Episode 7 The Big Questions

Good morning. Welcome to the Big Questions, live from North Pole.

I'm Nicky Campbell. On Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI conducted his

last mass before he resigns his papacy at the end of the month. He

urged believers to withstand secularisation, uphold traditional

beliefs and work for a renewal of the Church. The first big question,

is it too late to renew the Catholic Church? Lavinia Byrne, a

former nun, says the church these to learn how to work with modern

attitudes to women, homosexuality, contraception and married priests

to survive. Catholic convert Tim Stanley says the great strength of

the Church is it cannot and should not change. The Bible says the Ten

Commandments were set in stone by a God and brought down the mountain

3,000 years ago. It is hardly surprising that some people think

it is time for a rewrite. The second big question is do we need

10 new Commandments? Alain to Botton has come up with his own

manual of the qualities we should strive for. David Herbert says the

original list tells you God's view on things and is the best way to

run society. Welcome to the Big As Pope Benedict enters his last

days of office, contenders must be taking stock of the state of the

Catholic Church. In Africa and Latin America, the faithful have

multiplied, but in Europe and North America changing attitudes and the

scandals of child abuse have seen church attendances decline. There

are a dearth of candidates for the priesthood. Is it too late to renew

the Catholic Church? Pope Benedict XVI, you have written about the

issue of child abuse, he changed the process, he centralised it so

it was not up to individual diocese, which was clearly a step forward,

and he apologised. What needs to happen? It is important to

acknowledge he has not apologised. He said he was sorry for the

suffering. What he has never done is and what they continue to do is

continue to cover up the systemic abuse across the Catholic Church,

driven by attitudes directly from the Vatican. Pope Benedict XVI

oversaw that process for many decades. From 2001, he centralised

the process, but right up until he became Pope, he denied this was a

significant problem. He is on record as saying they were a media

conspiracy, evidence of the corruption of Western society

infecting the priesthood. He repeatedly lied about the facts and

nature of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church. He like?

does not see it as lying, because at the basic level there is a

distorted understanding of truth by the Vatican. They believe truth is

what it needs it to be. It is the source of absolute truth, on so

many issues. That is why the child abuse scandals are symptomatic of

one of the great difficulties for the Catholic Church. It is not

whether it can renew itself, I think Pope Benedict would say it is

going through renewal and it is going back to church values, and he

is getting that. It is becoming incredibly irrelevant to most

people's lives. Illyria to do with women, sexuality, gender, a human

love, the teachings are largely irrelevant for most people. I saw

Cardinal last week saying 2 billion Catholics were holding their breath.

They probably said that was interesting, but actually, in most

Catholic lives, and most Catholics, certainly a significant number, are

culturally Catholic rather than theologically Catholic. It is

cultural Catholicism. There are so many issues here. Is this a case of

the Catholic Church drifting away from the modern world? With the

issue of child abuse, that has been an awful thing in the light of the

chaplet church -- Catholic Church, and probably in society. There is

something of a distortion in the presentation. We know before he

came Pope -- before he became Pope, he referred to the filth in the

church. It is presumed he was referring to child abuse. The fact

is, as Amnesty International's report said, there has been good

legislation in the church, but at a local level they were not dealt

with. It was not card and all Rats singer that was dealing with them.

-- it was not Pope Benedict XVI that was dealing with them. That is

not true. You cannot on one and say he centralised the process and

required from 2001 every single case had to come to his desk and

then said none of them -- and then say none of them came to his desk.

I meant specifically from Ireland. Many cases came to him from before

2005. You are focusing on his department, there was another

department that oversaw that process and it had regular reports.

When you speak about church legislation, the first legislation

I have seen it dealt with the issue of paedophilia was from 346 AD.

Church history is littered with specific legislation and scandals

that emerged where the Catholic Church tried to bring in

legislation to address this issue. Explain to me why from 1990 onwards,

the former Port said they had no understanding of this issue.

not for a moment trying to any weight less in what has happened,

and the legislation since then reflect society more generally.

