Role of Dean in States is a rarity
Wednesday 6th January 2010, 2:57PM GMT.
The Dean, the Very Rev Bob Key, entering the States Building
THE Dean of Jersey’s role as a religious representative in the States is unusual, a survey of other Commonwealth jurisdictions has shown.
Of the 22 jurisdictions who responded only two had religious representatives in parliament, those being the UK and the Isle of Man.
However, the research by the Privileges and Procedures Committee showed that the saying of prayers in parliament was much more common with 17 of the respondents having some form of prayers.
The findings come after the roles of the Lieutenant Governor and the Dean were removed from a major review into the roles of certain unelected Members of the States earlier this year.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Religious persons have no place in government, their day is over. Actually he looks like a man who came around to my house a few months ago trying to convince me his sky fairy was real. I told him to go away, but not so nicely.
Report abuse
I am not against having some positive spiritual input into our affairs, in fact it is glaringly missing so why is he not pointing out in a very powerful manner where greed meets commerce and the overall welfare of the community….on his performance so far we would be better off without him. what does he do ? ,what is he for ? and why is the spiritual welfare of the community not being championed by him…
Report abuse
I’m disgusted at the fact that time and money was wasted on researching what others did; who cares if all 21 other parliaments had the Pope sitting in, it’s still not right.
The Dean should not be anywhere near government, and should any other religious zealot; unless they care to stand and campaign for election.
I may not agree with Con. Crowcroft, but I accept that he was elected and therefore has a right to speak ‘for’ me as a parishioner. The Dean does not speak for me in anyway.
Report abuse
Can’t say I know the man, but I don’t see any reason to throw insults at him just because he’s religious!
Mind you nowadays you’re banned from insulting anyone, except religious people. It’s about time there was just an outright ban on being needlessly insulting to anyone full stop!
Report abuse
bo he should not mix his religious role with politics
Report abuse
We desperately need moral guidance in Jersey at a time when we have statistically one of the the worst teenage sexual health record in Europe. Our own record in Jersey is worse than the UKs which is in the top 3 in europe for STDs. We also need moral guidance in other areas, with jersey’s increasing poor and in the face of a not inconsiderable obsession with money and material things. The Dean is not a voting member, but he provides expert advise on moral issues and represents very well people of all faiths and beyond. We need him. The west is morally bankrupt and its great if Jersey can lead the way in facing this.
Report abuse
religion should have no part in politics.
Report abuse
#6 I agree with Gerry M, although I’m not sure the Dean really does this anyway, but Jersey (like most places) is really lacking in moral guidance.
Parents aren’t handing it out, teachers aren’t allowed to, Governments get it unbelievably wrong, and anyone else is considered to be sticking their nose in. Well that’s all very well, but it IS desperately needed so who is to do it? If people were getting it right then no-one would feel the need to stick their nose in.
You may not agree with religion having any part in politics but we certainly need someone whose sole concern is morality and our serious lack of it.
And by morals, it’s safe to say that we all have different ideas about some rights and wrongs, but I think we can agree that kids hanging about streets drunk, getting STDs, under-16s having abortions, adults getting into drunken fights etc, is utterly shameful and reflects badly on us.
Report abuse
@ Leah Holmes #8
“…I think we can agree that kids hanging about streets drunk, getting STDs, under-16s having abortions, adults getting into drunken fights etc,..”
I think you’re right, most people agree witty these things… so what extra does the Dean bring to the debate? Nothing, except his religious views on things he thinks are sins.
A Methodist would say that it’s wrong I drink, a Catholic that I shouldn’t have sex, etc. But I want to, and choose to; and the fact is it does nobody any harm, and doesn’t have any significant impact on society, so there’s no need to ban these things, NONE… so why have religion sticking it’s selfish interfering nose on where it is not needed? The Dean, the prayers and religion need to be removed from the States, NOW.
