One of the more remarkable things about Sir Hugh Orde’s tenure as Chief Constable of the PSNI was that he never mired himself in the sectarian squabble that infects just about every aspect of our civil society. I have no idea what Sir Hugh’s religion is or what his beliefs are. Frankly, that’s the way it should be. Sir Hugh instilled confidence in our policing service by being unflappable and even-handed. He never felt the need to tell us about his beliefs.
Now enter Matt Baggott. On the very day his appointment as the new Chief Constable was announced he answered a media question about “who he was as a person” by describing himself as a committed Christian – as though that would instil confidence in us, the citizens of a society tormented by religious rivalry.
And a committed Christian he is. Indeed he is the President of the Christian Police Association.
Now let me be clear here. I have no doubt that Mr Baggott is a highly experienced policeman. He seems to have done some great work. He has good ideas about community policing. However, I really have to question – in the same way that I’d question a politician describing himself or herself as a Christian Politician – whether in a modern pluralist society it is appropriate for a senior police officer to introduce his “faith hobby” as one of his top attributes. Or let me put it another way. How impressed would his selection “star chamber” have been had he described himself as a committed Muslim?
We need a police service in Northern Ireland that focuses on rationality and practicality. We need a police service that serves the whole community. However, if the person who leads that service considers himself in some manner morally superior to people – like me – who have no religious faith, and certainly no Christian faith – he really cannot be setting a good example to his officers.
We have an expectation that our senior public servants exercise their duties impartially. Senior police officers should not “do God” in the same way that Tony Blair didn’t do God until he left senior public office. By “doing God” Mr Baggot might be tempted to summon higher judicial powers than the ones on offer through the Northern Ireland judicial system – in a similar manner to Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s justice secretary, when he released the Lockerbie bomber.
Sir Hugh Orde showed that progress can be made in this society when we put in place an even-handed and secular police service. Our new Chief Constable is accountable to the citizens of this place and not to his God. Perhaps those appointed to the “star chamber” selection committee were impressed by his piety. I am not.
For a change I cannot disagree with anything you have said.
Since he is so up front about it we should be told what bearing his Christianty will have on how he does his job and how he thinks non Christian officiers can do their jobs as well as Christians like himself. Will future promotions be partly based on whether you are a Christian or not?
It opens up very many questions when he aligns himself with a part of society that not all members of the public or persumably members of the PSNI agree with.
Well that’s a nice change. Thanks for the support.
I also, cant disagree with much that you say here, however you do make a mad assumption that shows all of you prejudice and ignorance.
“However, if the person who leads that service considers himself in some manner morally superior to people – like me – who have no religious faith, and certainly no Christian faith – he really cannot be setting a good example to his officers. ”
You assume that he considers himself morally superior to anyone.
He has never said that.
The bible never says that.
Yet you do.
Excuse me if I don’t salute you genius on this occasion, however, overall a very good article
Joel, can you suggest why he felt the need to tell us why he was a committed Christian – if not to hint that he was morally superior? All committed Christians believe they have moral superiority – why else would they do it? “Committed Christians” believe that they will have salvation in an afterlife precisely because of their moral superiority. Tell me how I’m wrong.
‘“Committed Christians” believe that they will have salvation in an afterlife precisely because of their moral superiority. Tell me how I’m wrong.’
Ok then. “Committed Christians” do not believe them have ‘selection’ in the afterlife because of morally superiority. It is precisely the opposite in fact. Salvation by grace means accepting your own moral inferiority in comparison to Jesus, and accepting it is one through whom you can be saved.
Regardless, the point you make seems incredibly judgemental and ill thought-out regarding Baggott’s comments regarding the subject. He was asked ‘who he was as a person’ (as oppose to a police officer). Not for one of his ‘top attributes’
Also “How impressed would his selection “star chamber” have been had he described himself as a committed Muslim?”
