Episode 21 The Big Questions

Should the British stop tolerating intolerance?

Good morning, I'm Nicky Campbell, welcome to The Big Questions.

We're at Patcham High School in Brighton to debate one very

Should the British stop tolerating intolerance?

This week's Ofsted report on the alleged Trojan Horse takeover by

Muslim fundamentalists of certain primary and secondary schools in

Birmingham caused widespread alarm that children in secular state

schools are being given a faith-based education

which does not adhere to modern values and freedoms.

More inquiries have yet to report, but it's clear the

David Cameron said we are giving a dangerous message.

Every British citizen has freedom of faith.

We all have freedom of speech as well.

And today of all days, the 799th anniversary of the signing

of the Magna Carta, we should remember it gave everyone the

freedom to go about their business subject to the laws of the land.

So, being British requires us to tolerate the ideas and actions

of others that we might personally find objectionable,

To debate this clash between our own beliefs and the duty to tolerate

other's freedoms to think and act very differently, we have assembled

a spectrum of political thinkers and commentators, a diversity of faith

leaders and a medley of believers and sceptics.

You can join in too, via Twitter or online.

Just log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions

and follow the links to where you can continue the discussion online.

And there'll be lots of encouragement and contributions from

Should the British stop tolerating intolerance?

There is a massive political row about Michael Gove, government

agendas, political interference, Ofsted, if we can talk about the

general issue, it looks like there are issues, this has been going on a

while, it was a private school, but in 2007 a London school had talks

describing Christians as apes and pigs. One school in Luton had books

which raised individuals who loved death more than life in pursuit of

their religion. Then, this radical preacher, some controversial views,

being invited to lecture in a state school. Do these things trouble

you? Of course, we should be teaching our children universal

values, what the true faith teaches, to do with respect, acceptance of

others, to be conscientious citizens, to be good to God. We

should be teaching models across the board. It makes you who you are. As

a believer, we are hard-wired to believe in God. If somebody does not

believe that, that is OK, I respect their view. I have two kids, I do

not send them to state school at the moment, we have been home-schooling

them, because our education system is failing our kids. By putting them

all in one school, giving them one set of curriculum to be taught, it

creates the ready meal style education programme. It does not

nurture the innate goodness of children, my kids speak four

languages fluently. How and why have these ideas crept into schooling? Is

a government, they have failed miserably in providing a clear

framework for ethical teaching. If you look at how the system is

divided, between private schools, grammar schools and state schools.

Why should the state school be left to rot? Why should they not have the

same funding? Why should we not invest in good schools, good

teachers and a good environment? Let's take it away from education.

On the subject of these views, surely schools should reflect the

areas in which they are operating in the communities in which they are

serving? If you have a community which is 95% Muslim, surely that

should be the focus of the school? That sounds like a Michael Gove

idea. Put aside what his ideas are, I believe in religious neutral

politics, despite a school in 98% Christian or Muslim, is if it is a

state school in a secular country such as Britain, it must not be

endorsing any form of religion. Though I agree with his critique of

the education system, where I would disagree is that schools do not have

any business teaching God consciousness, that is for the

parents to do. It is not the school's job. What has been going

on? People have been mixing, including Muslims, two issues,

social conservativism, and it is no body's business how socially

conservative somebody is, but when you impose that on an institution,

the imposition of it is extremism, and that is what is being objected

to. Nobody cares if somebody covers their hair, grows a beard, and if

they do, they are wrong. What about this row about this extremist who

said some disgusting things about stoning people and death for

apostate? He was not saying that in the school. You are a liberal, he

was not talking about those things in a school, he was doing a lecture

on religion. You should support his right to do that. I support the

legal right for him to speak, even if I disagree with those views, just

as if he was saying racist or homophobic bigotry. That does not

mean I tolerated in civil society, it means I challenge it, just as I

would challenge racism or homophobia or anti-Semitism. I do not put that

person in prison, school to have him there? Schools

should be getting the people who speak to children much more closely.

