Episode 6 The Big Questions

Good morning. Welcome to The Big Questions, live from Wychwood

School in Oxford. I'm Nicky Campbell.

The Government's reforms to the English National Health Service are

facing a mounting tide of Critics accuse it of privatisation

by the back door. Our first big question: Should 49% of the NHS

become a business opportunity? This health professionals as the NHS

needs to be run as a business and hospitals should be encouraged to

do more profit-making work. This week, the General Synod failed yet

again to concentrate their first female bishop, an idea first

discussed in 1966. Our next big question: Are religions sexist?

Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin says allowing opponents to bypass the

authority of a woman bishop is akin to sanctioning apartheid.

On Friday in a case brought by the National Secular Society, a judge

ruled that Bideford Council should not hold acts of prayer as part of

its formal meetings. Our last big question: Is Christianity being

marginalised? The philosopher and atheist Alain de Botton says

secularism has gone too far. Welcome, everyone, to The Big

Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, likened the National Health Service

to "the closest thing the English have to a religion, with those who

practise in it regarding themselves as its priesthood". And this

weekend, this week, the priesthood came out in force to defend it,

with 17 professional bodies voting against the government's proposals.

One of the most contentious issues is the plan to allow hospitals to

raise nearly half their income from the private sector. Should 49% of

the NHS become a business opportunity?

Dr pinnacles, you but absolutely enthusiastic about this idea -- Dr

Una Coales. Explain to people watching this morning how a large

part of a foundation hospital having private health care will

benefit the many. I am absolutely in support of this because it is

the only way to save the NHS. Last year we spent �122 billion on the

NHS to deliver care to 62 million people. And yet we know the rising

costs of health care. If we look at hospitals and say, you can access

their profit in the private sector and pump the money back into the

NHS, or well done. I am a south London GP. Queen Mary's Sidcup

closed their casualty department in 2010 and that caused uproar. The

closest casualty department is in Woolwich. They have to travel all

that way. They also closed the maternity wing. They closed their

cancer wards. Patients were furious. The Woolwich hospital Queen

Elizabeth is strapped for cash. They had a deficit. What did they

do to try to save money? They closed the urology ward. What did

the surgeons say? What is happening to my cancer patients? It is about

patient safety and lives. So that money will be ploughed back into

the NHS? Yes. Better equipment? Exactly. Shorter waiting lists? You

can guarantee that? Yes. The NHS is dealing with the PIP implants

scandal. They are charging �1,000 for top up and will replace those

others. 14,000 women want replacements, even 20,000 is �20

million that can be pumped back into the NHS to treat cancer

patients. It is fantastic. It is the only way. I want to know

whether resources would come from to take on these extra private

patients. -- where the resources. The bill, this is just part of the

way the NHS is opening up to the private sector. In the

circumstances which have been explained, the NHS is facing

squeezed budgets, hospitals get less money for every patient they

treat, they are under pressure to treat fewer patients, and to say,

fill your boots and recruit as many private patients as you can means

that NHS patients become second- class citizens in hospitals paid

for and run by the taxpayer. Can I respond? You don't have to put your

hand up! The private sector are making a lot of money. They are

allocating 25% of their resources to NHS patients. A patient can say

to me, I want my visit to me, and you have NHS choice. You can have

it at an NHS hospital or a private hospital and it costs nothing.

they are making a massive income from the private part, is there not

the risk that they will take their eyes off the ball and concentrate

on income rather than the inconvenience costs of the NHS

patients? No. The private hospital charged the marginal costs to the

NHS patient. If they don't fill their hospital up with Private

Patients, they fill it up with NHS patients... Your father as a young

doctor was involved in the drafting of the bill. He was a junior civil

servant and he worked in Niall Bevin's office and he was involved

in drafting this. When he first got a letter from a privatised pit of

their health service purporting to work for the NHS for him, he looked

at the embossed letter head and said "that must have cost them a

bit, I wonder who they think they are trying to impress". The NHS is

a huge business opportunity. The NHS is funded by taxpayers' money.

That money should not be going into the pockets of private sector

corporations. APPLAUSE. You say it is immoral.

