What makes for a ‘Good
City’? Is it architecture?
No. Its plutocratic wealth? Certainly not. Where power is concentrated? No.
Rather, it is a citizenry of good intent. What makes for a citizenry of good
intent? Shared values, harmonious relationships between individuals, cultures
and communities, and their joint endeavours towards the common good.
For one instance of a city that possesses this enormously important but
almost always overlooked quality and one which has many other fine characteristics,
I would say that Birmingham
stands out. It is a good city, and a cosmopolitan world city. These qualities
mean that it is growing steadily, and Birmingham is home to 1.1 million people,
covering 150 square miles and including much that is green with over 100,000
publicly owned trees and 150 public parks. The Greater Birmingham area has more
than double this population.
Although there are local archaeological finds going back to the stone
age, far as we know, the continuous population began about twelve hundred years
ago when a group of people led by a man called Beorma first settled here. The name ‘Birmingham’ means ‘Home of
the people of Beorma’ (Beorma Ingas Ham) and ever since those
earliest times the city has welcomed people from all over the world who wish to
make their home here too and enrich the community through their work and
culture and achieve fulfilment as individuals.
It is on these principles that Birmingham
has become the country’s premier city outside the capital. It is the largest
local authority in Europe, or, put even more expressively, the largest local
authority this side of the Urals. This is something to be proud of rather than,
as we're told by those intent on needless change and the further diminishment
of local government, a bit of a problem.
Birmingham also has one of the
youngest populations of any major city in Europe
and there is pride in the open and democratic traditions on which the city’s
prosperity was founded. Over 130 years ago the Council made clear that Birmingham
knows: “No distinction between her
citizens by birth or adoption.” And, as a city of tolerance and respect
for all of its citizens, this is constantly reaffirmed. To adapt a famous
expression: ‘E Pluribus Birmingham’, ‘From many – Birmingham’.
The city's motto is ‘Forward’ and it lives by this. So even in
difficult times when the common good is not to the fore nationally, there will be
more opportunities to improve the quality of life for everyone and preserve the
city's extensive heritage. This would be in addition to an excellent cultural environment
both at the highest level and throughout its communities. The city will continue
to do all this along with other beneficial developments while remaining, by all
objective accounts, one of the friendliest cities in the country.
All Birmingham’s
citizens are encouraged to embrace the common values of our society. For
example, our faith communities can maintain their essential traditions and
beliefs while integrating into, and fully contributing towards, the common good
of the city - just as their predecessors
have done throughout Birmingham’s
vibrant history. Community has many dimensions, locality obviously but it is on
the faith aspect of community that I wish to focus here.
I have taken part in a number of multi-faith events and have seen the
good work of faith leaders and communities throughout Birmingham. While in my personal outlook on
life and its meaning I choose to hold a greater degree of uncertainty than most
people, like everyone else I seek knowledge, understanding and, where possible,
personal meaning.
I am also a harvester of wise sayings – the concise wisdom of others! I
take the view that we should accept truth from whatever quarter it may come and
however uncomfortable it may be, revising our outlook in the light of the
facts. As J. M. Keynes put it: “When the facts change, I change my
mind. What do you do?” So tradition should have a
vote but not a veto. The main challenges are how to be part of modernity
without losing essential values and how to fully incorporate in wider society
without losing cultural identity.
In terms of common ground it is worth looking for what I call the
‘sentiments within’. What I have in mind here is a constructive 'reading
between the lines' of scripture or other significant texts which can expand the
range of those who are reached by the essence of the message. This can
certainly be unifying. In any text, we should ask ourselves what is the core
intent rather than be distracted by the surface wording or contextual
particularities. As Shaw expressed it: 'There is only one religion though there
are a hundred versions of it.'
In most cases the principal divisive factor turns out to be ignorance,
but the good news is that that part of ignorance that is not wilful or deeply
indoctrinated can be dissolved – much more by friendly and informal contact
than through formal education. The residual prejudice that is not dissolved by
the removal of this lack of understanding is a deeper seated problem, but
numbers will be reduced as communities as a whole move forward. The key
questions remaining are what creates such prejudice in the first place and what
sustains it.
At both individual and community levels there is much to be gained by
distinguishing carefully between identity and belief. So faith and the
traditions associated with it should not represent the whole of identity. The
same consideration applies to those individuals with a truculent atheistic
outlook – it does not make for a harmonious society, nor does it promote
understanding or the common good if people see themselves or others as being
defined by these positions and need constantly to put up aggressive challenges.
The question also arises as to what extent identity can be sufficiently
secured with a tempering of the surface elements of religion – what I term the
'particularities'. With this in mind, there is also the question as to what
extent can the initially disparate identities of communities converge over
time? This would be a gradual process in which individual freedoms would have a
major role.
And common to all groups, every generation needs to relearn how to live
in ways that both satisfy themselves, their communities and promote the common
good. In these distracted days when we can so easily become preoccupied with
inessentials and become the 'tools of our tools', a highly relevant question is
whether or not human beings are related to the infinite.
Birmingham has always seen good interfaith relations as vital. Opportunities for
people of different faiths, or none, to learn about each other and overcome
suspicions are to be welcomed. So many good things can be achieved by working
together in which it soon becomes evident that the core values of the world
religions (and those of many thoughtful agnostics) are common ground. Broad
based knowledge and understanding are important – those who know only their own
side of the case know insufficient of that.
The Cosmos contains subtle and multi-faceted truths towards which
religions are pathways, so they should not, at a deep level, conflict with each
other. The seeming clashes of doctrine and practice need not be calamitous and
may be in fact be opportunities. What would seem on the surface to be
antipathies sometimes reveal hidden affinities. Apparent discord can be harmony
not understood.