But I take issue with the idea that this reflects on a radicalisation,

because of some overzealous governors wanting to impose social

conservative moors on a school. The problem is that this government and

the government before it have allowed schools to develop a much

more independent ethos, allowing academies and free schools to give

governors a much greater say in how schools are run, in the ethos of how

the curriculum is defined. In doing so, it is same two communities, you

can define your local ethos according to your views, but when it

does not like the way in which communities form their

curriculum... It is the principles of Michael Gove. This government is

playing doublespeak, it cannot talk about the issue of cultural

isolation and support faith schools. Faith schools develop all sorts of

forms of cultural isolation. To suggest that as a form of extremism

suggests the government is supporting extremism in faith

schools. Bizarrely, education... That is what is needed.

By whom is it needed? As it happens, there are a lot of conservative

Christians in this country who object to the way... P to make his

point. They object to the way in which Christianity has been stripped

out of the school system, despite the fact it is supposed to be in the

system following the education act. It is a legal requirement.

Secularists quietly and unlawfully have removed Christianity from our

schools. We are a spiritual desert as a country, any kind of

Conservative religious opinion is constantly sneered at by people such

as this gentleman is being extremist or otherwise unacceptable. Extremist

means nothing, it means an unfashionable opinion. Let me come

back to Kevin. It does not surprise me

back to Kevin. It does not surprise being marginalised or not given the

status that they want to have, because they should not have that

status. Forgetting about the Muslim issue, in Britain there are schools

who will open and teach their children about creationism, that

evolution is a light and conspiracy. That is nonsense. I am funding that

is a taxpayer. That get back to the issue of the alleged extremism that

has been going on. Not the Trojan horse context, we do not want to

conflate two issues. 95% of children in a particular area of the Muslim

faith, you were complaining in your article that in one primary school

music was banned, but raffles and Tom Bonas were banned, do you want

to encourage Muslim children to gamble? What is your problem? Should

reflect the nature of the school? Gambling seems wrong. We are in the

middle of a debate, the nation is going through some very substantial

change. What we have been going through some very substantial

reflect this. Until recently, going through some very substantial

said two people -- going through some very substantial

people, what are British values, you would have got a fairly clear reply

along the lines of, a Protestant Christian country, we have

institutions of the state and the monarchy and so one. As one of the

results of the monarchy and so one. As one of the

there has been a substantial change, good things have come from that, and

some negatives. One thing is this confusion about what we are. We want

to be open and tolerant, we want people to be able to practice their

faith, and live their lives. What we are finding it hard to do is to work

out where our lines are drawn, because they are not clear. It may

prove impossible, it maybe we something like France did and try to

draw clear lines. There is a problem with some schools, state secular

schools... The problems exposed in the report are pretty serious, and

there is more to come. What is so serious in the report? These

children are at risk of cultural isolation, there have been findings

of children being taught to chant anti-Christian chants. It is

unpleasant sectarian stuff. None of the pupils were spoken to during the

investigation. The teachers were not spoken to either. We have a timidity

who live in an isolated way -- we have a community. I have no problem

with that if that is what they want to do. We do not create a fuss over

their community living in that way. Why cause a fuss over a report that

was made out of a hoax letter... You acknowledge there are issues. You

are talking about faith schools, we are talking about state schools.

That is the first thing. The second thing is, what should be taught in

schools? You should be teaching about religions. That does not mean,

you have to believe, but if we do not know what other people believe,

worry! You cannot force people to believe things. You cannot shoehorn

people in a particularly shaped Britishness. Know. And very

quickly, the dimension one of the interesting things that has come out

from this Trojan horse thing, a lot of Muslim groups have been furious

about these revelations and are denying them. This has happened in

the Catholic Church over the paedophilia scandal. People do not

want dirty laundry aired in public. Publicly wrong. That is why there is

this denial. This report found some disturbing things. This is the same

report from the man who did a U-turn on what God did or did not tell him?

Do you think this has been made up? Actually, there are serious

governance issues and there have been internal administrative issues.

