Episode 5 The Big Questions

Today on The Big Questions: Taking more refugees,

unforgiveable sins, and shop till you drop on Sundays.

Today we're live from King Edward VI School in Southampton.

Welcome, everyone, to The Big Questions.

On Monday a letter was sent to the Prime Minister from 126

economists, who unusually for the so-called dismal science,

They said: "The costs in human wellbeing of the refugee crisis

are so extremely high that it is morally unacceptable

for the UK not to play a fuller part in taking in refugees."

20,000 resettlement places over five years is dubbed too low,

And given the United Kingdom is the world's fifth largest

economy, the economists say we should be doing far more.

On Thursday, at the special London conference called to raise more

funds to help Syrian refugees, the Prime Minister pledged another

?1.2 billion over the next four years, making ?2.3 billion

Those funds will be spent on helping refugees settled in camps in Turkey,

But there was no promise to increase the numbers welcome to Britain

beyond the current limit of 20,000 refugees over five years.

Is Britain's response to the refugee crisis morally unacceptable?

Let's speak to Dr Brendan Burchell. Good morning. You are responsible

for the letter and it was written on Monday. Since then a lot more

funding has been made available. I know you welcome that. In terms of

numbers in this country, why do you believe we are falling so far short?

If you look at the sheer scale of the crisis, and we emphasise this in

the latter, we are talking about millions of people forced out of

their homes because their homes have been bombed or they have been

tortured or they are fleeing in fear for their lives. Stabilising the

situation on the borders with camps there and being able to look after

people at that point is important and the money will be central to

that. But we cannot keep 5 million people on those borders for years to

come until peace returns to Syria and the country is rebuilt for those

people to return. In hellish circumstances. Hellish. A lot of

them have already left the area, not because they chose rationally to

leave, but because they were fleeing, trying to find safety

somewhere, and they have come to Europe under atrocious conditions.

Even last month another 250 were drowned in the Mediterranean. They

cannot let the situation carry on where they are being forced to take

further risks even after they leave Syria. 20,000 over five years is

something like 12 per day. Could we take ten times that number over five

years? If these people are shared across Europe, and many countries in

Europe have shown willingness to take a fair share, then we are

talking about much higher numbers. 12 date we are not going to with

millions of people in that way. -- 12 per day. There isn't a problem

with taking more numbers. Hundreds of thousands perhaps? It is

difficult to put a number on it and I would not want to. Europe is a big

place with 500 million people in Europe so 1 million in that if they

drop in the ocean. Peter Hitchens, we have the space and we need to do

more for these refugees. I wonder if he is willing to take four people

into his own home and if not, just urging other people to do it seems

empty to me. He keeps saying cannot and must not,

as if the argument had already been had. A lot of us have the impression

this country is already full, especially if you live in poorer

areas and you have to cope with medical services, housing shortages,

school shortages. We would not necessarily benefit the less well

off having more people living here, whoever they are. And what is the

logical connection between saying that people need refuge from a war

in Syria and saying they should come to live here? There is not one.

There are many other solutions to their problems. The most important

solution is to stop lamenting the war in Syria that we along with the

United States, Saudi Arabia and France did so much to create. And

also start putting pressure on the people that we packed in Syria

initially to stop refusing to accept the continued rule of President

Assad and come to a negotiated settlement that will allow these

people to go home and rebuild Syria and stop being refugees in the first

place. That is our priority. Arguing that other people should put up with

taking in large numbers of people does not seem to be a particularly

moral position. You may be right in her long-term. We need to talk about

the refugees now. I was in those refugee camps 80 years ago because

my mother was a child refugee coming in from Nazi Germany, not Syria.

What was different then was that Britain opened their heart to

refugees and it was 10,000 children and Britain was about to go to war.