Yes. But what about this �20 billion funding gap by 2015?

that set in stone? That is something that David Cameron has

told us. We are doing our best. General practitioners and hospital

doctors and all the other disciplines in the health service

are now dedicated to evidence-based medicine. We don't want to be

funded -- funding unnecessary procedures and operations, we don't

want to be giving money to drugs that are more expensive than

generic versions. We are refining continually in the NHS and we do

not need this Bill to go on doing that. The Institute of economic

Affairs. Will this drive costs down? The more commercialism and

the more profit-seeking you have in health care, the more controlled

you will have over cost... Can I stop you? The privatisation of the

railways... Or health in America for example. The cost of rail

tickets at the moment some people think is a national disgrace. Has

that driven costs down? The way that was done was not the best way,

so that is a different issue. But the number of people travelling on

the railways is at a record high and there has been an enormous

improvement in the quality of rolling-stock. Do much has

increased. I find this argument very evidence poor. This lady was

saying there is a shortage of money in the health service. There is not

a shred of evidence that bringing in the private sector saves money.

The private sector initiatives of the last Government were shown by

the NATO to have thrown money at Independent... I disagree. They are

so into the hospital, what is your tariff for an ultrasound? They say

�400 because we are lumping that in with a consultant visit. You do not

need a consultant... They are checking prices. The private sector

can charge less. You love this idea! It is bringing down prices.

The former MP and doctor. Not Kevin Davies, he is one of your

colleagues! The key thing missing, I haven't understood jogger -- your

argument. There is not capacity in the health service at the moment so

giving over a more capacity to treat private sector patients is

very dangerous, and the key thing is fairness, the huge health

inequalities and inequalities of access. We know from the United

States that where there is a larger private sector, that suffers.

Finally my concern is this, that if the NHS is allowed to do private

work, then commercial companies will say in the courts, under

competition legislation, why should there be any restriction on us

being able to do NHS work and that could undermine the capacity of

hospitals. Steve Davis. You what 100%. Yes. You might want the

government to fund health care through giving people money and

vouchers but I do not see why the government should be involved in

the delivery of health care. Herbert Morrison argued precisely

for that, that the government should simply fund health care and

not won a hospitals. You are quite right... We don't have private

armies and private police. Is 1947 not different from 2012? Exactly!

He spoke about the equality of sacrifice. The modern consumer does

not by equality of sacrifice. you have a plural, fragmented NHS,

with competitions all over the place, the people who are really

expert at digging all the boxes on the tenders for a particular

surface, are the big corporations, with their legal people and

embossed letter heads. Down on the ground, the local, cost-effective

provider has a struggle getting somebody ready to take all the

boxes on that contract. We have a local example where a local

provider failed to win a tender for a health service element that was

needed and it was because the tender was not slick enough. That

is not an argument for having big corporations come in and fragment

and take away bits of the NHS that should be run by local services.

Julia Manning. Can I ask you something. Will this ultimately

lead to the NHS part of the hospital being driven up in

standards and quality? I believe that it will. But I want to roll

back. Why would people still go privately them? That is an

interesting question. Over time we might see that people have access

to better services because of the private investment. So it is self-

defeating? We need to think what is the problem that the NHS is facing?

There are three ticking time bombs. An economic problem. We do not have

the investment we need. We have been warned by Standard and Poor's

that unless some of the G20 countries get their public spending

down in health, that we will be downgraded and we will be faced

with interest rates which will mean that we have less money to invest

in the NHS. There is an economic issue. The American spent twice as

much as we do! Demand is rising. the Americans spend. Over five

people are working to support every elderly person. In 20 years' time,

under four people will be working to support every person over 70.

The demographics are scary. We have to do things smarter. We have to

get more investment. And responsibility. We need to be

taking more responsibility for our health. We treat the NHS like we

can hail it like a taxi. No X map that is unsustainable. No!

solution is not private profit. Even if you are right that those

are the three challenges, there is Private profit creates incentives

for people. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with

providing a service to customers to make money. Is it wrong for Tesco

to make money by selling food, which is vitally important? It's

not customers... Let's clear something up for people that might

be confused. I know your hand is up, I will come to you in a second. Why

will it improve the lot of the NHS patients? Some people see it as

some people being on Ryanair and the other part of the hospital is

British Airways' first-class? about it this way, the provision of

classes has been improved for most people by the advent of commercial

opticians. That is the model that we need to go to. So you now pay

�400 for a pair of glasses when you used to get them on the NHS? You

don't have the choice to get them on the NHS any more. You are

talking to a former optometrist. Many people still get NHS glasses

funded by the NHS. The private sector in this country is on the

verge of bankruptcy and not making any money, and selling private

medicine. If you look at private sector is running it in the United

States, far from bringing down prices and controlling prices,

delivering an efficient system, it is the most wasteful, ludicrously

inefficient system. Not because it is private, because it is

incredibly heavily in regulated by the Government. There are policies

which drive down supply and restrict demand. One minute. Ken

has had his hand up, he is patient, a lawyer, a man with opinions on

his. Is this the kind of system you want? No. I don't want to be in

competition with private patients. That will eventually lead to, in

general terms, the wealthy are becoming healthier and the poor

A loss of hospitals have a 5% ceiling at the moment, they have...