Whether it is issues of extremism, which is what you are battling and

the publication you work for is peddling by publishing one of the

worst covers that I have ever seen in this country, suggesting that

young children are vehicles for extremism and terrorism. You should

be ashamed to be behind that. This is a very good example of the

problem. Miriam, you are a very prominent spokesperson, a prominent

convert to Islam. I do not call myself a convert. What ever you want

to go yourself, you have a voice. Here are the problems that have been

exposed in schools that seemed to be teaching seriously unpleasant things

and being taught by extremist Muslims. Why in this debate do you

deny this is going on? And secondly, the problem is the Spectator cover

cartoon? Miriam, respond to that? You are suggesting that you are

supporting the Michael Gove agenda, which says that there are issues in

the schools. And everyone, including the school campaign in Birmingham

and others have acknowledged that certain people should stand down as

a consequence of some of these revelations. The issue, however, is

trying to rebrand this as an issue of extremism in order to expand this

idea of extremism being non-violent ideas. Nick Griffin, if he had been

asked to come along and speak in this school... You would be...

Neither of the equivalence of these two were asked. His views are worse.

Anyone who supports Al-Qaeda in public or the ideology of Al-Qaeda,

anyone who supports... Who says that? He should not be invited to

address schools. Are you defending him? One at a time. You are saying

he is not as bad as Nick Griffin? You cannot compare the people

speaking in these schools. Let me finish my point. Please let me

finish my point. Allow me to speak. Anyone who believes installing

people to death, Nick Griffin has reprehensible views but he does not

believe that an adulterer should be stoned to death. Anybody who does

should not be invited to a school. And nor should... Wait, wait. Next

on the list is Dan Hannan. Not yet, please. There are a lot of people to

talk to. If we can agree that Nick Griffin should not be invited to

speak to children? Of course he shouldn't. Can I finish? If we agree

that, by application we should also agree that anyone who believes in

ideas more reprehensible should not be invited to speak at schools. It

is a moot point. It should not even be a debate. The fact that we are

defensive about that is illustrative of the problem. Nobody is defensive

about it. Daniel Hannon is next. I want to bring it back and I think

with future respect, you have both dealt with that issue and we're

going to park it for now. Daniel Hannon, MEP, we saw recently a

certain swing in a certain way at the European elections. And a

discomfort about certain things that are happening. But this is the crux

in this debate. We do we draw the line about in -- tolerating

intolerance. You tolerate object your behaviour to the point of

incitement. You tolerate eccentricity up to the point of

madness, offensiveness up to the point of harassment. Toleration

means you tolerate it. You tolerate things that you find utterly

appalling. British values? What are they? Today is the 799th anniversary

of the signing of Magna Carta. You could do worse than the spare

inscription that appears on that memorial in Runnymede. Freedom under

all. If you wanted to distil British values into one phrase, and in that

phrase is incorporated all the things that through the years made

this country a better place to live that than the authoritarian

alternatives. It implies a regular election, uncensored newspapers,

sexual equality, free assembly. So where there is not equality between

the sexes and we have segregation, whether it is going on or not in

public places, and people's belief that they should be modesty and some

form of separation, we hear that from the authoritarian right --

right wing groups. How do we clamp down on that? You tolerate those

views. Tolerating them is down on that? You tolerate those

same as teaching them in school. Every child born in this country,

where ever his parents came from is the heir to that same birthright

that began with the great Charter 800 years ago. And we cannot allow

our own sons and daughters in this country, whatever their parents came

from, to be denied a portion of that as a free society. That should go

without saying. Of course, once people have left school, they can

have whatever eccentric opinions they want but teaching people that

they are not just a they want but teaching people that

collection of individuals born to a different random collection of

individuals, that we different random collection of

together regardless of creed and race, that we have a British

identity and are connected to another, that is something that

should go for all our children. Liberalism with a small L.

Peter Hitchens, is that something we should fight for, to democratically

achieve the reality of liberalism? It is fascinating the way his

British values merchants are so coy about the real basis of the lunacy

which we enjoy, which is the form of Protestant Crips T and at which this

country adopted, which created the self restraint and strong belief

that law should be above power, because more derives from God, that

is what makes this country but they will not talk about it because many

of them are not Christians. They do not really believe these things.

