In Westminster Hall, on Wednesday 5 December 2007, Mark Pritchard MP brought a parliamentary debate on Christianophobia. Jonathan Bellamy researched what was said.

Mark Pritchard MP

Here is an extract from that speech.

Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important and timely debate before the House. First, let me say that this debate is not about "doing God", calling for a theocracy, Bible-bashing, proselytising or criticising other faiths, or advocating on behalf of a non-existent UK religious right. Indeed, I hope that this debate will move outside the strictures of party politics. It is also not a debate on religion. It is not about championing a particular brand or denomination within the Christian tradition, as over the next few minutes I will set out that Christianophobia is impacting on all denominations, and even offending people of no faith.

This debate is about the relentless assault, mostly by stealth, on this nation's much-loved Christian heritage and traditions. It is about how anti-Christian sentiment is increasing, not decreasing; why many Christians feel they are not getting a fair hearing when it comes to Christianity in the public square; and what many people of all faiths and no faith see as the increasing marginalisation of Britain's Christian history, heritage and traditions through the actions of Whitehall Departments, Government agencies, local authorities, the charity commissioners, or other sectors of society. I will also comment on the creative industries and some sections of the media.

Since I secured the debate, I have received hundreds of e-mails underscoring the concern of Christians, who, although they should be equally protected under existing anti-discrimination legislation, are left feeling increasingly overlooked and ignored. Sidelining the views of so many people-seven out of 10 people in the 2001 national census identified themselves as Christian-if the matter is left unresolved, could lead to unhelpful and avoidable social fragmentation, rather than unity. It is important for the Government and public agencies to recognise, acknowledge, and be reminded of the roots of Christianity in this nation-roots which, as many of us know, were first evident in the 1st century. Whether pre or post-Reformation, the place and role of the Christian faith has for the best part, but by no means always, been of real benefit to this nation and communities around this nation. That is seen in the imported music of Handel and the three counties music of Elgar, the literature of Bede and Cuthbert, the modern science of Polkinghorne, the fine works of religious art that fill our public galleries up and down the land, and the architecture of the cathedrals of Hereford, Canterbury and-if the Minister will forgive me-Gloucester.

Britain's Christian traditions are both rich and deep, and are enjoyed today by people from all faiths and none. Furthermore, this Christian tradition has held Britain's communities together for many hundreds of years and through the very many challenges of British history. The most recent English church census reveals that at least 3.2 million people still attend church every Sunday. The Christian Church is not dead: it is very much alive. Perhaps that is an important oversight that some have mistakenly made.

In education, there should be no discrimination against Christians who want to provide home schooling. There should be no discrimination against faith groups that wish to set up new schools and/or expand their existing schools network. People of all faiths and none queue to send their children to such schools-schools with a Christian ethos. Do not take my word for it: look at the evidence. More widely, state schools have a legal and educational duty to ensure that pupils are taught about Britain's Christian traditions, at least for educational, if not for spiritual, purposes.

A recent survey in The Sunday Telegraph revealed that fewer and fewer schools are staging traditional Christmas nativity plays, supposedly through fear of offending people of other faiths and those with no faith. But what about the offence to Christians? And whatever happened to allowing children to explore? I would like to put on record, Mr Williams, that I have never met a single Muslim, Jew, Sikh or Buddhist, or person of any other faith, who has told me that they object to Christians celebrating Christmas. That they do object is a false, secular-driven proposition, and a divisive one. Indeed, the Muslim Council of Britain said:

"We see no reason for any Muslim to be upset or offended for the celebration of Christmas or any other festival of any faith".

Yesterday I received an e-mail from a Jewish gentleman in Beirut, who told me of nativity plays performed in schools there. If it is good enough for Lebanon, it is good enough for London.

It is also wrong when Christianophobia occurs on university campuses, when Christian groups try to access local government grants and funding or seek to rent public buildings, and in decisions relating to adoption and fostering services. Local, regional or national fundholders and decision makers who are Christianophobic need to stop breaking the spirit of anti-discrimination laws and look beyond Christian labels to see the wider benefits that hundreds of faith groups bring to local communities up and down the nation. In the majority of Britain's villages, towns and cities, religious faith remains a force for good.

I hope that the Minister will consider amending existing legislation to ensure that anti-Semitic and Christianophobic crimes are recorded and prosecuted by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. He knows that I have tabled many questions relating to anti-Semitic crime, and the Government have said that they are currently researching the whole issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has also tabled questions relating to hate crimes against Christians and against the Jewish faith.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): My hon. Friend is bringing an important issue before Westminster Hall. When local authorities intervene to change the names of ceremonies or to suggest that parts of the Christian ceremonial tradition be removed, does he think that that is animated by dislike of Christianity, or is it just a mistaken notion of what is required to comply with the existing regulations?

Mark Pritchard: My right hon. Friend, as always, makes an excellent point, on which I will touch later. Sometimes the problem arises from a misrepresentation of the Christian faith, or a misunderstanding of what other faith communities perceive Christmas to be. As far as I can see, there is no offence in the minds of people of other faiths and of no faith, unless they are perhaps zealots, humanists and secularists in relation to this country celebrating and commemorating Christian traditions such as Christmas and Easter. What is offensive to people of other faiths is when secularists, society's liberals and the politically correct brigade use the names of other faith groups as a bogus cover from which to launch attacks on Britain's Christian traditions and festivals. Not only are those assaults divisive, but they undermine this country's hard fought for freedoms-important freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The Government should not allow themselves or their agencies to be intimidated in such a way.

Let me give the Minister more examples from both the private sector and the public sector. In the retail sector, many shoppers find it increasingly difficult to purchase greetings cards that refer to Jesus. My constituent, Mrs. Patricia Smyth of Wellington, Shropshire, has e-mailed me in the last few days to say that, while shopping for her grandchildren, she found that