Such vicars-in-a-twist tosh from our Lyndon

IT'S never good when politics and religion get mixed up.

At worst, it can lead to theocracies where religious ideology determines laws and policies. Those regimes are almost always worse and more extreme than secular states.

In fact, it's hard to think of a moderate theocracy. That's one reason why most countries that aspire to be progressive keep religion quite separate from government.

Even inherently-religious countries such as Christian America, Islamic Turkey and Hindu India practise the doctrine of governmental secularism. Of course politicians are still free to be influenced by their religious beliefs, but at least the churches/mosques/temples have no official role in government. Not only does this allow objective, evidence- based decision-making, it actually protects the religious freedom of minorities and the freedom of expression of non-believers.

What has all this ruminating got to do with Guernsey? Well, in a small way we've just seen an example of the intrusion into local politics of a state religion flexing its constitutional muscles.

I refer to the Dean of Guernsey's threat to petition the head of state – who also happens to be head of his religion – over the very moderate proposals from the Parochial Ecclesiastical Rates Review Committee.

This threat is rather sad, but what's far more concerning is the over-reaction to this sabre-rattling by Guernsey's chief minister.

Of course, if PERRC had come up with radical proposals which shook the very foundations of the Church of England, one would expect a robust defence from the Dean. But what actually was the issue which caused him to get his vicars in a twist?

It was the suggestion that as the churches belong to all parishioners – and they therefore have to pay for their upkeep – then ratepayers should have some input over the use of those buildings. Hardly an earth-shattering and subversive proposal from a committee chaired by that well-known dangerous radical and enemy of the state, Deputy Tom Le Pelley.

But to the Dean it seems only the status quo is acceptable. This can be summarised as: 'They're your buildings, you pay for them, but we should have total control over their use'. Frankly, that's unacceptable. Either the church shares control or takes on greater financial responsibility.

So what about the so-called 'constitution crisis' which led to the intervention of the chief minister?

Well, there are certainly some constitutional issues involved, but surely they are best brought to a head and clarified? Yes, the Queen-in-Council will have to pass the proposed legislation and she is also head of the Church of England, but then she's also its head in other countries, where the funding arrangements for churches are nothing like Guernsey's. That includes the UK.

I'm sure she and her advisers would take into account the Dean's petition. But they would still have to respect the constitutional convention set out in the Kilbrandon Report that the Privy Council should only deny the Guernsey States its proposed legislation where it clearly represents bad government of the most fundamental type – for example, where a proposed law runs counter to our international obligations.

The ratepayers of the parish having a say in how their own buildings are used hardly comes into that category.

So why has Deputy Trott seemingly got so het up over the reputational dangers of the debate going ahead this week? Is it really so dangerous for the States to discuss a minor change in how our parish churches are managed after a very long and open investigation? On the surface this is hardly the stuff that constitutional crises are made of.

Of course, if the resulting legislation was refused by the Privy Council it could call into question the island's autonomy and thereby damage our reputation. But if the British authorities really were to deny Guernsey such a modest proposal, then our autonomy would be completely illusionary. Rather than backing away from such a conflict, the island's government has a duty to pursue it and insist on our historic constitutional rights.

I wonder what has spooked Deputy Trott so much. Why didn't he raise his concerns earlier? Why does the last-minute proposal to delay the long overdue PERRC report seemingly come from him personally rather than the Policy Council? His ludicrous suggestion that asking the Queen-in-Council to approve the proposed changes could mar jubilee year is so utterly risible that it's deeply worrying that such tosh could come from our top politician.