What is true about Pope Benedict XVI, and that is why I focused on

him because he began with him, as society became more aware of this

issue... Two millennia! You say that but we were surprised by Jimmy

Savile. We are only just discovering the big issue. He was

the one dealing with it. What needs to happen, asked Tim Stanley, going

forward? It is symptomatic of a lack of understanding of the modern

world? Absolutely not, and you must not confuse the issue of child

abuse with the question of Catholic doctrine. If the priests who abused

children had obeyed Catholic doctrine they would never have done

it. What about the Vatican? Because they would not they were going to

help? They would not they were going to hell and would be

compelled to not do it. What about the bishops and cardinals who

covered it up? Your describing the sin of those bishops, which is a

crime and a saying in covering up abuse, and secondly institutional

failure. When we speak about renewal, I absolutely agree there

is no need to renew the church, its mission, vision, the way it runs

itself, but you are confusing the question of those crimes committed

and whether or not the Church needs a wholesale rewriting of its

doctrine. Those are two different things. Not only do we not need the

rewriting of doctrine, we cannot, because Catholic authority is

rooted in the historic integrity. My basic point is it must be rooted

in truth and the Vatican has displayed an absolute contempt for

truth. When it has done that, it has broken from Catholic teaching

and it has betrayed itself. Let's concentrate on some Catholic

teaching, and we have plenty to discuss. Lavinia Byrne, when this

particular pope said the ordination of women priests was a great

crime... Yes, crime. Is that not bizarre? You are former nun. Yes. I

have been quite ardently campaigning for the ordination of

women in the Roman Catholic Church. I've also been seeking out a role

for women in the Catholic Church. When he said that, how did you

feel? That makes me a criminal, so why not thrilled, frankly. If you

equate it with other great crimes like child abuse... He did. What I

would like to leapfrog to is the idea of being accountable for once

since -- one's sins. There have been priests and bishops who failed

in the Church's teaching. How do you get more accountability into

the system? That is what I would like us to look at, because that

covers the whole basis, the whole broad basis and spectre of what the

Church teaches and how lay Catholic like myself respond to it.

cannot get more accountability into the system in the Catholic Church

because it relies essentially on authority. The principle of the

Catholic Church is you do not, increasingly, in the 21st century,

we want to ask the question why, Ohio, why do you believe this? In

the Catholic Church, that question is irrelevant. -- how? You cannot

accept the idea of the fallibility of the Pope because the view of the

Catholic Church is we do not judge, we do not arrive at conclusions.

That is why the whole issue of child abuse is intimately tied up

with the Catholic Church, it is not stray individuals going off and

doing dreadful things war hiding dreadful things, it is because the

Catholic Church is a lot they terrain -- there is an organisation

where the priest can oppose -- impose his authority on people,

firstly, it was possible for priests to abuse children, and

secondly, it was possible for the Church is we did under the carpet

and keep it from public view for years and years. That is because of

the Catholic doctrine. The BBC is not Catholic and it had abuse... I

want to be careful. That has no valid relevance. There is a problem

in recruitment with priests at the moment. You are from an

organisation that holds silent prayer vigils outside abortion

clinics. The organisation does not but I am part of a movement that

does that. Why do you believe that single seller that male priests are

an important standard to uphold? -- celibate. Basically, the Church

asks its priests, it picks them from those who have already decided

to the seller that -- be celibate. That is the practice of not getting

married, and the Church teaches us that sex outside marriage is not

allowed. It selects priests from that. Why is it better to be like

that if you are a priest? husband was formerly an Anglican

vicar. When you have priestly ministry and a family, you have a

responsibility not only to your parish but your family. Priestly

celibacy, please give everything to his parish. Your husband has been

allowed to be a priest, is he not going to be as good a priest as a

priest who has taken celibacy? will be a marvellous priest. But he

is married. The reason the Catholic Church are allowing converts to

become priests is because they were brought up in the tradition that

they would be able to do that. They had Jule vocation. When they

convert... When they can work, an exception is granted on a one-off

basis for those individuals already married. But he will have a unique

perspective on the trials and tribulations and challenges of

family life. That is certainly... That is certainly true, but also...