Report abuse
I never understood this thing about Methodists and alcohol; I was raised a Methodist (before becoming a radical Atheist) and as far as I know there was only one non drinker in our congregation. On the plus side we used to have cranberry juice instead of wine at communion, much more tasty!
Leah, the day we don’t allow anyone to be insulted is the day we breach the fundamental right to freedom of expression – it will be a very cold day in hell indeed before that happens as far as I’m concerned. NJ.
Report abuse
If it’s decreed necessary to have a religious or spiritual presence in government then perhaps we could revert to our pagan ways and have a Wiccan rather than a god-botherer.
The Wiccan rede states “an ye harm none, do what ye will”, ie ‘as long as as you don’t adversely affect others then there’s no harm in it’ – perhaps this would be a good starting point for ministerial decisions.
Report abuse
#10 I disagree, someone can be insulted because you disagree with them or whatever, we will never do away with insults. However, personal insults just because someone happens to have a certain job, or name-calling for that matter, they have no place, and they make a fool of the person choosing to use them.
Report abuse
Well Leah, we can certainly agree that name calling isn’t helpful or constructive without seeking to ban the practice altogether.
The problem has to do with the subjective nature of those who are being criticised. For example I think it is foolish and deluded for anyone to have a religious faith and an act of gross hypocrisy and muddle headed thinking to believe that being a Christian for example makes you a better person.
Tactically speaking however it is better to avoid such strong language when engaging with believers in this instance as it might create antagonism and not allow for helpful discourse.
As such you and I might avoid statements such as “Christians are stupid” as it is a generalisation and not helpful to rally people to a particular point of view.
None of this means to say however that a person is not entitled to express their opinion, indeed from examining the posts here I see that this is a freedom you exercise regularly!
You may say that you don’t believe in targeting individuals or engaging in pointless insults however this freedom is too precious to be meddled with and we simply cannot agree on an acceptable limit, particularly concerning public figures who after all are the author of their own troubles.
Luckily this freedom is enshrined in law, the only exceptions to it being where saying something would be specifically defamatory, where it is likely to invoke racial or religious hatred. (I hope my example will escape the censor!)
NJ.
Report abuse
I agree with Leah’s comments on this thread particularly in that moral guidance should be given to children by their parents.Obviously,in many cases,this isn’t happening.
I am not a religious person but I believe that prayers are for church or in the privacy of wherever the individual chooses to say them and they should not be forced on to non-believers.I am also not fooled in to believing that people who claim to be Christian are necessarily good people as the opposite has been proved to me on several occasions.
I do not know the Dean but I would agree that he should not form part of the States.Having said that though he is probably of more use than many of the elected members.
Report abuse
#13 Very true NJ. I don’t think being a Christian automatically makes you a better person.
As for the Dean, sometimes we do certain things because of our job. In this case the Dean will provide moral guidance because of his job and has a platform because of his job. Now we may not all agree with his idea of morality, but I believe it’s good to hear both extremes (and everything in between) to find a happy medium that most people can live with. And we get enough of the other extreme in life.
I wonder who else is to do it? Everyone is too busy with their jobs and their lives. It would be great if we could self-regulate society’s morals but it’s safe to say that we’re in a moral decline so we’re obviously not capable.
Maybe there could be a pressure group out there with no religious affiliation that simply cares that morals (in general) are slipping, but if there is I guess they’re staying fairly silent.
It seems that if we want moral guidance at a high level (not on a one-to-one basis) that it’s going to come from religious groups/leaders, they seem to be the only groups that consider it an important enough issue to speak out,… I’ll take that over none at all.
As for name calling, you make a good point, maybe the day will come when namecallers realise that it’s a sign they have nothing sensible to say.
N.B. I can’t see any reason your post would have been rejected, but maybe I’m reading an edited version
Report abuse
If people want to go along with these cults, fine. But I object to having it forced on me and others. I object to the weirdos who come creeping around your house when you are minding your own business and forcing their views on you. I now ask if they have been police vetted as these cults have a bad record with regard to child abuse. They don’t like that.
