The right hand of God

Christian fundamentalists form a noisy wing of the Conservative Party, and their influence is growin

By Sunny Hundal Published 24 April 2010

In May 2008, a triumphant-looking Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire, adorned newspaper front pages when she launched a campaign to restrict abortion rights. Aided by those who called themselves Christian "fundamentalists", the Tory backbencher was championed by the right-wing press for standing up against "the abortion industry". Dorries and her allies eventually lost the campaign to reduce the legal time limit for abortion, but they were undeterred. This was always going to be a long-drawn-out battle. And they had God on their side.

You could be forgiven for thinking that the David Cameron project has been striking in its unwillingness to say much about faith. None of the inner circle of Cameron, George Osborne, Andy Coulson and Steve Hilton is regarded as particularly religious, and avoiding the subject is part of the Tory detoxification project. Yet there are signs that a change is afoot.

“Historically, there have been splits in the Conservative Party over religion. But the vast majority of the new MPs will be social Conservatives who have similar opinions to myself," Nadine Dorries tells the New Statesman. “I can think of half a dozen Conservatives that don't agree with me, but they're leaving at the next election - people like Andrew MacKay and David Curry. The new MPs that are coming in are all social Conservatives - people like Fiona Bruce, Philippa Stroud, Louise Bagshawe."

Cameron is not oblivious to his party's uneasy coalitions, and has stealthily started to unveil policies designed to shore up its increasingly loud, ultra-conservative Christian base. Recently, he told the Catholic Herald that he was a "big supporter" of faith schools and that there should be a review of the legal time limit for abortion. Is he likely to go further?

The answer may depend on how well the Christian right organises itself. Strong links have emerged between the religious right and some Tories, with support from the media. Some groups in the UK have received funding from US groups. Their aim isn't merely to push certain policies but, in copying tactics from their American counterparts, build a more sustainable, long-term movement that would change the face of British politics.

Victim mentality

At the Conservative party conference last year, Baroness Sayeeda Warsi berated other political parties for their supposed hostility to faith: "The scepticism of senior Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris driving this secular agenda has now grown to become an ideology permeating through many parts of the public sector . . . It's no wonder that this leads to accusations in the media that our country's Christian culture is being downgraded."
Warsi cited several incidents, including the case of a nurse being suspended for offering to pray for a patient's recovery. "Christianophobia" has now become a mainstream obsession for columnists and politicians. A few years ago, Melanie Phillips wrote an article for the Daily Mail entitled "How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime", complaining that Christians were being harassed by the law for their homophobic views. In late 2007, the Conservative MP Mark Pritchard called for a debate in parliament to tackle the phenomenon. "Some people seem to want to forget the Christian tradition going back to the first century and its contribution to arts, culture and science," he told the BBC.

The rise of the Christian right is partly a backlash to increasingly liberal social attitudes and secularisation. But there is also a strategic element to the rhetoric. It may be hard to believe that Britain will turn into Jesus-land, but social attitudes are always in flux. And developing a sense of victimhood is an essential part of the religious right's strategy to fire up its base. After all, it has been used to great effect in the US.

The nurse that Warsi mentioned in her speech, Caroline Petrie, took advice from a group called the Christian Legal Centre (CLC). The CLC seeks to protect Christians and Christianity and has been involved in many other cases. These include that of the paediatrician Sheila Matthews, who refused to endorse adoption by same-sex couples; Emily Mapfuwa, who took an arts trust to court for exhibiting a "phallic" statue of Jesus; and the 15-year-old Lydia Playfoot, who was barred from school for wearing the "silver ring" of abstinence.

The organisation is headed by Andrea Minichiello Williams, an activist who was behind several protests against legislation on embryology research and outlawing homophobic discrimination in 2008. A Channel 4 investigation the same year revealed that the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship, for which Williams then served as public policy director, had received money from a US organisation called the Alliance Defense Fund that aims to "aggressively defend religious liberty" through litigation.

