David Cameron's 'vague faith' is nothing to fear

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/22/david-cameron-vague-faith-christian-country

Version 0 of 1.

Some of my fellow atheists seem to have been both shocked and disturbed to discover that our prime minister believes we live in a Christian country. I wonder if they have missed a few subtle clues, like the church spires that punctuate every rural village and define the skylines of numerous towns. Perhaps they might also have noticed that on Wednesday the English will be toasting their nation on a day named after its patron saint, as will Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in due course; or that our head of state is also head of the Church of England.

Of course they know all this, and I'm sure my sarcasm will have already raised the blood pressure of many of them. And that's the problem. For some reason, many secularists get far too agitated by any suggestion that Britain is a Christian country. One woolly article by the prime minister in the Church Times is enough to provoke an indignant letter of protest, signed by more than 50 notables.

This indignation seems surprising since even Richard Dawkins (a noticeable absentee from the list of signatories) is happy to accept that "this is historically a Christian country" and that he is "a cultural Christian" who is "not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history".

The letter-writers ought to have seen this and refrained from causing a fuss. There are indeed serious objections to be made against the expansion of religious schools, automatic seats in the House of Lords for bishops or increased involvement of faith groups in delivering state-sponsored public services. These are issues worth kicking up a fuss about, not the question of whether Britain is a Christian country or not.

That is not to say there aren't grounds for disputing Cameron's claim. In several important respects, Britain is not Christian at all. Fewer than one in 10 go to church and most people are largely indifferent to any organised religion. The BBC captured this beautifully in a study conducted several years ago, which concluded that the largest category of people was those of "vague faith".

Indeed, the people who might protest most about the characterisation of Britain as a Christian country could well be committed Christians. The precedent here is the 19th-century existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who launched a sustained attack against the "Christendom" of his native Denmark. For Kierkegaard, who took his religion extremely seriously, the habitual, institutionalised churchgoing of the time was the very antithesis of what Christ demanded. Similarly, a dedicated believer today might find it obscene to think of our unequal, materialist society as truly Christian.

But in other respects, the Christian nature of the country is indisputable. In the last census 59% of people still self-identified as Christian. The standard retort to this is that people tick this box almost as a reflex reaction and don't actually take their supposed Christianity seriously at all. This is a somewhat patronising attitude; sure, most who chose that category wouldn't know their Acts from their Ezekiel, but nor would they pretend to. They know full well that their Christianity is as much a cultural identification as a doctrinal one. They are locating themselves in a tradition, not asserting the Nicene Creed.

In the Church Times article that provoked this latest furore, Cameron is clearly positioning himself among these vague, ambiguous Anglicans. "I am a member of the Church of England," he wrote, "and, I suspect, a rather classic one: not that regular in attendance, and a bit vague on some of the more difficult parts of the faith." He went on to add: "I am not one for doctrinal purity, and I don't believe it is essential for evangelism about the Church's role in our society or its importance."

There isn't much to complain about in such tepid claims for faith. It's only when religion is brought into the workings of government and state that we should be worried. The distinction indignant atheists are failing to make is between a Christian country and a Christian state. Our laws and public institutions should indeed be independent of any faith or belief group, but this is entirely compatible with society being dominantly Christian. Indeed, committed Christians should be the most fervent supporters of neutral, secular states, rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That is what guarantees religious freedom. If it would protect minorities in non-Christian countries, it is only consistent to want it for Christian majority nations too.

By glossing over the distinction between a Christian state and a Christian country, atheists risk confirming the negative stereotype of them as dogmatists who do not want anyone to even talk about their religious belief in the public sphere. The consequence is to lend credence to the widespread misconception that the secular state seeks to suppress religion, when all it need do is separate the institutions of church and state. Instead of being seen as an inclusive big umbrella, secularism becomes a narrow state atheism.

This latest spat is particularly unfortunate because Cameron's remarks were, taken as a whole, about as inclusive as is possible. What he claimed for Christianity with one hand he happily gave back with the other. So, for example, he said people underestimate "the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code", only to immediately accept that "Of course, faith is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality." Similarly, it is hard to see why he asserts "the importance of Christianity in our country" when "the Christian values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, and love are shared by people of every faith and none". It seems that Christianity is special only in the sense that all its virtues are shared by others.

Do the signatories at least have a point when they argue that to emphasise Christianity's special place in society "needlessly fuels enervating sectarian debates"? There is that risk, but in this case the only people who seem to have felt marginalised by Cameron's remarks are atheists. Leaders from other religions have generally welcomed them, including Farooq Murad of the Muslim Council of Great Britain, Indarjit Singh of the Network of Sikh Organisations, and Anil Bhanot of the Hindu Council UK.

For all these reasons, I declined the invitation to sign the letter. It's not that I strongly disagree with anything in it. It's just that not every misguided comment merits a firm rebuttal. It's ridiculous to cry wolf when people like Cameron proclaim a Christianity that is as fluffy and harmless as a lamb. There is a clear enough sense that Britain is a Christian country and we should just get on with it. We have plenty to protest about in the ways in which religion is woven into the fabric of the state. But affirming a religion is not always a problem, and we need to acknowledge that in order to make a convincing case when it is.