Or 2%. 2% or less. That is tiny, negligible. You are worried about

the expansion of the private sector? The idea that I should take

more responsibility for my health care, this idea that patients

should be put in charge, it is a complete red herring. I want my

doctor to advise me on what care I should have, what care I need, and

then I want him to refer me to one NHS provider that supplies that

care. I am a patient, I am a lawyer. Give me a book about neurology, I

would not know where to start. I don't want to take more

responsibility for my health care. That is why my doctor, and I have a

very good GP, that is why my doctor went through years of medical

training, so that he could be in I know, they're our hands up. Quick

points, if we could. Yes, in the white shirt? In the introduction

you asked if the NHS should make 49% of their profit from private.

That is not true. It's not the case that every hospital will make 49%.

The trend for the last five years... Up to 49% of income? Yes, in the

last five years hospitals have been making less of their profits from

private health care. This allows them to make more. I think that are

two questions we should be asking. Will the Government find a way to

stop private companies from cherry- picking patients? If they do this

through subsidies, will they really make their �20 billion savings?

cherry-picking point is a good point. Picking only the most

lucrative patients full stuff you cannot do that as a provider.

are two ways of determining who goes where. One is who commissions

the services. Which Health Organisation has chosen the

contract with the provider. They can direct patients. The other

person that can direct the patient is the patient. The provider cannot

cherry-pick and say, we can take those ones and not the other ones.

It's simple. The provider decides which services they want to offer

and do not offer the others. You offer services that are low risk,

or elective surgery and you do not offer accident and emergency, you

do not offer chronic care or serious mental health care. You

leave those to the public sector. Then you rip off all of your

trained staff from the public sector, who trained them at

taxpayer's expense. You get the Government to subsidise empty beds

Do what would the situation before prioritising if somebody wants a

hip replacement through the NHS, somebody once it privately, to pay

for it privately at the same hospital, what happens? The people

in charge of commissioning our GPs. They are the most trusted

professions. We have to believe and trust in doctors and GPs. They will

not allow cherry-picking. What about queues for theatre? They will

prioritise based on health needs. The people that need urgent care,

cancer patients, they will have priority. So what is the point of

paying for it? The patient never pays for it. What is the point,

what with the advantages be of going private in one of the

hospitals? For the NHS patient,... OK, say they need an operation for

a cancer operation. You need to private hospitals, the NHS

hospitals, they can decide which has the shorter waiting time.

you tell me, what would be the advantage of going private? I think

it is often patient experience, which I think the NHS needs to

learn from. People that go private feel they are looked after better,

they are more carefully monitored and catered for. Better food, nicer

environments and your own room. You are paying for the extra four

stocks picking the date you are treated? Yes, day and time, it is

convenience. The it is not universal, this experience will

benefit in the private sector. There are very dissatisfied private

patients. If I can come back to the GP role with the patient, it is a

genuine partnership. I have said it is based on needs, not necessarily

what you want. That is the conversation that the GP and

patient will half. That should result in an evidence-based pathway

from their doctor-patient relationship of trust, which is

what the NHS has been based on since 1948, hopefully three-way

trusting relationship between the GP and specialist teams. It is

better to have that of a locally organised, not corporate provided

base where the NHS run the service and they may be very distant from

us. If we work with local teams and local provisions, we simply cannot

have 49% of hospital beds in the hand of the private sector. Where

would G P's patients go? Let me put it to you that there is huge

affection for the NHS in this country. It was built on a

communitarian spirit of the 1940s. That is still pervasive. It is

acknowledged, people on this side of the argument acknowledge that if

it is not the best health care service system bang for buck in the

world, if it ain't broke... Why fix it? Because, even if that were true,

I would reject that, but even if it were true we cannot go on as we are.

