Robert Hampson is standing to oppose and reverse the de-Christianization of British public life.
Religious people whose chief desire is to serve God and live a decent life are increasingly made to feel awkward and even ashamed. Only recently a nurse after forty years was told she could no longer wear a small cross around her neck. The reason given was 'health and safety' but we all know the true reason. It is fear of upsetting non-Christians. Robert calls this 'cultural suicide'. It is not only Christians who suffer, it is all religious people. It is no accident that Anti-Semitism is on the rise and Muslims are consistently portrayed negatively in the media. As Chairman of the East London Three Faiths Forum, a society of Jews, Christians and Muslims, Robert has worked tirelessly to build bridges and trust between the religious communities. However this is often an uphill struggle with religion so undervalued and often despised.
Where society does not respect Christian Faith it certainly does not respect other faiths. A more robust Christian identity will not undermine the position of other people of faith, rather enhance it. Robert seeks to put this squarely at the forefront of political debate.
Download Robert's Election Flyer
Why Robert is standing for Parliament
George Carey, the previous archbishop of Canterbury, has spoken publically about de-christianization but most politicians seem bemused as to what the problem is. But I am not bemused! I see it continually, in local government has in promoting anything but Christianity. There is fear, fear lest one appear as a Christian, lest one offend another. It is not only fear. De-christianization has gone so far that there is positive misinformation in the media, and a wilful ignorance among people who ought to know better. I believe we have reached a place where Parliament and those who control the media are those who do not know, whilst the public do know. And if this is true, does it not mean that our governing class have passed their sell by date and we need new people, better and more informed people to replace them?
I will quote Question Time that was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Friday 5th March. Jonathon Dimbleby was in the chair. His guests were Kenneth Clark for the Conservatives, Ken Livingstone for Labour, Julia Goldsworthy, Liberal Democrat spokeswoman on Community and Local Government, and Mehdi Hasan, Politics Editor of the New Statesman.
The question of Lord Carey's concern was raised. Julia Goldsworthy spoke first. She said: "I am completely bemused by it. It's up to everybody to be defined how they want to be in terms of their faith, their ethnicity, where they're from. The job of politicians is to make sure everybody is treated fairly - that's got to be their overriding job. It's as simple as that." Later as the discussion hotted up, she chipped in again. This time she said: "We have a very healthy debate about these sort of issues in Parliament. It's a mischaracterization for George Carey to say that."
Ken Livingstone introduced himself as a lifelong atheist and got a few laughs. Ken Clark spoke the longest. He did not see what the fuss was. He was not a follower of any religion, and said: "There are some extreme Christians that are very intolerant of other people, some of the way out evangelical Christians. I take the view that the majority of the population take a laid back and tolerant view of most people."
Here the boot is entirely on the dechristianization foot. There are intolerant Christians, particularly evangelicals and although Ken Clark did not use the word it was certainly implied that they were irksome as well as intolerant. The answer was to take the laid back approach, and as for the "way out evangelicals", as Jonathon Dimbleby interposed, "I may say that Any Answers is available."
Only Mehdi Hasan, a Muslim, sought to defend the Christian roots of Britain. "I do sympathize with George Carey a bit - we have a great Christian heritage in this country and we should not lose that." I was honoured to hear a Muslim defend Christian Britain. I myself believe that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who feel the same way and are not frighten to say so. It's the ex-Christians who are afraid to defend Christianity. Why? Because the spirit of the age demands that they do not. If there are votes to be got, then let's ditch the Christian Religion. What's all the fuss about? We are a secular society aren't we?
Who are these irksome 'evangelicals'? We may think we know. Aren't they the sort of people who hold their hands in the air and don't use incense? Not at all. For the answer of who are these creatures we need an explanation from 'Any Answers' which was broadcast on 6th March.
The Jonathon Dimbleby had ample Christians phoning in to correct the travesty presented on Any Questions. Dimbleby interrupted one speaker to ask what an evangelical was. His question is worth quoting in full: "Can you sum up in crude terms to a layman in essence what distinguishes an evangelical? Is it your urge to spread your message as strongly as you can and wherever you can?"
This tells us exactly where the problem is. These irksome 'way out evangelicals' are little or nothing to do with what we understand by the term. People have long ceased asking that. Rather the unpalatable Christians are those who want to encourage others to believe in Christ. This further came out as the speaker responded and Dimbleby asked for further clarification. An irksome extremist Christian is one who believes in the calling to make disciples of all peoples, precisely the calling that Jesus left his disciples before his leaving them and which all Christians, Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist, Orthodox ought to hold as basic, namely that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no one can come to the father but by him.
We can therefore say that a non irksome Christian is one who keeps quiet, who is prepared to let others be what they want, who has no interest in the transformation of society. Wouldn't this be better for everybody? Don't we, as Ken Clark said, just want tolerance of all sorts of people no matter what they are or what they believe? We want a laid back society in which nothing is really believed strongly enough to seek to bring others round to believing the same. It is a society without mission, a society where all a politician is is a dinner lady, who makes sure the children aren't squabbling. As for the drug addicts, the rising number in prison, the rise in depression and over eating, what does that matter. I can pretend they don't exist most of the time! But ordinary people know. They see such broken unhappy people all the time.
I think we can read all the banter in Any Questions in the light of definition of evangelical Christians as those who wish to spread the message of Christianity, and it proves that George Carey is correct in what he says. Behind the requirement that Christianity does not share its message - for this is surely implied in characterizing those who do as intolerant extremists - is the requirement that Christianity die. Christianity has been sidelined and none of the three parties that hold the central stage in British politics are going to defend it.
The attempt at wisdom by Julia Goldsworthy is in fact the hotch potch of denial of absolutes that we have come to expect from those who govern us and control the media, absolutes like 'thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, honour your father and mother etc..' The job of a politician is basically that of a dinner lady, to blow the whistle when anybody gets too extreme, to make sure everybody is acting fairly. Friedrich Nietzsche once famously wrote about George Eliot who had given up her Christian faith; "why then does she hang on to Christian Ethics?" If you give up belief in God, why tie yourself to all this Christian kindness, fairness, good treatment of others. Nietzsche saw that it was only a matter of time before well meaning people like George Elliot would finally have to shed Christian ethics too. It's logical. So I ask - why do post Christians like Ken Clark and Julia Goldsworthy continue with their well meaning essentially Christian ethics? When will they finally shed these ethics too and allow the jungle ethic to replace it?
The truth is that they already have. Christian ethics are still hanging around in the rhetoric, but only just. There is nothing left to believe in for most of these politicians, and what has replaced Christian belief is power itself. It is this that is now the driving force in British Politics. It is power that is essentially the driving motivating force in New Labour, and in New Conservatism too, to get it and to hang onto it for its own sake, the beautiful feeling of power over others. People are not listened to. They are now told what is good for them. Managers have replaced politicians, people who manage others for their own good, telling them what they need and should have. Julia Goldsworthy is well satisfied that these issues are properly debated in Parliament - shouldn't we be happy with that too - that is by the dinner ladies and the children better shut up and be satisfied. They have no need to worry about discussing these issues among themselves as their managers are doing it for them! This is paternalism gone mad! It is the opposite of what democracy ought to mean and once did mean.
This is why I'm standing for Parliament. Somebody has got to tangibly say no more! Stop! Let's retrace our steps. Let's save Christianity! Let's allow the 72% of the people who call themselves Christian to speak for themselves, and also other decent believing people, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc.! Do we want a sensible and reasonable faith in God to underpin British politics? I believe most will say "Of course we do." But the politicians have stopped listening to the people.