Our economy was much worse and yet we did it and it worked and it is

something we should do not every day but once in a generation. We can

afford it? We can. The comparison is entirely false. Those people were

fleeing mass extermination and that is not the case in Syria. We cannot

always use the Nazis as a way of trumping the Russian argument. You

are right in saying all the situations are different, but I

think the Second World War is a good example, and there are other

examples, there was concern taking in large numbers, much larger than

we are talking about now, but we did it and we were not as rich then as

we are now, and we did a very good job of it. Those people have

contributed enormously to the economy of the UK. So there could be

an economic benefit mid-term and long-term to take a large number of

people in? We have a slightly different answer to that. There are

clearly some costs involved. Taking the bigger picture, the costs are

relatively small compared to the benefits. And certainly in

situations in the past, we have actually benefited hugely. One of

the reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to be more

generous in the budget we had last year was because we have had a

windfall coming from migrants who come to this country. There are

costs. We need to plan for that but we are good, a rich country, and

very good at planning for these things. Are their cultural

challenges? Are there challenges for Christianity in this? Of course

there are many Christians among the refugees but we have got to beat

clear-headed about this. It is not just economic migration and we

cannot just talk about economic benefits and losses. We need to look

at a number of things that one is compassion. Whoever comes to Europe

must be met and has been met I think, largely, in many countries,

by compassion. Much of the work that is being done is being done by

churches and other religious groups, and that is great. But the questions

about policy are different. Every nation has got to consider the

security implications for example. What are they? We now know that Isis

and argued at using this route to infiltrate. -- and Al-Qaeda. Not all

refugees are like this of course. If we don't sort the situation out and

help these people, we give space to these people. Of course but Europe

must play its part in what is happening, but not only Europe.

There are other countries. I have just got back from the USA and there

is a big debate about the numbers there, quite rightly. Canada,

Australia, South Africa and so on. The main question that is not being

asked is what is the Arab League doing about this? Kuwait was told to

take refugees, and they said we are not taking any because they are not

like us. The organisation of Islamic cooperation, what are they doing

about it? I was in Bosnia during the civil war there, and many countries,

Islamic as well as others, took people from Bosnia. So this has got

to be a global solution to a problem. But of course, also

addressing the conflict in Syria, a country that has deliberately been

destabilised and ruin. There was a consensus in Syria, a very diverse

country, where there was some personal freedom and some religious

freedom in exchange for restrictions on political freedom. Let me focus

you on the debate in hand. Of course that is a very important

conversation and significant debate that will go on for many a long

year. Theo Hobson, let me come back to the challenge to this country.

The cultural challenge and also religious challenge which some

people are talking about. You said earlier when we were having a cup of

coffee that we don't want another situation like Cologne. What did you

mean? I think there is a factor of people being nervous of immigration.

We have a huge level of economic migration to this country at the

moment and if it were not for that, I think we could stake in more

Syrian refugees. But because we already have so much economic

migration, people naturally feel, well, maybe that is enough, and we

are wary of the distinction. We do not really believe in the

distinction between economic migration and asylum seekers,

refugees. It is true that distinction is incredibly blurred

these days. People fleeing could stop long before they get to Britain

because they are free of the Syrian war. Articulate what you mean by the

cultural challenges. Diane Makro the cultural challenges likely that they

are Muslim is coming from Syria and people feel that we have a lot of

Muslim is already and that could cause trouble. We are unable to

assimilate the numbers we do have at the moment. Pushing much further,

people are wary of that. What do you think of that view? The human cost

of this crisis, probably one of the biggest crises the world has seen

since World War II is what makes it without any doubt an exceptional for

the international community, Europe and specifically the UK not to take

the bigger role in addressing, managing and even stopping the war.

So of course from a political perspective of course the war has

got to be ended and there should be political pressure on the Syrian

Government. What is the morality behind letting hundreds of thousands

of people freeze in the Mediterranean sea because we cannot

accept them because we are afraid of the religion? Do you think people

are afraid? They are because there is a culture and language of racism

and xenophobia. They are giving those refugees a picture, an image,

like they are coming from a specific religion, that they are terrorists

basically, that is not the truth. They're not dying in the

Mediterranean sea because we are rejecting them. That is not the

fact. It is true. People leave Syria and arrive in Turkey and then they

cease to be refugees because they have left Syria and they are now

safe. Wait a minute. This is an important point. If you are going to

say that people are dying in the sea because we are not taking them in, I

have to challenge it because it is simply not true. It is a slur in

this country and it is a highly misleading statement to make. It

emotional lives is what should be a reasoned debate by claiming

something that is flatly untrue. These people do not need to drown in

the sea. People are dying because there is a war in Syria. I want to

hear from the audience. Would you take in a refugee and... Go on.

People are dying because there is a war in Syria. I just want to make

one more point. People risk... Tens, hundreds of people are sitting in

one dinghy that should take 20 people and taking the risk, the

journey from Turkey to Greece. We hear horrible stories. 10,000

children have now disappeared. But they are coming from Turkey. They

have already reached safety before they get into the dinghy. We must

hear from the audience and Richard and Francis. Anyone in the audience?