Like all developing countries, we are facing severe rising costs for

health care. So why go for the American system? Nobody is

proposing to follow the American system. That is the way we are

going. Nobody else in the world has our system. The systems used in

continental Europe have significantly better results in

many areas. The American system is not one that anyone in their right

mind wants to follow. That is your Holy Grail! I would never advocate

it. Holy grail, a good phrase for Sunday morning. If you would like

We are also debating live from Wychwood School and Oxford are

religions sexist? And his Christianity been marginalised?

Tell us what you think about those topics and send your ideas for

future debate saw any comments you would like to make about the

programme. They are still debating. Judaism,

Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, they all had their origins

millennia ago in societies which were run and ruled by men. Today,

women's status in many countries are very different, with a quality

enshrined in law. But many religions continue to treat women

as subject to different rules, even as inferior to men. Our religion

sexist? -- his religion sexist? Good morning. Explain to people

this morning why who you think that women cannot be full bishops and

should not be for bishops with full responsibility for the diocese?

That is a big jump from the original discussion. We will find

out onto that in a moment. We will start with this. I go back to the

Bible. My understanding is that... Let me just say, first of all, that

I have no problem with women reaching the highest of any

profession in the secular world. I think it is brilliant. We have Her

Majesty, we have had a female prime minister. I think it is great. But

I do not believe it to be right in church. I go back to the Bible,

going back to Genesis, that Adam was made first and Eva was his

helper. Secondly, in Corinthians, Chapter 11, we look at Christ being

ahead of everybody. Mandy in the head of woman. I just think that,

in the Church, it is not right for women to be in authority over men.

That is mirrored in marriage. That is not to say there is not

partnership between the man and the woman in marriage. The ultimate

final decision? I believe the ultimate, final decision comes from

the husband. At times, I am thinking, this is great. We have

discussed it, we have come to a conclusion or maybe we have not,

but my husband can make the final decision. And you don't have to?

There are times when I am quite glad that I don't have to. But by

and large we do everything in partnership. I believe that to be

right. I see that as what we call in at the church as headship. I do

have a problem, in the church only, with women being in authority over

men and that is where I stand. fans have gone up. That is that

sorted, then? I could easily just Wait, baloney, let's have a look at

the Bible. Timothy, 2: 12. You might not like it, but it is in

there. I permit not a woman to teach nor to have dominion over

Rain Man but to be in quietness. We do not want that this morning from

you. Adam was first formed, and Adam was not beguiled but the woman,

being beguiled, has fallen into transgression. Is this yet another

part of the scripture that you want to conveniently ignore? I don't

want to ignore it at all. What I want to say about that is that you

have a particular interpretation borne out by the experiences of men

at that time. We are not there now. Actually, I don't think they were

just talking about scripture, church, synagogue, they were

talking about the community at that time. We are not in that community

now. It is a huge jump to bring it from there and say that is exactly

how we need to behave now in the 21st century. Alison, some people

have tipped Rose to become a bishop because she is a fantastic vicar.

If she was, would you recognise her? No, I am afraid not. Yes, she

can be a bishop, but I would not want to be under her authority in

the parish or church that I was in. I would move and going to a

different church. He would move? Not my house, but I would go to a

different church where there was not the authority of a female

bishop. Or we would have proper provision in the Church of England

to have a male bishop in authority for people that were unable to

accept the authority of a woman bishop. You cannot have that. The

church either accepts women as bishops full stop, without this

ridiculous setting where we created another set of bishops. You have

called that apartheid? I can only think of it in those terms. When

they wanted to abolish apartheid, there were those who said, yes, I

am in favour, but let me just to save this one bus so it can only be

whites. We mustn't have that, we have grown up and moved on. Why do

you think that over 2000 years, we suddenly have to change the 21st

century? It is absolute rubbish. much has changed. You would not be

a magistrate 2000 years ago. You would be your father's and then

your husband's property. We I in a different world, we must recognise

that. The General Synod, this has been debated for decades. What we

said repeatedly, and we have been saying it for a number of years, is

that we do want women to share as bishops, along with men. Not

supplanting them. But men and women together. I go back to the Bible,

Alison. I read the same Bible. You know what I find? Radical quality

in Jesus Christ, who never, ever, treated people differently or

preached a different gospel to women or men. Right now we are a

church that wants to have women as You are a parish worker and you

very much agree with Alison. Yes. Going back to the verse you quoted,

which says women should not teach and have authority, both positively,

goes BECTU creation, which the Lord Jesus also goes back to when he

talks about marriage, so he is affirming that all day in creation.