That is what made us what we are. To try to generalise this into some

kind of human rights blancmange is to make a fundamental mistake about

how it came about to make a fundamental mistake about

need to defend... That is not true. I do not

need to defend... That is not true. people who make the loudest noise

about people who make the loudest noise

want to preserve it because many of them are allied with the principle

political lobby which has undermined its

political lobby which has undermined of open borders and mass

immigration, which has made it so difficult to sustain this country.

They were with you, Peter. But they have fallen out with you. Daniel

Hannon... That is just false history. It is true that a measure

of our individualistic culture can be said to have a Protestant basis.

Why do you think that was aimed at you? I don't think it was. It was.

Look at the phrase that appears in the charter. The law of the land.

Not the Kings Law or gods law, but a law that was imminent in the people

and the territory, that was the genius of the country. And that has

been our greatest export. The idea that the law is above the

government, the biggest guy in the country does not get to tell the

other people what to do, he is bound by something bigger than him, that

is the law inherent in all of us. Not a single person present at

Runnymede 799 years ago did not believe in the Christian God. How do

you know? That is nonsense. Atlanta's been waiting. Don't worry.

This is one debate in an entire hour. Adnan Rashid. Should we not be

really careful about what we teach our children? Should we be teaching

all children the great literature of Romeo and Juliet, the Shakespearean

plays? Otherwise, they are disconnected from the rest of our

culture and they need more cultural enrichment and just a sacred text.

Do you not agree? 100%. We must teach our children how to live in

this world. This is a complex multicultural world and we live in

it as a family. This is a perfect demonstration of a family. We are

all a family but we disagree with each other. A dysfunctional family!

Sometimes severely. I find some of the views here very objectionable.

Which ones? He is attacking Muslims for believing in things that Jews

believed in. There are Jewish rabbis that believe in the same things that

the sheik who came to lecture at the school believed in. I'll want to ask

you, do you see anything wrong with Jewish rabbis? Do you see anything

wrong with them? Exactly! Let him answer. That was a big question! A

big answer. So the Jews can believe in the Taarabt? -- Taira? What

aspect of Muslim belief did he decry? Everything he picks on in the

Muslim belief is believed by the Jews. The Jews believe in the

Taarabt and the -- believe in the Torah. I'd challenge her to come out

in public to condemn the Jews for believing in the same things. I do

not want him to do that and I'd defend the rights of the Jews to

believe in things they want to believe in. In a second, Laura. But

on this particular issue, I saw you on Newsnight the other night with a

gentleman who refused to, and a lot of people who do not understand the

complicity is of the ultimate aspiration of the Islamic state and

sharia law would have been aghast at his refusal to condemn stoning. What

is that about? I think they understand what is going on. Do you

understand the question? I think I do. The old Testament mentions

storming and I'd condemned on Newsnight a chap for not condemning

stoning women. If you are an atheist or Jewish or Christian or Muslim, if

you are a horse, and you call for stoning women to death, I will

challenge you and condemn you. I do not care what your religion is,

frankly. And I'd agree. I agree with him. You asked him a question. Why

do you not ask him the key question here? We could ask about stoning,

because I'm not sure what you are taking issue with, Adnan Rashid. My

take is Islam's take. If in an Islamic state, under sharia

conditions, in principle I would condemn stoning a woman to death. Do

you, with sharia conditions present, condemn stoning women who are

idolatrous? -- adulterous? There is no yes or no. Can I ask him and a

question? Why is there no yes no no. Answer to his question. -- eye and

showed his question. Wait, wait... Are you answering yes or no? There

is no yes or no. I find what you say extremely distasteful. The tone you

have used about the Jews and Jewish rabbis, the stoning, it is

incredibly distasteful. I defend the rights of the Jews to believe what

they want to believe in. I would find it uncomfortable if you started

defending me, because I would find it untrustworthy after what you

said. Anybody who uses text to defend violence, stoning, is wrong.

