a defendant who is being looked at by someone

who says, I don't like the look of that, and it isn't the road of the

judge to think, she looks like... They judicial guidelines say that

only if the defendant has a problem... By Barbara? Or the

prosecution because it depends what the case is about and both sides in

the process are entitled to know how the people they are trying to

persuade are reacting and covering the face isn't acceptable, I am

afraid. I promised to come to this lady. We seem to be conflating two

different arguments and one is the argument of the freedom of women to

wear what they want when walking down the street and the other is a

freedom in court. Court has conventions, we spoke earlier about

girls walking down the street in next to nothing. We would not

expect adjudged to except somebody walking into the court in a bikini

and thinking that was OK. There are conventions in court. One of those

is that justice is meant to be transparent in all but cases where

somebody's physical well-being is at issue. People can testify from

behind a screen but that is usually people who are testifying and are

threatened. It is all about choice. Although we are arguing, we do

agree on a lot, which is what is about the guidelines, they are no

one-star and allow for many scenarios and in certain situations,

apart from the jury, were there might be different views, and that

is for the discussion of the judge and other members, broadly speaking,

yes, women should have their faces visible in court. There is a small

amount of cases that we're talking about. A jury is supposed to be

from your peers and if you are going to say you are not allowed on

the jury because of their They'll, you're taking away a section of

society that has appeared to someone in court. Last word?

women serving on a jury in a public function make that choice that they

would prefer to pursue their personal wish to cover the face,

that is their choice but they cannot perform a public function,

then. Thank you all very much indeed. If you'd like to have your

say about that debate, log on to: bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions. You'll

find links to places to continue the discussion online. We're

debating live this morning from the King Edward VI Handsworth School in

Birmingham. Is the beautiful game bigoted? And do we need religion to

create a moral society? Tell us what you think about those topics

or send us your ideas for future debates or any general comments

you'd like to make about the 2012 has not been a season of

goodwill in football. Luis Suarez refused to shake the hand of

Patrice Evra after an eight-game suspension for racially abusing him.

Oldham's Tom Adeyemi was reduced to tears at Anfield because of a fan's

racist remarks. And Evra was subjected to boos and monkey

gestures from the crowd on the same pitch. And on Monday, Newcastle

United's Cheick Tiote says he was abused by an Arsenal fan. Is the

beautiful game bigoted? John Amaechi, it is better than it was

in the 1970s but you say there are still some way to go. What are the

authorities doing wrong? Campion after campaign. They are like

Saatchi and Saatchi with anti- bigotry initiative has. They can

come up with the best posters and platitudes. When it comes to

reducing bigotry. Unfortunately, they have managed very basic

qualification. We have stopped people throwing bananas onto the

field, I don't know how many millions it took for that.

Fundamentally, most things have not changed, how can you call a sport

progressive when they hire their first female board member in 2012?

There are no qualified women for that job?! The reality is that they

undertake an unbelievably poor approach. They had a set of issues

what racism are important and other things come underneath that in

descending order. Homophobia, they still have people who openly giggle

when you talk about gay people as if they were still eight years old.

More progress needs to be made and leadership is entirely absent.

it the case that incidents like those in the 1970s, if they

happened now, there is at the rich. Is that progress? Yes, it is. I

want to agree and disagree with John. That is fine! I agree that we

have not gone far enough, there is a long way to go but we have come a

very long way. Whiteley, it is now socially unacceptable to be racist

in a football ground. What does it happen so much? Not as much as it

used to it and that is clear. In my own case, Leeds United, they had a

reputation that was very racist in the 1970s and 1980s and a small

group of people campaigned, these are the unsung heroes, they stopped

the National Front from giving out their magazine outside the national

ground under stop the mindset of Leeds fans which was to insult

black players. They actually won a victory. It was not in knowledge,

but when I go to the ground, I do not see or hear any racist comments.

The they was an incident a few years back when they were hissing

at the Tottenham Hotspur match because of their Jewish player and

the gas chambers. As a Jewish Leeds United fan, I was absolutely

disgusted by that. I stopped going to see Leeds for quite a while

because of things like that. It does not happen any more and partly

this is what you were talking about earlier. The campaign, which is

kick racism Out Of Football, has got many of the people in society

actually saying that using that word is wrong, like using the P

word. The use of those words does not necessarily denote someone as a

racist. We are getting very close... That people said those words, why

are they not resist? If you carry on down this route, what you get is

what has happened, S Dyche and warranties tend to be more

sensitive to words and others. That is a worrying state of affairs.

