Episode 14 The Big Questions

Good morning. Welcome to the The Big Questions from Brighton. This

week Brighton plays host to the Council of Europe. 500 delegates

from 47 countries will be here to discuss European human rights and

the way the courts apply the laws. The MP Dominic Raab says the

European Court of Human Rights simply makes up laws out of thin

air and it is time to rein it back. Has Europe created too many rights.

When anti-abortionists filmed a rape victim entering an abortion

clinic they unleashed a storm of protests.

Our next big question should abortion be a private matter.

Last, is God a woman? The historian Bettany Hughes is here to argue God

used to be a girl. Welcome to the The Big Questions

Good morning. By this time next week the Brighton declaration may

have immortalised this city where the decision was made to curb the

power of the European Court of Human Rights. British politicians

complain it's given too many rights to prisoners and non-European

criminals. Some eastern European nations this it has pandered to the

gay and lesbian community. Elderly couples thank them for the right to

stay together when one of them needs to go to a home. Lord Carey

wants it to safeguard the right of Christians to display their faith.

Has Europe created too many rights. Paul Houston, your daughter Amy,

you lead a campaign, 12-years-old run over by this man, an Iraqi

asylum seeker. He then ran away from the scene. He was caught,

sentenced to eight months in prison, served only two. He lost his

application to stay here, but he wasn't deported. He is still here.

Why do you blame in this terrible case, why do you blame the European

Court of Human Rights for the fact he is still here? Human rights is

about balance and fairness, about protecting the innocent and

vulnerable. It is very galling when Amy, my only child, was killed, I

don't have a family life any more. He claims his rights have been

deprived and he has been deprived of a family life. At no point was

my view taken into consideration in the courts. When I asked the human

rights barrister for the UKBA what my rights were, he said Mr Houston,

you haven't got any. How can I that right in a fair and balanced

society? That's what he said? is what he said. My problem with

the Human Rights Act is, I believe in human rights, but I believe it

is about balance and fairness and I believe that my rights should have

been taken into consideration and they haven't been.

APPLAUSE This was article 8, the right to a

family life, you believe he had no family life before that, he used it

as an argument point. It is a definition of what is a family life.

The scope is that wide, but it covers anything. In some cases the

people aren't married, sometimes they don't have any children,

sometimes they don't even see their children. In some cases it is

because they have a mother and father. Frankly everybody has a

family life. But the thing is, it can't be right. This sounds crazy.

It is a very, very troubling situation, it is an awful situation

you have described. It is to do in the way with which that

interpretation has happened and liberty has done work on that, but

it doesn't undermine the ultimate question question that the Human

Rights Act exists as a way of encoding the most important rights

that we have, your right to a family life as well as the rights

of others. What worries me, the discussion about scrapping it makes

it sound like it is just an issue of fashion, when you have the Home

Secretary talking about immigrants not being allowed to be deported

because they have a cat, ridiculous stories. What I hope we get out of

this debate is a mature discussion about where one person's right

impinges on another person's responsibility. The media has a

role to play in this to report these things correctly. Nobody

wants to see scrping article 8. We want to see it reformed and getting

an agreed opinion across Europe, because... The proper application.

