It is that bitter fundamentalist connection of religion and politics, previously known to us by the 'Troubles' for thirty years in Northern Ireland, which we try to prevent by our emphasis on religious tolerance. Huge efforts by all kinds of groups have been put into restoring public confidence in Muslims and in the activities in the mosques. It is difficult to know how successful these efforts are, but at least we have not had the great hate processions seen in other countries. We may be irreligious but we are less inclined that most peoples to kill each other in the name of God - a fact which, if there is a God, He would presumably approve of.
So statistically Britain is a godless society. In this it is similar to most developed European countries which have also experienced rapidly declining religious belief (though it is very different from the United States of America which is a strongly religious nation). Historically many British institutions are nominally Christian, which leaves them with dilemmas about how to fulfil their responsibilities. For example, the BBC was founded in the 1920s with a strong Christian ethos. In 2009, on the BBC early morning news and comment programme, 'Today', which is listened to by millions of people, there is a regular two-minute religious slot called 'Thought for the Day'. Two minutes only! -and the 'thoughts' now come from many different kinds of Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and even, very occasionally, religious doubters. (The BBC also broadcasts religious services and discussions on religious belief. My point is that the two-minute slot is now seen as an opportunity for expressing religious diversity.)
Very often these 'thoughts' are concerned with the stability of family life, the need to teach children to have respect for others which is inspired by the love of God. Many British people would agree that having a firm religious structure to family life gives ii a moral stability which is good for children, so they are half-inclined to agree with these speakers even if they have no religious belief themselves. But we have to ask ourselves: Do our children turn out to be virtuous or delinquent according to the religious beliefs or lack of them in the family home? Certainly not. Yes, there is general agreement that children should be kind, helpful to neighbours, honest and loving, but these are not exclusively religious virtues. In difficult moral areas such as attitudes to those in power, sexual behaviour, and the need for choices which involve pain and distress for others - all those problems which human beings face - Christianity has no clear answer. There are a multiplicity of answers, and individuals have to work out for themselves what they should do.
The world our children grow up into is indubitably secular. Public discussions of morality consider the views of different religious leaders but do not refer problems back to 'the words of our Lord (Jesus)' as they would have done in earlier generations. Instead many kinds of people speak out -philosophers, scientists, lawyers, politicians, doctors, teachers, charity workers, and people who may have no specialist profession but who feel strongly on the matter. For example, Britain is in the middle of a big debate on what to do about assisted suicide. If someone suffering from a painful and incurable disease wishes to take his or her own life, but is too ill and too weak to be able to do so without assistance, can others legally help that person? Such questions used to be considered the special territory of priests and doctors; now we are in a much more open, democratic, less-authority-bound and less religious society. The priest (he or she - we have had women priests in the Church of England for nearly twenty years, and ministers in the other Protestant churches for much longer) will be listened to, but so will the voices of thousands of others. This will be a long and difficult debate, but it will not be decided on the basis of 'what religion says'.
Here are the words of a Church of England priest who has given much thought to contemporary Britain and who has come to some melancholy conclusions: 'Look below the surface - and discover a country in deep confusion about its ethical and spiritual condition. The greatest shock to the self-understanding of British Christians is surely the growing number of people in this country who are subscribing to other faiths. Churches which have seen themselves for centuries as struggling against unbelief have now to understand their place in a society where other religious beliefs are strongly held and are a vital element of cultural and ethnic identity for many. For the churches, the alternatives are competition (between churches, between religions and between 'the church' and 'the world') and cooperation - not only the coming together of churches and of faiths, but the conviction that Christian aims are advanced by working, where possible, with secular groups and trends rather than against them. In the end, the church is not important for most Britons. It is significant at times of family celebration: baptisms, weddings and funerals. But a Christian daily life is only for enthusiasts."
Chapter 6. A Brief History of Sport in Britain
One hundred years ago Britain was famous for its devotion to organised sport. The schools which trained young men to go out and run the British Empire insisted that the boys should practice Association football or Rugby football in winter and cricket in summer for hours every week. By the middle of the twentieth century organised team games were a part of the curriculum in all secondary schools: football and cricket for the boys, field hockey and netball for the girls, and, where possible, tennis for both sexes. Such games were typically played for two or three lessons a week by all pupils. Competitive leagues were established among groups of schools, with teams travelling from one school to another, so that 'after-school' sporting events became the largest and most important element in extra-curricular activity. The aim of all this activity was not to find Olympic winners, but to encourage all pupils to be active and healthy and to learn the 'team spirit'. Although not all pupils enjoyed 'PE' or 'Physical Education', to be a member of a school team playing against other school teams was considered a great honour.
By the 1980s when there was much more emphasis on 'individual development' in schools, and much less on 'team spirit', schools were encouraged by the government to improve their resources by 'earning' money. For example, they might need more books or decent furniture or a new building for science, and very often the money allotted to them by the Local Education Authority was not sufficient. But how can a school make money? School governors and staff began to look at their sports fields. In our crowded island so little space is available that every possible site is precious. In order to protect the countryside, planning laws often prevent councils from building in the open 'green' land beyond the edges of towns, so the councils have to look inside the urban area. Attached to the secondary schools were all these sports fields for football, hockey, cricket, which were used during the school day and otherwise left empty. For the public these fields might be pleasant to look at or to walk beside, but they were not 'profitable space'. So local councils and private building firms negotiated with the schools to sell their playing fields for building houses. During these years much green space around the schools was lost for ever. Even when parents and local people fought to save a playing field, the struggle was always expensive and often unsuccessful. On the one hand the schools received money for teachers, books, materials; on the other hand, during the 1990s organised sport became a minority activity, and ceased to be a regular part of the life of every British child.