They are only words. Grow up! of the issue of is that there has

been researched as far as the 1950s telling us that words are not just

words. Words escalate. A APPLAUSE. We know that words can escalate

quickly and can informal opinion, they make it clear that certain

types of people are less and the moment they are less than human,

you can start doing things to them that you would never decide to do

to a person you decide is human. Why can you not be happy... What

does it matter what people think? Why nothing, I don't give a damn?

Be strong. John? Tell that to the young people in Britain who enjoy

endemic bullying in schools because of being gay or lesbian and are

Can I say that racism does exist in football? Eight may not be seen but

it is festering underneath the skin. We have four managers of colour, of

any race, at football league level out of 92 clubs. I do not see any

ethnicity at boardroom level. I have a seven-year-old son who

recently came home from school after being racially abused, after

being called names, and I have to explain to him why he has to put up

with that. Would you like your son, your child, to come home crying

their eyes out, saying, dad, why are they picking on me? APPLAUSE

The simple explanation... Simple. People who do that are

radiates. If you are going to be so abject as to insult people on the

basis of their race, you should just dismiss those people and not

care about it. You have got to be very self-

confident to do that? Yes, but that is what we should

encourage people to do. We should try to get people to be impervious

and stronger. You are a nation football

representative. On the General point made by Michael Johnson,

access to the top jobs, is that the problem? That is one of the key

problems. Racism is not over any longer, but it is covert, it is

there. There is institutionalised racism throughout the game. Looking

at the South Asian experience, parents who have come from Pakistan,

Bangladesh and India, there is not even one Asian player playing at

the top level. Why not? Of their playing everywhere else. It's

surely if someone is good enough, they would be playing? If that was

the case, it has been 16 years since the report on the under-

representation of stations in football was put together. Still to

this day we are continually arguing the same point. A five players, it

is absurd. What we're looking at is a waste of talent. We have so much

talent in this country that is not being used. Whether you're getting

hung up about whether we use these words, the important thing is how

as in English football team have we improved over the years? One of the

ways is when we draw on the talent of all communities. To exclude any

community, whether it is through prejudice or self exclusion, it is

wrong. I want to move on to the other thing. You mentioned

homophobe be out in football. What did you think of the interview with

John Fashanu for he said, I do not think my brother was gay, I think

he was an attention seeker. In years in the game, I never

encountered a gay footballer, it is a macho sport. What did you make of

that? He is symptomatic of the problem. Of course, if you are that

openly hostile, says the hostility towards gay people radiates of you

in the way that it radiates of John Fashanu, it is unlikely that people

will come to you and self disclose. It is a very stereotypical view of

what a gay person is as well? if he thinks that you can tell by

looking, you're wrong. It is a massive mistake. Because of your

religious beliefs, you have a problem with the anti- homophobe be

a agenda? Yes, as a born-again Christian, it does say in the Book

of Leviticus in the Bible that it is detestable to the Lords. It is

not that I do not dislike anyone who is homosexual, I just do not

agree with the ways of being homosexual. When people say I am

devout, I read the Bible and the Book of Leviticus says such-and-

such, if you still eat shellfish, is being gay is as bad as eating

shellfish... Aid is not that bad. There are so many prohibitions in

the Bible that you cannot possibly rationalise. It's unless you are

treating it like some kind of do favour you can pick and choose the

bits you want. He you want to be a manager? What would you do if you

had a gay player in your team? was to be a manager, I would not

say to a player, you cannot be in your team because you are

homosexuals. What if he said, boss, I am gay, I want to come out and be

a trailblazer. I want to be the first player in the Premiership.

That is fine, a few at are strong enough and want to do that, I will

not say, you cannot do that. But because of my religious beliefs, I

myself do not agree with homosexuality. Would you not give

that player the support that he would need in that situation.

course. I have an assistant manager, first-team coach... So you would

put the responsibility for that on to them? No, I would sit down with

my staff and discuss the situation. Says someone were to be brave

enough. Obviously no one has in the last how many years thanks to the

Justin Fashanu situation but if someone was to come to you and say,

I am gay, I'm going to come out, there is speaking to people under

you, but you as the manager, you have to take a lead and make sure

they are OK. It's your personal believes should be put to one side.