The lady there? A very good Sunday morning to you. Should we be taking

more refugees from the camps? I was going to say shouldn't we focus on

the past and whether there is an exodus and in the Bible who looked

after those people? The numbers are not clear. Why can't we think that

way? OK, think in biblical terms. The gentleman on the other side.

Hello. The intermediate position is what you are talking about but the

immediate situation is a humanitarian crisis. Just at that

level alone to be able to change the shape of the conversation,

particularly those that have influence and power, to speak

differently about the immediate need, which is humanitarian, and to

show compassion as the Bishop said. It is an opportunity for the nation

to show compassion. Michael. Hello. That is you, isn't it? I know that

because you are speaking later about something else. Letters bring it

home. I am always passionate about the refugees but who is willing to

take somebody into their own home and help them. Put your hand up if

you are. If we all care so much... You would be willing to take

refugees into your home? If I had a spare room and the means to support

them, absolutely. And who would not? Richard, you wouldn't? Why not?

Let's hear from Richards. The trouble with this debate is that it

assumes that we should, that it is morally raked to turn a refugee into

a migrant and to treat that person with the same status, people who

could not go home. Reasonably we are saying that most of these people,

millions of suffering Syrians that they will end up, with luck, going

home. In the meantime, in what sense is it morally sensible, the kind

thing to do, to assume that what they need is resettlement. There is

now home to go to. Not now, but the larger the problem, the bigger US

and the numbers are, the less likely it is that they will be resettled

elsewhere. The right thing to do is to say this is not going to be a

happy business but in situ, or as near as possible, they will be

there, live, we hope, educated, civilised lives. On the assumption

they will soon, let's hope sooner rather than later, be back, very

busy rebuilding their country. When the government fails to do so we are

seeing a lot of people, European residents taking action. I can Rick

Fehr to many examples. -- I can revert to many examples. Today it's

a political crisis in Syria, tomorrow it is an environmental

crisis in Europe. Would you want a host country to welcome you? I think

global warming is a good example, it is entirely impossible but we will

soon see climatic pressures over the world but I don't think the answer

is likely to be that those millions of people can come north, the

solution will have to be sorting it out in situ. Is that practical to

use this money, a considerable amount of money from the government,

people at aid agencies are hugely encouraged by the amount of money

but is it practical to work on creating a civilised life for those

people, education, jobs, in situ? Possibly, but I am sceptical. But if

it does happen it will take years to build up. We have people who are

fleeing now, even over the weekend. People are being bombed in Aleppo.

The fact of the situation on the Turkish border is we cannot

guarantee people's safety and the opportunity to recover from their

wounds and trauma in that situation. Yes, let's use that money to change

the situation. But there seems to be no alternative as the Bishop says

but for us to treat this as a global problem. I very unusual and unique,

fortunately these things only happen very occasionally, but we must act

now if we are not going to allow millions of people, millions of

people who have lost their homes, those people need to be looked

after. Why is it assumed that there is only one form of compassion,

namely the is only one form of compassion,

compassion is to allow them to live in Britain? There are many other

compassion is to allow them to live forms of compassion, helping them

where they are, helping them get home, making sure that where they

are the live as home, making sure that where they

and much more practical and make much more sense.

and much more practical and make to seize this opportunity to argue

for the opening of the National borders? That is exactly what you

are arguing for. There is no logical connection between the two. Don't

claim a monopoly of compassion for your political situation. We are not

claiming we should open the borders, we are claiming we can manage the

situation very well, we are good at controlling the borders, we have

good ways of determining who is a genuine refugee and two is an

economic migrant. We have a lot of compassion in the country, many

people in the communities out there showing a lot of willing and

capability to help these people resettle. Do you have any idea of

the proportion of genuine refugees and migrants? You say it is easy to

distinguish but others would say it is not. It is not easy but we have

the apparat is to distinguish. What we do know is that people coming

from different parts of the world, when we do these tests, have

different portions of people we deem to be genuine refugees and from

Syria almost all of them passed that test. But not all the people coming

are bronze Syria, less than 40% are, they are from the rest of the region

and beyond. But the real point is most of the refugees from Syria are

in the region, millions of them. The people who are moving are actually

quite a small number and they tend to be the better off, those who can

pay the traffickers to move them in these boats that they are talking

about, they are not just taking these boats themselves. I think the

British government policy to concentrate on the welfare of the

people in the camps, in Jordan, in Turkey and Lebanon is the right one.