Among the Tory faithful, there is a growing feeling that Christian values are under attack. These concerns are being carefully cultivated for maximum effect. In March, when a judge ruled against a registrar who refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies, newspapers and religious groups fumed that judges were "biased against Christians".

When Dorries unveiled her "20 Reasons for 20 Weeks" campaign in 2008 to restrict abortion rights, Williams cropped up as an ally through another organisation she runs: Christian Concern for Our Nation (CCFON). The campaign website stated that it was not politically motivated or religious; however, I can reveal that it was registered and created by CCFON members, a fact not mentioned on the site. When asked about the organisation's involvement with her campaign, Dorries says it "helped out with the research". She adds that it had "an army of interns" who proved "very useful". And how was the slick-looking website funded? She pauses before replying: "One of their interns did the website for free."

CCFON isn't a normal Christian organisation. Williams believes that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful and the world is 4,000 years old. Dorries says she wants the legal abortion limit reduced to 20 weeks but, during the campaign, she admitted her preference was to make it illegal after nine. She said: "A woman seeking an abortion in this country is the victim of a well-organised industry."

These sentiments alarm the Labour MP Martin Salter, who tabled a debate in parliament last year to extend England's abortion law to Northern Ireland. "I wouldn't be so concerned if politicians such as Nadine Dorries, who was selected on a mainstream ticket, stood on a ticket of Christian fundamentalism. But there is a certain amount of dishonesty when they work hand-in-glove with people whose views are so extreme - certainly not the kind of views that any politician seeking votes would put on their election leaflet."

The lurch of the church

The impact of the religious right on Tory thinking is difficult to measure, but Cameron seems to recognise the need to keep the ultra-social- conservative base on side, especially since it has the support of many moderates.

One source of pressure will be Tim Montgomerie, editor of the ConservativeHome website. Twenty years ago, he co-founded the Conservative Christian Fellowship, an organisation that aims to act as a "relational bridge" between the party and Christian communities. It is now housed at the Tory campaign headquarters on Millbank. Montgomerie was complimentary of Dorries's 20 Weeks campaign and gave her ample space on ConservativeHome. He frequently calls on the party leadership to listen to and court the "Christian vote".

Cameron's biggest boon to Christian fundamentalists would be in allowing them to expand faith schools. Taxpayers already subsidise around 50 centres across the UK following the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum, which aims to "reach the world for Christ, one child at a time". Tory proposals could allow such groups to "reach" many more students.

The influence of the social conservatives is also seen as the reason Cameron stood firm on recognising marriage in the tax system, despite howls that a tax break for married couples, when public finances were perilous, was not sound policy. Abortion, too, will come back on the agenda if Cameron wins. Dorries is already relishing her role. "Cameron won't bring abortion to the forefront of the government agenda - that will take people like me - but he will support it. He could be like Tony Blair - he feels strongly about his faith, but doesn't feel he can bring it out until later."

At the Conservative party conference last year, the traditional hymn and prayer were dropped in favour of a 500-seater church service, a pipe organ, folk music and a gospel choir in the style of American mega-churches. Change is coming. But perhaps not in the way many envisage.

Additional reporting by Rowenna Davis
Sunny Hundal is editor of Liberalconspiracy.org

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

View the discussion thread.

9 comments

Mon, 2012-10-01 18:37 — Richard Gillard (not verified)

I have seen Nadine Dorries' blog on this issue. I don't believe she is motivated by the crass, religious, "Every Sperm is Sacred" arguments of religious fundamentalists..

It would appear she has worked as a nurse and has assisted on late term abortions. She has been party to operations where a fetus has reached the stage when it would be viable outside of the womb and she has seen this tiny person murdered, either by having it's head crushed or by being suffocated.

This is not some point of theology she is arguing about. She is simply saying that murder is wrong, even when the person being murdered has not yet been separated from it's mother's placenta, drawn breath or spoken a single word.