Peace is the greatest good and, like its dreadful opposite, is a human
concept. Peace can only come into being when people are in touch with their
humanity and this I think is what the mainstream religions seek to achieve. Beyond
the political realm, peace depends on harmony between all religions and this is
a goal in which we all share. Harmony will have amongst its sure foundations
the qualities of knowledge, tolerance, respect and love as we strive towards a
world without enemies.
There are those to whom faith is a stranger. Some have this as a
preference. Some, while not seeking it, are at least at ease with this state
but for others it is unsettling. Wise counsel can assist them, and prayer too
since the process of and preparation for prayer is valuable to people of a
devout disposition but without specific faith. Preparation involves a gathering
of the self, and in providing a release from the urgencies of the moment,
allows a focus on a point beyond the self.
All that we do, especially in commercial life, should be
done with the guidance of a moral compass knowing that all individuals are
important and should be respected and that a single
act of generosity or brave intentions can change the course of a life or a part
of the world. We should carry our moral values into community and
representative life too and thereby continue to play a major role in making us
the great city that we are.
Today Birmingham
is home to many religious traditions, ranging from varieties of theism through
to the many strands of Hinduism and the godless spirituality of Buddhism. There
are also many degrees of agnosticism adjoined to core moral values, some of
which combinations are difficult to distinguish from un-dogmatic versions of
faith.
The power of the state and religious power are both enormous and in the
same hands amount to far too great a concentration of authority. So while state
and religion should be separate, this does not mean that faith should have no
say in government or that government must necessarily be conducted by faithless
people. What must be avoided is the situation where religious parties legislate
for sectional interests. Faith based values can be advocated with passion but
should not be imposed by legislation – a point that is taken up in Appendix A
on Lord Justice Laws’ ruling. Appendix B suggests a possible elements in an
inter-faith compact.
There is of course a great deal more that should be kept to the fore,
for example the contribution of literature and the immense value of the
aesthetic sense. Art is a universal language regardless of form. Art can take
us to an inner place, hinting at the thoughts that lie hidden in our hearts.
Art is a global language that knows no nationality and favours no race, creed,
age, class or gender. So a good city will encourage art in all its communities
– as does Birmingham.
Finally, in sum what is required from people for harmony? A warm
decision by the intellect, and the most rational decision that the heart can
take and magnanimity - greatness of heart and mind. These individual qualities are
the keys to good relationships between all communities.
And amongst many broad issues there is the necessity of sustaining the
good earth, locally and globally, restoring integrity and traditional decent
values in politics as well as business and embedding them right throughout
society today. And vital international relief and development work will
flourish all the more on the foundation of harmonious communities and the
generosity of the common good.
In all of this it is relevant to ask: what is the basis of belief? Why
do we believe what we do? And, equally importantly: what represents a
reasonable basis for changing our minds and what makes for a context in which
this can be done? The sociological view is that belief rests on the foundations
of family or culture. In psychological terms belief gives the individual a
sense of meaning or purpose – but may also be constraining.
A scientific foundation for holding a belief is reason and evidence and,
quite opposite to this, there is deference to authority – believing something
when told to do so by a person held to be significant or through having read it
in an authoritative text. The rational foundation for ‘belief’ requires this to
be held provisionally, in the light of the current evidence. But these
distinctions are by no means as sharp as may first appear. For example, as the
Bible reportedly says: Test everything and hold on to the good!
I am certainly for the common good – the common wealth as it were –
enhancing the well-being of everyone, with no-one being marginalised, where the
meek get some inheritance today rather than promises for delivery much later,
and where well-being is defined in a broad way to include all aspects of the quality
of life, not just consumption. In fact we should dispense with the vain quest
for emotional well-being to be gained through material consumption. In fact ‘consumption’
is a word that was once used to describe a state of ‘ill-being’ - a wasting
illness – ironically still appropriate today.
And I am equally certainly against 'sin'! To my mind sin is socially
pathological behaviour. Fundamentalist violence is the worst possible example, representing
that which is all too literally mortal. I wish that our language had a secular
word that was equivalent to ‘evil’ – for this is surely it. But more
commonplace aggressive self-righteousness, intolerance, excessive consumerism
and greed are examples of social pathologies that can detract from the well-being
of all communities and diminish the qualities of a good city.
But any such negative impacts will be reduced to an absolute minimum and
ultimately eliminated through shared values, harmonious relationships and joint
endeavours oriented towards the common good. These are all much in evidence in
the good city of which we have spoken, and long may it be so.
Appendices
A: Lord Justice Laws’ Ruling
Lord |Justice Laws’ wise words in a marriage guidance case merit careful
study. In his ruling Lord Justice Laws wrote:
“We do
not live in a society where all people share uniform religious beliefs. The
precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their
religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any
other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our
constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity
autocratic.
The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not
made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to
accept such dictated law, but the state, if its people are to be free, has the
burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to
be drawn between the law’s protection of the right to hold and express a belief
and the law’s protection of that belief’s substance or content.
The conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular
substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the
adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however long its
culture, is deeply unprincipled”
“It (a
faith) may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond
the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies
only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or
can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.”
B: Possible elements in an inter-faith Compact
1. We accept each other for what we are without trying to change one
another.
2. We will identify and promote our common core values and resolve to be
people and communities of reconciliation.
3. We commit ourselves to work together for a cohesive society in the
spirit of mutual respect and openness.
4. We will work together for understanding, respect, justice and peace.
5. We seek to promote the common wealth, the common good and a
harmonious common life within a good city and a virtuous economy.
