Druids

Posted on October 3, 2010 by Clive D. Field

On 21 September the Charity Commission for England and Wales made a landmark ruling in relation to the long-standing application by the Druid Network to become a registered charity and thus to benefit from the advantages of charity law.

After a delay of five years (according to the Network’s website) the Commission’s 21-page judgment finally accepted that ‘The Druid Network is established for exclusively charitable purposes for the advancement of religion for the public benefit’.

The Commission took into account academic evidence about the nature of Druidry as a religion. Its decision has led to a flood of media headlines such as ‘After thousands of years, Druids are recognised as religious group’.

The Druids are thus the first Pagan body to win recognition under the Charities Act 2006. But how many of them are there? As ever with British religious statistics, there is no hard and fast answer.

In the 2001 census 1,657 individuals wrote in their religion as Druidry, fairly well scattered across England and Wales. However, this will have been an underestimate since some may have recorded themselves under the umbrella term of Pagans (of whom there were 30,500), while others may have been among the 42,000 who simply ticked the other religion box without specifying which religion they followed. 

A BBC Inside Out investigation on 23 June 2003 ventured a figure of ‘around 10,000 practising Druids in Britain’. This number is still widely quoted in Druid circles. A report in the Daily Mail for 22 June 2007 suggested there were ‘more than 9,000 British Druids’. But neither source cited the basis for their statistics.

The Druid Network itself currently only has about 350 paid-up members, although it calculates that it has had 1,300 members past and present in its short history (it was established in late 2002). Religious Trends, 7 (p. 10.6) claimed it had 450 members and 28 groups in 2007. The Network emphasized to the Charity Commission that it is not really a member-focused organization, rather delivering information to a wider public.

The most recent academic monographs on the history of British Druidry are by Ronald Hutton: The Druids (London: Hambledon Continuum, 2007) and Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009). More background may also be found in the Charity Commission’s adjudication, which is at:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/library/about_us/druiddec.pdf

Posted in Religion in public debate, Religion in the Press | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Freedom of Religion

Posted on October 3, 2010 by Clive D. Field

It is ten years since the Human Rights Act entered the statute books. To commemorate the anniversary, the campaigning organization Liberty has commissioned ComRes to undertake a poll of public attitudes to human rights. Fieldwork was conducted by telephone between 24 and 26 September 2010 among a sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over. The results of this survey appear at:

http://www.comres.co.uk/libertyhractpolloct10.aspx

Respondents were asked about the importance of particular rights in modern Britain. 85% said that it was vital or important to protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion, against 6% who deemed it unnecessary (including, surprisingly, 12% of 18-24 year olds). The highest level of support (90%) was found among those aged 45-54 and the AB socio-economic group.

However, freedom of thought, conscience and religion was not as highly valued as the right to a fair trial (95%), respect for privacy, family life and the home (94%), the protection of property (94%), and the right not to be tortured or degraded (91%). In terms of being vital or important, it was somewhat more prized than freedom of speech, protest and association (84%) and the right not to be detained without reason (81%).

The problem with this survey is that interviewees were not asked to prioritize, or choose between, individual freedoms. From this perspective, it is instructive to look at a Pew Global study in April-May 2007 which asked its sample of Britons which freedom mattered most to them in their personal lives. Even combining first and second choices, only 18% elected for freedom to practice their religion, a long way behind freedom to say whatever they wanted in public (40%), freedom from hunger and poverty (68%), and freedom from crime and violence (71%).

People also have qualified views about the importance of protecting religious freedoms in practice. In the 2008-09 Citizenship Survey of England and Wales 26% actually criticized the Government for doing too much to protect the rights of different religions, with 39% saying it was doing the correct amount and 27% too little. Those aged 16-24 (34%) and UK-born Asians and blacks, Muslims and black Caribbean Christians (more than two-fifths in each case) were most likely to contend that Government was not doing enough.