He is a value added priest. could say that, but there are also

things, when somebody comes knocking on your door at 3am, you

cannot say you are changing the nappy, my wife does not want you

here, unique to... By admitting these former Anglicans, you are

saying celibacy is not a It seems to me that the metaphor

has broken down. It has been about recognising a ministry which has

already happened in the Church of England. Bending the rules, some

would say. No,, it is not, because this is granted on an individual

basis, due to the generosity of the Holy Father. Is your husband going

to be a 100% priest? God winning. The Church recognises that he has

his vocation to marriage, to be, and he also has his priestly

vocation. It is a wonderful accommodation. Exactly, it is not

the norm, but the priests are asked to give so much to their parish.

The issue of contraception is another one which I believe we need

to address. The Pope has said, contraception is intrinsically evil.

Now, we know that in the West, according to surveys, 69% of

Catholics practise contraception. It has been said that women have

control of contraception, they are economically empowered, so, is this

not horrendously outmoded? Absolutely not. The Church's

message for women and contraception is truly radical. Is it? Truly

radical. Look at what contraception does, particularly hormonal

contraception. A woman is asked to chemically and hormonally batter

her natural fertility into submission. The woman is the one

who... Miriam has joined us! woman is the one who is asked to

take charge of her own fertility. So, when contraception does not

work, then the burden falls on the woman to either be a single mother,

or... Does the burden not then fall on the woman, if she is not allowed

to use contraception, and she has an unwanted pregnancy, is there not

then a burden on the woman? Church teaches that it is a joint

responsibility. It is not for the woman, it is for a husband and wife.

They monitor her natural fertility together. Every time they decide

that they are going to be sexually intimate, they are open to the fact

that a baby may result. It does not have to. At the most basic level,

what a really struggle with is that we have an elderly, celibate man,

living in Rome, who sees himself as the source of absolute truth,

telling married couples when and how they can have sex. Jesus Christ

did not have sexual partners, does he have moral authority? We do not

know that. Maybe you are the source of absolute truth as well.

source is the church, not me. the other day, I read a submission

from the Holy See, which again repeated that married couples could

only experience marital love for the purpose of procreation, at

times when they are naturally fertile, and at other times, they

should abstain from sex. How in heaven's name can anybody question

whether or not the Catholic Church is relevant, when you have somebody

sitting there telling married couples when and how that can make

love. This is about holding up an ideal. The very fact that so many

people ignore that ideal is a reflection... By which to judge

yourself? I hope we are not just going to discuss sex, because the

judge also teaches that war is wrong. By the way, people will

commit adultery, they will do things wrong, they will go to

confession, they will be forgiven, and they will achieve grace. The

Church is not some kind of Great dictator, with everybody cowardly a

billion. This is an interesting point, if you will allow me to talk

about divorce as well. For example, if you are divorced, even if you

are the innocent party, whatever that means, you're not then allowed

to take communion. So, the basic... That is misunderstood. Whatever

happens, when a couple gets divorced, you are allowed to

continue to take communion. But if you remarry? If you do so without

the Church's consent, then you're not allowed to take communion, but

the Church does have a process... Only if your previous marriage has

been annulled? That's right. But that does not just apply to

divorced or re married couples, it also applies to couples who are

cohabiting. Anybody in a state of serious sin cannot take communion.

Does that mean they cannot go to heaven? No, because you never write

anybody off, because they can be forgiven. Our Church has been

around for 2000 years, and we have come up with very complex ways of

dealing with things. We have something called an Dormand. If you

marry and it turns out later that that marriage was done in bad faith,

that would be a case for it to be annulled. -- annulment. The idea

that the Church does not try to recognise -- reconcile its ideals

with the reality of life is just not true. It is a bit vindictive,

isn't it? There are many times I am walking with people, having to cope

with the awfulness of marriage breakdown, and then sometimes, one

partner moves on to someone else. The Church walks with those

individuals. We want people to grow in their humanity, and in their

faith, but also being a Catholic, although receiving communion is a

wonderful thing, there are many other ways in which God blesses us

in our lives. The broad issue is that the Church should support

people in whatever situation they find themselves in. Which is what

is happening in every day parish life. Sometimes, in quite violent

and self-denying ways, people are being asked to limit their self-

expression, particularly for people who were gay. What do you mean?

example, if we focus in on the question of her maturity, and we

take church teaching to its limit, homosexuals, in order to be

acceptable to the church, must be entirely celibate. They cannot

marry, because the Church does not recognise their relationship. So,

for a gay person to live their life is sinful in the eyes of the Church.

