What is "Britishness"? Part 11: Religion

Britain is often referred to as a ‘Christian country’ but these days, this seems more a hangover from the past than a present reality. Religion in Britain is no longer the strong defining national characteristic it once was, although there is still a widespread attachment to Christian rituals, symbolism and institutions, which is never more evident than in times of crisis.

Various forms of Christianity have dominated Britain’s religious landscape for more than the last millennium and is still the largest religion in Britain by number of adherents but its influence over the everyday life of the British population has gradually waned over the last century. Some vestiges of the past remain but feel anachronistic in a pluralistic society. Although Christianity’s influence is no longer as powerful as it once was, it has nonetheless left an indelible mark on Britain’s constitution, legal and justice systems, as well as the national psyche, culture and social values.

The decline in Christianity has been accompanied by the growth of other faiths, as well as a rise in the number of non-believers. Particularly since the 1945, as foreign immigration has brought a variety of religious beliefs to Britain, a tradition of religious freedom and tolerance has developed. There are now significant and growing communities of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. Britain’s Jewish community is the second largest in Europe. This pluralism, together with the relatively large number of individuals with nominal or no religious affiliations, has led to Britain being described as a post-Christian, multi-faith and secularised society. Today in Britain, freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Human Rights Act (1998), as a "right and fundamental freedom." This is reinforced by the Equality Act 2010, under which it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of religion or belief, or because of a lack a religion or belief. This protection does not mean that there are not challenges in this area. Religion remains an emotive and sometimes divisive subject. Muslims were treated with suspicion in Britain, and other historically Christian countries, even before the 9/11 and 7/7 terror attacks were attributed to Islamic extremists. The media-fuelled growth in Islamophobia from linking Islam with extremism has led to anti-Muslim discrimination and hate crimes. Christians are resented by secularists because they are perceived to enjoy privilege over others for historical reasons that should no longer apply now that they are a minority group. Antisemitism still rears its ugly head from time to time, most recently in sections of the Labour Party, where leader Sir Keir Starmer has followed through on his election promise and taken decisive steps to ensure zero tolerance going forward.

Yet, despite facing these ongoing challenges, religious groups are a significant force for good in our communities, promoting understanding and tolerance through education and learning, supporting health and wellbeing through social action projects such as youth clubs, food banks, night shelters, coffee mornings, holiday, breakfast and after-school clubs, as well as credit unions, drug and alcohol support groups, mental health and counselling services. Through the pandemic, even though buildings have been closed or access restricted, they have been a focus of practical support for those in need, an encouragement to prayer, and a source of spiritual uplift for the downhearted.

When it comes to serving the basic needs of humanity, provision is always made for people’s physical wellbeing but caring for their spiritual wholeness can be a secondary consideration, as this sign from an airport terminal suggests. Photo by dmbaker on 123RF.

If I have a criticism it is that I would preferred to have seen more moral leadership from the heads of Britain’s religious groups with regard to the Government’s running of the country and, in particular, their handling of the pandemic. At times, the different faiths seemed to be more concerned with how the lockdown rules impacted their communities rather than with the moral choices behind the Government’s decision-making. Too many issues have been allowed to slide without challenge. From the Government locking down too slowly and opening up too quickly, to them allowing elderly patients to be discharged from hospitals to care homes without being tested for Coronavirus. From their woeful lack of planning that led to PPE shortages, to the cronyism in awarding contracts. From their inability to organise effect test and trace, to their failure to close our borders. From not feeding schoolchildren during school holidays, to encouraging people to ‘eat out to help out’ last summer that caused a spike in infections. From their failure to deliver promised free laptops and internet access to all disadvantaged children to support online learning, to the lack of support for the poorest who have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

A particular assumption that should have been challenged far harder from a moral perspective was the false choice between lives and the economy. All the major world faiths teach profound reverence for human life, so any Government that directly puts people’s lives at risk by its actions should be called to account. It is not good enough for the Government to claim that extending the lockdown endangers people’s wellbeing by increasing poverty or causing mental health issues because they could do more to help those affected. It has always been clear that saving lives should be the absolute priority because saving lives will also save the economy – a healthy economy requires a healthy population. The Prime Minister’s tone-deaf statement that “we have to be realistic and accept… more infections, more hospitalisations and sadly more deaths” to get the country moving again (UK Covid-19 Press Conference – 22 February 2021) should have been enough to spark moral outrage amongst those with an ounce of human compassion. Not because he was being over-cautious but because, in the mind of the man whose catastrophic handling of the pandemic has already resulted in Britain having the highest death rate in the world, further victims are clearly just a statistic. And yet, his comments were greeted not with indignation but with silence. We have become too accustomed to the Government’s serial incompetence, too desensitised to the scale of the tragedy unfolding before us, and totally closed to the possibility that it did not have to be like this.

Compare this with the way that President Joe Biden mourned Americans whose lives had been taken by the pandemic. On the same day that Prime Minister Johnson set out his contradictory “cautious” but “irreversible” roadmap to exit lockdown, the US passed 500,000 Covid-related deaths. Addressing the American people, Mr Biden said “We have to avoid becoming numb to the sorrow.” He observed a time of silence outside the White House as candles were lit for the victims, ordered all flags on federal buildings to be flown at half-mast for the next five days and the bells at the National Cathedral in Washington tolled 500 times, once for every 1,000 American lives lost.

Other countries that put lives first and locked down early and hard have fared much better, experiencing lower death rates and less severe economic impact. For example, New Zealand (26 deaths to date) and Thailand (85 deaths). The Government’s ambiguous strategy - based on saving lives and minimising the economic cost - has seen Britain suffer a higher rate of deaths and a worse economic performance than comparable countries, despite spending more than most on our response to the pandemic. Now, as the pressure mounts in some quarters to relax restrictions more quickly, we find ourselves in familiar and dangerous territory. The frustration of the millions of self-employed and freelance workers who are ineligible for Government support schemes during the pandemic is understandable. Similarly, many small businesses, particularly in the retail and hospitality sectors, are struggling to survive but some owners have said that trying to manage through a continuous cycle of locking down and reopening with rules constantly changing is worse than leaving restrictions in place until there is certainty and they can reopen with confidence. In the meantime, the Government should be doing more to help. There is no excuse, however, for those denouncing lockdown and refusing to be vaccinated as an attack on their personal liberty. They need to show more respect for their neighbours. And we all need to remember that patience is a virtue. With the vaccination roll-out continuing apace, there are clear grounds for hope but everyone needs to take the vaccine when it is offered to them and continue to abide by the rules until everyone is protected. In all these respects, Britain’s religious groups have an important role to play in society by upholding truth and encouraging neighbourliness, patience and hope. They need to rediscover their voice and become the nation’s conscience once more.