Churchgoing Christians are also becoming concerned that their rights are being undermined by Government policies and judgments in test legal cases. In a ComRes poll of them in December 2009-January 2010 70% agreed that the Human Rights Act’s protection for freedom of thought, conscience and religion needed more active support from politicians. 44% claimed to know somebody who had been discriminated against on the basis of religion.

Two other ComRes surveys from February 2010, in this instance among the general public, confirmed that the picture on the ground was not as rosy as could be wished. One found that 32% thought that religious freedoms in Britain had been restricted over the past ten years, the other that 44% detected Britain was becoming less tolerant of religion.

Of course, in reality, attitudes in these matters are shaped by personal prejudices and day-to-day experiences. Thus, in the 2008 British Social Attitudes Survey 69% agreed that we should respect all religions but 13% disagreed. More worryingly, only one-half wanted all religious groups in Britain to be accorded equal rights and 23% were opposed. Islamophobia doubtless accounts for many of these reservations.

Posted in Religion and Politics, Religion in public debate, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How Many Muslims?

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Clive D. Field

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life published on 16 September a table giving estimates of the Muslim population of each country in Western Europe in 2010. This formed part of a press release about a new Pew report on Muslim Networks and Movements in Western Europe. However, the estimates are actually from another and still forthcoming Pew report on the growth rates among Muslim populations worldwide, and including projections for 2020 and 2030.

Pew’s UK figure for 2010 is 2,869,000, which is equivalent to 4.6% of the population. In absolute terms, the UK has the third largest Muslim community on the continent, after Germany (4,119,000) and France (3,574,000).

In percentage terms, the UK is in ninth position, after Belgium (6.0%), France, Austria and Switzerland (5.7%), The Netherlands (5.5%), Germany (5.0%), Sweden (4.9%) and Greece (4.7%). UK Muslims account for 16.8% of all Muslims in Western Europe.

The 2010 UK statistic represents an increase of 74.2% on the 1,647,000 (2.7% of the population) which Pew quoted as recently as last October, in its report Mapping the Global Muslim Population (pp. 22, 32, 54).

That figure was primarily based on the 2001 census, which was the first reliable measure of UK Muslim numbers, earlier estimates having been ethnically derived. No explanation (nor source) for the revised estimate is given by Pew, but doubtless all will be explained in its forthcoming report.

The 2001 census was thought to have been somewhat of an underestimate of Muslim numbers at that time, despite serious efforts by the Muslim Council of Britain and other community leaders to get Muslims to register their faith on the census schedule.

The most widely-publicized figures for Muslims since the census have been estimates for Great Britain from the Government’s Labour Force Survey (LFS), which rose from 1,870,000 in 2004 to 2,422,000 in 2008.

These first emerged in The Times on 30 January 2009 and were officially published in Hansard on 7 July 2009, in reply to a parliamentary question. They generated numerous media headlines about the Muslim population of Britain rising ten times faster than the rest of society.

No new LFS-based estimates have been released since, although they could presumably be easily generated by Government or academics (LFS data are routinely deposited at ESDS).

Another Government source, the Citizenship Survey, which covers adults aged 16 and over in England and Wales, reveals that the proportion of Muslims in the population doubled between 2001 and 2008-09, from 2% to 4%. Four-fifths of Muslims at the latter date claimed to be practising their faith, compared with 37% of all adults professing a religion and 32% of Christians.

According to Sophie Gilliat-Ray (Muslims in Britain, 2010, p. 117) the significant increase in the Muslim population ‘may be attributed to recent immigration, the growing birth rate, some conversion to Islam, and perhaps also an increased willingness to self-identify as “Muslim” on account of the “war on terror”’. The demography of Islam is explored in some detail in chapters 4 and 5 of Eric Kaufmann’s Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? (2010).

