Face to Face and Side by Side - Response to Consultation

Response on behalf of The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

This submission draws on the local, regional and national experience and ecumenical[1] work of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). Quakers are committed to working for a more just and peaceful society based on their historic commitment to equality. We support an understanding of secular society that is not a public space without religion but where religious and non-religious beliefs are welcomed on an equal footing. We recognise that there may be times where freedom from religion may be in need of protection as much as the right to manifest religion and belief.

We welcome this Government initiative in seeking to promote community cohesion by recognising and supporting the many roles played by faith groups in the wider community. While we applaud the work that has been done by faith groups at a local, regional and national level we recognise that many British citizens now have no active religious affiliation. We realise the problems in providing an accurate religious demography where religious affiliation is often elusive and overlaps with ethnicity and cultural identity. We encourage the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to undertake further research in this area and hope that the scope and language of Government policy can demonstrate a deeper understanding of the nature of secularism and the complexity of issues involved.[2] A lack of recognition in this area may encourage a backlash in a form of aggressive secularism that would deny religious expression a legitimate voice in the public sphere. We note that social cohesion can sometimes be fostered through activity such as neighbourhood management schemes, school boards of governors, trade unions, political parties and local NGOs. We recognise the significance of social cohesion as an aspect of a culture of equality and human rights.

We welcome the recent intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury in encouraging thinking regarding our religious identity and how minorities relate to a mainstream political and legal culture. We agree that our social identities are seldom constituted by one aspect of belonging and affirm the significance of the rule of law as establishing equality of access to all without fear or favour. We hope that the present consultation will be part of a wider process that encourages us to challenge crude oppositions and mythologies whether regarding the nature of Islam and its relationship with the state or of any other religious minority. There is no easy solution to the problem of social exclusion. We urge caution in considering that religious communities can provide instant answers to intractable problems, especially those having their roots in economic deprivation and complex cycles of inequality. It is vital to distinguish between tensions occurring between religious communities and an underlying social fragmentation that may have its roots in inequality and poverty that breaks along religious lines.

We recognise that the diversity of perceptions regarding religious identity among faiths represented in the UK often makes it difficult to create a coherent faith framework for joint social action. Where there is a strong ethnic/religious identity, as among Jews, Sikhs, Chinese or Orthodox Christian communities, a commitment to social care, although often exclusive to one community is already well-developed. In the case of Buddhism, faith may be expressed in a plethora of small groups in which the majority of members are Western converts. We recognise that Islam, as with Christianity, crosses both ethnic and national boundaries. Organisations such as Islamic Relief show that this fragmentation can be transcended when initiatives arise from the grassroots but the problems and challenges are harder. We welcome as an example of good practice the protocol agreed between CAFOD and Islamic Relief on working together in areas of conflict for the provision of humanitarian relief.

We hope that it may be possible to have a greater honesty and coherence in public discussion about the Government`s policy for faith dialogue and social action. The explicit secularism of the Ministry of Justice appears to be at odds with the communitarian philosophy informing policy at the DCLG. Much of the Government`s agenda appears to be led by a commitment to preventing the alienation of young Muslim men, yet far too little attention has been given to the adverse impact of the Terrorist Act 2000 and Terrorist Act 2005 on religious minorities. We are concerned both at the scope and nature of powers assumed under recent anti-terrorist legislation and urge more careful pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills that may have an adverse impact on religious minorities. We note that as well as secular interest groups with bridging potential there are non-religious philosophical organisations which have a right to be considered as significant in civil society.

1. Structures which facilitate interaction and social action

Question 1. Is the balance of structures to facilitate interfaith dialogue and social action at national, regional and local level right?

Personal relationships are the key to good inter-faith dialogue at all levels.

This is true whether at a national level, as in the church leaders pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 2006 or in meetings between local church leaders. A balance will need to be struck between active government support and appropriate respect for the autonomy of the area of religious life.

We applaud the work of the Inter Faith Network (IFN) for the UK as a valuable instrument for the development of good inter faith relations in the UK and welcome the foresight of the Government in providing it with funding. IFN members include national representative bodies of the major faith communities; national, regional and local inter faith bodies; and educational organisations. This pattern of membership enables sharing and learning about inter faith good practice across local, regional and national levels.