These pro-abortion arguments, which state that because the baby is still in it's mother's womb it is part of her body, and that she has a right to do as she wishes with it because otherwise we would be interfering with her rights to her own body, these arguments are every bit as crass as the Catholic Church's attitude to birth control.

We all need to grow up. We need to realize that sex is a natural human need and that, if a mother does not want a baby she should take precautions. There is no good reason that I know of to let a pregnancy get to 24 weeks and then abort. If an abortion is necessary it should be done when the fetus is still a bit of jelly clinging to the wall of the womb.

Whether you are on the left or right of this argument, whether you are a religious fundamentalist or an atheist, you should think before you open your mouth, put pen to paper or publish your thoughts in the media or on the world wide web.

There is a much simpler way of saying this. it is this:

GROW UP! THE LOT OF YOU!

Wed, 2012-06-13 16:52 — Andrew Chapman (not verified)

This is quite a good article. Many new questions emerge to the surface, all you need do is to read further information about the issues. Only then one can form a final view on a particular subject. Otherwise everything is seen only in the dimension of cum more black and white. The natural logic of evaluating things before vstavane skrine they were properly cognitively processed is a horrible mistake, made by those less intelligent. People should not throw away their common slovakia sense easily. Anything and everything deserves appropriate time for making judgements.

Wed, 2012-10-10 10:02 — Richard Gillard (not verified)

I couldn't agree more.

Wed, 2012-10-10 10:02 — Richard Gillard (not verified)

I couldn't agree more.

Tue, 2010-10-19 17:43 — Ramon Battershall (not verified)

I grow tired of people stating that Britain is based on Christian principles, it is based on secular, rationalist principles and has been for 200 years. Moreover, given that the old testament advocates death for, amongst other things, dying clothes, eating seafood, atheism and 'witchcraft' it would be interesting to see how many Christian fundamentalists put their literalist approach to religion into practice. Also Ephesians clearly advocates slavery, which is presumably not a view many Christians would subscribe to nowadays

Sun, 2010-08-29 17:53 — David Bruce (not verified)

I just wonder which Bible these people read. Can the conservative christain please tell us where in the Bible or among the message of Jesus does it say its ok to make the Rich richer and the poor poorer, yet that is what has been happening over the last 3 decades and with Cameron attacking the sick the vulnerable and the poor whilst ring fencing the mega Rich one wonders if these rightwing christains actually read what Christ says. Sorry but Greed is NOT good. You cant serve God and Mamon. We need a society that narrows the gulf between rich and poor and you dont help someone by making them poorer.

Fri, 2010-12-31 17:30 — Philip Evans (not verified)

I once heard that the definition of a fundamentalist is 'someone who is no fun and mainly mental'. :D

As a Christian, I guess you'd consider me a fundamentalist, because I happen to believe in certain viewpoints concerning abortion and gay adoption, but we're only stating the same things as other people - absolutes.

Is it wrong to hold intelligent conversations about abortion? Seems to me that the issue itself it less important that the group or person who is bringing it. The pro-life argument is very rational and deserves a platform for debate.

I detect from the tone of Sunny and others such as Johann Hari (both whom I read and respect) that 'we don't want these Christians on the scene'.

Who made the rules that only certain groups can participate in society and others cant?

I personally dont believe that Christianity deserves an automatic right to be heard, but it does deserve the right to be represented in parliament by individuals and Christians have a right to vote.

Is it that a hidden hierarchy exists where Christians rights come further down the line that others?

There is a contradiction in the argument of this article and other similar voices. You cannot dismiss someone representing an absolute view by using an........ absolute view.

Time for some intelligent conversation on these issues...

Philip

Wed, 2010-07-21 04:03 — jr (not verified)

I'd have thought that with all the environmental and social problems humankind faces, decision making driven by irrational beliefs is the last thing we need. sigh..

Fri, 2010-11-12 08:58 — Arthur Trafford (not verified)

Gays & Lesbians in the Military

Just thought you might like my views on what the real goal is concerning Gays and Lesbians being able to join the military.