The 2010 Pew table can be found at:

http://features.pewforum.org/muslim/number-of-muslims-in-western-europe.html

Posted in Measuring religion, Official data, Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Attitudes towards the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts: Data from the British Election Study

Posted on September 7, 2010 by Ben Clements

Ben Clements, University of Leicester.

I recently wrote about the British Election Study 2009/10 as a resource, providing some tables on how vote choice and attitudes to party leaders differed across religious communities.

As well as asking the British electorate in detail about their voting behaviour, perceptions of parties and their leaders, and the dynamics of general election campaigns, a series of questions taps into views on both long-standing policy debates and more recent political issues.

For instance, by using evidence from the BES 2005 and the BES 2009/10 we can compare attitudes on the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts by religious affiliation.  Tables 1 and 2 show approval or disapproval of Britain’s involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts in response to an identical question administered in each of the two BES surveys.

 

TableIraq

TableAfghan

What is evident from Tables 1 and 2 is that, while opinion tends to be against British involvement in both conflicts across the different categories, levels of disapproval are highest amongst Muslims (though slightly more so in the case of Iraq). Also, across all categories, higher proportions respond ‘don’t know’ in relation to the situation in Afghanistan, despite Britain’s military involvement there since 2001 (with a fifth of Muslims unsure).

Ben Clements is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Leicester, with interests in the study of elections, public attitudes to the EU, and the work experiences of the visually-impaired. He is currently working on a book on religious affiliation and political attitudes in Britain, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan. He can be contacted at bc101@leicester.ac.uk

Posted in Religion and Politics, Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Religious Affiliation and Political Attitudes: Findings from the British Election Study 2009/10

Posted on August 25, 2010 by Ben Clements

Ben Clements, University of Leicester.

The British Election Study (BES) 2009/10 has recently made available online for wider usage survey datasets relating to the May general election. The BES has covered every general election, and thus gauged the political choices and attitudes of nationally-representative samples of the British electorate, since 1964 and more information on both the current and previous studies is available at: http://bes.utdallas.edu/2009/. Also, detailed analyses of evidence from recent the BES 2001 and 2005 have been published in two books:

Clarke, H. D. et al. (2004), Political Choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clarke, H. D. et al. (2009), Performance Politics and the British Voter.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The components parts of the BES 2009/10 have involved both a multi-wave internet panel survey (pre-, during and –post-campaign waves) and a more traditional face-to-face component (itself comprising campaign and post-campaign surveys). This note reports a range of political attitudes held by the British electorate at the most recent general election broken down by religious affiliation (all data are appropriately weighted). Specifically, religious affiliation is divided into five broad categories to assist with clarity of presentation: Church of England/Anglican, Roman Catholic, other Christian denomination, other religious affiliation (note that this is a ‘catch-all’ including, for example, non-denominational Christians), and no religious affiliation. A more detailed set of categories was used to record a fuller range of religious affiliations in the BES survey process.

As well as reporting whether these groups voted at the election, and, if they did vote, their party choice, data is also provided regarding views on who would make the best Prime Minister, their attitudes towards the main parties and their leaders, and – pertinent to the current political landscape – their views on coalition government and satisfaction with democracy. The data provided here is taken from the pre-campaign and post-campaign waves of the internet panel survey, which has a very large sample size. Religious affiliation was measured on the pre-campaign wave and the political attitudes, including vote choice, are taken from the post-campaign wave. Respondents are asked about party preferences on earlier waves but this involves recording their vote intention, which could change during the course of an unfolding election campaign – potentially right up until polling day!

BEStable1

It is important to bear in mind that the BES sample traditionally has a higher level of turnout at each general election than the actual level in wider electorate (about 65 per cent for May’s general election). This is clearly reflected in the high proportions, across all categories, saying they voted at the General Election in May (see Table 1). Anglicans and those from other Christian denominations were slightly more likely to have voted than Roman Catholics, those from other religions, and those with no religious allegiance. More generally, those who are willing to participate in social and electoral survey research are more likely to have higher levels of awareness of and participation in the political process, i.e. turning out to vote at local and national elections.