A proper application of it. It does say in article 8 it can be

overruled for other people's human rights. If the judge had all the

facts in front of him, I think he would possibly have come to a

different conclusion. The first thing to say is we have so much

respect for Liberty in the way you have entered this debate, we can't

imagine the horror you have been through. In your case, the Human

Rights Act isn't to blame, though I have been badly failed by the

system. We don't understand why the Home Office only sought the

deportation for the man responsible five years after. It was in that

period he established his family ties here, had two children and

adopted two more. It was those children's rights the judge was

concerned about, but the Home Office could have deported him

sooner. They probably lie would have succeeded. The The other thing

that doesn't make sense was that he was only prosecuted for a miner

offence. He could have been prosecuted for something more

serious. The truth is this article 8 issue is not a one-off in Paul's

case. The Home Office has done the data on this. 400 cases a year of

foreign criminals successfully challenging the deportation orders

on the rights of family life and other social ties. This is 61% of

successful challenges to deportation orders by foreign

criminals. I think we need to look at the European dimension and the

domestic dimension. No-one disagrees with the fund abilityal -

- but it is a serious problem. haven't been expanded. Before the

Human Rights Act came into force it was possible for a foreign criminal

to claim... We have the statistics. The last Conservative government

incorporated article 8 principles into domestic law. Do you agree by

definition as a democracy we can set those stand sards and if we

think the balance has swung too far, scale them back a bit. The point

about the convention of the Human Rights Act parliament has the final

say. You have no problem with that? The problem is is is when plugss -

politicians, including the Prime Minister talk about Human Rights

Act judge and European Court right act judgements, it is up to

parliament to decide. I couldn't agree more with you.

Parliamentarians and MPs across the board knead to stand up and be

responsible for the law to be passed, that Hughes the Human

Rights Act. But there is cross- party consensus for, the Bill of

Rights commission supports the idea that stras bores should intervene

less in UK law. The Bill of Rights... Cat Qatada, why can't

can't he be sent back to his own country? What he said is wrong but

having said that, that is where human rights have to come into

force. On the most difficult cases. If one is against torture, one has

to be against torture of everybody, not just the people we would like

to think are nicer people. We also make the mistake of thinking the

European rights was an improvement on pre-existing British common law

and it wasn't. Under pre-existing common law the injunction against

torture was being replaced by inhuman and degrading. What pre-

existed the European Convention on Human Rights was a diminishment of

rights when we didn't allow private trial. We allowed any suspect of

the king to go in and seek private trials. Private trials are now

permitted. What we have got is something that in many ways isn't

as good as we had before. I think the idea that should be reformed

along the British Bill of Rights is a thoroughly good idea because what

it will give us it is a check against what are topped down

imposition of foreign rights culture, r... Foreign rights

culture? The notion - human rights, they vary according to your

tradition and context. The Human Rights Act actually brought

sovereignty back to this country and allowed our judges to

adjudicate on human rights claims in the British courts. Before we

had the Human Rights Act your first fort of call would be Strasbourg

and we didn't have British judges interpreting rights in the way they

are now able to. The problem is as every man and his cat is basically

claiming human rights now and the cost to the general public, the

Legal Aid system system is being abused because everybody wants to

claim rights. A man says it is his child's right to have a pony tail

at school. It was set up to protect citizens of Europe being persecuted

from the state. We have to get back to the core purpose of what human

rights is. Not because a paedophile thinks has a hard life because he

wants to slop out his cell. prisoner wasn't there, who was

allowed to become a father through artificial insemination. It was

Never meant to be about that? is a good thing. We don't want the

European convention on European rights frozen in 1950. You have

entire gay minority of Europe extremely grateful that the court

has done exactly what Mr Rab opposes which is which is raise

European human rights standards in line with social and legal change.

Is this what you mean by other countries that don't have our

regressive standards. What we've got, with the interpretation of

European human rights is we've got minority claim rights against

majorities and... Such as? Anything on -- the point I am making is we

don't protect Christians wearing the cross, we don't protect...

There is a case pending. We don't protect large groups. We allow to

give minorities vetoes over majorities. That creates something

very problematic in those countries because we live in a society where

we have both laws and we have to create tolerance for those who

don't live within those laws. Should Should we be a beacon of

these rights? I don't think the European convention is a beacon for

those rights because they produce - they destroy the notion that rights

come with responsibilities. What the European Court does is sets

society up against itself S they create new false citizenry that

claim not to have any relationship with other forms of citizenry. It

creates a society where we don't try and solve problems together but

we have one way entitlement rights where we don't have to do anything

for them. That is dangerous for minorities and majorities. A bit of

a problem that many many Christians who agree with Lord Carey n this

country it is the British - Lord Carey is going to Europe with this?