Which one? Genesis 1 and 2. Adam was created first... They are made

in the image of God. This is important to understand. First of

all that we are equal and made in God's image, male and female. We

are absolutely equal. We start equal, we finished equal. But some

are more equal than others? Why not bishops? We are also equal in that

we are responsible to God for our lives, we are equally so given by

Jesus and so -- the quick forgiven by Jesus. We are not equal by what

we do. That is illogical. Your argument is illogical. If you can

think of the number of women who have taught Sunday school, kept the

faith alive, kept the faith alive! Have they not taught boys? Is that

irrelevant? There is a problem in understanding what women can do.

There is a wide variety of work for women in the judge. Servitude, is

that a word that you cherish? The Lord Jesus says, I have not

come to be served but to serve, and gives! Annabel Heywood is saying

that you cannot call people and give people gifts according to

their heart, then natural skills, their characteristics, it is

basically if you are a man, you can be called to leadership but if you

are a woman, you must not be called to leadership. It is about

authority, authority of women in the Church over men. It is about

insecurity and not authority. APPLAUSE. Now we will talk about

Islam. Good morning. This highlights why you should not based

your morals on one book written 2000 years ago by tribesmen. If you

based models on the Old Testament, you would still be stoning the

victims of rape, you would still be selling your daughter and putting

animals before humans and men before women. Thankfully most of us

have evolved. Religion has some excellent points on the basis of

moral guidance which is useful to everybody. But morality is

progressive, society is progressive, and if you are going to stick to

this one tradition that you are taking from the Old Testament, like

this man behind me just said, it is pointless. We have to understand

that society has moved on. The Queen, head of state and head this

Church of England. How can she be in that position and women not hold

authority in a localised setting in the Czech? We are seeing a really

good debate. -- in the church. admire the work of this campaign.

Although this is a private matter to be determined democratically by

the Church of England, it does affect everyone in the country.

This country is constitutionally associated with the Church that is

sexist, to put it mildly, some might say misogynist, and

discriminates against gay people. So we do have an interest in this

country in hoping that we make yourselves a private organisation,

and good luck to you, but if you do say it -- stay associated with us

constitutionally that you do not carry on antediluvian,

discriminatory attitudes. That is your opinion. It is. There is only

one example we could find of a woman leading mixed prayers in a

mosque, and that was a situation that you organised because you see

yourself at the forefront of modernisation in Islam, Dr Taj

Hargey. It is great to have you on the show again. There were protests.

His Islam sexist? No, I think Muslims are sexist and that is a

distinction. You need to distinguish between Islam, the

faith, and Muslims of the third and culture. Most cultures, including

my Christian friends, are misogynistic, chauvinistic and

patriotic, as society was 2000 years ago. A lot of Muslim

societies are still misogynistic and sexist. But in the Koran, women

were not created as an afterthought. It was a simultaneous creation, men

and women, same time, bang-bang. The Big Bang Bang! In the Koran, it

is the word of God? We believe it is. There is this it would trouble

some people. I am called to witness, two witnesses, and it two men at

the not found men a man and two women -- and if two men. So that

the second of the two making mistakes may remind the other. That

is incredibly patronising! What is the prevailing situation in

seventh-century Arabia? Hang on...! The reality is... That was tribal,

primitive, patriarchal society and women were on the margins. Religion

has to deal with both the reality of the time and also things for the

future. I look at Islam not in terms of patriarchy but in terms of

equality and in terms of fairness and justice so I don't see any

reason why a woman who is equally qualified, better educated than I

am, should not give a sermon and lead prayers and become a school of

the faith. So there were no internal truths. What you have just

said his brilliant but it is not so in his long, does it -- is

brilliant. Women are second class citizens. A are you accusing Islam

of being sexist? Of course I am! The Inquisition, is that to do with

Christianity? You will say it is to do with Christians! You can't blame

it is long for sexism in Islam. I blame his limbs for that. -- you

can't blame Islam for sexism in his long, I blame it Muslims. We have

to distinguished tradition and faith. They are not the same.

Particularly Islam. You don't want to get on the wrong side of him!

am very happy to get on the wrong side of him! He's Sikhism sexist? -

- is? No, we believe in equality for all regardless of gender, age,

ethnicity, even religion. It is a cultural straitjacket? To a certain

extent. INAUDIBLE. Sikh women can lead prayers, however they so wish.