The next table (Table 2) shows the breakdown of vote choice across major and minor parties by religious affiliation. There are some clear differences in voting behaviour. Anglicans, partly reflecting the old characterisation of the Church of England as the ‘Conservative Party at Prayer’, were most likely to vote for the Tories – 45 per cent compared to a quarter voting Labour and a fifth voting for the Liberal Democrats. Roman Catholics, traditionally a strong electoral heartland for Labour, were most likely to have voted for New Labour. Around two-fifths voted for Labour, about 30 per cent supported the Conservatives and less than a quarter – 23 per cent – cast their ballot for the Liberal Democrats. The vote of those belonging to other Christian denominations was more evenly spread across the three main parties: Labour – around 30 per cent, Conservatives – around 33 per cent; Liberal Democrats – 26 per cent. The Liberal Democrats picked up more support from those belonging to other religious groups (around 31 per cent) and those reporting no religious affiliation (about 33 per cent). Labour received similar levels of support from these two groups (around 28 per cent), while the Conservatives received around 31 per cent of the votes of those belonging to other religious groups and around 29 per cent of those with no religious affiliation.

BEStable2

Using BES data allows us to move beyond voting participation and party choice and look more widely at views of the parties and their leaders. Those surveyed were asked who of the main party leaders they thought would make the best Prime Minister (see Table 3). David Cameron was most popular amongst four of the five groups: Anglicans (half of this group rated him most highly), other Christian denominations, other religious groups, and those with no affiliation. Gordon Brown was rated most highly by Roman Catholics, though he was closely followed by Cameron (around 36 and 33 per cent, respectively). In contrast, Nick Clegg was not rated most highly by any group but did best amongst those belonging to other religious groups and those with no religious affiliation (19 and 20 per cent, respectively). Also worth noting are the small but significant minorities who respond ‘don’t know’ to this question (ranging from 16 to 24 per cent across the categories), despite the centrality of the main party leaders to the parties’ general election campaign and in the attendant media coverage, with the notable addition this time round of three leadership debates broadcast in prime-BEStable3time slots.

 

As well as judging the leader most capable of being PM, the British electorate also form more general impressions as to whether they like or dislike a particular party or leader. The BES gauges these views by asking respondents to rate how much they like (or dislike) a party or leader by scoring them on a scale from 0 to 10. Two tables show the average scores (by religious affiliation) for the three main parties and their leaders, respectively (Tables 4 and 5).

Labour is liked most by Roman Catholics and other Christians; it is least liked by Anglicans. The Conservative Party gets its highest rating from Anglicans and receives its lowest from those with no religion. The Liberal Democrats receive the highest scores for likeability across all groups except one – Anglicans (and even here they are pretty close to the Conservatives). Their highest score is awarded by those with no religion, closely followed by other Christians.

In terms of the leaders, as we might expect from the previous evidence David Cameron is most liked among Anglicans and least liked by those with no religious affiliation.  Gordon Brown is liked most by Roman Catholics and other Christians and least liked by Anglicans (receiving the lowest score of any category). What is striking is that Nick Clegg is rated most likeable across all the five categories, consistently getting scores over 5, but that does not equate to high proportions thinking he would be the best or most capable Prime Minister. Clearly, then, the Liberal Democrats and their leader do relatively well on the likeability factor across the board.

 

BEStable4

BEStable5

Particularly pertinent given the political circumstances which have unfolded since the election outcome, we can look at attitudes towards government formation (Table 6). BES respondents were asked whether they preferred single-party government (the norm in post-war British politics) or a coalition administration comprising two or more parties. Across all categories there was majority support for the traditional way of doing business at Westminster – governments formed by a single party. Support was strongest amongst Anglicans and Roman Catholics. The largest minorities in support of coalition administrations were found amongst those belonging to religions other than the main Christian denominations, and those with no religion. In each case a small minority responded “don’t know” – the proportions offering this response to questions of this sort may well decrease as views evolve and crystallise on the performance of the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat administration.