The only thing that can protect religious freedom in this country

is article 9 of the Human Rights Act and that is the piece of

lengthlation being used to fight the Christians to be able to wear

the cross. To say it is against the majority is nonsense. It protects

every person, man, woman and child in this country. We can disagree on

what the balance should be here. I respect the arguments on the other

side, but the formlation of human rights, their explanation, their

development, you have to have accountable law makers responsible

for it. It undermines public trust. Human rights in this country are

becoming dirty words. That is because the politicians are setting

a bad example. When the holder of a great office of state, the Home

Secretary uses false information. Sthe didn't actually. There was a

cat involved? There was a cat. Juror it was nonsense. That is not

the only thing. Was the cat involved, we deal with the big

questions. The cat was regarded as a material factor which allowed him

to claim his article 8 right. of the things you do to prove you

are in a relationship, you have a kalt, joint bills. I got annoyed

with that because it was a very bad example. If you wanted to use an

example of a bad case of human rights, why don't you use the death

of a 12-year-old child. The thing is, the Home Secretary, from Labour,

I have Teresa May, I have had Damian Green, jack Jack Straw, I

have had David Cameron agree with my opinion and said this man should

have been deported and he hasn't been. Ultimately he can't use the

defence of the Human Rights Act. He was aware of his immigration status

before he had the children. There is a second paragraph. He applied

for asylum, that was rejected. He had an appeal, that was rejected.

He had a judicial review, that was rejected. He was served his

deportation papers, he should have gone. He evaded them because he

should have gone. He hasn't come from Iraq and successfully noshled

our Human Rights Act, so why don't you have child, make it better, why

not have two children. Which is why the Home Office sk act fast.

can't can't he be sent back now. Because of his children. Why break

up another family. This man killed a 12-year-old. You can't punish Mr

Abraham's children. Let's look at Mr Abraham. Driving whilst

disqualified four times. Leaves a child trapped under the wheels of a

car, still alive, sles screaming, she is frightened and he runs to

save his own skin. He has been done for possession of drugs, damage to

property, intimidation. He even got arrested in front of his children,

taken away in handcuffs for a disturbance of the peace. Is this a

perfect family man. The system has failed. He has a right to family

live? The courts are now allowing him to stay in the UK because they

have sympathy for Mr Abraham, it is because they do not want to punish

his British children and his British wife. But separating a

family or forcing them to move to Iraq. I have a case in my

constituency, a young waiter, body dumped in a river couldn't be

deported even though he has no wife, we have 400 cases like this a year.

There is a case like that on Tuesday, against a Nigerian man.

The European Court of Human Rights said he could be deported.

chooses to live three miles down the road from me. We are making

human rights a dirty word because we are letting the decisions

ultimately be made in a place far away from this country that most

British people feel feel isn't part of our culture. There is a very

interesting point made, you are saying we are making human rights a

dirty word, the head of the European Court of Human Rights, he

has dismissed criticism and said that it's the kind of ignorance

displayed in the popular press. He's blaming the way it is all

reported. Does he have a point? That is contemple for -- contempt

for ordinary people. Until we can bring rights home and have a

British based rights where we have politicians who not just claim to

be able to act but act consistently in all cause cases, rights will

divide us and they are already dividing us, because people feel

that people are gaming the system. That removes popular political

support for rights, which isn't right. The irony is that if we get

rid of the Human Rights Act, it gives the Strasbourg court more

power in this country not less. is that? Unless he proposes we

leave the European Convention on Human Rights altogether, which

would send out a terrible message, if we are saying one out of 48

countries Britain is going to leave the European convention, if we

don't leave it, it means people will have the course for the

Strasbourg course and it will give more power to Strasbourg, not less.

The whole thing about human rights, that means if I commit a crime,

which is what happened, and I go and kill somebody, I might start

arguing, why should I go to prison, my wife is going to find it

difficult and that is what is going to happen. You have rules and

regulations to protect the majority of people. If people abuse that,

they have -- this is a matter of justice for me. The irony is that

the Human Rights Act leisure Make the case. The prison standards is

temporary, of course family life is disrupted. Deportation is permanent.