Particularly significant aspects of this work include resources, such as The Local Inter Faith Guide, and a consultative style that enables a coalition of bodies with differing perspectives to work together and contribute to building a solid pattern of inter faith dialogue and cooperation on social issues. The IFN also provides a valuable programme of work in the area of 'faith and public life', looking at such issues as citizenship in a multi faith society and cohesion and integration. It is currently funded by a variety of sources including, faith communities, trusts and government funding. We recognise the importance of maintaining this support and in a way that fosters its independence of government and accountability to its members.

Where there is demonstrable benefit we hope that funding will be made available for social initiatives, especially at local level to encourage faith groups to come forward with partnership projects. Local strategic partnerships might act as channels for such funding and to identify specific areas of need for social provision. The government should encourage such bodies to foster capcity building among faith and inter-faith organisations and to include them in their search for possible providers.

Question 2. What more is needed at national, regional and local levels to facilitate inter faith interaction and social action?

There is a level of religious illiteracy in the UK and often an inability to appreciate the complexity of issues where religious identity is linked to culture, ethnicity and nationality of origin. We have some slight degree of concern, at an apparent degree of misunderstanding within government of the way in which faith-groups operate. The recent consultation on the operation of the points-based system for non-EEA immigration in respect of ministers of religion was an example of this. Faith-groups are not a series of single, monolithic structures; instead, within broad religious categories such as ‘Islam’ and ‘Christianity’ there is a multiplicity of sub-groups which are often in a state of disagreement or even (as instanced by the recent history of Northern Ireland) of mutual hostility. This in itself may militate against social cohesion.

At the national level, the Equality and Human Rights Commission may be able to play a helpful facilitative role. The Religion and Belief Consultative Group should be strengthened, as providing an experienced body of national representatives in the spheres of religious practice and inter-faith dialogue while including the participation of representatives of non-religious belief.

At the regional level, the development of Regional Faith Forums is likely to be significant. ‘Faith in the North West’, the report on faith community involvement in economic activity in the North West, produced by the Churches Officer for the North West backed by the North West Development Agency, provides an admirable example of what can be achieved at a regional level.

At a local level, personal relationships need to be fostered across religious and other boundaries. In addition to projects addressing social cohesion and diversity there is a legitimate place for more specific interfaith activity. This too would benefit from funding. It is regrettable where specifically interfaith activity needs to be rebranded as work involving social cohesion to provide access to funding.

Without paid administrative support, local inter-faith groups may find it difficult to develop beyond minority interest discussion groups. Until they have a track record as more formally constituted bodies, it is difficult for them to bid for funding to engage in community enterprises of any sort. Whereas the Church of England has given significant financial support to the funding of inter-Christian activity, the broader remit of building bridges between faiths may require adequate resources from central funds. It would be helpful if Government could affirm the value of this work.

An additional problem is that many interfaith groups are comprised entirely of volunteers. Gaining funding to take on a paid worker lands them in the position of being an employer and needing to take on board all the employment regulations. Such employees need to be managed and supervised properly and to have access to career development and appropriate support. Volunteer groups are not well placed to do this. Placing such employees under the aegis of local government is far from ideal as such workers may need to challenge their employers on practices that may be disadvantaging certain faith groups. Consideration needs to be given to how such workers can retain independence yet to be employed by an appropriate body.

Question 3. Are different approaches required at national, regional and local levels? What might these consist of? What role or roles do you envisage government, faith communities, faith and non-faith based organizations inter faith organisations and wider civil society playing?

At a national level, a body at arm’s length from the Government is probably best placed to offer appropriate support. The independence of consultative groups under the auspices of the Inter Faith Network for the UK (IFN) should be respected, especially where these bodies look to financial support from Government.

We hope that Government departments will show greater consistency in fostering a culture of equality and human rights. This applies across a wide range of policies from education to inclusive policing and criminal justice. We support government policies seeking to eliminate child poverty. Economic equality is one of the most powerful catalysts of social integration across a range of different criteria. We lament the manifest inequalities of wealth in many parts of the United Kingdom and are concerned that inequality as much as absolute poverty can be the breeding ground of racism.[3]

Regionally and locally, co-operation between local authorities and inter-faith bodies have been impeded by different administrative boundaries. We commend the IFN and the Local Government Association (LGA) for their work in producing resources that educate and raise awareness among local government officials and councillors.

2. Opportunities for learning which build understanding

Question 4. Are there appropriate opportunities in your community and your local area to learn about different faiths and beliefs?

