Mal Fletcher comments on the politically correct actions of the Charity Commission

Less well known, but no less influential, were a group of Wilberforce's friends known to history as 'the Clapham Sect', because of the area of London in which they operated. They gave tireless support to Wilberforce, but also founded the Society for the Protection of Animals (now the RSPCA), the Bettering Society - providing aid for the poor - and other philanthropic works.

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Dr. David Livingstone, the famed missionary explorer, helped to open up the heart of Africa to education and healthcare. William and Catherine Booth defied religious and social convention to take their vibrant, athletic brand of Christianity to British streets, founding the highly respected Salvation Army. George Muller, a German-born immigrant evangelist, founded the first orphan houses in Europe. The Muller homes for children, based in Bristol, fed and educated thousands of children and Muller and his wife established 117 schools, which offered education to over 100,000 children.

A multi-talented Florence Nightingale is best remembered for her pioneering work as a nurse during the Crimean War. Yet little is said about her strong religious faith - and the impact a group of German Lutherans had on shaping her sense of vocation.

Were we to go back even further in time, we could fill pages with stories about social improvements instigated by the likes of St. Patrick and the Celtic Christians of communities like that at Iona. And were we to list all the religious individuals and groups that affected significant social change in the UK, whether eminent or less well-known, we would fill volumes. Indeed, some have done just that.

This legacy continues today. A great many religious or faith-based organisations - Christian and otherwise - contribute to the welfare of people in their towns and cities, meeting material as well as emotional or spiritual needs. Some groups have invested heavily, for example, in helping to reduce the blight of modern slavery that is people trafficking. They most often do so without direct government funding or media coverage. As a social commentator and speaker, I have had the privilege of supporting many such groups in the community arm of their work. I never fail to be impressed by how much can be achieved by a group of dedicated people who make up in passion what they lack in official financial support.

Recognising the importance of this grassroots level work, governments of all persuasions have, over the years, supported it by granting charitable status to religious organisations. The Charities Act of 2011 lists the purposes a charity may serve if it is to qualify for this. Of the thirteen items in this list, the first three are: the prevention or relief of poverty; the advancement of education and the advancement of religion (which is broadly defined). By definition, most religious organisations will automatically fulfil the third of these. Many are also involved in the second - and even more are working for the first. (More than a few are also involved with other items on the list, such as providing sporting or recreational facilities for the community.)

If the Charity Commission is of the view that promoting a religious belief is, in itself, deleterious to the public good, it is flying in the face of historical evidence to the contrary - at home and beyond. If, as seems just as likely, its stance is based on promoting political correctness, it is hopelessly ill-advised. Attempts to promote social cohesion, by wiping out all cultural and religious distinctives within a community, represent PC of the worst kind.

At its root, political correctness is an attempt to solve by political means the challenges raised by rapid urbanisation and multiculturalism. It represents a misguided - though, sometimes, well-intentioned - attempt to enhance social inclusion by legislating courtesy and kindness, both of which are products of human decency, not the result of government diktats. Those who advocate political correctness would, if they could, paint the entire community a drab shade of grey, wiping out differences of belief so that no one person's views will threaten anybody else's. In so doing, they seek to wipe out the points of tension that, if handled correctly, make urban life interesting and produce the greatest springboards for creativity.

Political correctness has only ever produced frustration, mainly because its petty rules tend to change like the wind, guided only by the subjective whims of those who set them. (A number of the trendy PC ideas of the last 15 years have already been abandoned as a joke. Where now, for example, are the rowdy people who called for Winterval to replace Christmas?) What's more, political correctness is a recipe for cultural blandness and the ultimate expression of an attitude that says 'only government knows what's best'.

If Mr. Cameron is serious about being taken seriously, if he aspires to showing leadership rather than mere political management, he must match his walk to his Big Society talk. He should encourage the Charities Commission to stop leaning on religious organisations.

In Britain, faith-based groups provide the best examples of the Big Society ideal in action - and they have done so for a very long time.