Make a case for the positives, DNA database. There are a whole set of

cases, that don't don't make the headlines. The media have a vested

interest in opposing the Human Rights Act. It gives people a right

to private lives and that interference with the kiss and tell

stories the tabloids like to do. There has not been an article like

this. What you are saying is you come to this country, break any

laws you want, as long as you have a child... I am not talking about

immigration, we have a right to privacy. Good morning. I didn't

think you wanted to come over this way. One of the things that

happened, illegal immigrant from Dorset, cautioned and all this,

motor vehicle offences. He came to Hove, he knocked a father with

three children, killed a man, he only got nine months, is that a

joke? That is the British court system. So when people see me, I

travel by buses and I will tell you, some white people when they see me,

they like to help me disappear or something, they are being rude. I

don't blame them. It is this rotten laws that does all these problems.

Is it creating that resentment. are in a situation where for the

most part we have rights without relationships, without

responsibilities and it puts people against one another. We need to

restore rights to the community so people understand reciprocal and

people understand their rights. I agree with the comment you have

made sir, it puts people against one another. It gives majorities

the idea that minorities are playing them. And are taking

advantage of them. That is disastrous for our country. Thank

you very much Thank you very much. You can continue the discussion

online. We are debating live this morning from Brighton, should

abortion be a private matter and is God a woman. Tell us what you think

about those ones and send us your ideas for future debates.

The pro-choice movement is staging a march this morning, just along

the coast from here. They are protesting against the anti-

abortion group lobbying and filming women as they enter abortion

clinics in Brighton and other major cities across the country. Should

abortion be a private matter? Good morning to Andy Stephenson.

You are from Abort 67. We have a right to protest in this country,

enshrined in the aforementioned European Court of Human Rights.

What you stand accused of doing is going slightly beyond that and

intimidating women on the way into the clinic who are in a vulnerable

situation anyway. How do you respond to that criticism? Well, it

would be useful to set the record straight. We don't film people

going into abortion clinics. We don't shout at people. Contrary to

the allegations in the media. don't, others have. What do you do?

What we do is want to educate people as to who the unborn child

is and what abortion does to him or her. We agree that actually

abortion should be a private matter, women should have no access -

should have access to it without any kind of leading for doctors'

signatures, there should be unrestricted access to abortion if,

if the unborn child isn't really an unborn child. If the unborn child

isn't a human being, why should there be any kind of restriction.

From the point of conception. Believe it is murder? We believe it

is killing a a small human being who is defenceless by people...

are relaying that flftion to women on the way to the clinic. There has

been a big furore locally, who was a rape victim and said the

experience of being lobbied given this information made her feel

intimidated and panicky and judged. You don't know the individual

circumstances, do you. She had She had been raped. No, we don't know

the individual circumstances of all these women going into the clinic

or the people going past the clinic. We are try to go reach the broadest

society with what is happening behind this in the clinic, but...

People... This is the place to do it or through a newspaper article.

Not a vulnerable woman's ear. agree they are vulnerable, but they

are - we stand there with pictures and this is what's happening here,

in the abortion industry, it is in a panic because they have survived

for 40 odd years because what they are doing has been hidden behind

closed doors, all we are doing is showing what they do. If the

abortionists were having to perform the abortions where we stand on the

pavement, abortion would be illegal next week. All we are doing is

showing people who abortion is. We don't call people murderers or

anything like that. It is a matter of time and place. If you want to

lobby parliament against abortion that is up to you, but if somebody

is going to an abortion clinic, they are going because they have

made a decision, and your pictures are in their faces. They don't have

a choice about whether they see those pictures. They might want to

choose and look at more information but I believe in the abortion

clinic, they will be given the relevant information they need and

I don't think depsh I think we should trust the women. If you

don't want to have an abortion, that's fine, I am not pro-abortion,

I am pro-choice. It is legal and these are legal medical medical you

are obstructing women from accessing these services. You have

seen similar operations in America. Yes, in Kansas I do chaperoning at

the clinic that has abortion procedures carried out. Because

there are protesters lining the side of the clinic and shouting at

the women as they came in, some abusive, some things emotionally

blackmailing. Like what? Jesus loves the little life inside you.