They are required, in order to be good Catholics, to deny their

sexuality, not to practise their sexuality, not to live in love.

That is an incredible restriction to place. Do you honestly think

they do not? Do you honestly think the Catholic Church is full of

people who are totally a press themselves? If you want to ask the

question, does the Catholic Church need to be renewed? It needs to be

relevant to people's lives. Most people, thankfully, these days, can

recognise that love matters. idea of relevance seems to entirely

go around sex. I believe the mass centre has been moved, it has not

been entirely stopped. By the way, there is nothing wrong... There is

nothing wrong with a mass for gay people. The catechism recognises

gay people, it says they have personhood and they must be treated

with dignity and respect. Listening to this, I am really glad that I am

Jewish. But then again, it is all our fault, because we started the

law, before the judge took over! On that specific point this morning,

on the news this morning they said that at centre was closed down

because it was felt that it was contrary to the church's teachings.

No, it has been moved. But it was contrary to church teaching, let's

be clear and honest and open about this. The reason why the Soho

masses have been moved to another centre is because we understand

that gay Catholics, of course, need support and fellowship, like we all

do. But what seemed to be happening at some of those masses were that

they were a direct contravention of Church teaching.. What was

happening? Basically, people were going up to the pulpit and bidding

prayers, all about celebrating the fact that people were in gay sexual

relationships. Loving relationships... Which is contrary

to church teaching. It was causing so much confusion, because the

Church teaching is very clear. And yet on a local level, there seemed

to be people who were saying, we're in a loving, sexual relationship,

and the Church needs to bless us. That is why it had to be stopped.

The Church does not teach that gay love is wrong, in the sense of love

as their relationship and fellowship, that is not wrong. It

is the sexual act that is wrong. Gay fellowship is fine. Exactly.

Cohabiting for homosexuals is not a problem, same-sex attraction is not

a problem, it is the action itself. But the fact that the Church asks

homosexuals to be celibate, it is the same as all people.

expression of love is wrong. What you're saying is that the Church's

teaching has nothing to do with love, it is all about sex. Which is,

I think, at a heart of what an awful lot of us have against the

Catholic Church's teaching, that it is all about sex. How can you then

say that an organisation can be relevant in the 21st century, which

states that all the most important decisions...? Those decisions can

only be taken by men, that all the important things done in the Church

can only be done by men? Why do you care? I do not understand, if you

disagree with they philosophy and the theology, do not join charge.

There is a very straightforward answer to that. I care because I

come from a society where the Church has brutalised an entire

society. I care because today, the Holy See in the United Nations is

arguing against advances in international law which would

protect people on the basis of their gender identity. I care

because an institution which should stand for truth and justice is

blind to concepts of truth and justice, for some people.

largest provider in the world of care for people dying with Aids is

the Catholic Church. Yes, and it provides for about 60 million

children worldwide, and is in default of its obligations under

international law. That is not true. It is absolutely true. I would like

to make one more point - you are both talking about the church and

sex. We have talked about gender, women, lots of things. There is a

lot more to the church than that. But our modern society is so

obsessed with sex, we can only seem to want to get fulfilment through

sex. The problem is, the Church has an attitude towards sex that it

cannot recognise... Everybody is rebelling against that... People

are cross with the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church will

not give a licence to be a sexual libertine. And so, people are

defining themselves purely in terms of, I cannot be a full human being

unless I can go and have sex with whomever I want, whenever I want.

