So the human fertilisation and embryology bill is the latest bit of government legislation to fall within the sights of the religious lobby. Many seem to think it should always have been a free vote, though I can’t say I’m one of them. One thing is clear however: the influence of religion in British politics is unquestionably on the up. Some of us are very worried, and we have every right to be.

So as not to be misrepresented at the start however, let me make clear that I’m no atheist. I can’t stand the attitude of the admirers of Richard Dawkins, who all too often appear to be mocking those with faith and underestimating the good work that goes on by people motivated by their religious beliefs. I respect a great many of the assorted priests, vicars, imams and rabbis that I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, and in less than two months I will be delighted to get married in my own local church. Quite literally, some of my best friends are Christians. But the wave of interventions into the political system from the religious lobby over the last decade has left me very uneasy. If they are true to what they believe in this should concern them as much as it does me.

At the height of the furore over the Catholic adoption agencies and the sexual orientation regulations I was working for a member of parliament. Some of the letters we received – from what I have to admit was a very impressive lobbying machine – cast religion in the worst light possible. The vitriol they contained, and their lack of openness to reason, was unsettling. When a compromise was reached which would allow those with religious views to not have to personally provide services for gay and lesbian people (a compromise far too far in the eyes of many) some were still not satisfied.

I’m not at all objecting to religious institutions raising political issues. But if they do so, they must expect to do it on the same terms as everyone else. Expecting some issues to be inherently within their jurisdiction isn’t on, and issuing voting instructions like a sort of spiritual whips office is completely unacceptable.

When Rowan Willliams, Archbishop of Canterbury and the leader of Anglicanism in the UK, intimated a few months ago that Sharia law was ‘unavoidable’ in our country he was treated like a bewildered old man. This was undoubtedly unfair on someone who is a genuine thinker, but that doesn’t mean the truth of what he was saying was any more palatable. As the leader of the established church, the Archbishop is in the difficult position of reconciling the embedding of a denomination, which only attracts 3 per cent of British people regularly to its services, into the state itself. One reason that he emerged as one of Sharia law’s newest students is that his answer to this anomaly is to see a general expansion in the privileges afforded to all religions. Forgive me for saying so Dr Williams, but the more logical answer for most of us would be to scale back the privileges afforded to his.

It makes no sense in a pluralistic society to give one church special status. Nor does it make sense, in a largely secular country, to give special status to all faiths. The point of a liberal democracy like ours is that the public arena is open to everyone. If Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims and any others wish to influence public policy – and they clearly do – then they must be prepared to enter the same arena and fight just as hard for their views as anyone else.

Jonny Reynolds is a Labour councillor in Tameside

So the human fertilisation and embryology bill is the latest bit of government legislation to fall within the sights of the religious lobby. Many seem to think it should always have been a free vote, though I can’t say I’m one of them. One thing is clear however: the influence of religion in British politics is unquestionably on the up. Some of us are very worried, and we have every right to be.

So as not to be misrepresented at the start however, let me make clear that I’m no atheist. I can’t stand the attitude of the admirers of Richard Dawkins, who all too often appear to be mocking those with faith and underestimating the good work that goes on by people motivated by their religious beliefs. I respect a great many of the assorted priests, vicars, imams and rabbis that I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, and in less than two months I will be delighted to get married in my own local church. Quite literally, some of my best friends are Christians. But the wave of interventions into the political system from the religious lobby over the last decade has left me very uneasy. If they are true to what they believe in this should concern them as much as it does me.

At the height of the furore over the Catholic adoption agencies and the sexual orientation regulations I was working for a member of parliament. Some of the letters we received – from what I have to admit was a very impressive lobbying machine – cast religion in the worst light possible. The vitriol they contained, and their lack of openness to reason, was unsettling. When a compromise was reached which would allow those with religious views to not have to personally provide services for gay and lesbian people (a compromise far too far in the eyes of many) some were still not satisfied.

I’m not at all objecting to religious institutions raising political issues. But if they do so, they must expect to do it on the same terms as everyone else. Expecting some issues to be inherently within their jurisdiction isn’t on, and issuing voting instructions like a sort of spiritual whips office is completely unacceptable.

When Rowan Willliams, Archbishop of Canterbury and the leader of Anglicanism in the UK, intimated a few months ago that Sharia law was ‘unavoidable’ in our country he was treated like a bewildered old man. This was undoubtedly unfair on someone who is a genuine thinker, but that doesn’t mean the truth of what he was saying was any more palatable. As the leader of the established church, the Archbishop is in the difficult position of reconciling the embedding of a denomination, which only attracts 3 per cent of British people regularly to its services, into the state itself. One reason that he emerged as one of Sharia law’s newest students is that his answer to this anomaly is to see a general expansion in the privileges afforded to all religions. Forgive me for saying so Dr Williams, but the more logical answer for most of us would be to scale back the privileges afforded to his.

It makes no sense in a pluralistic society to give one church special status. Nor does it make sense, in a largely secular country, to give special status to all faiths. The point of a liberal democracy like ours is that the public arena is open to everyone. If Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims and any others wish to influence public policy – and they clearly do – then they must be prepared to enter the same arena and fight just as hard for their views as anyone else.