The campaign to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as First Minister of the devolved Scottish Parliament provoked storms of ‘Christianophobia’. (I know the word doesn’t exist because the media et al. do not want to recognise it. ‘Islamophobia’ – ‘Homophobia’ – ‘Transphobia’ – but dislike or even hatred directed against Christians, no, that doesn’t happen. )
Of course, we know it does, and with increasing frequency. The gentle mocking of the Christian Faith which was common among the intelligentsia in the last century has been replaced by much more direct and bitter attacks. That these are usually misinformed and prejudiced, and often involve scandalous rewriting of history, seems not to matter. Catholics in particular know it. The UK has a long history of anti-Catholic prejudice and it certainly hasn’t gone away. But it was Kate Forbes, one of the candidates, and a member of the Free Church of Scotland, who came in for a lot if stick in the run-up to the election. A few seconds into a search of the internet, and I found expressions like “the hard-line Free Church of Scotland”, ‘bigoted beliefs’, her intention to ‘roll back rights’, “conscience exceptions that allow them to discriminate against those they other (sic) especially members of the LGBTIQ+ community, at the expense of equal accommodation in the public square” …
What interested me was the very different treatment that Humza Yousaf received as regards his religion. Again from the internet, “(supporters of Kate Forbes ) often raise the issue of rival Humza Yousaf’s Muslim faith even though Yousaf has a solid record of supporting and defending LGBTIQ rights while Forbes plainly does not.” Yet Humza Yousaf is in exactly the same position as Kate Forbes is in the relation to the religious body to which he belongs. Islamic teaching is that sex outside marriage is sinful – thus making homosexual practise unacceptable. Mr Yousaf may have this ‘solid record’, but in doing so he stands against Muslim teaching. Ms Forbes argued that, as a politician, she would not to seek to undo legislation which allows same sex couples to contract a form of civil marriage, although she is a member of the Christian Church which holds that such practice is sinful. In just the same way, a Christian member of Parliament is unlikely to seek to abolish the divorce laws, even though Jesus clearly taught that divorce and remarriage is bad for individuals and society. I would have thought that this sort of distinction would be more difficult for a Muslim, who tries to integrate politics and religion in a way that Christians held to in the ‘Christendom’ era but have since abandoned. But maybe I have misunderstood Muslim teaching and will stand corrected.
On her last day in the Scottish Parliament, Ms Sturgeon gave her good wishes to Muslims in Scotland at the beginning of their fasting month of Ramadan. She was followed in this expression of good wishes by two other MSP’s. No similar gesture was made at the beginning of Lent when Christians begin a six week period of preparation, including fasting and abstinence, for the great Festival of Easter. This would seem to be completely at odds with the assertion, again from the internet that “in Western countries, where Muslims constitute an often mistreated religious minority, Christianity is clearly privileged in a way that simply ‘being religious’ is not.” Again, on the Radio 4 Sunday Programme Palm Sunday it was said by one of the interviewees that ethnic minorities in Scotland were still handicapped by discrimination against them which prevented their rising in status. Simply not true said the other interviewee: a recent survey indicates that immigrants from south Asia have shown the fastest upward mobility in any social group over the last fifty years.
So what is going on, and where do we find the truth? Some years ago a newspaper article wondered whether an answer might lie in the background of the people whom we describe as the ‘liberal élite’ among politicians at all levels, the media and broadcasters. Many of the older people in this group will have been educated in the British Public School system where they will have experienced ‘public school religion’, liberal Christianity, Confirmation by year group, etc . They have rebelled again their parents”Church of Englandism’ – marriage in the village church, christening ceremonies, memorial services – maybe even a Christmas Carol Service. Nonetheless, they are rebelling against something essentially ‘theirs’. The Establishment of the Church of England as part of ‘our’ nation gives us, as British people, the right to criticise ‘our’ Church – even though we no longer go or support it in any way. (If you don’t believe me, think back to Prime Minister David Cameron’s intervention in Parliament when the General Synod voted not to proceed to the ordination of women as Bishops.) Now if this is right, then their attitude of respect, their failure to engage, especially with Islam, is because they see it as essentially ‘other’ – even ‘foreign’. They would be horrified at the suggestion, but it is, at root, a form of unconscious racism.
By contrast, the convinced Christian wishes to engage with the his Muslim brother or sister. With profound respect for the dignity of another human being and for his freedom – given by God to all his creation (rather than the somewhat dodgy notion of human rights inherent just because human beings exist) he wishes to listen, speak, reflect, challenge, on fundamental issues of faith and morality. What is at stake here is the truth – or even the Truth. The notion that out there are a group of Muslims (or Hindus or Sikhs or Jews) who are just longing to be liberated from outdated ‘religious’ strictures so that they can embrace Western ‘freedoms’, seems to me both demeaning and dangerous.
Ordinariate Pilgrim 