‘A national Church (or churches), as key organisers of this public good, belong to the people/country, not just its members and clergy. ‘ I can share with conviction and personal witness to this statement heading, for I have been raised in a Punjabi-Christian household in Oxford. Where, the good of a partner Baptist Church was host to our Christian Punjabi community. By this I means, we would have a punjabi-language church service at 3:00pm every Sunday afternoon. This was because the traditional Baptist service English-speaking, was held at 10:00am. For the good of both collective congregations, I was raised in the Sunday School programme at 10:00am in English, where my Sunday School Teachers were from the English congregation and white. So all the youth joined this programme of integrated study. The Punjabi-speaking congregation never offered a Sunday School for the youth, as it was provided by the white English congregation. Thereby, the English congregation provided a service of public good, with a tradition in Sunday SChool teaching to a predominantly British Indian children in their native language, which was established and progressive.
However, this is a positive experience, where Professor Tariq Modood shares “while the absence of women clergy in the Roman Catholic Church or women imams is not part of a national conversation’ is where I observe a dis-connect within our UK societies. There is an intersectional-divide, because it crosses, I believe territorial ownership. Colour and race raises its head, in a separatist manner. There is a need for more ‘faith’ talks in Schools and colleges and openness in the Higher Education institutes we inhabit, for without open-dialogue we are ‘othering’ different people of different faiths, holding them to double-standards. It’s complex for sure and I don’t have the answers. But, a way forward to to begin national conversations that share the good of religions and their practical uses in the betterment for societial change and tolerance. It’s the mis-understanding and lack of awareness that often than not creates divides.
It is legitimate for the state to be involved in bringing out the element of public good associated with organised religion (not just protecting the public good from dangers that organised religion can pose). Within this heading I was challenged by “moreover, if religious organisations are supported with public funds or tasked by the state to carry out some educational or welfare duties, then the state will want to ensure that such organisations do not compromise key policy goals. Thus, religious organisations are increasingly subject to requirements such as equal access and non-discrimination”. This is a highly contentious space, because I believe on the whole, the laws and thoughts that people carry inside religious institutes can often be conflicting with the states view on matters. Equal access and non-discrimination is not practiced in all religious institutes, and I’m not saying it does successfully in state institutes either, but the difference is the governing bodies. For example, the Indian church I fore-mentioned, which I grew up in. Men and boys wore western garments to church. However, although not explicitly implied, more an unwritten rule, for some reason, all girls and women would dress in Indian garments, that being Salwar Kameez (top and trousers) or a Sari. Although, if a woman or girl did dress in western attire, it was acceptable, yet behind closed doors it would be frowned upon, with the view that the effort was not made or that it is the one time in the week that cultural garments could be worn.
Changes in religious demography. ‘Non-Christian minorities in the 2011 Census…Looking at these statistics together, these changes have altered the religious geography of Britain, taking London from one of the least religious areas to one of the most’. So how are we responding to these statistics? I would argue very slowly. This Census was 11 years ago, more than a decade has passed. At the Mare Street campus, where I deliver the majority of my Bespoke Tailoring sessions, the ‘prayer’ room is the size of a small cupboard space. At the John Princes Street campus, where my shared-office space is based, I often visit the temporary ‘Front of House’ area, where my colleagues sit behind a desk to serve student, staff and visitor queries. Just behind them, geographically is a small space which I have witnessed at times, with a constant flow of traffic, sometimes people queuing, for the ‘prayer’ room. Is it big enough? Should it be in a more open space, that invites tranquillity and doesn’t require a que creating congestion around a space which is meant to be free for ‘Front of House’ matters?
All quotes from: (http://www.tariqmodood.com/uploads/1/2/3/9/12392325/6379_lfhe_stimulus_paper_-_modood_calhoun_32pp.pdf) and image from of Tariq Modood from http://www.tariqmodood.com/).