Not applicable - This response is from a national body.

Question 5. How do we improve opportunities for learning about different religions and beliefs and build on existing best practice?

Criteria for best practice should include transparency and a sensitivity and openness to those of all faiths and none. This needs to be rooted in a culture of equality and human rights. Respect for freedom of conscience is a cornerstone for such an understanding, as is the affirmation of the potential of all human beings, regardless of their religion or belief, for spiritual experience and moral insight. We hope that Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (SACREs) may share their experience of working together and examples of best practice.

Question 6. How best can different faith communities work together whilst retaining their distinctiveness?

We are saddened at the attention that has been given to the idea that the celebration of Christmas will alienate other faiths. As long as there is a mutuality of respect, the celebration of festivals can be a valuable way for increasing understanding between different faiths. The celebration of Christmas provides reassurance that Christians have a culture of faith and not merely of self-indulgence. Shared social action, education and trade all have a part to play in good relations. There is a potential tension between an agenda of community cohesion and the acceptance of the right of religious communities to manifest their distinctive identity. Local Strategic Partnerships need to organise regular meetings of community leaders, religious and secular, where specific local needs can be aired and relevant social projects suggested. Where funding is made available to project steering committees, differences in religion or belief must be respected in pursuing their joint endeavours. A well functioning prison or hospital chaplaincy can be an excellent example of different faith groups coming together for a common purpose. In the process of meeting the needs of prisoners of all faiths and none, Chaplains retain their distinctiveness whilst promoting respect and understanding of different religions.

Another example is working together on an issue confronting different faith communities differently, out of the public eye. For example, working on building relations with the media, brand image, how to avoid faith stereotypes, understanding how local government works, where one faith may have experience of value to another

Question 7. How can the lessons learned and experiences gained from inter faith dialogue and social action help to build relationships with people from different communities more widely?

At all levels, good practice needs to be shared by way of public gatherings, exhibitions and cultural events. One partner in a successful joint enterprise might act as host for such an event, sending personal invitations to members of other communities and their families. Such meetings deserve adequate funding and effective publicity.

Question 8. What role or roles do you envisage government, faith communities, faith and non-faith based organisations, inter faith organisations and wider civil society playing in building understanding about different beliefs and practices?

An understanding of the legitimate diversity of religious expression should be a core component of both a national curriculum and citizenship education. As suggested above, government's contribution should be to emphasise the value of diversity and tolerance as the appropriate environment for a mature democracy rooted in a culture of human rights and economic justice.

3. Shared spaces for interaction and social action

Question 9. What spaces are being used by faith communities for inter faith dialogue and social action?

The market, the school and the workplace are sites for engagement and dialogue that may be no less important than religious buildings. We hope that both civic and religious buildings can be used for interfaith dialogue and social action. An invitation from a faith group to use its building marks an expression of confidence and the provision of a civic space for inter faith activity and can be an important affirmation of mutual trust. Quaker meeting houses throughout the country have been valued as 'neutral' space where religious values are recognised but potentially divisive religious symbols are absent. Friends House, London and other Quaker centres have a long history of being safe spaces for people who might otherwise find it difficult to meet peacefully.

Question 10. What barriers are there to sharing spaces?

While there may be hesitation based on suspicion and ignorance, such initial reticence can be overcome by careful preparation and encouragement. Sometimes, as is the case with some Orthodox Jews, in relation to Churches, it will be necessary to respect a conscientious refusal to enter into a consecrated space.

Question 11. What role or roles do you envisage government, faith communities, faith and non-faith based organisations, inter faith organisations and wider civil society playing to create shared spaces?

Market pressures may at times make access to urban spaces unaffordable. More could be done to facilitate the creation of shared spaces in planning policy guidance.

4. Confidence and skills to bridge and link

Question 12. Access to funding, leadership skills, and misconceptions about the role of faith in public life have all been recognised as issues which can limit the ability of faith communities to bridge and link. Are there other barriers in your community or local area which need to be overcome? Who needs to take action, and what do they need to do?

Minority faith groups are often overburdened by requests to send representatives to church services or civic events. This is particularly so where small groups are struggling to sort out problems within their own communities.

Question 13. To what extent does inter faith social action in your local area enable you to work side by side with people who have no religious belief? How might social action involving faith communities and wider civil society be increased and strengthened?