It is a very traumatising experience for her. We are back to

rights. It's a genuinely difficult subject, let's make no bones about

that, but there are cases in America also where often women go

into abortion because they feel they have no choice, because they

feel that actually they have never really been presented with any

other options. There is an abortion industry that structures the

outcome in a certain way. There are examples in America of people - I

don't agree with violent protesting or anything that is intimidating,

but some women are persuaded by protesters to carry the child and

then go and join the picket. The point is that people are persuaded.

I think in a free and democratic society... Some people are

persuaded and some people are grateful to the protesters that

actually that another option was presented to them. This is a

fundamental part of our rights, Andy and Caroline and others over

there, they sincerely believe this, you may not agree with them, they

believe it is murder. Have they got the right to transmitt that message

to people. They do have that right, but I think what we are seeing with

some of these groups that they are going well beyond just people

protesting, holding up photographs. That is not what I have been

hearing from the staff inside these clinics. If we are are interfering

with individuals at a vulnerable point in their life, I am against

whoever is doing that. It is also suggested that organisations like

the British pregnancy advisory people are not giving objective

advice. They are, we have talked to them. There are two things here.

This is why we film ourselves outside the abortion clinic because

we knew right from the outset of the allegations about our behaviour.

The clinic accused elderly people of urinating on the cars in the car

park, we knew we had to document our displays. We invite the police

to attend the displays we do. I agree with I do have a divergence

of opinion here because I think we need to educate the public as to

with the fact it is an unborn child, but I would say, these images are

very, very advice ral -- advice roll, they inspire a very strong

response. When I am walking through Brighton, I see the horrendous

photos of children maimed in wars and actually when we see something

that really angers us or upsets us, we get very upset and angry. We

need to have intellectual honesty and say why are we angry about this.

When we see something really gruesome and upsetting we want to

turn away. It is It is counter productive then? I think a better

tactic would be, there's been so many advances in diagnostic imaging,

many pregnant women have these 4 D scans and I think although graphic

images do have their place, I think they are better off if they are in

an open and engaged and constructive dialogue with a

consense ul adult, as opposed to - I am very pro-life. Andy, - Angela,

do you believe these people don't realise it is a baby inside them.

do believe some people don't realise what they are doing. We

don't have so much open discussion. We need to have a constructive -

you were talking about being mature on the subject, we need to think

about this subject, not this is wrong and this is right. The

polarisation that goes on. Let's go into the middle here and look at

the human side of it. What are these women going through. Are they

being given the proper choice or do they feel there was no choice,

because there are many women who I counsel and have phoned me and been

on the phone to me for hours, who were coerced into abortion. These

include solicitors, very well- educated people. I had two

abortions, the second one was a persuasion. You believe there is

not the proper information. proper choice. The proper choice.