There are empty buildings all over the island for the 8% who want to go – leave the rest of us alone!
Report abuse
I have never understood why people automatically equate religion with moral superiority. They do not always go hand in hand.
Furthermore, athiests are as likely to have a good moral compass as a person who believes in a supernatural moral guide.
The Dean may claim to speak for all the religious but in reality he represents his version because ‘there is only one way – the others are wrong’. If the others were right he would be a Muslim/Hindu/Quaker/Mormon/…etc’
Report abuse
@ Leah Holmes #15
“…Maybe there could be a pressure group out there with no religious affiliation that simply cares that morals (in general) are slipping, but if there is I guess they’re staying fairly silent…”
The vast majority of people I know think that it’s wrong that homosexuals can’t marry, but the church speaks out against it, and at least one Minister is on record as saying he could never support it on religious grounds.
The trouble is all those people don’t have any organisation behind them like the Dean does, they must rely on those that are elected… but then along comes the unelected moral guardian in the Dean that speaks out against what many, many people think is morally right.
The Dean has a right to an opinion, as does any flavour of church, but they have no right to an unelected place in the States.
Report abuse
There are three issues at stake here: whether there should be unelected voices in a democratic parliament at all,whether the Dean has a particular contribution to make and whether a particular religious tradition should have the right to speak.
On the first issue, I think there’s a value in non-voting experts being heard in the States. The A-G can advise the States on legal matters, and that can be helpful because he is, presumably, an expert.
There’s much less reason for religious interventions. The Dean is brought in from outside the island and, however much he may be personally able, he is the only member of the States who speaks without the slightest prior experience of the island.
Jersey’s CofE ‘establishment’ is an oddly slavish bit of the island’s constitution, the only part where we have been content to follow England (and it’s only England, not the rest of the UK) without demur. The Dean’s place in the Chamber is a vestige of an ancient alliance between Crown and Altar that is entirely irrelevant to Jersey today.
Report abuse
“I object to the weirdos who come creeping around your house when you are minding your own business and forcing their views on you.”
Don’t know about weirdos, Overpopulated, Ive had some right crackers turn up at the door but I always disappoint them by explaining that I am far too sinful to be accepted by their church elders.
So far none have sneaked back on their own to find out why.
Ever hopeful. C
Report abuse
Okay I strayed it into the issue of morality, I’ll respond to 17 and 18 and get back to the issue itself.
#17 I’m sure most would agree that anyone can have strong morals, but is there a group of such anyones speaking out on the general issue of morality? Maybe others, while moral themselves, are just too busy? As for atheists, I use the term non-religious to avoid being associated with the Atheists most prominent in the media!
#18 People only have an organisation behind them if they join one, it requires action on their part. People joined the Church and they will have an organisation behind them whether the Dean is in the States or not, they’ll be heard. As for Gay and Lesbian lobbies they’re so vocal in the UK even homosexuals are getting fed up with it, so if they’re not vocal in Jersey then who is to blame? It’s not the Church. There is casually voicing support and there is giving your own time to make a stand. One requires a breath, the other requires some sort of time sacrifice, just how much do people care?
None of the Christians I know would deny a homosexual a civil partnership and the legal rights that come with it.
I’m not sure if, in mentioning that Minister, you’re suggesting that religious people should not be allowed to be Ministers? I would be surprised if that did come from you though. People can have extreme,and varied beliefs, for a number of reasons (from Science through to just what they believe from their life experience), to ban those of religious belief we’d have to ban those of any belief, which leaves pretty much no-one. Anyway, it would be wrong to assume that the Minister’s views would be any different were he not religious.
So is the Dean’s position in the States really a big issue? Does it change the outcome of votes? Why would it? He’s just giving his voice, not voting. Even if he wasn’t in the States they would still hear his (exact same) voice.