If there is a faith school or a state school that is teaching it, I

object to bit, because I believe in the role of the land, and schools

are there to teach, they do need supervision, the government should

not get rid of their responsibilities by handing these

things over, and any violence from whoever, from whatever type of

faith, should be condemned. Sorry I have wasted so long before I have

come to do! You are an educational social worker. You understand this

area. It is not so much what people believe, it is the fact of imposing

those beliefs on children who have not yet had the chance to make an

informed decision. Absolutely, that is what makes it difficult. If

professional teachers can do their job properly, their job is found

equipping young people to make informed choices about what is being

said and the speaker. If we do not teach about a multiplicity of faith

is in schools, it is uncomfortable, it will involve them hearing things

that I do not agree with, but if we do not equip them to make

judgements, they will be badly let down. It is about allowing teachers

to do their jobs properly. Talking about Birmingham, in a previous role

I had, I visited a Catholic run people referral unit, which was

doing good things with pupils who were struggling in the educational

system, and the leader said, I can stand in front of them and say, as a

Catholic, I believe those things. I believe I am loved by God

unconditionally, and as a Catholic, I can say that, and in schools

today, people are afraid to say that. I heard tell of one particular

catholic school, they were telling five-year-olds about burning in

hell. You do not need to be a Catholic or a Christian, you just

need to be a sentience human being to find that unacceptable. Why we

seem to think that this is something that is happening to other people,

that it is only Muslim schools, we have to turn the light on ourselves

and say, as Christians, we have some shady parts of our own past around

extremism and views that people find unacceptable, I do not understand

why we associate -- disassociate ourselves from that. It ill behoves

any of us to make judgements about that being the sole was possibility

of the Muslim immunity -- community. The single most disturbing thing I

have heard was how, in a conversation about who is and isn't

allowed into secular schools, we got into the Jews. How did that happen?

Travelling around the world, I have got that in other countries, it is

not something I expected to hear in a conversation in this country on

television. I find that chilling. One thing that I strongly agree

with, we are not talking about a faith community, we are talking

about bad behaviour by some individuals. I have been elected for

15 years, I have Muslim constituents, a number of them have

got themselves elected, the new leader of the Conservative group in

the European Parliament is a fairly devout believing Muslim, he keeps

the fast. But being British, he hates talking about his faith, but

in a quiet way, he has done his best to live is a good Muslim. The

difference between him and Adnan Rashid, he has got himself elected

to something, and he is more representative of the British

Muslims I have in my constituency than people who have not taken the

trouble to get a mandate in the ballot box for any of their

opinions. I stood in the last parliamentary election. I believe in

the democratic process as a way to put our interests, the interests of

the community first. I heard people say, those Muslims, the Muslims.

This fashionable word, disgusting word, you can attack the Muslims,

the culture is becoming the problem. It had become fashionable to talk

against the Muslims. It is becoming worse day by day. I went to

Birmingham the other day, I spoke to some parents and some teachers and

some pupils, they all said, we are scared of being Muslims. That is a

terrible state of play. We do not want to do that any longer. We want

to create a society where we all feel respected. Islam has a

contribution to make. If it was not for the Muslims to translate the

Greek into Latin, we would not see the industrial world today. We need

to create an inclusive society and not preach this hatred that is

dominating our discourse. We had 400,000 Muslim soldiers who came and

fought in this country for our values in the First World War, more

in the Second World War, they came as volunteers, to take up arms for a

country on which they have never set eyes, because they felt our values

were better than the alternative. Our values? We both live in this

country. Michael Gove excludes everybody else. He identifies Islam

as the poisonous, pernicious religion that needs to be fought at

all costs. You have made an elision between Islam and terrorism. That is

what Michael Gove is doing. We need to talk about British values with a

bigger agenda, how we can create an inclusive society where Muslims, the

Jewish community, Hindus, Sikhs, people with no faith, have a stake.