There is no priest had system within Sikhism. We believe in true

equality. You go to the her Reebok and that is everything for you --

you go to the holy book. Having said that, I agree that cultures

can be quite misogynistic and sexist and so it is not the

religion itself which is sexist, and I agree about Islam, it is not

religion itself, it is the People have different

interpretations for different fates. It does not mean they will be seen

equally in each other's eyes -- different faithss. The do you think

the law should be used? No. Not to bolster up... Yes, I do. Anti-

discrimination. That is what I meant! That is what we faced in the

Church's parliament this week. We had a choice and we chose the right

way, we said we want women and men to serve on the same basis. We do

not want a second class citizen, those no-go areas for women, and we

want to have women as bishops but on the same times, and we do not

want to change the structure of the church in order to accommodate

women. I would like to say something else about religion. We

have heard from his long, Sikhism, we have spoken to people from

Judaism -- Islam. All other religions have this aim for

equality, they are enlightened overrule, but religions were

developed by people, mainly men, and mainly... Everyone has a

context and a culture and most cultures have been patriarchal and

the world view is to see women as left the beings than men. Alison,

we read the same Bible. We are sisters in the body of Christ but I

would say to you that when I read the New Testament and I look at the

teachings and life and example of Jesus Christ, who we both follow, I

see him saying, in me you on a new creation, the old barriers of sex,

class, ethnicity, it is gone! And that is good news for everyone!

APPLAUSE. I totally agree with all of that. There we are! What I don't

agree... It is there a but? And big but! Why wasn't religion included

in equality laws? It is a matter for those organisations. I am very

secular but I am not arguing that the state should tell religions who

they should have in their club, and I don't mean that in a pejorative

way. It is a private organisation. But they are the power structure of

the state. There are bishops in the House of Lords and the House of

Lords is not short of elderly, has sensibly heterosexual, social

Conservatives. We know that. -- ostensibly heterosexual. But our

legislators... We have this sexism are imposed upon us in our

parliament and that is one of the reasons we need to either separate

that or urged the Church does sort it out. And we are hoping to reform

the House of Lords and also how we appoint bishops or how bishops are

in the House of Lords and make it possible for women to become in the

House of Lords. What would happen if they finally agree on women

bishops, no compromise, the Pope will welcome you with open arms...

No, he will not. Simple as that. The Roman Catholic Church are

totally opposed to women priests even. By it if you leave the church

he will welcome you. I will not go to the Roman Catholic Church! I

misunderstood. I will go to a church where there is proper

provision... With a man about you? A indeed. I could not be under the

authority of a woman bishop and I am sorry. Thank you for your

honesty this morning. A round of applause is due for... Or something.