I would sincerely hoped it wouldn’t have mattered whether or not any candidate said he was a committed Muslim/Christian/Jew/Atheist. Again, the implication that the ‘Star Chamber’ was looking for someone of this ilk seems unhelpful, as does the implication that a public body would judge someone for being a Muslim.
I find the tone of your article is incredibly anti-Christian, and I’m not sure if that’s the intention or not. It is my opinion someone holding public office should be free to hold whatever religious/moral values they want, so long as these do not interfere directly with their job. As yet, there is not evidence to suggest Baggott’s Christianity has been a problem in his career as a police officer, and as such we should let him get on with the job without assuming it will become a problem.
Are you seriously suggesting that had Baggott professed his commitment to Islam he would have been given the job? Are you being serious?
The article is not anti-Christian. It is pro-secular. People in senior public office – especially those earning north of £180,000 – should represent the whole community. They should “do” their religion at home.
My Baggott’s religion is a big deal and a big attribute as far as he is concerned. I would have much preferred him to have referred to his high standards of ethical judgement, his fairness, even his human decency than his commitment to a paranormal phenomenon that many, many of us think has nothing to do with modern policing.
I agree 200% if possible with a secular society, so i consider alot of Jeffs comments very intelligent and reasonable, however his basic misunderstanding of christian doctrine and his insistance to comment on it astounds me, especially for a man with as strong logic and reason as he possesses.
I have zero problem with the rest of his post, only the basic flaw in logic he displays re christianity.
What was your view onRev.Martyn Smyth former UUP mp and member of the Monday Club?I would be interested to know please>
My view in what respect Damien?
Re. the Monday Club – well it would suit a lot of UUP members. The “views” of the club are as follows:
“The Club strongly supports traditional Conservative values:
The promotion of the family unit.
The right of individuals to pass on their benefits to their children.
The embracing of Christian teaching and morals.
The support of the Monarchy and the Constitution.
Resistance to “political correctness”.”
I’d ask “why do they support these things?” – and why do they believe that supporting such things makes them better Conservatives? That’s not to say that I don’t agree with some of them. I happen to believe that families tend to produce better, more balanced kids. However, that’s not to say that there is something wrong with single parent families. Many wonderful and balanced people have emerged from very challenged backgrounds.
Similarly there is much to be said for (revisionist, C of E) Christian morals. But an argument could be made that society needs no religion – and certainly no establised church – to have strong moral and ethical values. Indeed one could even argue that religious groups work against social morality – and the constitutions of many developed western economies clearly separate church and state. We need to do the same.
I, unlike Monday Club members, have a different definition of Conservatism. I clearly come from the libertarian wing of the Party. For me Conservatism is about reduced government, about the primacy of the individual, about strong law and order – but also about a strong sense of personal freedom and liberty. The Monday Club represents a definition of Conservatism that I simply don’t subscribe to.
Does that help?
Thanks for the reply but I would like to ask whether you agreed with Iain Duncan Smith suspending the club until it changed it’s inflammatory views on race and immigration.
Now I may have missed something but if any of us were asked the question “who are you as a person” what would we say. i dare say Jeff you’d tell us about your conservayism, our background and such details.
the New Chief Const seems to have done that, he answered the question, he described himself, he was honest – so where’s the probelm? – you don’t who is is because….
Umm, no Rauri I wouldn’t if I were asked to desribe myself in a professional content. We all adopt various personas and the new Chief Constable was clearly in a public/professional context if speaking at a Press conference about his new appointment. Therefore his personal “faith” was neither here nor there. If I were appointed Chief Constable (highly unlikely) I would hardly answer, if asked to describe myself as a person, that I’m an Atheist. It simply wouldn’t be appropriate in that context.
I made a point about it because I firmly believe that if we are to move forward as a society we need to completely separate church and state. The last thing we need to do is to start importing senior civil servants from England who define themselves, first and foremost, as Christians who believe in mumbo jumbo.