An important debate is currently underway in the public arena about the extent to which religious organisations should be involved in the delivery of public services.
The
British Humanist Association (BHA) has published a study called
Quality and Equality on the contracting out of public services to religious organisations. It is being supported by the Trades Union Congress and its conclusions have been endorsed by public figures including Lord Warner, former minister at the Department of Health.
The report’s findings demonstrate, says its authors, that there is no evidence that religious organisations offer any distinctive benefits to the supply and provision of public services. Indeed they suggest that the government’s policy objective of expanding the role of religious organisations within the public services runs the risk of lowering standards, increasing inequalities, introducing ‘parallel services’ and damaging social cohesion.
Simon Barrow, co-director of the religious think tank
Ekklesia, has rightly commented that religious organisations "share with the authors of this report a concern for comprehensive equalities and quality in public service provision" and that there are "real problems and questions in the public service arena which need addressing urgently." As a result, the report deserves to be read with an open mind as a "part of an important and growing debate."
However, it should be recognised that
Quality and Equality does not approach the involvement of religious organisations in the delivery of Government services with an open mind. Malcolm Duncan, Leader of
Faithworks, has rightly pointed out that in this report the BHA has "fallen into accusatory and exclusive language" and "attempts to consign faith to the edge of society, attacking and misrepresenting who we are and our motivation for what we do."
Duncan points out that there are thousands of projects and groups in the faith sector that already do what the BHA are recommending in their report but that, instead of acknowledging this fact, the language of the report "caricatures the faith sector, assuming the worst of us rather than acknowledging the best."
FaithAction, of which Faithworks is a partner together with
Faith Regen Foundation and
Lifeline, will be showcasing some of the excellent services that faith groups provide to the whole of society at their forthcoming conference,
Money Well Spent, and through their new website (to go live over the next few weeks). These initiatives show that faith-based organisations tender for public money to deliver services that are needed in society with inclusivity and that this public money is not used to further religious objectives.
"The way ahead," Duncan says, "is not to dismiss faith, but to embrace it whilst at the same time celebrating the rights and responsibilities of humanists and secularists."
The difference between Duncan's comments and those of the BHA is that Duncan is calling for a level playing field in the commissioning of public services and in the vital link between public benefit and the use of public funds while the BHA are calling for secular services, which by virtue of being 'secular' (i.e. non-religious) would exclude religious organisations from involvement in delivery.
Hanne Stinson, BHA Chief Executive, has explicitly stated that the BHA have published
Quality and Equality to make clear their position "that the most fair and most inclusive services – for service users of all faiths and none – are secular services." As the BHA state on their website they are an organisation which devotes much of its time to campaigning and lobbying on behalf of everyone who considers themselves to be a humanist or holds similar views. As a result, its reports and pronouncements cannot be received as unbiased or objective.
This reality is made clear by the statement, again on their website, that humanists make "decisions on the evidence rather than on the basis of religious doctrines." Again, this is a biased perception of their position which ignores the extent to which all human knowledge is based on faith (as has been demonstrated by
Michael Polyani) and that humanism (like all religions) is a worldview based on unprovable assumptions that are held by its adherents as a matter of belief not fact. Humanism needs to be understood, not as a separate evidence-based secular position able to judge subjective religions, but as part of the 'faiths' sector because it is itself a set of beliefs. Interestingly and accurately, this is how humanism seems to be understood within religious discrimination legislation and is something that humanists have tacitly acknowledged when they have sought to join local
SACREs and
Faith Forums.
As Faithworks have argued: "The BHA are calling for faith to be removed from public services in a roundabout way – that’s not just wrong, it is misguided, dangerous and will doom communities to poorer services. Faith groups have a valuable contribution to make and that contribution is not only at the heart of social and welfare provision, it is at the heart of a healthy and balanced society."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pink Floyd
- Bike.