The people protesting outside some of the clinic, I am completely

convinced they are giving a broad range of information. If there are

clinics where that is not happening, but but when you talk about saying

there shouldn't be polarisation, it is exactly polarisation happening,

when people are outside the clinics, not just standing with photographs,

but thrusting leaflets into people's hands, making staff hard

to deal with them after that. Two months ago an article was

published in the journal of medical ethics, after birth abortion, there

was a big outcry at the time because the people who wrote the

article said there is no moral difference between a newborn and a

foetus, there is no reason why a newborn should not be killed if it

is burdensome. Slightly different issue. They make a telling issue on

page two of the article, that both foetus and a newborn certainly are

human beings. The point about that is as soon as something is a human

being below the age of majority, it comes within the terms of article 1

of the declaration of the rights of the child, article 6 impose on

states an obligation to do everything possible to protect that

human individual. There is no universally agreed decision point

on when a human life becomes a human life. Everyone has different

opinions about that If you believe human life begins at conception but

don't tell me what I am allowed to do with my womb. This is a legal

matter now. It is not a controversial issue that human life

begins at conception. If abortion rights want to get rid of us, we

will leave tomorrow and shut our website down if they can prove to

us with science that the unborn child who was killed in abortion

isn't a human being, we will stop doing what we are we are doing

instantly. We are talking about the potential for human life. How far

are you going to go, I know you want to ban the morning-after pill

as well. Are you going to start saying you can't have... Let's get

back to the debate, is it a private matter. The debates we have on this

programme regularly about the end of life and also the beginning of

life are huning ethical issues and they are necessarily matters of

public discourse. So this clearly is a matter of public discourse.

Why can there not be a matter of them being able to express what

they believe. I have no problem with peaceful protest. I have been

outside the clinic and I have heard of people who are not given

information but being harassed. That is untrue. It may not be your

group, but it is not untrue to say that is happening, I have heard of

it happening. We want to avoid the American situation, where you do

get insanity on both sides. I think we need to stop abortion being a

taboo subject, which it is. With the advances in medical procedures,

we now have a situation in which abortion is permitted beyond the

point at which children are born and can survive, it is back on the

agenda. We need to have a non- poisoned atmosphere to discuss what

is clearly an issue. We know we don't permit abortion up to the

point of birth, so we accept after 24 weeks there are... It is a plea

for removing the taboo and having a civilised conversation. If you are

so right about everything, how come all your leaflets result in medical

misinformation and abuse in them, rather than setting out how things

are. You say abortions will send you mad and give you cancer.

displays outside the clinnish attract various people from other

groups. All we do is show people people what abortion does to ab

unborn child. If that makes people so angry, you have to ask yourself,

if abortion is such a good idea why do pictures of it make people so

angry. Why do you have to say it will give you cancer and threaten

women, it is intimidating women. want to bring to your attention,

first and foremost, women are very, very important people. That is why

we do this, we care for them as well. In society, we try to mix oil

with water, it never mixes. Women are very, very important people and

I can tell you from the Bible, right in the very beginning, God

said let us make man in our image, he made eve and all the things you

see in the Lord Jesus Christ is right there in the book of Genesis.

Women are supposed to populate the country. Jesus is excited about

women giving birth and bringing up children. If I may remind you when

the disciples bid the mothers go away, Jesus sweetly said, suffer

little children to come unto me because that is the kingdom of God.

Women do not run around saying I can't wait to have an abortion.

Women are having abortions because they need to have an abortion.

Nobody wants to have an abortion. I don't buy it when Andy says that

they care for women. Because I really don't think that showing

these graphic images when a woman is at a vulnerable point in her

life and hasn't taken a decision lightly, that is not caring for a

woman. We want to care for women, we want to care for their mental

well-being and support them in whatever choice they make. And not

intimidate them when they are trying to access legal services.

Why would the truth be intimidated. Women have made their decision,

they have looked at the evidence, they know the facts.

information is readily available, if they want to see this

information they can do. Abortion is generally hidden away. The

abortion clinics are telling women that this is just a pregnancy, it

is the removal of a pregnancy, all this benign language they are using

and we have got evidence of this, and all we want to do, we are not

making any - we know we can't stop women from having abortion. We

can't prevent them from making their legal choices but we do

believe they need to be properly informed. We have to leave it there.

Thank you for another spectacular intervention.

If you have views about that debate, Our next question is is God a woman.

You can e-mail us if you would like to be in the audience.

We are not on next week because of the London Marathon but we are back

on April 29th. From West London on May 13th, two shows, then Glasgow

on June 3rd. As we have been hearing in the

beginning God created the heaven and the earth. But long before

those words were set down in Genesis, humans believed the world

had been created by a Goddess. She had many names. The ancient Greeks

called her Gaia, the great mother and the statues of her have been

found in the earliest settlements dating back 9,000 years. Is God a

woman. You have this interesting TV series

at the moment Divine Women. Something changed didn't it, along

the road to today. What changed, when did God become mass clinised?