If you have any views about that Send us your views about our last

big question. His Christianity been marginalised? If you would like to

be in the audience, you can e-mail us. -- is Christianity being

marginalised. We are in Cambridge next week, Cardiff after that and

in York after that. Friday's judgment against the

holding of prayers at Bideford Council provoked the former

Archbishop of Canterbury to say Christians are being pushed into

the background by a secular establishment that seems to be

embarrassed by the fact that Britain is a Christian country. His

Christianity being marginalised? -- is? This is after the couple that

on the bed and breakfast. Why does an atheist at a council have the

right to object to prayers but an elderly Christian couple do not

have the right to object to taking two gay men? They do have a right

to object to are two gay men. Secularism is about ending

religious privilege. It is not about whether she be religious. It

is about not allow many people in the commercial world and public

service to discriminate, either on the grounds of religion or against

people on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender. The Dutch

Reformed Church used religious rights to say there was a religious

basis for racial discrimination. If people who are councillors are

religious and want to break, pray before the meeting, pray at home,

pray after the meeting. But do not subject councillors to a meeting

where, as part of the formal agenda, they have prayers. Or have a

religious service. All these things are out with the purposes of

spending taxpayers' money on council business. You can't just

say it is tradition because there is lots of things that were

traditional that we have said on not appropriate. I agree. The

question is not whether this is a Christian country, it is whether

the institutions of governors should be tied to a particular

Why not have a secular state? you feel that Christians are being

marginalised? I do, I want to underline that we are a Christian

country, not a secular country. What does that mean? Away a white

country because they rob All Whites? No, the very foundation of

who we were in Britain was formed on Christianity. I don't think that

is right at all. Is that historical? It's very disrespectful

for ancient Britons. The impact on blast 2000 years, it impacts on our

views, the laws, he what we are. Can I just say, that is because we

were a theocracy. You couldn't get into Parliament for hundreds of

years unless you were religious. It's not a surprise that the people

that made the laws were religious and they were based on the laws of

religion at the time. It's not an argument for saying if we are

starting from here that there should be a theocracy. We are not

starting from here. This is where we are now. We cannot just throw it

away because there are few people who decide we are atheist or

agnostic or we do not believe. in the last debate you were

vigorously defending... You were attacking discrimination against

women. What about this bed-and- breakfast trouble, what about

discrimination about how Mr Trotter? I don't believe we should

be discriminating against homosexuals. You believe with the

court doesn't -- judgment, that they are entitled to their beliefs

but if they are running a commercial service they can't have

a sign saying, no gays, like you can't have a sign saying no Jews or

no blacks? There wasn't a sign, they were just turn down. It would

be more helpful to have a sign rather than having people going all

the way to Cornwall to be turned away by the in Tibet. There is a

level of intolerance growing in Those who are Christians should not

be afraid of being Christians. me give you weigh plug. You have

written a book religion for atheists. Some say it is a

contradiction in terms, others say it is fascinating. Are Christians

on the back foot? No group has a monopoly on good nets, scepticism,

tolerance etc. There is a branch of atheism, led not far from here in

North Oxford by somebody that asserts their views with such

vehemence and has an army of followers who target anyone...

Professor Dawkins? I have been personally attacked on the basis of

saying that religion is not all bunker. If, as an atheist, you say

that I am an atheist but religions have not got everything wrong, you

are in the firing line. You cannot have a system where the right is

only in the camp of one body. Tolerance and goodness exists in

different places. To say, I am an atheist and I am good...

Professor Dawkins gets a lot of vile repute -- abuse from people of

religions. Sure. They take him out of context, they do quote mining,

put him on YouTube saying things that he is not really saying. You

can understand why he is a bit annoyed? There is a fractious

atmosphere where religious people feel sorry for those that do not

believe. Those that do not believe patronise and feel sorry for those

that do believe. For those of us with faith, those who believe,

irrespective of religious background, it is something quite

real. It is not a coat that we put on depending on the weather. It is

who we are. To ask us not to want to pray as a majority of that body

in that particular place, I believe they voted twice... All out if they

voted to sacrifice a goat? Nobody is saying you cannot have your

beliefs and you cannot pray at home or when you get to the meeting.

Just don't have it as a formal part. It is a while since they sacrificed

a goat in Bideford. They have prayed, to be fair, they have done

this for centuries and they voted to keep it. That is democracy.

centuries they burned people at the stake. I'm not making that

comparison, of course. The principle is that the state should

not favour one religion. We do not have blasphemy any more, opposed by

many in the Church of England saying that we should keep

blasphemy laws. Over here, the church is established. We have a

constitution that recognises Christianity in a unique way. When

I talk to my Muslim and Jewish friends, they are grateful for the

umbrella of faith that we have in this country because we are a

country that takes faith seriously. And doesn't take none faith

seriously? You can't have it both ways. I think we respect atheists

and agnostics that engage. That is patronising. I'm not being

patronising a tall full stops the church is established, therefore it

should have privilege? God does not It does have a privilege. It has

huge privileges. But the way will - - it works, the Church works with

the underprivileged. Do you think that Christianity is marginalised?

In this instance, yes. The new atheists, the aggressive ones, not

Alan... He is a nice atheist, is he? Suicide atheist! Very militant.

They are trying to marginalise Christianity. I don't feel

particularly marginalised when I speak to some of my Muslim and

Jewish friends and they tell me, let me tell you about being

Are you an aggressive or nice a c'est? Nice. What has been

marginalised his sexism, homophobia, backwards myths and cults and

superstitions and it is right that they are marginalised. There is no

doubt that Christianity has taken a back seat in the country.

Unfortunately, we live on the edge of militant and aggressive atheism.

You are intolerant. Take the bidder for example. Whether they are

talking about the price of goats meet all the right to play, it was

a democratic decision. They want to have it both ways. Democracy when

it pleases them an dictatorship What do you think? We are at risk

of nerdy in -- muddying the waters. From what I understand, the

judgment was solely in respect to the Local Government Act of 1972.