You are spot-on. I would say to them that if this is something they

were comfortable with, that is entirely up to you. I would speak

to them and let them know how I feel about the subject. Do you

support the FA's campaign against homophobia? Listen, would I support

the FA's campaign? Again, because of my beliefs, because of the Bible

that and read, in that chapter, it does state that homosexuality is

detestable. It does not say that homosexuality is allowed to be

beaten on. What you just said, you have a little bit... To let's get

back to Barbara. Football clubs are employers, and their subject to the

same laws of the land as any other employer. So whatever their

personal view, they have to respect the law. APPLAUSE They all have

equal opportunities policies, but how do they implemented?

When we're speaking about homophobic or racism Reporting, the

levels are lower. The levels are low because people do not report it

because they have no confidence in the system.

The main point with perversity, whether it be in what we would

consider to be regular business or sport, is that it is a performance

prerogative. I am not interested in poster's that put a black person

next to a white person and somehow that is supposed to inform us that

racism has gone. It is absurd. We want an environment where people

are attracted to the organisation and can survive that within it.

Maybe this would make us perform better in the World Cup. That is

why diversity is important. If you as a manager cannot create an

environment where every player can thrive, that is a problem. Go if

you are a manager and you say, by the way, I think you are going to

burn in hell, I think that is a problem. But diversity also

encompasses his right to have religious beliefs? I absolutely.

are speaking about one of the most wonderful games in the world. It is

such a strong part of British identity. We want the very best of

our society to be revealed in 21st century football. Where we let

ourselves down is not connecting our personal beliefs and attitudes,

which we are hearing today, hearing what we think personally, with our

public behaviour. When we get into the crowd and go along with the

crowd, we let ourselves down. I like the campaigns in favour of

anti homophobe beer. It is important that we deal with the

dignity of each person. -- homophobe dear. The game is letting

itself down. The gamers a reflection of what society is like.

In the 2000-2012 statistics, 80 % of crimes were racist. That is a

reflection of society. How Kenfig poll lead the way and be a

pioneering enclave in our society. Earth football is a microcosm of

society, but it is also a powerful agent of society. When it sends out

these terrible messages, that informs society rather than the

reverse. Campaigns are great if you're trying to sell beans, but

when you're trying to change actual behaviour, you need more than a

campaign. You need to educate people. Most people would suggest

that there are lots of good reasons not to go to Kuwait. For me, going

to a country where being gay, and that is not behaving in end of --

in any particular way, your life can be compromised, that is not a

good idea. I support any anti- discriminated able legislation. The

loss should be blind on these issues. Equality legislation is a

great move forward. APPLAUSE I do not agree with racism or homophobe

beer. I think it is terrible and most of

us would agree with that. But the way to change that is not through

the state of their governing body telling us from on high what we can

or cannot say. It is through getting to know each other, mixing,

and it is not the state's job to play a role. It is down to

individuals. You have got a gay football team, haven't you? Why is

that necessary? Thought 10 years ago, there was a lot of prejudice

against homosexual people in sport. So boat as a social and playing

network, we were there to support people. We were there to pick up on

the general feeling. Yes, the state plays a role. The state plays a

role in legislation and informing and educating people. This is an

issue of which is there. Racism is under the surface. Homophobe Bay is

their blatantly. Is it changing, is it getting better? It is getting

better, but the fault is that football has put on bigotry is that

it is not really there, it is not the fault of the powers that be, it

is stupid people in the terraces. They are the problem. If you are a

football fan, you should revolt against that, because the vast

majority do not care about race or sexuality. I would like to see that

brought this of mind creeping into the dinosaurs who run football.