Why is the million dollar question but there is a big shift in history.

If you look back 40,000 years, back to the very beginning of human

civilisation, human society, what is fascinating is for the bulk of

human experience, definitely people conceived of the God figure as

being female. We know this because if you look at all the human

figurines created between 1,000 BC and 40,000 BC, 92% of those are of

women. This was clearly how people viewed the world. But something

does shift. There is a massive change. It is in the Bronze Age.

What happens really is that civilisation gets greedy, so

populations have stabilised, we are living in beautiful citadels and

look over the horizon and think I have a great life but I want more

of what they have, we get warrior societies and the creation of an

all smitting warrior God. Maybe we should return to our mother who art

in heaven? I go to church. But I read the Bible and I see a lot of

the female concept of divine wisdom in the old and New Testament. We

haven't lost it but we chews to ignore it or brush it under the car

bet. Rabbi Pesach Efune, you believe the language that we use

about God in the mass clin is so we can understand and relate to him.

Explain what you mean. I would like to say I think God is a woman but

he is also a man at the same time. Quite frankly, any person who asks

that question in my opinion shows a great degree of theological

immaturity and lack of understanding of God. The concept

of God as a male totally in terms of the language which is used in

the Bible has to do because of two main reasons, first Hebrew, the

original language of the Bible speaks in genders. In view of the

fact we have to refer to God in something because ultimately we can

only speak about God in terms of our experience, there is a verse in

Joab which speaks about from my flesh I see God, meaning the way we

understand our thinking process and emotions, we can speak and think

about God, so we speak about God being angry and loving and so on.

But the main theme about why God actually is always seen in bubble

kal - biblical literature as a male, has to do with the most basic act a

human being can do which is which is similar to God and that is the

act of creativity. In the act of intimacy, the male is the giver and

the female is the receiver, so when we view God and view our

remingsship, - relationship with God, it is the human being being

receiving from God, we have to turn that into something productive and

we make ourselves and the world a better place. Women give birth.

to continue that argument, it is us human beings in the God... God is

the giver. We as human beings, every time we Blake a blessing on

the bread, we know God doesn't give us bread, he gives us wheat. There

are sur vifuls. -- survivals. We can't detect what happened, there

is no doubt a warrior society created God in a male image. Our

own lit ji 2,000 years ago... is the whole debate. S Can you be

giving and let her finish. Absolutely. My wife told me before

I came here I should be giving. When the Rabbi, you were smiling at

the Rabbi's point there. I just feel this is a very dangerous

ground we are on in the sense it seems to be legitimising the reason

why men have the biggest part in ourly linlingons, there are debates

over women bishops. It seems to lead to the conclusion that women

are not going to be able to have those roles in the church. There is

another Rabbi voice, which is a voice of another form of Judaism

and that form of Judaism actually speaks as you do from the same

starting point, God is neither male nor female but we have to find ways

of speaking to God on the basis of our lives and our experience.

morning to you. Why is the constructive God so masculine? Is

it OK to say mother? God is clearly not a women or man. One of the

things we also need to do is not to bring in... Why is he -- why do we

call him man why do we call him father? We have to chews one gender

or another? Can we stop calling him father? I am not particularly

anxious about it. I think sometimes there are implications about the

way we use language. One of the stories that takes place is that it

is not actually the replacement of a wrior society, shifting from

feminine to masculine. Some people could find it offensive. One of the

other ideas is that the revelation from the Bible is about stopping us

committing adultery. We are keen on worshipping things that matter. To

try and make a distinction between the agency side agency, it becomes

masculine. But the prevailing theological idea was feminine. It

was simply to introduce a balancing idea, the moment we lose this

balance, particularly at the moment, starting a polarised debate. Just

to say it is not being offensive or sexist to say there was a

development of a warrior society, I am not laying the blame at the door

of men. But the archaeology shows us it was the men that went out and

fought, we know that because their bones are covered in axe marks,

they have sword slashes down their arms. This is what men were doing.