There is more to as all as human beings, far more. When it comes to

the issue of, for example, going back to contraception, people just

ignoring the teachings of the Church, because they have developed

their own moral code, which they feel is more responsible, and may

feel is superior to the one coming out of the Vatican City - but how

is that sustainable in the long term? Because that has happened

throughout the centuries, that is how the Church works. People who do

not have faith presume that churches are some kind of scary

cult, where you sign up, have to shave of your hair and never have

sex. They do exist. The reality is that for many people, the Church is

actually just something you go to on a Sunday, something which

provides stability, and the fact that the teaching does not change

is a very emotionally attractive been for many people. That's what

provides a spiritual centrality to their lives. We hope, those of us

doesn't really committed and faithful, that as they grow, they

go to confession, they say the rosary and eventually they

reconcile themselves to the teachings. But the reality is

different for everybody, and most importantly, it brings people

I think the debate around the revival of the Church is really

interesting. We have got the Christian Nade Catholic community

to thank for all the modern developments we have in society,

the fact we have a liberal society. -- the Christian and the Catholic

community. It has come from people the hailed from a Catholic

background. We have a lot to thank for current society. I think the

debate within these communities are very advanced, and because society

is advanced, if you look at other religions, speaking about gay

marriage, they are not even at this stage where they can come out with

the these issues, so I think it is really constructive that we can

have this debate. Europe was not able to have these discussions

either until the Reformation, after the Reformation, that was the time

we were really able to think about other kinds of philosophy because

it was dominated by one. That was when we got the Enlightenment,

scientific thinking, and people rediscovered it. It involved a lot

of religious tyranny, and you would not want to live in it. It was

absolutely awful, but it freed up intellectual progress and it meant

people were allowed to think things that they before were not allowed

to contemplate. What should the next pope, he is more than likely

going to be a traditionalist, what would you like to see him do?

indeed. One thing we know is it will not be a woman. I would like

to address one question. If the Church does not have people like me

it will become monochrome and pure, and I am terrified of that. I think

that a church that embraces people and welcomes and is very happy to

have people whose opinions are going different directions but who

are loyal and to practise and to believe, with Cardinal Newman, that

to live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often.

The Catholic Church has to change. Last word, Father? The next pope

will be someone who carries on doing what the Church has been

doing for 2000 years, trying its best to teach what is true and good.

How we do that will change as the years go by. 1.2 billion people, we

are full women and men, including myself, who fall in Mary different

ways. What we're trying to do is teach that that is true and good

and beautiful. -- who fall in many different ways. We have never been

so many different people from different backgrounds and that is

the beauty of the Church. Fine- tuned a -- thank you very much. You

can join that debate by logging You can also follow us on Twitter.

You can send our views about the next big question. Do we need 10

new Commandments? If you would like to be in the audience at a future

show you can e-mail us. We will be in Southampton next Sunday. We will

be in St Albans on March 3rd and Murder, adultery, stealing, bearing

false witness and comforting are clearly a lot in the Ten

Commandments. Cruelty to children, up damaging the environment,

harming God's other creatures, not to mention. Do we need new

Commandments? David Kirk, you think absolutely not. The first thing to

say is they need to be rescued from caricatures. -- David Herbert. The

prevailing view in society is we have this God who is puritan, the

suspicion that someone is enjoying themselves. The prevailing view

about the Ten Commandments is the Severe a God has been given these...

Why is there nothing on child abuse, equality, races and? It is all

aimed at people with servants and slaves, people with staff. Do not

covet your neighbour's servant or wife. Let's look at that one

particularly. Church officials have done a great job of getting under

the skin of the Commandments. In a consumer society, the last one,

where people want the next big TV, better job, the last one is about

learning to be content, and we have so much to learn about being

content with what you have, rather than being jealous and driven for

what your neighbour has. It was clearly written in a patriarchal

society, otherwise it would include women as well post-bop it is

putting women in a list. You are missing the point. Understandably,

men were in power. Things have changed. The heart of the

commandment is to learn contentment. That is a lesson that is so

relevant to society. You shall not make for yourself a card image of

anything that his head in -- anything that is in heaven above.

Is that saying there should be know representational art? That is about

a detachment from reality. It is about not using another God, not

making idols, it is God saying this is reality, and I come from any the

his background. It is saying you are detached from reality. -- I

come from a godless background. Do you can see that people become

dislocated from God, society begins to factor as people choose other

things. -- society falls apart. you say it is still completely

relevant. You just need to get under the skin of them. I think it

is about interpretation and that is a fascinating interpretation, but

the reality must be accepted that these are a product of their time.