BEStable6

Taking a broader view, we can also see how these groups evaluate how the system of democracy currently works (Table 7). Specifically, they are asked their degree of (dis)satisfaction with British democracy. Across the board, respondents are more likely have a clear opinion on this question – very small proportions (6 per cent or less in each case) can’t choose either way. Those most likely to be ‘very’ or ‘a little’ dissatisfied with democracy are those with no religion – around a half of this category offer either of these responses. Those most satisfied, either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ are other Christians (at 57 per cent) followed by Anglicans (53 per cent) and Roman Catholics (53 per cent).

BEStable7

Ben Clements is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Leicester, with interests in the study of elections, public attitudes to the EU, and the work experiences of the visually-impaired. He is currently working on a book on religious affiliation and political attitudes in Britain, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan. He can be contacted at bc101@leicester.ac.uk

To download these tables in Excel format, please visit http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/BES200910.htm.

Posted in Religion in public debate, Research note | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Turbulent Times

Posted on July 28, 2010 by Clive D. Field

BRIN readers keen to understand the changing nature of the British Jewish community and its leadership since 1990 will find helpful a book which was published by Continuum on 22 July. Entitled Turbulent Times: The British Jewish Community Today, it has been written by Keith Kahn-Harris and Ben Gidley (ISBN 978-1-8471-4476-8, £19.99, paperback, also available in hardback). It is the outcome of a research project undertaken at the Centre for Urban and Community Research, Goldsmiths College, University of London. The project was funded by the Rothschild Foundation Europe, the Memorial Fund for Jewish Culture and the Economic and Social Research Council.

The central thesis of this thematically-arranged and sociologically-focused book is that, confronted by the paradox of simultaneous ubiquity and marginality, there has been a shift within Jewish communal discourse from a strategy of security and assimilation, emphasizing Anglo-Jewry’s British belonging and citizenship, to a strategy of insecurity, stressing the dangers and threats which Jews face individually and communally, including the ‘new anti-Semitism’. This shift, which Sir Jonathan Sacks is seen as instrumental in initiating, is viewed as part of a continuity-driven process of renewal in the community that has led to something of a ‘Jewish Renaissance’ in Britain. The authors therefore reach an optimistic conclusion about the future of Anglo-Jewry. They relate this to the broader transition from a monocultural to a multicultural Britain.

Although this is not a deeply quantitative work per se, the numerical decline of the Jewish community (apart from Haredi Jews), and Jewish preoccupation with survival in the face of that decline, provides the backdrop to the book. Moreover, it is underpinned by a fairly wide reading of printed and electronic sources and by interviews. Foremost among the published sources are numerous empirical social and statistical enquiries. The bibliography, therefore, is a useful guide to the post-1990 statistical literature, thereby updating Barry Kosmin’s overview of Jewish statistics which formed part of the volume on religion in the Reviews of United Kingdom Statistical Sources series which appeared in 1987.  

Especially interesting for BRIN readers will be the second chapter which highlights how social research on British Jews and Jewish institutions has been used to diagnose the problems of Anglo-Jewry, to inform policy development, and to nurture through self-criticism a climate of insecurity which was deemed necessary to motivate action to ensure Jewish survival. This process is described by the authors as the ‘reflexive turn’ in Anglo-Jewry, thereby applying the sociological concept of reflexivity which concerns the self-consciousness of individuals about their actions and their consequences. Within this context a series of major research studies is considered, including the work of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, relaunched in 1996. However, a significant limitation of reflexivity is identified as a lack of research into outmarried or non-identifying British Jews.

