The row in Britain over Muslim women wearing the veil refuses to die down.
Weeks after a local education authority suspended a Muslim teaching assistant for not removing her veil during class, and days after British Prime Minister Tony Blair jumped in by describing the veil as a 'mark of separation', the Archbishop of Canterbury, who heads the Church of England, has come out with a different viewpoint.
In a signed article in The Times, London, Rowan Williams wrote that 'a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen -- no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils -- is a politically dangerous one'.
The Archbishop returned to England after spending a fortnight in China and said he was struck by the difference in the debate underway in the two societies. While in Britain the debate raged on whether it was time for it to become a 'proper secular' country, in China, the Archbishop found the question being asked was the exact opposite:
NGOs working in China agree that their freedom to operate is far greater than ten years ago; indeed, there is a real burgeoning of new and local NGOs, as fresh issues are identified (not least around the welfare of children and the disabled). Government is pragmatic enough to work out when to back these, the Archbishop writes.
'Among such initiatives are a good many that are rooted in the Christian Church. The Chinese government now repeats regularly that religion is essential to the "harmonious society" it aims to create -- the sort of statement that would have been unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago. Of course, it is religion on the government's terms.'
And for those who claim that state-registered believers are not 'real Christians', the Archbishop writes that he can only say, on the basis of what he has seen in both urban and rural settings, that some of them put up a remarkably good imitation of loving their neighbours as well as of personal fervour and commitment. After all, even now, no one joins a church of any sort in China for an easy life.
'The declared intention of the Chinese government to strengthen the "rule of law" is a not very oblique recognition of the dangers of running a society by decree rather than developing a full system of legitimate and accountable authority. Just how far this will develop, as economic change advances and information access widens, remains to be seen.'
Pointing out that the United Kingdom does not have anything like this history of top-down rule by regulation, the Archbishop notes: 'Yet when people talk about whether we should "become a secular society", I wonder if they realise that they are in effect echoing the idea that the basic and natural form of political organisation is a central authority that "franchises" associations, and grants or withholds their right to exist publicly and legally within the State.'
Few places have tried as systematically as China to set this in stone, he points out, and now there is a tacit admission of defeat.
But 'in the UK, the daily reality of faith in ordinary communities is bound up with the maintenance of civil society, with enabling citizens to ask constructively critical questions of the State and to co-operate with statutory bodies to meet urgent needs. We could do with some common sense and realism about this. It would be something of a paradox if we had to look to the emerging China to find it.'