Sorry to jump in... I actually think context is key when we

understand the Ten Commandments. They were given just after the Lord

had rescued his people. He rescued his people, he has this embryonic

collection of people, nomadic, not only did he rescue them out of love,

he has given them a vocation. I know the rabbi would agree with

this but liberal Judaism says this is a mandate for the nations. The

Ten Commandments are given to these people with a vocation to take it

into the world. What a responsibility that is. The I think

historical context is important here. The Ten Commandments happen

to be the first 10 is that -- the first 10 in a list of quite a lot.

If you look at them, they're not actually the most important 10.

They clearly reflect a patriarchal society with an enormous amount of

superstition and fear relating to the God they believed was

worshipped at that time. The third commandment, the second in

Christian, not to take over lord mac's name in vain, is a specific

instruction that would have been clearly understood. There was a

particular name given to God that was only a net -- only allowed to

be pronounced by the high priest. As soon as he uttered it, everybody

outside block their ears to stop them hearing, because they believed

it would cause a catastrophe. That is what that means. I do not agree

with that. It is interpretation, but historically, that is the

reality. Worship me because I am a jealous God, wishing iniquity onto

the third and 4th generations of those who hate me. That is about

making idols. Visiting the iniquity of the fathers on to the children

of the third and 4th generations, what medieval claptrap is this?

That is nasty. Not even medieval. Of the Ten Commandments, that is

the part I struggle with. I wonder if we see that in society where

people turn away from God, somebody idolises their career, the third

and 4th generation would have been a household, and extended household,

if you are a man who puts his career before God, in that family,

the damage that has cost, I wonder if it is about God's restraining

grace, the family fractures, people repeat problems, gambling, the

might love gambling... It would be an amazing thing for these rules to

survive for as long as they have if they have not been adaptable too

many contexts. I think we can draw meanings and infer all sorts of

things that certainly were not there in the beginning, and perhaps

the Rabbi can confirm, probably the making of idols referred to other

Gods. Really it is saying do not bring in other Gods. What about the

generations of those who hate me? It is not pleasant. It is not

pleasant, and Richard Dawkins does a very good summary of the Old

Testament job with about 5,000 adjectives that her not pleasant.

It is probably true. The Old Testament God was a military and

social judge of your system. That really misrepresents the God of the

Bible. He is a rescuing God. He rescues people again in Christ.

do we need something you? Many people who will be watching will be

non-believers. The question is, what are we supposed to do? If you

say to your friends you want to become more successful, richer,

more popular. That is absolutely fine. If you say your friends you

want to be a better person, that would sound totally bizarre. The

project or becoming good, working on your character, has slipped off

the radar in the secular world. I think that religions, for all their

problems, ultimately contain some fascinating, complex, beautiful

pieces that do not deserve to be attended to merely by those who

believe in them. They are for everybody, not least non-believers.

One of those projects is the project of becoming good. I do not

specifically for all the way in which religions have done this, but

the project of saying we need regular reminders to strengthen our

ethical impulses is absolutely right, because most of us hover

between good and evil most days. Give some examples. We lose her

temper. Why do we do that? Frequently, because there is no

match to stay calm down, forgive, look at it from the other person's

point of view. -- there is no push. Everybody knows you should forgive

people. We know it in theory but not in practice, every day. This is

what religions are good at. They are machines for reminding you and

making vivid things that you know what in theory but that I in

practice. In modern society. -- that cannot work in practice, in

modern society, we have a education and legislation, religions remind

people every day and they'd maybe have a chance of behaving ethically.

