Despite its historical significance in the UK, it is now almost impossible to buy a card that says, “Happy Mothering Sunday”. Almost all cards now say, “Happy Mother’s Day”. This is at least partly because people are looking for a celebration that is the exact equivalent to the entirely American-invented Father’s Day, but also reflects the general trend to pick up American words and phrases to displace our own, which is then compounded by the media using the same expressions.

This erosion of our culture is unfortunate, particularly as it’s happening without people realising. Most people don’t realise the term they are using is American. While many people in the UK are not religious and don’t consider themselves Christians, even the famous athiest Richard Dawkins has said that Christian traditions form an important part of our nation’s heritage. Almost everyone celebrates Christmas, but few go to church, and many people are non-believers. Christmas is an important festival during which families get together and people show seasonal goodwill towards other, even if it has little or no religious significance to most people. Anyway attempts to rename Christmas have quite rightly been subjected to ridicule. So why should we rename Mothering Sunday? If people prefer to celebrate the American holiday, they can do so in May. But changing the name of Mothering Sunday to its American counterpart is the equivalent of British people deciding to celebrate Thanksgiving on 25 December. Using the name Mothering Sunday is in keeping with the British tradition of retaining historical dates from the Church calender, but giving the festivals a modern, secular meaning that’s inclusive for everyone.

Another good reason for avoiding “Mother’s Day” is that it removes the dilemma of where to put the apostrophe. I have seen all three possibilities this year: Mother’s Day, Mothers Day and Mothers’ Day. The first is by far the most common, yet it could actually be argued that any one of them is correct. Unfortunately, many people won’t even think about what the apostrophe means, which is probably why it’s generally put before the “s”, where they think an apostrophe is automatic. It’s far better to use a name for the day that doesn’t require an apostrophe at all.

The irony is, I have an American-made calendar on my wall, and it manages to correctly identify today as Mothering Sunday. It shows Mother’s Day as being 11 May. The Americans themselves appear to have no problem accepting different countries’ conventions and culture, it’s just that the British seem to have no idea about their own.

The United Kingdom is a country where free speech is valued. It was quite right for Rushdie to be given police protection when his life was threatened in the 80s and 90s, just as anyone should be protected from threats to their life or any other sort of criminal activity (although, it has to be said, he could sometimes be a little more gracious or grateful towards the British authorities in return).

However, the question has to be asked, why was Salman Rushdie awarded a knighthood? Is he so much better than so many other authors? Few best selling writers are made knights or dames, nor do most of Sir Salman’s fellow Booker Prize winners hold that discinction. Is his work so great that he deserves what is almost the top British honour? Maybe making him an OBE or something similar would have been in order. But a knighthood?

Unfortunately, one can only come to the conclusion that many Muslims have no doubt come to: Sir Salman was given his title to cause controversy. It is not too difficult to imagine the civil servants in their secret rooms thinking it could be a good idea to stir things up a bit. Perhaps the idea was to cause a diplomatic crisis to overshadow the start of the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown’s term in office next week. An OBE might have provoked some protests, but Pakistan, as a Commonwealth country, understands the significance of making someone a “Sir”, and it will inevitably be seen as an endorsement of Sir Salman’s work by the British establishment.

It is quite amusing to hear the First Deputy Speaker of Iran’s parliament say:

The British monarch lives under this illusion that Britain is still a 19th Century superpower and that bestowing titles is something still deemed important.

From the level of protests that it has caused, it would seem that many people in Muslim countries still deem it to be important.

However offensive Muslims may find The Satanic Verses, in itself it caused no damage to their religion. What is hugely damaging is when people around the world see violent protests, and hear foreign ministers imply that awarding a mere honour justifies indiscriminate murder. Surely a far better approach would be to accept the principle of free speech, explain why the remarks are offensive, and for scholars to criticise Rushdie’s work in general – in other words, tell us why his writing is no good! People would be far more sympathetic, and without the threats, there would not be so much interest in Rushdie’s work. If this approach had been followed in the late 80s, we would probably not be seeing Sir Salman with his knighthood today.

The Church is concerned that too much emphasis is being placed on the wedding ceremony, and not on the marriage itself, and that the true meaning is being lost in a “spiralling culture of expenditure”. That’s quite a good point, and while people might say they are spending a lot because their wedding day is important to them, it simply boils down to the usual mentality that it’s necessary to spend a lot of money to have a good time.

If losing the true meaning is of no concern, let’s think instead about what better use the money could be put to. How about paying off both the bride’s and the groom’s student debts – or if they have already done that, putting the money towards their children’s? Or maybe, in an age when it’s increasingly difficult to get onto the property ladder, the money could go towards a house? Or perhaps, instead of blowing the lot on a single day, it could pay for summer holidays for most of the remainder of the couple’s working life. And if none of those ideas appeal, I’m sure there are plenty of charitable organisations that could do with a £17,000 or two.