Gentleman, let's hear from your constituents, you stud as a Liberal

Democrat. You are all for democracy. The gentleman at the back. To be

British is an idea of freedom, united our country, the

Commonwealth, the English people, and it is enshrined in John Stuart

Mill, everybody can practice their happy life, but when it takes away

the freedom from other people to practice their happy life, that is

why the British state has to be strong in mediating boundaries. I

defend everyone's right to practice their religion in any interpretation

they choose if that is an extreme interpretation, but they do not have

the right to stop a citizen criticising religions, writing

books, making films. The British state has to be really strong to

find the boundaries. That is a really good definition,

the most godless city in England. The most godless city? Apart from

Barnsley. This is important, we have one of the highest rate of young

people's suicide. Is that because it is godless? You mentioned the word

allegedly, if we are debating that, we ought to look at where our feet

are. When two people in a family are having a row, the children suffer.

When two neighbours are having a row, the streets offers. When the

street is having a row, the community suffers. We are looking at

an elephant in the room. If we keep talking about Muslims in

Birmingham, we are missing the point that children on our own doorsteps

are dying, suffering from mental illness, and poverty is the root

cause of this. The media are looking to sell more newspapers, and how

exciting is it to keep commenting on what one person has said, talking

about something that everybody is going to disagree with. I would not

have the faintest idea whether Brighton was or wasn't a godless

city. How do the people in Brighton relate to each other? Might

experience of visiting Brighton fairly regularly is it is a great

place to visit, I love the warmth of the reception, the interaction I

have with people. I do not know whether they are Muslims, Jews, in

Jews -- Hindus, atheists, it is irrelevant. There is something

fundamental here, a parallel process in the document that is going on.

The question is, should we be tolerant of intolerance? I doubt if

anybody would say, yes, we should we tolerant of intolerance. We should

not, but there are certain. We should not go beyond. We said levels

where we say, culturally, we will not go beyond that. We do not need a

priest to tell us. I believe that freedom of speech and thought are so

valuable that we should defend them at all costs. If you cannot defend

the freedom of speech of people with whom you profoundly disagree, that

is no freedom. All of this use of view at extremism in this

discussion, they are practising extremism, the suggestion that it

will lead on to the commission of terrorist acts, this seems to be

very dangerous for freedom of thought. Many ideas which I hold,

when my parents helped them, they were commonplace, but now they are

eccentric and outrageous, they are increasingly classified as

extremism. How long is it... I am clearly about to finish my point.

How long is it before the classification of such ideas as

extremism leads to restrictions on freedoms of speech? We should be

careful. I disagree with a lot of what Muslims think and say, there

are many disputes and criticisms I have, but they should be free to

express them, not least so we can know what they are. We speak at

last, you believe there is an issue. Quite a lot of people come

here because it is a tolerant country, but I note you feel

here because it is a tolerant often persecuted. They are

persecuted, in hard secular regimes, Christians are not free to practice

their beliefs, in hard Islamic regimes, Christians are not free to

practice their beliefs. We have to look at the root of why our country

has been known as the land of the free and the brave, where our

education systems and Parliamentary systems have been emulated across

the world. It goes back to the Magna Carta, but the inspiration behind

the David Carter was Jesus Christ and Kristian Etty -- Christianity.

That has given us our freedom and flourishing. As we experience social

cultural chaos and a deep sense of loss in terms of our identity, we

get this collision of ideas, suppression and oppression. The

reality of Christianity is it is welcoming and hospitable and does

not coerce, it hosts. What we are finding with a secular regime and as

director of the Christian legal Centre is that Christians are losing

their jobs for offering prayer, holding opinions in schools, they

will not decide over same-sex marriages, and this is reality. A

reality of working at the centre is this, in the last month, we have had

women who have been born and raised in London and in London schools and

at London University 's who have wanted to leave Islam, and they have

been threatened with their life if they leave Islam. They are not

coming from Saudi Arabia or northern Nigeria, they are coming from

London, Birmingham, Bradford. We cannot tolerate the threat of

women... Miriam... I think the debate on tolerance must split. I

believe that that does happen. People are told me they have been

threatened. It happens here and there come from the community. But

think the splits into two. Legal tolerance of bigotry exists in this

country for good reason because we need to hear extremist views and

vent them in a democratic process. But in civil society does not mean

that we promote, teach, or endorse racism, homophobia anti-Semitism or

any other form of bigotry, whether it is justified by God or any other

ideology. And anti-Muslim hatred. That is the distinction we have to

make. Should we ban the Torah? That is my question. Can we start by

banning the Torah? Why are you obsessed with the Jews?! I am

pointing out your inconsistencies. Rabbi Laura and Miriam,

lovely. Is it the duty of faith leaders to encourage people of faith

to see their faiths in a modern context? And what does matter mean?