And in no way am I saying that I am more righteous than any homosexual; nor am I classifying homosexual behavior or conduct as a sin against God's sexual moral standards. My letter is simply written to compare what heterosexuals and homosexuals accomplish in their lifestyle of choice.

Gays and lesbians in the military is a non-issue. For the most part, all factories, small & large companies and small & large corporations in the U.S.A hire employees to do a particular job. Businesses involved in street, brothel or escort prostitution are basically the only employers who want you to perform sexual acts while you are "On the clock". The 8, 10, or 12 hour shift you work is the only concern of any employer. What civilian or military personal do the other 12, 14 or 16 hours of a given day is no ones business (we are not a communist country).

Most people in the United States of America profess to be Christians, either Protestant or Catholic. I know that there are Christians who love God with all their heart and have a personal relationship with and commitment to Jesus Christ who are homosexuals. I also know that heterosexuals who get married have about a 50% divorce rate; which means that they are not exactly the epitome of a righteous, mature, spiritually and emotionally healthy and whole person!

I am not attempting to judge divorced straight people and lump them all together and say that all divorces are wrong. A persons specific individual circumstances will determine what is the best option for a person to make during marital conflicts, so that a mate and his or her children can be protected from any present or future potential physical or emotional harm! If reconciliation is a viable and practical option, even after "Adultery", then divorce is not a God mandated option. If children are involved, then their health and safety are of more importance than say a "Christian" forcing or demanding reconciliation simply because they can't stand the thought of getting divorced (God's perceived judgment against them---a false guilt).

The naked truth is that all humans have relational problems, regardless of their sexual orientation; simply because we are all self-centered, ego-centric and put our self interest above all others. The point I am trying to make is that so many straight pious individuals (especially Christians) will condemn or make-fun-of homosexuals and their lifestyle; and completely ignore the fact that straight people also struggle with life, and straight people also offend God in what they think, do and say.

When homosexuals can't get total or unconditional acceptance or approval of their gay and lesbian lifestyle or marriage from their heterosexual family members, friends, co-workers, school mates or teachers, religious leaders, or neighbors; then this lawsuit against the U.S. Military opens a door to promote and encourage all Americans to accept the homosexual lifestyle as legal and have equal status of male to female lifestyle and marriage.

And in future lawsuits, a lawyer will argue that since the U.S. Military now accepts openly gay and lesbian individuals behavior, as acceptable consensual and legally condoned sexual behavior: Then the Supreme Court of the United States will eventually demand that the military; city, county, state and federal government agencies; will all accept homosexual marriages as legal in all 50 states of the United States of America.

Say you are a retail sales clerk at the check-out counter; basically no one cares about your skin color, age, sex, religion or if you are straight or gay male or female. No one is going to ask you personal questions about your lifestyle or personal beliefs on any topic or subject while you work. And in the Army, there is no M.O.S. "Military Occupation Specialties." job that requires you express any opinion or take a stand on any moral, political, religious or philosophical beliefs that makes you accept or reject any dogma or belief systems that another person holds. In the military you have the skills to do a required and needed job; and no one should be promoting a heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle. Your sexual orientation is between you, your mate and the God you believe in and serve.

Homosexual and heterosexual couples do not accomplish the same goals in life. For instance, of the 100's of billions of humans who have been born on the planet earth, not one individual is conceived from a gay or lesbian couples relationship. If two gay men are allowed to adopt a newborn boy and girl, both children will never, never, never have a mother in their lives; for neither of their two "Father's" is able to model or exhibit the female qualities of a mother or wife! And if two lesbians are allowed to adopt a newborn boy and girl, both children will never, never, never have a father in their lives; for neither of their two "Mother's" is able to model or exhibit the male qualities of a father or husband! The children will simply have to observe the male and female couple neighbor across the street, at school, church, on TV, or any other public gathering of people.