APPLAUSE If you have views about that debate just logon to

bbc.co.uk/the big questions and follow the links to where you can

continue the discussion online. Or send us your views about our last

big question, do we need religion to create a moral society? And if

you would like to be in the audience at a future show you can

email us. We are in Bury next week, then after Easter we are in

Brighton on April 15th, and Bristol In churches, temples and mosques

they preach about the dangers of sin and the rewards of keeping to

the path of righteousness. But not all religious people are good, and

not all good people are religious. There have been many humanitarians

and philanthropists who are agnostic or atheist, from the

philosophers David Hume and John Stuart Mill to Microsoft's Bill

Gates. Do we need religion to Dr Stephen Law, do we need religion

If you look at China, for two millennia, it was very moral and

that morality was based on Confucius, it was a secular

doctrine, you find more less the same moral codes, the golden rule,

do as you would be done by. That was the message of Confucius. You

find societies that are very moral and have similar levels of morality

to religious societies, such as Europe under Christianity, so it is

a straightforward counter argument to the claim that you cannot have

morality without remission. morality predate religion?

would have to ask a scientist! They both clearly have deep roots in

history and to some extent it looks like there is perhaps a genetic

component to both. All those tendencies that we have to be moral

and went towards religion. Bishop David? Do you believe that morality

comes from God? Yes, I do, but then I believe in God. Clearly, people

who want to little more life or create a framework can choose to do

so without God. What is needed is a framework that human beings Irish

and they know this from our own vulnerability as Terry children

with a framework. And there is some basic understandings of right and

wrong, what is true and not true, and what is the right way to treat

each other. We touched on that already. A as we have established,

one person's morality is another person's bigotry? This is a very

common problem today, that we make it up as we go along and it is

interesting to talk about the Chinese government and its present

interest in understanding what the framework is for a human being that

has entered into the free market and is trying to aspire to their

own family life, what is a moral framework? That is why Christianity

is booming in China at the moment. Because people seek not only just

their own safety and physical needs but they also need spiritual

nourishment and so the roots of much morality, and we talked about

the law courts, is rooted in an understanding that we need a

framework and the people can that - - can connect that up not just with

logic and measurable things but also things of the spread. I think

that what is most important is that be produced good citizens. And the

kind of cities in that and would want to hold up as a model would be

the kind of citizens who rescued Jews during the Holocaust and

research has been done into their backgrounds and it turns out that

what motivated those individuals was not religious belief. They did

not appear to be much more religious than those who did not

rescue. What marks out the rescuers is that they raised to think and

question and think about things from other points of view.

right thing for the right reason? Two openly discuss and not just

passively accept whatever they were told. You can raise children like

that within a religious setting, it isn't incompatible, but also a

outside religion and it does not what you very much whether it is

inside or outside, as long as you do that, that is most important.

You believe that a fear of God is necessary? I actually agree with

Stephen, there is maybe a genetic component and Muslims believe that

God has created human beings with moral understanding within them so

we know that certain things are not right. We do have that moral

compass within ourselves, we are born without, but human beings, and

our own rationale, is wonderful but it is fallible. We can be assuaged

by things around us and the way that society becomes so obsessive

about wasting the world's resources and there was a time when our own

intellect told us that it was perfectly OK for a white person to

treat a black person as inferior because they are inferior and that

was our intellect. Slavery has not been the monopoly of white people?

I am talking about the intellect. Slavery is mentioned in the Koran,

the Bible. Not just mentioned, it is overtly allowed within these

texts. Certainly within the Bible. That is another part of the Old

Testament, that gets revised so we can ignore that whilst paying

attention to Leviticus 20. I am not suggesting that we do not know some

adept to especially Abraham like religions. For disseminating

general ideas about humanist principles and making people that

would not have perhaps obeyed them, obey them. What do we need religion

now have to be amoral society? That would suggest we are regressive

creatures and we're going backwards? No, we do not be that.

We are going backwards. Look at society, look at our youngsters.