With doubt. Doubt is a great inoculation against fundamentalism.

We should question and we should learn about our faith and other

faiths. It is our role as faith leaders to teach in a modern way and

that means about ourselves and other religions, with questions. No

absolute certainties? I am absolutely sure about that. Miriam,

what about that, people standing up and saying, because there is a sense

of solidarity within faith and communities, and if one is attacked,

there is a feeling that everyone is being attacked. Do you understand

where I am going with this? Is it not time to stand up and actually

condemn more when we hear outrageous things? I do not know where you are

going with that and I'm going to choose to pretend that I do not know

where you are going. Rabbi Laura kind of addressed it. Yes. I would

like to come back to this idea that for me, faith leaders should teach

what they think is right. And schools should teach critical

faculties which allow us to distinguish twin solid arguments and

unsubstantiated arguments. And that is it. Those are the divisions. And

that is extremism. Extremism is saying that this is what you must

think and this is the truth. I'm trying to say that faith leaders

should stand up and say that this is not what you should think this is

something with philosophical flat ability. Back to Michael Gove, we

should be teaching our children how to think. The greatest gift you give

a child is the skill to think, the critical functions to think. When we

tell a child that this is what you must think when Michael Gove says

you must read this book and you cannot read that book... Michael

Gove has not said you cannot read that book. This is almost as

obsessive as saying it is all about the Jews. There's a curriculum and

we encourage people to read the best literature. One of the things that

David Cameron... You say that we have to believe in something. We

cannot teach in a void. What has given us our freedom is our

Christian heritage. The believe in nothing, to believe in

existentialism... Can we not believe in freedom and democracy? Those

ideals come from a Christian backdrop. I am not sure. When I'm

teaching my children, do this and do not do that, I have to tell them

that this is wrong and this is right but the reasons for right and wrong

IDs. We give them absolutes, as I think, and they're also give them

rationale. Without absolutes, they would be confused. I believe, and

this is an experience I have had with my daughter, eight years of

teaching children has convinced me that there are more needs for

absolutes. If society did not have absolutes, we would be doing all

sorts of things without coming together, that would keep us apart.

As a faith leader, is it your duty to bring beliefs up-to-date, or... ?

Contemporary interpretation as a Muslim is a must, as far as I'm

concerned. It is wrong of me not to. Constantly renewing the verdict is a

key value of Islam. But not to an extent that you would say that equal

marriage is OK? You would stick to ancient beliefs on that? Italy says,

can we abolish prior or end fasting in the month of Ramadan, can we take

it to December when the days are short? We cannot make those changes

because they are absolutes in the grand. If you take them away, you

might as well not have Islam. I'm saying that contemporary

interpretation would imply, how do white practice my face, for example

in Norway where the sun does not set? As far as I'm concerned, Islam

does not accept equal marriage. And both sides need to stay with their

views. I believe on one view and others believe differently. That

creates a level playing field in which we can tolerate one another.

And that is the good reason why the state is secular because he has the

right to say that and the state will conduct equal marriage and marriage

between a man and a man and a woman to a woman and will not listen to

that. If he wants to do it in his home, he can follow that view but

the state is not obliged. And that is called equality before the law.

