John Hayward Posted: 3 February 2010
Keywords: Christianity & Religion, Government & Foreign Affairs,
Yesterday I was asked in a radio interview for my opinion on the new guidance from the Archbishops’ Council informing clergy that they 'are under no legal obligation to include the BNP in election hustings meetings' (so long as the other parties’ representatives declare the fact).
As I have stated previously, however distasteful and offensive many of us might find their views, the British National Party is a legal political party that holds two of the UK's 72 seats in the European Parliament. Second, given the Christian roots of our democratic freedoms, we should have a particular interest in defending freedom of speech and a concern over any form of censorship. Third, it is clear that a significant minority feel the BNP best represents their concerns on issues such as immigration and local welfare distribution and it will not help if we appear to be sweeping their concerns under the carpet – especially as race and immigration is identified as one of the most important issues facing the country by one in three adults, a level of concern second only to the economy (one in two). In fact, voters who already feel disconnected from the political process might be even more likely to vote for the party if they perceive it as being excluded by the establishment.
There is also the question of where one draws the line. It might well be that other parties make commitments in their manifestos that are equally disagreeable or offensive to us as believers. Will we then exclude them from our hustings also? The whole point of hustings is giving people a chance to question the candidates in order to reach their own conclusions about which might best represent our concerns and interests in Parliament.
The fact is, the more publicity we give to parties with extreme views, the more people will become aware that they should not be trusted with our votes. Also, the more we discuss the issues, the more we can dispel widespread misconceptions that otherwise cause people to feel they need to resort to supporting such parties. Rather than responding out of fear, I would borrow the words of the Archbishops' Council's spokesman who said, 'Our faith calls us to develop and sustain the hope and vision that things can be different' (emphasis mine). It is a positive vision for society grounded in hope that we explore in our guide to the election issues, Votewise Now!
I agree. Jesus calls us to reach out to the marginalised members of our society. Is BNP membership today equivilant to being a leper (in terms of social exclusion)?
Graham Smith 5 February 2010
I agree that the concerns of BNP members need to be taken seriously. Christian's involved in politics should not ignore the issues they raise and Christian's should reach out to BNP members.
However I think there is another factor that needs to be taken into account here. The BNP constantly style themselves as 'the Christian party', their vision of a white or almost all white Britain is posed as being the return of Britain to being a 'Christian nation'. They have even used the image of Jesus in billboard's with the text "What would Jesus do? Vote BNP". Is there not a need for the church and Christians to respond publicly and say in the strongest terms that the BNP are not Christian and that Jesus would not vote BNP? Excluding the BNP from hustings whilst making sure they're members are welcome at our churches would seem a good way to do this.
Therfore in response to your question "There is also the question of where one draws the line. It might well be that other parties make commitments in their manifestos that are equally disagreeable or offensive to us as believers. Will we then exclude them from our hustings also?"
I would say that the line is drawn when a party, any party, not only makes offensive commitments but also invokes the name of Jesus in their election material to try to claim that what they are wanting to do is the Christian thing to do. In these circumstances a public response against the party is necessary.
Tom 5 February 2010
I do not find it helpful when the BNP are attacked by the media for being an extreme party without also saying why many people believe that the party have extreme views. Their reporting seems to be fueling an anti-BNP attitude without explaining - carefully and calmly - why.
Robert 3 March 2010