No, I am not homophobic and fearful of gays and lesbians adopting children. In the early years of the children's lives, they will be a little confused about the difference of two male or two female relationships. But once their children hit puberty and they are sexually aroused by the opposite sexed individuals (and they are not born gay) they will be attracted to the opposite sex. And if the gay and lesbian parents want grand-children and great grand-children; I am sure the parents will be happy that there children are like most humans "heterosexual" by design and desire!

They say that sex begins in the brain. Our desire to experience sexual pleasure is a blessing created by our Creator and while we are single it is a time to test us so that we can show another human being that we have self control, not motivated by lust and that we respect others, ourselves and God's moral laws. The sexual union of a male and female human has no limiting anatomical differences that would limit the natural sexual pleasure or eliminate the reproduction opportunity of the human race (there sexual union is not problematic in design and is symbolic of a hand-in-a-glove---natural union of two objects).

Homosexual activity is more akin to heterosexual foreplay; because neither sexual actions produce any children, only an orgasm. A gay man has to improvise and pretend that his mates rectum, mouth or closed lubricated hand are now a make believe vagina; extolling the virtues of this type of sexual pleasure and completely ignore the presence of poop or teeth. Likewise a lesbian can enjoy her female partner strapping-on a prosthetic penis and enjoying the sexual pleasure immensely as long as the penis is not attached to a real man (this female is not really a lesbian, but simply a frustrated, angry and hurt woman.

The idea that all gay and lesbians have the same reason for choosing their lifestyle is ludicrous. All humans, be they gay or straight experience: Rejection (misunderstanding); abuse (rape, incest or molestation; neglect (basic needs not met); abandonment (emotional or physical),; childhood sexual awareness and early experiences. Sometimes we interpret God's silence and grace as God's approval of our thoughts or actions. All gays and straight individuals need to examine what influences or situations in our lives are problematic, destructive or keep us from experiencing the abundant life that our Creator God wants us to enjoy.

Our sexual identity is most easily defined by which sex organ we have between our legs; and very few people are born with both sex organs in their body. And if you have two sex organs, "you" can choose which sexual identity best fits what you perceive is God's sexual identity for "you". Our human "Norm" is that God chooses our parents and our sexual identity.

Individuals perceiving that they were born gay or lesbian can easily be arrived at when they mix past pre-puberty and present post puberty emotional images on the same life "Projector screen" of their mind. One example is of a 6 year old girl that is very much loved by many females in her childhood. As she experience puberty and all those raging hormones and being constantly pressured with, "If you love me, you will let me" lustful verbiage; she now distrust males and feels used and abused by them and has little or no respect for the opposite sexed individuals. Maybe there is an absentee father figure who works long hours and she mostly bonds to females because the men in her life don't take the time to emotionally bond with her. A teenage or adult that this 6 year old becomes, can look back to a time she was very happy, and concludes that she must have been born a lesbian, and completely ignore her broken heart. When she is 20, another woman her age befriends her and she is flooded with all those loving past memories and unwittingly tries to merge both female encounters. The main flaw in her thinking is that she is blending her childhood memories and her adult feelings together. The little girl she was, only sought love, safety and belonging; the adult she now is seeks that and adult emotional intimacy and sexual pleasure.

This grown woman doesn't realize that her life long desire for emotional intimacy and sexual pleasure is not centered in a persons sexual orientation, but in learning how to forgive and love herself and others.

The main message is that all U.S.A. civilian, government and military employers should not use the court systems to promote or punish any heterosexual or homosexual majority or minority special interest group.

Do your job at work with excellence and express and enjoy your sexual preferences at home behind closed doors; and stop demanding societies stamp-of-approval on your gay "minority" lifestyle, for God is the only person you should be concerned about pleasing.

When you think about it, sexual pleasure is not the core center of a persons identity of being human or being made in the image of God. Men and women should be more concerned about how they treat their mate the other 23 hours a day, for sexual pleasure embraces such a small daily time frame of any persons life (even military personnel). L.O.L.

God bless all heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Share this letter with others.

Sincerely,
Arthur Trafford