And if we are not being heard whose fault is it? Groups can lobby on all sorts of single or multiple issues from medical, social, scientific,… and I don’t doubt every vote in Jersey has people lobbying politicians before it. It does require a ‘group’ because groups get heard better but it’s not as if any-one is stopping us from forming them though.
Report abuse
#19 This is off topic,… but it’s worth remembering the rights of homosexuals are not only hindered by religion. States Members are their to represent their electorate, so there’s a good chance that rather than being a religious issue that feeling on the island is still not greatly in favour of homosexuality. And if I’m honest I get the feeling that it isn’t. It’s a democracy so that’s the way it goes.
Some people (religious or not) simply have a violent reaction to anything that is unnatural to them. The problem is that what is natural to you may not be natural to me. Some scientists believe homosexuality unnatural and could give you very good arguments as to why they believe this. Some ‘Mother Earth’ types also believe this, since homosexuality inhibits procreation. I guess, in part, it is what you believe the reason of life to be that determines what is ‘natural’.
Apparently it’s unnatural to not want children. Except, of course if nature has determined that you do not have that ‘biological urge’, how can that be unnatural? Women that I’ve spoken to have been called ‘paedophile’, ‘baby killer’ etc. (and unfortunately I’m NOT kidding) simply for not having any biological urge to procreate. At best they are mostly met with distrust and generally unpleasant treatment. That’s how society reacts to something it deems ‘unnatural’. The same will go for homosexuality, some will never be able to understand it because to THEM it isn’t their nature (i.e. natural).
I think more headway will be made by getting society to understand that since everyone is different what’s ‘natural’ varies between people. In the meantime plenty of people will voice the ‘correct’ opinion and you’ll only get their genuine feelings when it’s their son or daughter that’s homosexual. Only targeting religious people on the issue of homosexuality will never deal with the underlying feeling among many of the rest of society. Just my thoughts.
Report abuse
I am disappointed at the recycled hobby horses here-we have religion bashing in general, Dean bashing in particular with a few sidelong glances at a few denominations. The debate is actually about the formal right of one person to speak in the States.
My view is that Alex is right about non-voting experts-and those two words are central: ‘non – voting’. One could turn this around… is it right that the Dean should be the only non-voting member of the States? Should the heads of other groups representing significant sectors of the populace have a formal right say what they wish to balance the suspicion that politicians will act primarily to court re-election rather than to do what is best for the island (allegedly best!) Is there a case for some means other than the less direct means of lobbying, speaking outside the assembly (either formally or informally) for other non voting appointed advocates (I use the term very loosely) to sit in the States? (Before any objects, I am not arguing for it-merely raining the question).
Report abuse
@ Leah Holmes #21
“…People only have an organisation behind them if they join one, it requires action on their part…”
True, but even if they joined together they wouldn’t automatically have any right to be heard in the States as the Dean, and therefore his Church, does. They would need to find a sympathetic elected member to speak on their behalf.
“…just how much do people care?…”
Very much, but many people who care also have other things in their life taking up their time; like working to pay their rates bill… and the Dean’s of course, because they’re expected to pay his for him!
“…None of the Christians I know would deny a homosexual a civil partnership and the legal rights that come with it…”
Then I’d urge them to tell their Dean, their Pope and their States member their views, and demand that they don’t speak for all Christians in any debate on equal rights.
“…I’m not sure if, in mentioning that Minister, you’re suggesting that religious people should not be allowed to be Ministers?…”
I would prefer that each issue debated was dealt with impartialy based on the specifics of what is right and wrong on that issue, so I personally don’t think anybody should be a Minister who goes into the job saying he will not support equal rights due to his religious beliefs.
However, so long as he’s honest about his views during his campaign, and he’s properly elected then I don’t have a problem with him holding the office.