The problem is with interpretation. Some people might see something and

think that is claptrap, no offences meant, but David in a very good job

of interpreting them for the modern world, it is a bit of a stretch

sometimes. What David Beard which is quite correct it generally

speaking, when we look at religious texts they are the problems -- they

are the product of a religious society at a specific time. What

Alain to Botton is distilled the values that religion's try to

cultivate, but what is lacking without religion is the Met the

narrative -- if the narrative, there is no ultimate authority,

which is essentially the guiding line. They are beautiful values,

and we share them as religious people, but I'm sure you have drawn

many from them, but for example, when we try to improve our

character, as part of being religious, the very practices are

religions teachers are there to try to ameliorate those things. Prayer,

fasting, giving to charity, they are not just things we think are

quite nice, they actually literally help us become better people

because they forge a better character. Religions have often

argued there should be a punishment or reward system above and beyond

goodness itself. I think that is a very dangerous step to take because

when you do away with religion, if you really believe it is only

heaven and hell keeping everyone on the straight and narrow, you are on

to a society fraying at the edges. We need to build up a system where

virtue and good this is its own reward, and most people would

recognise when week lie or slander Is that not how society's work? We

naturally know that if we commit adultery, if we lie, if we still,

things fall apart, so it is almost innate, is it not? It is, but it

needs reminders. That's where religions constantly rehearsed.

They are mechanisms for constant rehearsal. In a secular society, we

write laws, and then we leave them in the cupboard. Coming back to the

issue of punishment, I think it is a slight caricature of most

religions to say that people are good because of fear of hell or

desire for Havant. I think most people try to be good people

because they are trying to emulate a model, whether it is Jesus,

Mohammed, whoever it might be. That's why I am arguing that we do

not need a religious superstructure to make this work. You can model

yourself on anyone. The Communist society did not quite work out so

well. Medals to not quite do it for people. Money does it for people,

you need incentives. I think Alain de Botton has proven that point,

you do not need a new Ten Commandments, because you can

improve the existing ones. David Cameron actually recognise the

value of judo Christianity in modern Britain, and the fact that

there should be more or focus on that going forward. From a Muslim

point of view, it is quite refreshing to see a politician

actually use religion in a positive context. Whilst we may not need a

new Ten Commandments, I agreed with the words of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks,

whose words were quoted in a book, who says that Jews and Christians

should work together to reclaim the soul of Europe through but their

teaching us. I would go further and say, hang on, guys, work with the

Muslim community and Sikhs and Buddhists, because there are a lot

of social problems that we can address. Also work with atheists,

with non-believers. This has been the problem with Richard Dawkins,

that he has been so busy attacking what he sees as the superstition of

religion, but he has not focused on what atheists would also need. I

would add non-believers to your category, they deserve to be part

of an ethical project, as much as anyone else. I think you can learn

a lot from other religions. As a Sikh, I believe there is one God,

but it is one God for everyone, it doesn't much matter what religion

you will. We all believe in the same God, all religions are simply

different paths to the same God. As a Sikh, I believe there are things

which society could benefit from. Two which come to mind specifically

- one would be based on the words of the last of the living rooms,

which effectively mean, to recognise the whole of humanity as

one. Treat everyone equally. Have total equality in society,

regardless of gender, age, race, anything. And so it ties in to a

command and within the Christian faith. Very quickly, first of all,

the notion that people cannot practise the achievement of

goodness or the expression of love in its purest possible form,

without going through some kind of religious practice, and I am not

looking at you particularly, I think faith discourse... First of

all, I think faith societies try to place conversations around values

at the heart. I do not believe secular societies are anti faith.

It depends which society. The idea that the values expressed by the

world's religions cannot be experienced even in a spiritual

sense by people who are non- believers is something that we need

to challenge. They are really important values, and it is a

brilliant Potton discourse. Alain de Botton is reminding us

powerfully and clearly that Essex and morals are not the preserve of

religious beliefs. That's my first comment. -- ethics. My second is,

his attempt to put up a charter for aspiring to be good is completely

admirable. Read his charter, be a better person... Well, I liked a

lot of what he had to say, but the difficulty with it, from the

standpoint of somebody who used to be a Catholic and is now a atheist,

is this, that what we wanted to escape was the idea of Commandments,

the whole idea that our own rationality was not the source of

our ethical behaviour. There is a large number of ways at which we

can arrive at ethical behaviour. We do not need to ape religions, to

pretend that what we really are is religious people. One of the

delights of leaving the Catholic Church and becoming an atheist is

that us atheists are not required to believe in the infallibility of

process a Dawkins. -- in the infallibility of Professor Dawkins.