That is will help is needed. May I just finish, may I just finish.

Those people who are living in those camps in those countries could be

helped by some steps which do not require money. Taken in those

countries. For instance, Jordan could allow people to work legally.

That would help. Micro-enterprise could be started in the camps so

that women and men have jobs they can do and earn money. Where is the

market for the micro-enterprise? There is an internal market in the

camps, these are huge, I have been to them, has anyone else been to

these camps? These are huge places with activity, already some economic

activity and that should be encouraged. Jonathan knew are a

great supporter, you have been on the programme in the past with your

passionate and eloquent support of the state school system in this

country. People are concerned the state school system in some parts of

the country could not cope with 100,000 people over five years,

maybe 200,000 people over five years. Are those fears are

misplaced? It is argued this will fall on the head is of the poor

people in society. Is there a problem? It is a genuine problem for

the government, they do want to help but are afraid of being accused of

encouraging immigration. Do we have the infrastructure in the welfare

system to cope? Let the people decide. There are those who would

like to foster or adopt children, why don't they let that happen and

the government can act as a vetting centre to make sure the children are

safe. Let people open their homes. Can the welfare system cope? It

would surely need much more investment, can the schools cope?

Yes, they can, with goodwill, common sense and compassion of course we

can cope. We are so much richer than other parts of the world. You will

get a chance later, Kevin, don't worry about it. Quick question is

this moral or is it not? What the government has done is a good start

but the reality is that it is not just about Syria, it is what is

happening in Iraq, is that Genesis? If it is then we take them in

because it is like what happened... Is it general side? I think the

particular targeting of a community, the kidnapping of women, persecuting

committees, it looks like genocide. We have form, we did it with the

Vietnamese, we did it with the Bosnians, we have form of doing this

and if the poor will be put upon in other parts of the country lets make

the south the dispersal area and not one bit on the north and Cardiff. We

have to leave it there, thank you for your contributions.

If you have something to say about that debate,

log on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions, where you'll find links to join

We're also debating live this morning from Southampton

So get tweeting or emailing on those topics now or send us any other

ideas or thoughts you may have about the show.

It's Pancake Day on Tuesday, or Shrove Tuesday, to give

And properly it's not about scoffing pancakes

sins, confessing your misdeeds and doing penance for them

But can confession, however contrite, really wipe

Kevin, I promised I would come to you and here we are, you are a

lapsed Catholic. CHUCKLES At the moment. There is still time

for your salvation. Psychotherapist as well. You see a lot of troubled

people. Do you think, sins is a word you would not necessarily embrace, I

know that, but are some sins unforgivable? I agree completely

that if you look at forgiveness in this context you have good thing sin

and forgiveness and then you get wrapped up in religion which came

along and codified social constructs of behaviour and called them sins. I

think forgiveness is about something far bigger than that. I think some

sins, for want of a better word, sometimes question is, are

unforgivable. Such as? I don't think you can do a shopping list, religion

gives you a shopping list and is more a social response. But let's

select one, sexual abuse for one. Victims of sexual abuse are often

told come to therapy, come and see someone like me, have some therapy

and use that therapy to get to the point where you can forgive the

perpetrator, you can forgive the abuser. Without that you cannot

really move on with your life, to have a fulfilled life you have two

forgive you abuser. I actually think that the best use of therapy is to

understand you cannot and the outcome of therapy is to give up the

search for forgiveness and say that this happened to me, I am likely

angry about it and will remain to some extent rightfully angry but I

am going to live my life with that experience in my life and deliver a

fulfilled life. To do that I don't need to forgive the perpetrator. I

think there are other examples of things people do which our

transgressions on society, transgressions of the social group,

that cannot be forgiven because the individual does not show inside or

an understanding of what happened, does not show any personal

transformation, does not own what they have done. What does that mean?