Response to genuine and pressing need is often the most potent motivation for working together (e.g. destitution and homelessness among asylum seekers). For Quakers this is at the heart of the faith we can share with others.

Question 14. What role or roles do you envisage government, faith communities, faith and non-faith based organisations, inter faith organisations and wider civil society playing to increase the level and scope of inter faith social action?

There is a danger of artificial intervention, which merely serves to create yet more burdens of meetings. Government should see its role as facilitative rather than as interventionist.

Question 15. How are you promoting and encouraging inter faith activity and sharing best practice? What are the best ways of encouraging more people to take part? What role might Government play to champion this?

At a local level, Quakers are involved in a variety of social activities run by religious and non-religious groupings. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is probably the best body to encourage best practice through its ‘good relations’ mandate. Local and regional advisory committees could inform the work of the Commission at a national level and encourage maximum participation in interfaith activity.

5. The challenges and barriers to inter faith activity experienced by women and young people

Question 16. How might the barriers experienced by women be overcome?

Women have played a full part in the life of the Society of Friends since the seventeenth century. It remains a baffling fact that the leadership of several major denominations remains exclusively male.

The vast majority of faith leaders are still men and it is still comparatively rare for women to take a leading role in speaking on behalf of their faith. Improving access to language and other classes makes it easier for women to develop a confidence within and on behalf of their communities. There are many examples of sympathetic courses on English language and cultural activity which are run by women for women. These often provide the first means for reaching women who are kept in their homes by cultural traditions. International Women’s Day can be a useful focus for such initiatives.

Question 17. What role or roles do you envisage government, faith communities, faith and non-faith based organisations, inter faith organisations and wider civil society playing in overcoming these?

Women are not the only group to experience barriers in taking part in religious and civic life. Prejudice against homosexuals may have its roots in religious taboos. In so far as religion is part of the problem it may also be a part of the solution in addressing these taboos. Quakers may be particularly well-placed to demonstrate that the same faith can be embraced by people rejected elsewhere. The Government can promote equality and human rights both directly through education and legal services and indirectly by funding advice agencies and community groups. Practices disadvantaging women cannot be justified because they are condoned as part of a religious culture. Government and indeed all of those involved in interfaith dialogue need to be alert to the danger of repressive practices hiding behind religious authority.[4]

Question 18. How might the barriers experienced by young people be overcome?

Practical encouragement for youth organisations and the involvement of young people in the running of their schools, communities and sports facilities can provide the confidence and expertise to overcome barriers. Attention also needs to be given the barriers experienced by the elderly in playing a full part in the life of the community.

Question 19. What role or roles do you envisage government, faith communities, faith and non-faith based organisations, inter faith organisations and wider civil society playing in overcoming these?

Education and awareness-raising depend on funding and resources as well as a philosophical commitment to the values of citizenship and democracy. Fostering a commitment to equality and human rights might be a better use of educational resources than a sometimes tendentious commitment to ‘national identity.’

Question 20. What can successful existing approaches tell us about the key building blocks needed for interfaith dialogue and social action?

Please include any others comments you might wish to make here:

At the heart of many of these questions is a real dilemma. How can religious diversity and autonomy be encouraged and supported in ways that enhance social cohesion? The problem is that religion can sometimes be inimical to social cohesion. People of faith are sometimes more ready to follow the dictates of their religion or their conscience than to fit in with the wider aims and customs of society as a whole. Where this does not clash with a commitment to equality and human rights this is uncontroversial. A modern example would be the Amish, who steadfastly refuse to go along with the norms of American society. We recognise the legitimate fears of secular organisations over special pleading on behalf of faith communities. The best way of overcoming such an outcry will be to acknowledge these fears and to ensure that non-religious belief is given the same legal protection as that of religious belief.

While we affirm the Government’s aim in combating exclusion, religious bodies can only be a small part of the solution. Good ecumenical and interfaith relations are at heart based on good personal relations. Structures will only be effective in so far as there is an openness and desire to create these relationships. We would suggest that Government can only ever play a subordinate role in these areas. Outside the areas of organised religion and family, education is the primary engine for social change. Perhaps the greatest difference that the Government can make is in ensuing that far greater priority is given to the place of religion, conscience and belief in the development of a shared secular curriculum. The place played by conscience has often not been given sufficient priority.

Gillian Ashmore, Recording Clerk, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Friends House, 173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ, March 7^th 2008