It is all fine, we work it out as we go along. Alain de Botton said,

most people will reason their way to Voce. I agree with you, because

I believe virtue is innate. My fear is the word most. Some will not.

Some do not. One of the reasons why the Ten Commandments works is

because some of them about saying, Obaid God. That is the compulsion.

If you do not have God, you reason your way to goodness but you are

not compelled to do good. That's the benefit of belief. It does not

always work but it means that the individual who has that compulsion

has something beyond themselves... Is it that the compulsion comes

from the threat of punishment? the aspiration to good which is

embodied in God. I have to go to science-fiction conventions for

work, and I have come up with a theory that you cannot get more

than three science-fiction fans in a group without some physical law

of the universe live in, and they start throwing their money out for

charity. I went to such a gathering in America, and they collected

3,500 units of blood from cling on as! It is a in something. And we do

have discussions about ethics in the public sphere. It is one of our

constant preoccupations. Of course, many of those ethics have been

written by Christian scholars. just codified. There is a beautiful

irony about the Ten Commandments, that they only work when you come

to them twice. You come to them first of all as a mirror, you look

at them, you measure yourself and you take a long, clear look at them.

And if you are like me, and Alain de Botton picked this up in his

book, how childish and simple and nasty we are. He picks it up so

often. So, use them as a mirror. That's the first time you come to

them. Can I finish? You find out that you are bankrupt. And then you

turn around for help, and you find, on the cross, God, taking all that

failure upon himself. Once you get that forgiveness, you go back to

the Ten Commandments, and you find them as a blueprint to flourish.

You look for moral guidance, and the moral guidance is what we have

been arguing about for the past 45 minutes. The Commandments are the

only part of the Bible which Christians more or less agree on.

But do they not need to be complemented by other ways of

thinking and being? Love thy neighbour is not in there, and some

argue it is one of the most important things in the Bible.

would say, if we do something because of fear, or an authority,

that means that if it were not written in the Ten Commandments,

would we do it? I think we have to do what we feel is right in our

conscience. If we follow the golden rule, whatever you do, make sure it

does not harm anyone else, if we just teach that to kids, rather

than... All too often in society, we look at the negatives, rather

than the positive. These 10 Commandments teach us about human

witness, and we look at, we should not do this. But they do not look

at what we should do. And we can always look at the negatives, but

we need to focus on the positives - we should try to be a better person,

to love your neighbour, the fundamentals of Christian belief.

But there is a new ones about it, thou shalt not lie - is it always a

bad thing to lie? As Muslims, we look at the Ten Commandments, and

we say, if you distill them, the essence of them is something we

identify with, but the exact wording might not be something we

subscribe to, necessary. Obviously, do not lie, if it means, you save

the life of an francs, then do lie, because it would be the right thing

to do. You can say, this is the right thing to do, but sociologists

and students of religion have studied with this for so many years

- how do you make people behave morally if you take away religion?

After the French religion -- revolution, there was a similar

argument. It was recognise that religion had a really important

social function in grounding people, which nothing else can replace.

What replaces it is community. When you are witnessed by others, that

is when your behaviour changes. So, what we need is a good form of

witnessing. You need a good moral atmosphere. When you have a

degraded moral atmosphere in society, any kind of behaviour is

possible. One at a time, thou shalt not all speak at once. You need to

create a moral atmosphere, where, when you behave in a bad way, a

nasty way, people react and respond, which is how communities have

always functioned. But it is profitable to do that. Bill Gates

is heralded as a moral centre! it says, though shot not, it means

that everybody was doing it, and there was a damn good reason for

telling them not to. We have become much more sophisticated. The way to

enforce that was true fear, with this Gellert, -- jealous, violent

God. We do not believe that God punishes anybody any more. In terms

of loving your neighbour, it is a very important point. There was

almost a competition between the rabbis to try to reduce the

Commandments down to one. One rabbi was asked to explain the whole of

teaching standing on one leg. He took the love your neighbour but he

turned it around, because you cannot love your neighbour as

yourself if you do not like yourself. But he said, whatever is

hateful to you, do not do to anybody else. If everybody took

that as a way of moving forward, it would build community and respect,

it see the things that we are talking about, whether you believe