I think to all what you have done is to have a genuine understanding of

what you have done, why it transgressed, why it was a problem,

why it was an insult to society and broke social rules. Blasphemy is

seen as a very big crime. Blasphemy is interesting... Some would say it

is victim was crying. It is interesting, in the concept of sins,

if you go to a biblical definition, the one sin which cannot be forgiven

is the sin of blasphemy. All others can be forgiven by God but he will

not forgive the sin of blasphemy. As an atheist... I don't know where

your information is coming from. He is a lapsed Catholic! You said it

was Shrove Tuesday but it is Ash Wednesday which is the beginning of

Lent and that is when we seek forgiveness. Religion did not come

along, psychotherapy came along, religion was there from the

beginning! Psychotherapy is only about 100 years old. But the thing

about, I think what has been said, which is absolutely correct, the

words to use our remorse, repentance and a willingness to make

restitution. If that is not there the sin is unforgivable because we

don't want to be forgiven. Again and again we are told in the court that

he showed no remorse at all for his crimes. That might be because of

your life and the way you have been treated and what has happened in

your environment, you might have been brutalised. That maybe so but

nevertheless I think it is possible, this is the Christian gospel, it is

possible for everyone to show mask, to repent like prodigal son and make

restitution for what they have done. I think forgiven people who have

sinned against us is important because if we don't then we have

lessened ourselves. May I just finished? That is not the same as

what the state does with wrongdoing. That is a different matter, the

state has two act against the kind of social wrong which has been done.

Sorry I called you Michael earlier. Mark, your son was killed. You have

forgiven, haven't you? How did you manage to do that? I think the

famous words of Max wrap it up pretty well. Forgiveness is like

unlocking the door to a prisoner and realising that you have freed

yourself. APPLAUSE

I came to a point in the process, because I am not going to pretend it

happened easily, because it didn't. It was a huge struggle. I wanted to

kill the guy that took my son's life. It tore my heart apart, it

tore my family apart, but because of my relationship with God, there was

something in me that was just urging me to recognise that I don't have

the power to take someone else's life. Things in life happen. I

wanted to know from God what was the next stage for me to deal with this.

What was my role in the whole of this and through that whole journey,

I recognised there was something for me to do, and it was to give back

love. I ended up turning around a lot of young people's lives by

setting up the Prince foundation. The guy who killed Kiyan, does he

have a chance of redemption? In your terms, is he destined for torment?

The God and creator that I serve, I totally recognise he gives everyone

the chance of turning their life around and getting forgiveness if

their heart is willing and they are serious about to change. If you take

God out of the equation, it seems to me then the only person that can do

the forgiving is the victim. Oddly, I cannot think of a crime situation

or seeing which wouldn't be capable of being forgiven the victim. It

would not matter if the offender was nasty, unreconciled, not owning

their crime. Can you imagine forgiving somebody if you were

serially abused by a priest? Can you imagine forgiving that? I know it

happens, so yes, one can imagine it. The point about the person who gains

most from the act of forgiveness if the person doing the forgiving. That

is probably well made. You don't have an obligation to forgive, I

agree. That is kind of the victim's business. But there is nothing so

enormous, no enormity so horrid, that I cannot imagine the victim of

it saying I actually understand this thing or I am capable of

understanding. Inherent in this discussion is whether forgiveness is

a transitive thing or not. If it is something that passes from me to

you, I forgive you, I do this to you, I will give you, so you are the

recipient of my forgiveness, and I don't actually buy into that very

much because I do believe the concept that a person can forgive

within themselves... The initial question was whether all sins are

forgiveable and that is a theological question. Not at all.

Well, we are talking about it in relation to Ash Wednesday and so on.