This minister in question however is on record as saying he’ll not support equal rights for homosexuals based purely on HIS religious beliefs(and he’s also been quoted in the JEP as saying he would not support any proposition by a certain States member, regardless of merit! which goes some way to show how unfit for office he is anyway)
#22
“…States Members are their to represent their electorate, so there’s a good chance that rather than being a religious issue that feeling on the island is still not greatly in favour of homosexuality. And if I’m honest I get the feeling that it isn’t…”
I get the feeling that people in Jersey would like lower Income Tax, no GST and unlimited free dental care, but the States members don’t provide any of these?! Because they’re there to make the appropriate decisions based on what the right thing to do is, not just what people would want. Equal rights and freedom is absolutely the right thing.
Report abuse
re ‘experts’ in the States. I accept that the Dean might be a very moral man but is he any more an expert on morals than me, you or any other States member? I doubt it. The concept of morality is not a particulalry difficult one to grasp.
Therefore, in my opinion, he is not an expert on morals. He is an expert on his particular faith, that is it.
In France the church and state are completely separate and there is good reason for it. It does not make France less moral than us.
The Dean’s role is therefore completely unnecessary in the States. There is nothing to stop him from making a moral stand on public matters from outside the Chamber in the same way that any other person with strong moral values can do. He does not need to be in the States to do it.
Insofar as the AG is concerned, I do not challenge his credentials as a legal expert.
However, I do object to the inclusion of a person who advises and ultimately defends the States and yet also has the ultimate power to charge people.
If a State’s body comes to him for legal advice on how to defend a possible civil action, or at least minimise the impact of damages, how can he then fairly consider the police reports and decide whether that State’s body should face a criminal prosecution. Surely the easiest way to prevent damages and defend an action is to not bring charges against the entity in the first place..
There is a clear conflict in those two roles. An independant public proscecution service is desperately needed in Jersey.
Report abuse
Martin, I think you’re right. The question raised is whether a religious input is so specifically valuable as to warrant its exceptional inclusion in a parliament. Perhaps the States could have the power to call experts to speak, as in the UK is done by select committees.
If this were the case, I suspect that religious leaders would be called very rarely.
Report abuse
Oh, what the heck, let’s just skip the real reason the Dean acts as religious representative and says a few prayers in parliament (which is tradition)and let’s talk about the weather…
Report abuse
#27 Nice
#24 No disagreement with your points, I just don’t think the whole issue is that big a deal since it is a non-voting position. I believe the States’ Members live in the world, know their own mind and I can trust them not to be lead by the Dean. #23 has what I would consider the right idea, that others are invited also, but I guess on an island this size it will always come down to lobbying, or how we vote. Of course, if no pro-homoseuxal partnerships person stands?
I’ll admit I’m lucky, I don’t like ‘folowers’, so my Christian family and friends are people that get educated on subjects, listen to others’s views, and consider all sides of a debate. It’s why I like this website, I can get all sorts of other opinions get thrown at me, often very passionately. I’d rather be found wrong than miss out on hearing other views. My lot choose to go to Church, most were not raised in it, their Churches are non-denominational and teach against just believing something is a problem because a book or person says it!
These are (worldwide) the Churches that are growing in membership. They may hold different moral views to you or me, but they believe that above all they have to love, not judge, others, and they do a pretty good job of it (that’s why I often find myself defending their religion). That’s all we can ask of other human beings.
Ask them why they hold certain views on morality and they’ll explain the consequences on society etc. and their reasons will be pretty much the same as mine despite me not having their religious belief. So it could just be laziness to use the ‘it’s against my religion’ line. I’m not for the Dean’s, or the Pope’s denominations, because I’m not sure they teach that people should investigate for themselves (I could be wrong) and my understanding of the Bible is that they should.
Hope that explains a bit. My lot are all in the UK so it would need to be Christians here telling the Dean or the States he doesn’t speak for them, but I’d be surprised if they don’t do this already, they may just not do it publicly.
Report abuse