Now, it’s widely known that most companies are only too quick to overcharge for a product or service if they know it’s for a wedding. Ultimately, however, the spending decisions are down to those organising the wedding: i.e. the couple getting married. How many of the things are necessary, and how many are chosen simply because it’s what other people do? How many things really need to cost so much, and how many could be obtained at a lower price, or substituted for something less extravagant?

Where does all the money go? The fees payable to a church, if it’s to be the venue, might be only £200 or so; marrying at a registry office costs in the region of £100 (now there I can see a way of saving money already that the C of E would probably not be in agreement with, although, to be fair, theirs is only a small proportion of the total cost). So that’s not where the money goes. In fact, most of the money goes to people who have purely commercial interests in the ceremony.

If it’s necessary to spend so much money for a “traditional” wedding, why is it that in decades past, before we entered the age of super-consumerism, a traditional wedding cost a fraction of what it does now in real terms?

I can imagine people are thinking, “It’s worth spending that money to make the wedding romantic.” But since when did romance require money? Surely being together with a few special friends and family members is all that is needed, which should cost very little at all? And a great, atmospheric venue, whether chosen for spiritual or architectural reasons, need not break the bank either. Strip away the expensive kitsch, and the occasion would be far more romantic.

I’ve never seen the figures published, but I’m sure that if the cost of the wedding was plotted against the duration of the marriage, the (mathematical) relationship would not be directly proportional. But never mind the effect of spending on the marriage. How can anyone enjoy the wedding day itself, knowing all the time that it has cost them such a lot of money?

The Church has set up The Da Vinci Code Response Group, which has condemned The Da Vinci Code as “fiction trading as fact”. There is also the news that one Christian group is distributing scratchcards at cinemas in the UK, with questions such as, “the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a matter of historical record: fact or fiction?” (with the correct answer being fiction). Surely I can’t be the only person who sees a certain irony in this? Isn’t this rhetoric coming from a religion that is based upon a book that is not exactly an accurate historical record itself, and at least in part presents fiction as fact? That’s not to say some people shouldn’t find it a good read; but so too The Da Vinci Code.

Dan Brown’s book is the story of a conspiracy theory – a work of fiction that describes people trying to uncover clues. It’s not supposed to be a non-fiction volume presenting academic research. But even if it was, why worry about a conspiracy theory? Even that paranoid control freak George W Bush doesn’t see the need to ban films depicting conspiracies by the US Government (for example, involving UFOs or international terrorism) irrespective of whether they claim to be fact or fiction.

One cardinal, Francis Arinze, has called on Christians to take legal action against the book. He said, “Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget.” which, strangely enough, is contrary to what I always thought was one of the teachings of Christianity. He didn’t specify what “legal action” should be taken, and it’s hard to see who would have a valid claim as libel can only be committed against a named individual, not a group of people (and not someone who may or may not have lived 2000 years ago). He goes on to say:

This is one of the fundamental human rights – that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected.

Actually, Cardinal Arinze, it’s your right to to manifest your religion or belief, that’s what is enshrined in, for example, Article 9 of the European Convention. However, nowhere does it say others may never criticise your religion. What’s more, Article 10 says that people have the right to freedom of expression.

With all the genuine human rights abuses around the world: people imprisoned without a fair trial, people who are unable even to practise their religion openly, etc., don’t you think Christians could be making a more useful contribution to the world by speaking out against some of those things, instead of thinking of themselves and their own religion – a religion in which they seem to have so little faith, they are worried that a simple film and novel might undermine it?

Some people have asked why donors to the Labour party, or to the Academies, are so keen to buy themselves a title. Of course, the main purpose, and indeed the more scandalous, is not that the new nobles buy themselves the right to be “Lord and Lady”, but that they receive a seat in the House of Lords, the upper house of parliament, for the rest of their lives. Leaving aside the merits and pitfalls of having an unelected upper chamber, buying a seat in parliament in this way is in effect no different from rigging an election. Seen in that light, the maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment doesn’t seem so disproportionate.

There is, however, a far more sinister influence that is gained by those making donations to the City Academies. Sir Peter Vardy – a millionaire car dealer – has said that “It would be a shame” if this scandal undermined the academies programme. Sir Peter himself has donated money to schools and received his knighthood for “services to education” in 2001. He is a committed Christian who rejects the theory of evolution and believes in creationism, and this is what is taught in the schools he sponsors. It’s unacceptable that anyone should have this amount of influence over educational policy just for opening his cheque book, particularly when it means imposing his minority, unscientific views on the pupils, and disguising them as a scientific theory.

One would have to be extremely naive to believe that businessmen sponsor schools out of the kindness of their hearts and expect nothing in return, even the religious ones – or particularly the religious ones. What they expect is not a title, but influence. If the “loans for lordships” row results in the abandonment of the City Academies scheme, it will actually have done the nation a great favour.

• Wikipedia article on Sir Peter Vardy
• The Emmanuel Schools Foundation
• Q&A: Cash for peerages row – BBC News