When we see that bone evidence in the ground, that is when we get the

single smitting warrior God. It seems to me at that moment, we lose

something about the glory of God which is God is love, neither man

nor woman. What is interesting is the first lines of equality we find

in human history in Judaism and Christianity, when Paul says, the

way to Christianity is the refeminine zeution away from God

washior. The Bible is repeat with feminine images. Women did better

under Christianity than almost any other associateological Form. What

Catholics - you have a clear fem anymorisation of Mary. And the

position of women. Is that a psychological necessity that we

have. Christianity is already the feminist connection. The moment has

come, sir. Is God possibly a woman. Let me tell you with, I was with TB,

I was left to die there, three months in a coma, who came? Jesus

Christ, five times he visited me. Let me tell you, God is a male,

only on that. When we get to heaven Jesus made it clear, he said what

happens to this woman, she has had seven brothers, who is going to be

her husband. God said you don't know the scrip tours. He said in

heaven, we like angels, sexless. You are loched by God more than men

and you should be made to populate this world. Without you we wouldn't

be here. In what way is God a man? In the person of Jesus Christ.

Every detail, whatever you want, from the beginning to the ending of

this world, it is going to burn up with nuclear. That is the fact.

Politicians should never mingle with our Christian faith. Because

you have got to worship God in spirit and truth to know the truth.

You can't be a politician. Dominic, follow that. I am going to tread

carefully. My father was Jewish and I married a Catholic. I thought of

God as something transindental. I have no divine knowledge, I won.

Why is it they refuse to allow women bishops. Why is it that there

is the argument to get women priests. If you are saying God is

neither male or female, God is neither, why are they making this

fuss. The church is going to have women bishops and lots of people

are pleased about it. I want to see what happens. I am looking at the

church in America, where we are pursuing the policies we are

talking about now. What are the dangers? It is not like that.

are you worried about? One of the things people are worried about is

taking the secular agenda and imposing it on a very nuance

Christian dynamic. There is a great deal of nuance to be had within the

present system. If we take secular issues with gender and impose them

on Christianity. It is not a secular agenda at all. We are

willing to share the notion that God neither male or female, why

isn't it possible for us to say in that case, then the priests,

ministers Rabbis can be male or female. Jesus revealed God, the

father. The greatest revelation to come to mankind is that God is a

heavenly father which means he loves us, he wants to provide for

us. As a Christian, that is the revelation that Jesus Christ

brought, that God is our father in heaven. He was very specific.

make a really important point here. When we talk about the priesthood

and certainly, I am a Catholic, and we talk about the male priesthood,

actually that is quite demeaning to everybody else in the church. It is

saying only the priesthood is important. In fact if you look at

Catholic congregations, the vast majority of them are women. Women

play a huge role in the Catholic Church. There is a very famous

Catholic thee low general who says women are more spiritual than men

because they are freed from the office and burden of priesthood.

Give women the opportunity to chews. Not every woman is going to want to

be a priest. Let them have the opportunity to chews. Do you think

the church would be more successful, your programme is addressing the

issue of women priestesses. Do you think the church would be more

attractive to the other half of the population? It is fascinating the

greatest time of expansion in Christianity was when women were

priests and very actively involved in the prom you will gaition of the

church. The first 2300 years. That is when Christianity establishes

itself. You say women were priests in the first 300 years? Where is

your evidence for that You will see it on television! It's all been

researched. That is very interesting,. It is not about

whether God is a woman. We are speaking about the role of humans,

men and women. We have missed the point here. The fact we describe

God in certain terms in reality for those who have a deep understanding

of faith has nothing to do with the gender of God. It has to do with

what we as religious people think God wants from us as human beings,

male or female. That is to make ourselves holy, to make ourselves

good and have a personal connection with with God. It doesn't matter

where I am a priest or not. It has to do with my personal relationship

with God, what does God want from me. That is exactly right. What we

get caught up in in is talking the language of politician, which is

power. We need to be against injustice and stop the oppression

of power. But the moment you politicise spirituality you distort