In the Christian understanding, we are all sinners equally, so making

predations of this sin is unforgivable is an honorary macro

Christian thing to do. It makes worldly sense on a human level, but

the point of Christianity is that we are all in the same boat, even

bishops. But stealing doughnuts is not the same as perpetrating

genocide but you are saying we are all sinners? Of course they are

crimes that we might think our... Judaism believes in forgiveness

being a good thing but it is very different from being obligatory. It

helps the victim move on, but also it helps the perpetrator have a

sense of a fresh start. I would not want to force people into a

religious straitjacket where they feel they are obliged to forgive

against their will. You cannot control feelings and there are

situations where I think people would be right not to forgive if

they genuinely felt their lives had been so warped. Like a child abuse

case. If you feel your self-loathing is permanent and your relationships

with other people were permanent, you may not forgive your

perpetrator. Or you can do it conditionally. How do I know you

will not do it again? If you spend the rest of your life well and do

not do it again, then by the end of your life I will have given you

forgiveness. Can we make a plea against soppy forgiveness? It is

very common in our society. I forgave such and such, people always

say that. People forget things that have not been done to them and I

don't think you can do that. This is very difficult in the case of murder

because the person that has been murdered cannot forgive and we

cannot forgive on their behalf and that is a real difficulty. God, in

my view, can forgive anything, but he can only forgive the truly

penitent and only God can judge whether they are penitent and that

is not easy. There are things I have done to people and they would be

very justifiable in not for giving me for it, and I would not be

surprised if they did not forgive me. On the other hand, we are

instructed, if we are Christians, that we should forgive those that

are penitent. That is the difficulty. It is a very difficult

thing to do and it should not be devalued, soppy currency, where we

say I forgive you without meaning it. And nor should people pretend to

be penitent when they are not but they do all the time. You have been

determined critic of Tony Blair, for example. Yes. That was not

difficult! Do you think, as some would argue, as his life moves on,

unless he focuses on some of the aspects of what he has done, some

people say, that it will become more and more difficult to be forgiven?

It will, but I genuinely hope that he does reach the conclusion where

he understands what he has done and becomes truly penitent. It would be

a great moment in our national life if you would at some stage say so,

not just for him but for huge numbers of people that were hurt by

what he did. It would be so good and it illustrates in itself the power

of the commandment to forgive. Peter says one thing that I think is a bit

peculiar. That God can only forgive the people that are penitent. I am

all for penitence, good idea, but I think Peter overreaches himself

there. God may have a soft spot for the unrepentant. The bigger these

crimes get that we are discussing, the more likely it is that you see

illness, sickness, disease, mental disease at the heart of them. For

that reason, I suspect that the higher up the Saint grade you get,

-- sin grade, maybe there is a core... You are saying there is no

sin grade? We are discussing forgiveness, not what it does for

you. It is not about freeing the other person, which many people have

that mindset, because it is about freeing yourself. The work I do now,

I could not do if I had not gone through that process of forgiving.

Many young people who use knives and violent on the streets, you have

two... Just that point about you not being able to, you have to get that

strength from a higher power than yourself, because that is how I was

able to do it. I did not have my own strength and so I asked God for

help. Francis? As a Catholic, not lapsed, yet! Honesty is something we

have discussed on many occasions and so is the keenest enormity of the

abuse of children by priests across the world. Therefore they meet their

maker, I am sure you would agree that they need to talk to their God.

-- before they meet their maker. What about the people who confessed

in the confessions box and the other priests who did not tell the police?

Do they need forgiveness? If they took confession within the

confessional, then it is the same as if someone confesses to murder while

in the neck, then I would expect the confessor to keep that confidential.

The system was worse than that. Kids would go to bishops outside the

confessional. Be talking about the confessional, surely there is a

moral obligation that overrides the doctrinally rules of the confession,

moral imperative to go to the police. You say not? That is not

what a priest does. If somebody confesses to what is a crime and not

just a sin, they refuse absolution until the person has gone to the

police. That is not good enough. Why? You are in the wrong here. I am

not voicing opinion, I am stating fact that is what happens. If you

confess to a crime in a confessional, it should be no

different to confessing in a court. I seem to have something that is a

matter of contention. Why is it a matter of contention, somebody tells

somebody something and they can stop them being abused and they don't go

to the police, so why is that a matter of contention? Put it like

that, there could be many circumstances where that is the

case. I think the tradition is to hold in place the confidentiality.

When somebody confesses a crime to me, I have got to go to the police

or they can and I give them the choice. I am not there to let

somebody go just because they confide in me. The priest may not

have the skills to make... To pick up the phone and call the police? If

the person sitting behind the confessional has psychosis then they

do not know who it is. They can encourage them to get help. What is

happening in confession is I can invoke this higher being, this God.

As a confessor, I am here to bring down God's forgiveness on you. They

assume this bizarre thing, that I can bring God's forgiveness on you.

The reality is that forgiveness, repentance, remorse and everything

else is not about and outside being. You can have all of that without a

god figure, you can have that within yourself. People invoke God because

it makes it easier to deal with those things rather than dealing

with what is within themselves. Thank you. No, I am sorry. Sorry? I

invoke psychotherapists. Bishop Michael is invoking

You can join in all this morning's debates by logging

on to bbc.co.uk/thebigquestions then following the link

Tell us what you think about our last big question too.

And if you'd like to be in the audience at a future

We're in Leicester next week, Cambridge on February 21st

Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath

Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

So is the Business Secretary Sajid Javid risking more than

parliamentary defeat as he attempts to change the law to allow shops

of all sizes to open all day on Sundays?

Or with online shopping available 24/7, do high streets and shopping

centres now need to be open for full trading every day?