I'd think it is useful to listen to the Bishop Holloway, who said the

opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty. I wanted to mention, it

comes back to something said earlier, the period we are in, of

rethinking things, that is what the Prime Minister has been writing this

morning, everyone is trying to nail down these values. In the reaction

to Andrei APPLAUSE comments, nobody seems to be keen on admitting, and I

speak as a secularist, on admitting that Christian -- the Christian

origin of some of these things. We cannot write our heritage out or

pretend it was something else. One of the things that is being done on

this, there is this attempt to accomplish the Li Na -- encompass

everyone in these great values. Freedom, tolerance, good, but there

is a risk in this. It comes back to always highlighting gay marriage,

something I am in supportive of, there is a risk that the build-up

this value system on white ground, to encompass everyone, but it might

also be ground and that is very shallow. I would suggests that some

of the things we are talking about, if we are identifying the country on

some of those lines, it prove to be, too shallow for some

people. Peter, you said in your column today that the whole thing...

I will come to you, Peter. You are very insistent. I am in a

91-year-old gay man. Following what the gentleman has said, I am living

in a relatively gay friendly the gentleman has said, I am living

Brighton. I have been in and 18 year long loving relationship with my

partner. I campaign to combat homophobia. I used to say to people,

please understand, I have been married and had three children, but

I have always been gay. People said, you cannot possibly be gay! I did

not choose to be, but I am gay. Now I've stopped as people to understand

because I do not understand myself. So I know say to people, please

accept! Accept, sexuality! -- homosexuality! Peter, you said in

your column today, finding a definition of Britishness,

your column today, finding a described it as squelchy, impossible

to define. What is Britishness to you? It is impossible to define and

I do not believe you can define it by anyway other than the way in

which it is being destroyed. What does David Cameron mean? He does not

know what he means, he is just talking about political advantage.

The nation state which our support is the largest unit in which it is

possible to be effectively on selfish. We have that, and now that

we do not necessarily share a religion or language or a belief in

certain laws and customs, we do not it is a regrettable change that has

overtaken this country but one which is irreversible. How we work out how

to live with our new neighbours in peace and harmony is going to be

very difficult. I do not think it will be British and I think we have

lost that. It will be something else and we can mourn its lost but to

pretend we can be something else and we can warn it's lost but to pretend

we can recreated with speeches... I think British values are easy to

define. It resides in the elevation of the individual about the state

and the law of the government. In constitutional principle. You might

say that those values are universal, but how did they become universal

values? Imagine that but how did they become universal

the Cold War had ended differently. There would be nothing universal

about these values. They developed overwhelmingly in the language that

we are now talking. And they were exported, if we are honest about it,

victories by English-speaking victories by English-speaking

peoples, and thank God they were. Imagine of those conflicts had ended

differently and we were living in a system that elevated the state over

the individual. There is nothing universal about that. There are two

mad ways to say British values, you can say British, you are out or

British with warmth. Let's say that British values are one thing and it

is expensive. -- are a warm thing. British values, squelchy or clear?

Do not mean that personally. -- I do not mean. Miriam. Obviously, there

is a debt to Christianity in this country and there is no reason to

pretend that there is not. It is part of our history. But there is

also a debt to other trends and ideas and acknowledging that is part

of recognising that what it meant to be British in Peter's parents

generation is not the same as what it means to be British today. It is

the redefinition of what means to be British. Britishness, what is it all

about? I am in Road Muslim and are lobbying in Britain. It is a

tolerant society and the British people are tolerant and loving. -- a

proud Muslim. What is happening right now is that some politicians

are making this country look ugly. It is a beautiful country and it

must remain so. I'd defend the freedom of every individual who

lives here according to the law. Thank you very much. The last word?

To me, Britain has given me what it should. It is more Islamic than most

Muslim countries. In itself, that says a lot to me. It is where I can

Pty am, free to express myself and have my children grow. Can be proud

of my and everything. But some of these values are universal. I want

to be a proud citizen of the world with these values are practised by

everybody. I think we are going to get one last word from Michael. It

is a feeling and we love being here and that feeling is what we need to

promote so that everyone who wants to make this country more secure

going forward. I want to ended there, on harmony. -- and if there,

on harmony, before we go for lunch together.

As ever, the debate will continue on Twitter and online.

This is the end of this series but we?ll be back next year

Until then, have a great summer and goodbye

to the cutting-edge science that's driving it,

Horizon investigates one of the biggest mysteries