would be due to be more specific. Specifics? OK, look at the rate of

youngsters that now have no father figures and the kids on our streets

who are having children, it says in the Bible that children will start

having children because they are living away from what the Bible

says... Can you point to a better time than now, some golden age when

there was proper adherence to what you believe in? My grandparents,

they have been married for the best part of 60 years, they have had one

partner, their children are there, they are married, it is within the

convenience of the church and is consecrated by job and because of

their upbringing, the child has a better chance. I am not saying that

single parents are going to struggle but what I do say is that

if you are married and you have a father and a mother, you have a

better chance of surviving. I am not sure there is any statistic

that shows that questions are somehow staying married more than

it tastes, for example. Or secular people. Of course, some of the

things you say are true but the idea that the only variable between

the time when every family was together and there were picket

fences and this time round of near Armageddon that is being suggested

is just the decline of religion, it isn't. There are so many other

factors. Morals can be exceeded by the use of reason. The difference

is that you have no way to then ground that within society and the

individual and that is where religion plays a role because it

connects the individual to broader society and when you pray you

reconnect with those courtly values, the universal moral values and when

you fast you think about poor people. All of these rituals are

there to connected to other people and research suggests that

religious institutions and organisations are better at

creating civic networks and the Oxford Handbook of religion show

that religious Americans are better at being civic activists in voting,

giving to charity. Is that a moral society? Sociologists find it

difficult to measure the this. USA is the most religious society

in the Western world. It is easier to measure self proclaimed, how

often you attend church and give to charity and pray. That is connected

to civic activism. It is no surprise that one in 10 young

people in Britain feel they have no responsibility for the elderly.

There is a lot to respond to and some of that is right, religion is

a very good social at Pisa, quite good at finding people together

into communities. But it is also true that if you run fossa the

programmes in schools, those children are also transformed, they

become more interested in interacting with each other. You

can build communities using religion or without religion and

the thing about the philosophical approach, let me finish, is that

everyone is included. You don't have the effect of different

religions and as they bind people, they produce divisions. Someone is

your brother in humanity or faith. I like what you're saying but I do

not agree. If we took religion out of it, it would be one man's word

over another as to what morality is. You could state that this is moral

and I could stay at something else. They is an example of that, you

think that all Muslim women should wear their hijab. There is a lady

that does not. Is she being immoral? I do not think so but my

personal belief and that is her personal belief. I do not know her

life story or when she was born or where she was born or even her full

name. That is an example of what you're saying. One person's

morality. I also believe that women who have some disabilities that can

at, should not wear their hijab. There are plenty of reasons why

that should be. This is my very personal belief. I do not believe

in enforcing it on anybody. Most religions are actually involved in

civic networks in which they have to feed the poor and look after the

elderly and they are buttressing wear the state is failing us and

without them, we would be poor. They are also massively involved in

politics, in which case they do things like trying to prevent gay

people from adopting, stopping them from having codified relationships.

They are not just this benign organisations. The question is out

to flawed. Sorry about that! The us religion brink and more moral

society? Do we always want that more moral society if you then

condemn people who you consider to be immoral? In other words, one

person's definition of morality is another person's immorality. During

the Crusades, the Chris's for morality persecuted and killed lots

of people who were deemed immoral. In a born-again Christian sense,

homosexuality is immoral and in my view, some of the most moral people

I have ever met have been homosexual. I am not saying I have

got a problem. There is a point. We look at the history of religion and

it is drenched in blood. Drenched in humanity. The Middle East is

about ancient religious claims to a strip of land. It is about politics

and gas and oil. Stalham and Mal were not religious people. There is

a tremendous amount of politics. But on the one hand, religion is as

powerful entity and on the other, the moment anything bad happens

within it, that is politics. You have to take some responsibility.

What is the difference between that moral and immoral person? With

someone who has God on your shoulder backing up, those words

then have double the impact? There is a much better insight into the

Almighty than perhaps I do. But it... The main thing about this

agenda is that human beings need to live together. In harmony. They

need to seek creative flourishing, whoever they are, whatever their

colour or creed, and at the same time, we need to allow for the

flourishing of that extraordinary thing in human beings, which seeks

the other and that description of love. That is extremely difficult

to measure but raises the spirit and questions find that love in the

person of Jesus, face-to-face and also in the ability to sort things

out when things go wrong. We have mentioned all sorts of negative

things today and that is one of the basic experiences of human beings

and therefore, the ability to be forgiven and know that you can

forgive in order to pick up and move on is that the heart of many

people's religious practice. What about those people who are

unarguably wonderful people, all Trust, but to do this not because

they believe there is some Creator but because they think it is the

right thing? I say, praise the Lord! A They don't! A Christian

understanding of God is big enough to encompass the whole cosmos.

think that each one was ultimately has some responsibility for making

our own moral decisions and Winnie the inner resources to fall back on

to make those. There and I have no problem with religion whatsoever,

in terms of providing guidance, but you need to ultimately make your

own decision, do not treat your religion as a moral compass -- that