Peter Hitchens, what is so special about Sunday religiously? You need a

day when you are free from work. Families especially, private life

needs this. If it is not the same day, then it is no use because half

the family will not be there and half will. It is essential for a

certain way of life that is rapidly disappearing that we have it. Oddly

enough, even Stalin was not able to stamp it out. He tried very hard. It

was left to Margaret Thatcher and her successors to stamp it out in

this country and it is quite extraordinary that there has been

not much of a fight but up against it. It tells you two things, firstly

the Labour Party is no longer socialist and the Conservative Party

is no longer a Christian. They did not stand up against the protection

of being forced to walk. You are talking about the old settlement and

as a Christian I don't have to abide by that. Don't let's have arguments

about that. I break the commandments in many ways, and I know that I do

but I would certainly prefer it if it were more enforced. In Germany,

civilised and advanced and prosperous country, there is very

little shopping on a Sunday. People somehow managed to buy all the

things they need before Sunday and they do not starve to death. Dia

Chakravarty from the TaxPayers' Alliance, I know you support the

right of families to wander around the garden centre on a Sunday, so

long as you do not take me! Is this about freedom? It is nice to be

peaceful. It is about freedom and being able

to choose the day, it is about the freedom of the particular groups,

one is the person who might need to shop, they could be working all week

and Sunday could be the only day they can pick things up. Secondly

it's about the freedom of businesses who want to stay open like a lot of

other businesses, we are talking about a particular section within

the retail industry, shops of a certain size. It is discriminatory

against those shops like the garden centre who have to be big because of

the nature of their wearers. And thirdly it is also about the freedom

of the workers, some workers want to work on Sunday because it works for

them. It is not for us... Bishop Michael is laughing as you say that

it is not for us... The poor and the young are made to work. Made to

work? Yes, they know that if they don't work they will lose their

jobs. I have met scores of such people and the younger people work

because they know that if they don't their careers might be in question,

so why do we need to shops of days a week? Listen, let me just finished,

you have had your say. I have not had my say! There are three reasons

why Sunday should remain a holiday for most people, of course there are

some people who need to work. There is the humanitarian point, people

need work and rest. There is the social point, we need to be

together, even for community activities, we need to have a common

day we can engage in them unless our hobbies are totally idiosyncratic.

And there is a justice issue, which is that the people who are being

made to work are usually the poor and the young, the well off and

middle class can take a holiday whenever they want. It is all on my

list. We have to remember we are a democracy and not a theocracy, I

think we all so... What is being proposed, we are not talking about

top-down changes to the regulations, we are talking about devolving the

power to choose to a local level. Peter mentions Germany but fails to

mention that Germany devolved that power to the state legislatures some

years ago and in some German federal states they have done away with the

regulations altogether. The national federation of newsagents, Paul

Baxter, your members will suffer, you claim? Yes, but can I go back to

some of the points, freedom of choice, let's look at the facts,

there is not a mass out call from the public saying we want shops to

be open longer. 58% of current workers in large stores are under

pressure to work on Sundays. 77% of the population already say they have

less time to spend with their family and often Sunday is the only day

they can do that. Walking around the shopping centre with my family is

not the best thing I could do. The facts are simple, there is nothing

denied from people in this country, there are thousands of shops already

open and the online phenomenon, the issue is the big stores have is they

say let us open longer so we can compete but that is a fallacy. When

deregulation happened in Scotland and during the Olympics when

deregulation was allowed fully, sales went down. You talk about the

question of local councils having the authority, 52% of those Chief

Executive is in charge of local boroughs said they would use that

power to open out-of-town shopping, not in town, the population is

moving towards local shopping. Those who are most vulnerable in society

want local shops to be supportive, take those away and you have

destroyed it. If people are shopping at these big retail centres, all

those brands are available online, you cannot shop, you cannot stop

people from shopping that way. There is no demand for it today. THEY TALK

OVER EACH OTHER Would you please extend the courtesy! I am not going

to your shop! 3000 net jobs would be lost. Still doesn't take away the

point... You have been forming a very orderly queue and you will now

be served. Thank you, I did want to ask the bishop, why is it we think

the only people who need protecting and have enforced family life if you

like with state legislation are those who work in a small segment of

the retail industry which is shops of a certain size. You have cleaners

working on Sundays, people working on this set are working on Sundays,

Nicky is a celebrity so we don't care about him! But the cleaners who

will have to clean up after this, transport workers, health care. I am

in favour of most people not working and engaging in other activities.