Posted in Historical studies, Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thought for the Day

Posted on July 27, 2010 by Clive D. Field

Thought for the Day is the ‘pause’ in BBC Radio 4’s prime-time flagship morning news and current affairs programme Today when invited guests reflect on a topical issue from a religious standpoint. The feature is forty years old this year. With each reflection just three minutes in length, few radio broadcasts have acquired such disproportionate significance during recent decades.

Long regarded as a de facto part of the ‘God Slot’, or religious programming, the series has attracted increasing controversy for its persistent exclusion of members of non-religious communities and for being tantamount to a ‘religious monopoly’. The dispute is symptomatic of wider questions surrounding the place of religious broadcasting and of religious speech in an increasingly pluralist and multicultural society.

As a contribution to this ongoing debate about Thought for the Day, the think-tank Ekklesia has commissioned Lizzie Clifford to research a new paper entitled ‘Thought for the Day: Beyond the God-of-the-Slots’. This is substantially based on a quantitative and qualitative content analysis of a representative sample of 72 Thought for the Day scripts from twelve different weeks in 2007-09.

Through this analysis Clifford casts doubt on many of the claims made by defenders and opponents of the current format of Thought for the Day. In particular, ‘What some regard as the feature’s weakness, its attenuated theological content, can in other respects assist with bridge-building and conversation between people of different belief commitments.’

‘On the other hand, the restriction of presenters to those who represent groups with a long-established liturgical and doctrinal base seems unnecessary, given that the actual content of their scripts does not always make such a requirement. Humanists and those from “alternative” religious backgrounds also deserve to be heard.’

The paper further provides evidence about the presenters of the more than 900 Thought for the Day broadcasts during the past three years.

In terms of faith background, 78% of presenters were Christians, 8% Jews, 4% Muslims, 4% Sikhs, 3% Hindus and 2% Buddhists. Relative to the 2001 census of population of the UK, and excluding those with no religious affiliation or none stated, Christians were under-represented as presenters (93% being their expected share, given Thought for the Day’s current brief).

By contrast, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists were over-represented in leading Thought for the Day, with the representation of Muslims nearly right in terms of the census (although their numbers have increased considerably since that time).

As regards gender, 79% of presenters were male and 21% female. This distribution perhaps reflects the gender balance in the media overall, and in the composition of various ecclesiastical hierarchies, but it clearly under-represents the contribution which women make to faith overall. On nearly all indicators of belief and most measures of practice, they are consistently shown as being more religious or spiritual than men. 

Clifford’s report can be downloaded from:

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/thought_for_the_day/main_report

Posted in Religion in public debate, Religion in the Press, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Attitudes to new academy faith schools

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Siobhan McAndrew

The Academies Act 2010 is well underway, having received its Second Reading in the House of Commons on Monday 19 July, and with Education Select Committee days due this week.

A number of private and state religious schools have indicated interest in becoming state-funded academies, among about 1500 schools overall so far. For comparative purposes, the January 2009 Schools Census suggested there were 17,064 state primaries and 3,361 state secondaries in England.

The full list of schools indicating interest is available at the Department for Education website, and is updated intermittently. The list does not indicate directly which are schools ‘of a religious character’ – the British Humanist Association estimates that it is ‘over 300’.

The BHA has suggested that schools with a nominal faith tradition (such as Anglican primary schools without a strong faith ethos) will have no provision to change religious character to ‘none’ when becoming academies, even if the Governing Body were in favour.

However, non-faith schools will be able to adopt a religious character when becoming academies – perhaps under the influence of governors or potential sponsors – and this may lead to a proliferation of new faith schools. Its additional concern is that academies with a strong faith character will be freed from National Curriculum strictures, specifically with regard to the teaching of creationism and sex and reproduction.

The BHA commissioned a poll on public attitudes to the religious character of future academies, available here.

67% of respondents thought faith academies should be required to teach about other beliefs including non-religious beliefs. 23% did not, and 11% of respondents didn’t know.