It was that it didn't fit in with the legislation and that is why it

should not be on the agenda. Personally, I feel that if people

want to pray, I agree with what was being said, it is something that

should be a personal thing. You did not necessarily need to bring it

into the public forum in that manner, in meetings. Personal faith

is nothing if you keep it private. It has to have consequences in your

behaviour. It is a ticket but behind closed doors, you are

telling Christians to say, you can pray at home, but don't you dare

pray in public. I'm saying that religion is a personal thing.

it has to have public consequences. Of course. But that has

consequences through, say, let's say they did that Council. Let's

say they have lots of inter-faith work that takes place. That is a

more proactive way of continuing to ensure that religion plays an

important part in modern life. To say, let's pray before the meeting,

and not saying anything bad about prayer, I am saying it is not

making it relevant to constituents. Shouldn't the local councils be

praying as much as they can at the moment, with all of the cuts? Karen,

you have people attending services, atheist Christians, they follow the

teachings of Christ but they do not believe in God? That is an

interesting area. There are many shades of opinion and belief. I

think that belief and doubt always interplay with each other. I met a

lot of people that valued the church for its community and its

ethics, and its sense of the aesthetic, duty and transcendence

that comes from that, while not being able to subscribe to a

traditional notion of a transcendent God. He doesn't mean

to say that God is necessarily completely out of the picture as

far as they are concerned. You might say they are sceptics, rather

than atheists. Some of them say, no, I will stick to its Christian ethic

I have discovered in my local church, which my children are

involved with, they play instruments in the Church Orchestra,

there is great communal benefit, but I do not actually believe in

God. When I say that cannot be Christian ethics, they say...

follow the teachings of Christ? but without the theology that goes

behind it. One argument against that is why would you admire... If

you don't believe he was the son of God, why I admire the teachings of

a man who said he was the son of God? Well, did he? Did he?

Absolutely! Well, he was the son of God or someone that went around

saying that he was. And not saying that he is not the Son of God. But

I am saying that is not the key issue. You are astonished, Alison?

Pardon me for saying, I am gobsmacked. For the simple reason,

how can this gentleman wear a clerical collar, who reports to be

a Christian minister? That is the glory of England! I cannot

understand it, it is extraordinary. I was saying that, in the case of

Christian ethics, it is quite easy to find Jesus and immensely

admirable person, the life of self- giving, he was not worried about

money, he did not get occupied with all of the things we are occupied

with today. It is a brilliant example of how to live life. That

is what people admire. They want to extend that into their own lives.

just want to say that I think this entire debate is a huge over-

reaction to what is a minor issue. All Bideford Council have to do is

have the prayer session at the start, before the meeting, have a

cup of tea and let them on Christian counsellors turn up and

then start the meeting. I mean, isn't... There is a long list of

claimed marginalisation is. fact we are discussing this on

television... They were talking about it is verging on persecution.

I need prayers in the House of Commons every day when the House is

sitting. They are there for everyone who comes in, those that

want to take part or who do not. I pray for of the MPs, whether they

have faith or not, that they will leave wisely? Does it work? -- that

they will lead wisely. The whole fabric of the place oozes Christian

faith. Do you think that is threatened? Not for one moment.

They have every right to do this, but there are political Christian

organisations who, because we are a democracy, they advocate their

position. They found it useful to claim they are persecuted when they

are not. It is good for them to recruit people and try to have the

freedom that they see it as to discriminate, usually on the

grounds of sexual orientation, because that is their particular

focus, some would say obsession, to say they are being marginalised.

Look at this country. We have bishops, men, sitting in Parliament

simply on the basis of their religion, not on the basis of what

they do, let alone a elected. On the basis of history, so that you

object to when it comes to women in the priesthood. We have schools,

where there is an act of compulsory worship for children. When I was at

school they used to pray in the morning, we had assembly. Most of

us used to just sit like that. Let them get on with it. Many

Christians believe that having compulsory act of mass hypocrisy in

school... It doesn't happen in every school, unfortunately. Would

you like it too? Christian prayers in every school in the country?

course, I want all children to grow up hearing about Jesus. When they

are older, they can make a decision. Is important to recognise it is not

as though the secular world is devoid of messages. There are

messages coming out, by Jaffa Cakes, go on holiday here, the villagers

are adding one more message. But it's not as if we have an empty

space into which religions are sending out their poison. We are