Let's listen to Bishop Michael. Then a couple of audience members with

their hands up. There are essential a couple of audience members with

services, people must work in hospitals for examples. I would be

very surprised if schools started opening on Sunday for example. So of

course there are large areas... What about Sunday schools? Teachers have

to teach on Sunday. This is a social religious activity they volunteer to

do. You are free to go and play football on Sunday or go and see

your friends. What about the train drivers taking them there? Lady at

the back... Bishop Michael, let's hear from your flock. I agree with

Bishop Michael, I think it's the poor section of society, the

disenfranchised that are being made to go out on a Sunday. You don't see

the repercussions. I work 9-5 term time only because I have children.

If I worked in a big supermarket and it was part-time no doubt there

would be anti-social working including weekends. Nurseries are

not open at weekends on the hall. Childminders will ask for extra on

anti-social hours but Childminders will ask for extra on

getting paid extra so I think it's Childminders will ask for extra on

the right idea that the poor need to be protected because... in front of

you in the blue jumper. Peter is talking about Germany, in France,

when I have been there, on a Sunday no supermarket will be open but the

restaurant is open. They open the restaurant especially so that all

the families can go and the families are

the families can go and the families country. The family unit. What is

wrong with them going out on a Sunday, shopping? THEY TALK OVER

EACH OTHER If it is good for the family, it is good for society and

all of us? I find the idea fanciful that they need to be protected.

Let's go back and look at the facts of what is being proposed, they will

have an opt out provided for and employees who do not want to work.

If we look at the economic data referenced earlier, if you look at,

for example, the impact on jobs and prices all the evidence whether you

look at people from the London school of economics, they have shown

that over the past 20 years in deregulation of Sunday trading laws

that it has an aggregate positive net impact on employment. They are

not talking about young people who are made to work, for me, when I was

young, it was a godsend to be able to work on Sunday. Yet again these

people to work on Sunday. Yet again these

and the value of nothing! No understanding at all of the

importance of family life, no understanding of the pressures

faced... What business is it of yours what people do on a Sunday?

What business is it of yours? We are discussing a choice we might make

and trying to influence it. I disagree with them and I think we

shouldn't rush into any more destruction of Sunday. When I go to

Muslim countries, the tranquillity and United arrest of a country on

Friday morning is an astonishingly refreshing thing to experience,

similarly Israel on Saturday. What about the free market? We have

broken free market already and I think we need to protect the

delicate tradition in which one day is different from the rest, it would

be boring with two Saturdays, it's nice to have a different atmosphere.

Sunday can be boring. I think we need to preserve this delicate

tradition, which is not a religious matter, it's a cultural matter, that

we have a day that's a bit different that people cannot feel pressure to

go shopping, even my daughter agrees, who loves shopping but she

wants to do something different on a Sunday. Richard D. North is nodding

as you say that, why so? I think it's a question more of whether we

as customers should be saying to herself do I want to be a customer

today are do I want to be, would I other be a father or are quiet,... A

golfer. A golfer, or a quiet, private person watching The Big

Questions and getting my head around it. Getting an inner chill! LAUGHTER

There has to be something for a week which has got a rhythm to it and the

best component of that is having a day to oneself, of them probably in

our times are reflective day. You invented the sabbath. Sunday has

always been with us? It is not just because people need to rest, they

need a day of common rest. What will the impact be on the people who are

in your organisation? On all the studies we have seen a net loss of

at least 3000 jobs, more people working longer, more local stores

closing, I have not seen any survey seeing people want to go around

Tesco with their family on a Saturday. This is about supporting

little business over big business. That is not the case at all,

businesses like Tesco will have Tesco express. But those are not the

people we are talking about, we are asking about why is it important for

such a small group to be protected if there is so much fundamentally

wrong with our society. Secondly, the whole point about Sunday being a

special day, who decides that? I'm not a fan of the word multicultural

but we are a diverse society, what if Muslims wanted to take Friday

off? They actually do! It is not a universal day of rest. It does not

work. A time family can have together. Why do you get to decide

it? I am not deciding it. THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER Let's get rid of

everything. As always, the debates will continue

online and on Twitter. Next week we're in Leicester,

so join us then. But for now it's goodbye

and have a great Sunday. I've had a message from China,

from my birth mother. How far would you go to save

the family who gave you up? She's too ashamed

to look at you, Mei. 'Sister, help me. If no-one

speak for me, I will die.'