The survey also asked,

‘If an academy were set up by a religious organisation, would you be very, quite, not very or not at all concerned that public money may be used to promote a particular religion or belief?’

35% were very concerned, 36% quite concerned, 16% not very concerned, 5% not at all concerned, and 7% didn’t know.

The survey was conducted 9-11 July 2010, by online interview, with 2000 respondents. The full polling report will be shortly available at http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/media-centre.php

Posted in Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Act of Settlement – Reform Postponed

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Clive D. Field

The UK Coalition Government appears to have quietly abandoned plans, mooted by the then Labour Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) in 2009 but also backed by the Liberal Democrats before the general election last May, to reform the Act of Settlement 1701.

That, at least, is the implication of a written Parliamentary answer on 30 June by Mark Harper, Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform at the Cabinet Office and Conservative MP for the Forest of Dean.

Asked by William Bain, Labour MP for Glasgow North-East, whether the Government intended to ‘bring forward proposals to change the law to enable Roman Catholics or those married to Roman Catholics to succeed to the throne’, Harper’s reply was that: ‘There are no current plans to amend the laws on succession.’

The Act of Settlement 1701 was passed at a time when there were uncertainties regarding the succession to the English throne, as well as a widespread fear of, and discrimination against, Roman Catholics. The legislation was subsequently extended to Scotland and the British Empire and Commonwealth, and its provisions remain in force.

The Act’s exclusion of Roman Catholics or persons married to a Roman Catholic from the line of succession to the throne has long been regarded as anomalous, in a society which has become religiously pluralistic and committed to equality of opportunities.

The Government’s decision to put reform of the Act on the back-burner certainly appears to fly in the face of majority opinion, according to the most recent polls.

Thus, a YouGov survey for the Sunday Times on 13-14 November 2008 (conducted online among a sample of 2,080 adults aged 18 and over) found that 62% supported a change in the law to allow a future monarch to marry a Roman Catholic and still assume the throne. 19% were opposed and 20% were don’t knows.

Support for reform varied somewhat according to demographics, particularly voting intention. Liberal Democrats were most in favour (71%), followed by Labour voters (67%) and Conservatives (61%). Support was also markedly higher among non-manual than manual workers, 66% versus 57%, and in London (66%) and Scotland (69%).

An ICM poll for the BBC on 20-22 March 2009 (carried out by telephone among 1,005 adults aged 18 and over) reported an even larger majority, 81%, backing the heir to the throne being allowed to marry a Catholic and still become monarch.

Posted in Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

God on the Buses

Posted on May 26, 2010 by Clive D. Field

Does God have an advertising budget? Presumably not, but his advocates and critics certainly do, and their rival campaigns to promote or debunk Him have featured in an unlikely place: the annual report for 2009 of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Committee of Advertising Practice, which is available at:

http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Annual-Report.aspx

The ASA received 28,978 complaints about all kinds of advertisements in 2009, of which 5.5% related to two campaigns battling over God and run through banner posters on the outsides of buses. These accounted for more than half of the percentage increase in the total number of complaints to the ASA between 2008 and 2009.

The British Humanist Association opened the batting early in the year with its slogan ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’. This was the sixth most complained about advertisement in 2009, attracting 392 complaints. Critics alleged that it was offensive to people of faith and could not be substantiated. The ASA duly considered the matter and agreed that the claim was not capable of being objectively proved, while noting that the advertiser had avoided a hostile or offensive tone.

The Christian Party duly responded with a campaign proclaiming ‘There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life’. This was number 1 in the advertising complaint chart for 2009, drawing 1,204 complaints. Critics claimed that the advertisement was offensive to atheists and could not be substantiated. The ASA did not investigate in this instance, since advertisements for political parties lie outside its remit. Since the Christian Party, formed in 2004, managed to capture only 0.1% of the popular vote at the recent general election, or 18,623 votes, perhaps its bus advertising had limited impact.

Posted in Religion in public debate | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment