Atheist MC

Why I won't beta test atheism 2.0

2012-01-28T10:44:00.001Z

Alain de Botton is an atheist philosopher who has come to the conclusion that religion has, after all, got it right. Not in the sense that gods exist you understand; Botton is still an atheist, but in the rituals and institutions that he claims help us mark the passage of our lives and stop and recognise our humanity and place in the order of things. There is a certain appeal to this, but only I think because we are immersed in a society that still sees religion as the default custodian of the "spiritual" in our lives. Botton thinks it is time to develop Atheism 2.0 a less materialistic and confrontational atheism than the one epitomised by the Dawkins, Hitchens approach, which he sees as "destructive" and to build an atheism built on the religious model but without the inconvenience of gods. The problem with this as I see it Is that without the imperative of a religious dogma to demand the observance of a particular calendar of rituals, who is going to agree on what to do when and why. For sure we could be named, marry and die according to some secular creed I suppose, but Botton is also arguing for equivalents of lent or Diwali etc. And he is even suggesting building a temple

"Normally a temple is to Jesus, Mary or Buddha, but you can build a temple to anything that's positive and good," he said. "That could mean a temple to love, friendship, calm or perspective. Because of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens atheism has become known as a destructive force. But there are lots of people who don't believe but aren't aggressive towards religions."

But defining atheism within a religious context is actually to miss the point. There are plenty of secular institutions and places that nourish our humanity; art galleries, museums, drama and music societies, football stadiums and theatres to name a few. Humanists are also already adept at organising their own naming ceremonies, weddings and funerals without recourse to a creed or prescribed ritual. Also there is a particular danger to building atheism as a secular religion, in that it would be vulnerable to actually becoming a religion with its own dogmas and heresies and "priesthood" determining what freethinkers should actually be thinking, which kind of negates the point. So no thank you Alain, I won't be "upgrading" to atheism 2.0 just yet as my current version works just fine and doesn't require the investment in hardware that yours appears to need.

What should we mean by "Religious Freedom"?

2012-01-25T15:21:00.001Z

Now, you see? You would think that this was an easy thing to get right, but it takes a theologian to get it manifestly wrong. Prof Roger Trigg of Kellogg College, Oxford has a book out in which he argues that the courts have gone too far in promoting the equality agenda above religious freedom.

Is religious freedom being curtailed in pursuit of equality, and the outlawing of discrimination? Is enough effort made to accommodate those motivated by a religious conscience? All rights matter but at times the right to put religious beliefs into practice increasingly takes second place in the law of different countries to the pursuit of other social priorities.

Well one of the problems with this is the definition of the word “freedom”. It is a word increasingly appropriated by religion worldwide; Catholic hospitals in the U.S want freedom to refuse reproductive health care, Muslims want the freedom to stifle criticism of Islam, Christian registrars want the freedom not to perform civil partnerships and Christian proprietors want the freedom to discriminate against homosexual clients. When society and the courts don’t allow this they say it is an attack on religion and religious freedom. It’s a superficially appealing argument, after all who doesn’t approve of freedom of conscience, freedom of action and freedom of speech? Freedom is a human right after all. But let’s deconstruct this emotional appeal to freedom and see whether the demands of religion and the religious are really on a sound ethical footing.
So, here is a selection of definitions of Freedom from Dictionary .Com

1. The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial. 2. Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. 3. The power to determine action without restraint. 4. Political or national independence. 5. Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

I’m guessing that in this context most of us would see definitions 2 and 3 as most relevant, and as they are similar in effect I will treat them as one.
The obvious thing to say is that nobody in any stable society anywhere in the world, no matter how liberal or democratic has freedom according to this definition. We are all subject to external control, interference, regulation and restraint in many aspects of our lives. We are all subject to laws and injunctions that in the main (at least in a democracy) we agree are necessary for the good order of society. Personally, I would love to drive at 120MPH on the outside lane of the motorway, but apparently I can’t, not even if Jeremy Clarkson were my personal god and saviour. Neither can I smoke myself into oblivion on homegrown skunk, nor would professing myself a Rastafarian change that.
Now in a democratic society we can argue for and against the laws we abide by and we can apply whatever philosophy we like to those arguments; secular, religious, liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian or whatever floats your ontological boat. But, if we find ourselves on the losing side of that argument at any given time we still have to abide by the laws.
Many of us are in “pursuit of other social priorities” some liberal some conservative, but we all have to live within the constraints of the status quo even while trying to change it. I am on record as disagreeing with the drug laws as they stand; I would like to see them repealed not just for Rastafarians or MS sufferers but also for everyone else. Either society accepts that using narcotics is a legitimate personal choice or it doesn’t and at the moment the law is against me and equally against those who think they have a special case for being exempt.
Similarly the current situation in our society is that we are moving towards legislation that ensures equality for people previously marginalised by the law. It is illegal in our society to discriminate on the grounds of race or gender and most of us appear to be accepting that our institutions should be colour and gender “blind”. This means for example that now any two individuals can enter into an institution legally equivalent to marriage regardless of their respective genders. I of course think this is a good thing, however I accept that there are many people who disagree and they are entitled to do so. But, they are not entitled to break those discrimination laws any more than I am, whatever their personal justification.
So there we have it! Religion and the good theologian Roger Trigg are not just demanding religious freedom; they are demanding more freedoms than the rest of us. What they really want is religious privilege, protecting them from the laws that the rest of us will be subject to.
My definition of religious freedom would be the “freedom to believe and worship in any way you want commensurate with the norms and laws of the society you inhabit.” As a religious individual you have the right to avoid professions that put you in conflict with your faith, and if you are in such a profession and it becomes incompatible with your beliefs, you can negotiate with your employer to protect you from the conflict, but if that fails you can capitulate or leave. This is no different from any other person in society. If in my profession my employer insisted I source components made by third world child labour, I would either leave for a company whose world view was more compatible with my own or compromise while arguing for change. But I wouldn’t expect to refuse to do my job and not get fired.
If the religious want to live in a society that is commensurate with their beliefs, they must argue for it. They must argue in the public forums, in the media and in our political institutions. But, in engaging in that debate they must expect their ideas, their rational and yes, even their sacred doctrines to be as open to scrutiny and criticism as any other. For this is another privilege religion demands for itself (or should I say wants back?); the freedom to be beyond censure and critique, for their beliefs to be sacrosanct in a way not afforded to any other philosophical view.
Freedoms of this kind if conceded to religion, would become the links in a chain for the rest of us.

LSE Student Union attacks free speech.

2012-01-24T12:27:00.000Z

Here is an object lesson on how to be on the wrong side of an argument about the balance between religious tolerance and free speech. To cut a long story sideways, the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society posted cartoons, published by the UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, depicting the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus "sitting in a pub having a pint" on their society Facebook page This attracted complaints from Muslims who are under the impression that those of us lucky enough not to be cursed with their delusions are nevertheless obliged to respect their taboos and not make visual representations of the prophet. So instead of defending the society’s rights to free expression, on a private forum aimed at their own members they decide to pander to the intolerance of a few Muslims instead.

"Upon hearing this, the sabbaticals officers of the LSESU ensured all evidence was collected and an emergency meeting with a member of the Students' Union staff was called to discuss how to deal with the issue. During this time, we received over 40 separate official complaints from the student body, in addition to further information regarding more posts on the society Facebook page […] The offensive nature of the content on the Facebook page is not in accordance with our values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. There is a special need in a Students' Union to balance freedom of speech and to ensure access to all aspects of the LSESU for all the ethnic and religious minority communities that make up the student body at the LSE."

It was only “offensive” to oversensitive religionists who apparently have so little faith in their own deity to look after itself that they felt the need to censor a society that owes nothing whatsoever to their sensibilities. And, why is there a “special need” for students’ unions to decide whose freedom of speech is acceptable and whose isn’t, where do they get that mandate from? And why do they feel the need to bring up race or ethnicity? Presumably, it is meant to suggest that the evil atheists are racist, whereas this is just a perfectly valid jibe at religion, not at race at all. Religion is an opinion, like any other opinion (though with less rational than most) and is there to be discussed, challenged, ridiculed, defended and debated just like any other opinion. If you don’t like a political position, nobody would censure you for caricaturing it or the politician that promotes it so why should religion and religious figures be any different. Look! If you’re a Muslim by all means do your funky Muslim thing, it’s no skin off my nose. But don’t go telling me what I can and cannot say draw or publish about your religion and beliefs, and I won’t complain if you want to criticise mine.
This pandering to religious and in particular Islamic demands to restrict free speech is something that needs to be halted as a matter of urgency. On February the 11th atheists and secularists from all over London and the UK, (including ex-Muslims), are holding a rally with the One Law for All campaign at 2pm in the Old Palace Yard, (opposite the House of Lords) to defend free expression.

Ribbing the Rabbi

2012-01-19T09:34:00.001Z

Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie has a piece in the Huffington Post entitled Religion Is Divisive and Conservative -- and a Very Good Thing. It begins with

I am a person of liberal convictions, and I spend most of my time with other liberals. Many of my friends share my liberal political views but recoil from my liberal religious beliefs. The reason that they give most frequently is that "religion is divisive and conservative."

He goes on

Religion, I tell them, is divisive because it deals with important matters -- above all, the search for holiness and God and the struggle to determine the ultimate values that guide our lives.

Which strikes me as extremely niave as religion as it is practiced rarely attempts to deal with important matters. In fact it seems to dismiss them with the assumption that it already has the answers preserved in aspic from some dusty tome penned by the inhabitants of iron age cultures totally divorced from the present. But lets assume for a moment that religion really does try to debate the all important questions in life, is it really the best vehicle for doing this? Yoffie seems to think think so

Theology, precisely because it deals with weighty and difficult subjects, is a discipline of hard edges… …You are stuck, I go on, in a childish, simplistic mindset that sees religion as a gentle, "let's all get along" affair. But no one needs religion for that. And any religion that, from time to time, is not intellectually ferocious in asserting its idea of the good -- as opposed to someone else's idea of the good -- is not a religion to be taken seriously.

Well yes and no, some aspects of religion play the cosy-up ecumenical game, while some beat the living crap out of each other, but it’s rarely about “asserting ideas of the good” but more about asserting one dogma over another. Anyway he then goes on to usefully anticipate what he believes the liberal argument will be.

[That] Ferocious intellectual arguments about what is moral and what God expects of us can take an extremist turn. They can become an instrument to separate those with our beliefs from the despised "other" who thinks differently. They can become a rationale to hate and even to kill.

Well, yes they can and often do, but the reason is not just because of opposing views, it is because no religious views on “wrong” or “right” can ever be empirically proved to anyones satisfaction. Religious disagreement is not on a par with political debate. Although politics can get equally ugly, there can in most cases be a fact of the matter that can be demonstrated (whether or not both parties accept the evidence is beside the point, many substantial political disagreements could be resolved in principle). Competing religions have no fact of the matter, It’s one scripture against the other, one sect's interpretation of the same scripture against another's and one person’s personal belief against another’s. It is an unreconcilable situation so whether they really “struggle to determine [the] ultimate values” or not, religions will never do anything useful to actually enlighten us. But Yoffe then appeals to the wisdom of the ages

I argue that religion is conservative because it resists the tyranny of the new and the culture of now. It asserts that when we decide on the matters of greatest consequence, we must give a hearing to the sages of old and to the sacred texts that record their voices.

To which I offer in repost Tim Minchin’s line “Just because ideas are tenacious doesn’t mean that they’re worthy” and listening to either fundementalists insisting on the rigidity of the texts or liberals searching for relevant metaphores is in both cases a waste of everyones time. Neither Moses, Jesus or Mohammed had to contemplate the ethics of contraception, voluntary euthanasia, safe abortion, global warming, peak oil or nuclear proliferation. Neither did they have the scientific knowledge to usefully inform their opinions if they had. Yoffie’s liberal chums are correct, religion is divisive and will uselessly remain so since no evidential basis is available to bridge the many divides and it is conservative because at root it relies on dogmas set in tablets stone that require theologians to indulge in absurd post modern pseudointellectual contortions to make them appear even vaguely relevant today.

Setting the record straight:Jessica Ahlquist and the Daily Mail

2012-01-13T09:47:00.000Z

This is a story from the US that I have been following closely but probably would not have commented on as I try to keep this blog mainly UK focussed. However since that stalwart of liberal British journalism the Daily Mail has seen fit to report and comment inappropriately on the outcome I’ll make an exception. Jessica Ahlquist is a sixteen-year-old atheist high school student at Cranston High School West in Rhode Island where the banner pictured here had been on display for sixty years. Now, in the UK where most of us have been to schools with morning assemblies and compulsory acts of worship, a banner phrased as a prayer to God probably wouldn’t even register on most people’s radar. But in the US the first amendment to the constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion. Jessica knew this and as her high school is a public school (not in the perverse way we use the term over here) and therefore an arm of government she complained to the school administration and asked that it should be removed. The school refused and so Jessica took her complaint to the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) which, on her behalf asked for the banner to be removed or face a lawsuit (which the school would inevitably lose). Stupidly the school again refused and a lawsuit followed. As was always going to be the case the ACLU prevailed and the school has been ordered to remove the banner and I suspect the school district has also wasted a lot of US tax dollars in the process.
Jessica has received a great deal of abuse from her school and community over this, and there are some reports that since the court judgment someone has even published her address on the internet along with death threats in a clear attempt to invite further retribution, bullying and worse from the ever tolerant Christian community. Jessica has been an incredibly brave and articulate advocate for the defence of human rights in her community and weathered the months of abuse from Christians to uphold the principles she believes in. So, in case anyone thinks this was a frivolous and mean spirited attack on a cherished and harmless school tradition, look at it this way. In a multicultural society where one religion dominates it is all too easy for those of other faiths or none to be marginalised by the propaganda of the majority. It’s not just atheists who don’t want Christian proselytising in their schools, work places or public space; it’s also Jews, Muslims, Hindus and adherents of the many other religions that litter the world. After all, if the banner had begun “In the name of Allah” the school would never have put it up in the first place, so why should the Christian God get a free pass.
Anyway I mention all this only because the Daily Mail’s supercilious trivialising of Jessica Ahlquist’s bravery and well deserved victory (H.T Ophelia Benson) may be the only publicity this case gets in the U.K mainstream media, and I’d hate anyone over here to get the impression that her school is in some way the “good guy” in this story: it isn’t and it does the Daily Mail no credit to suggest otherwise.

Ultra Orthodox Jew assaults "immodest" eight year old schoolgirl

2012-01-03T15:51:00.001Z

If you want some proof that the more religious a person is the more warped their morality becomes, look no further than the increasing and increasingly vocal population of Haredim Jews in Israel. This ultra orthodox sect believes in the strict segregation of men and women in public places, including public transport where they insist women should sit at the back of the bus so that these pious men don’t have to sit next to, or even look at them.A large number of these Mosaic misogynists are effectively parasites on the state and their families having no paying job but Instead study scripture all day at a yeshiva, which entitles them to welfare payments and excuses them from military service. This may be one of the reasons their numbers are on the rise (cynical old me eh?).In a recent incident, one Haredi spat on an eight year old girl as she walked to school and called her a prostitute because, although she was conservatively dressed by any reasonable standard, he considered her clothing “immodest”.So how twisted does your sense of morality have to be before you assault a child and harangue her with highly sexualised words because you find her sexually arousing so therefore in some way immodest? I’ll tell you how morally twisted you have to be; you have to have religion and you have to have it really bad. No other mental deficiency short of psychotic paedophilia would lead a rational person to the conclusion that this behaviour to a child is right and proper. Steeped in a tradition that believes Abraham was doing a good thing when he agreed to sacrifice Isaac to Yahweh, no doubt a child’s sensitivities are irrelevant compared to what the Haredim think their ancient tribal god requires of women. But here’s hoping that the more secular citizens of Israel can put them straight on that.

Happy Christmas: No really!

2011-12-23T10:20:00.000Z

Despite what the Christian right in America, and some pundits in the Daily Mail may say, there is no war on Christmas. Secularists like myself have no issues with people of faith keeping this time of year in accordance with their religion and have no rabid desire to go around forcing people to say “happy holidays” (which are still “holy” days in any event) or complaining about nativity displays.
What is irritating to atheists, pagans, Jews and other assorted non-Christians is the Christian's assumption that the season belongs exclusively to them. It doesn’t and it never has. The winter solstice has been a time of feasting and celebration for millennia and significantly predates Christianity. It has been associated with various religions and deities from Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, classical Greece and Rome usually along with legends of a virgin born god-man who dies and is reborn / resurrected. It’s a sun cycle thing that, unsurprisingly, some Hellenised Jews in first century Palestine incorporated into their own mythology and Saul of Tarsus sold back to the Romans. It is the pagan roots of the winter celebration; Saturnalia in Rome, Yule in Europe that caused the puritans to ban the celebration of Christmas as a Christian holiday and of course the way we celebrate it now is a relatively recent invention of the Victorians with the addition of the dubious Santa/Odin/Green Man/St Nicholas/Father Christmas hybrid demigod that Christians have bizarrely adopted as their own.
The true meaning of Christmas is steeped in thousands of years of communities, hunter-gatherer and agricultural celebrating the passing of the low point of winter, looking forward to spring and sharing the fruits of the previous years harvest with friends and family. It was a seasonally enforced respite from toil in the fields and a reason to share resources, light and warmth. It continues to be so, even in these urbanised centrally heated artificially illuminated times and in culturally (if not actually) Christian Britain we all buy into the shared narrative of the era to make the season special. Tim Minchin has recently put it this way

I adore Christmas. The fact that I know that Christianity’s origins lie more in Paul of Tarsus’s mental illness and Emperor Constantine’s political savvy than in the existence of the divine has no bearing on my ability to enjoy this age-old festival of giving, family, and feasting.

Absolutely!
The dying and soon to be risen sun has been represented in narrative and deification by Osiris, Sol Invictus, Mithras, Dionysus and Jesus to name but a few. In this Christian dominated era we’ve all adopted the cultural norm of calling the season Christmas, and actually I have no issue with that. I am a culturally Christian atheist, which is why a divine Jesus is prominent among the many supernatural beings I don’t believe in. But I am happy to go along with the cultural norm, pleased to hear carols about the nativity (It’s a cute story; same reason I like Frosty the Snowman and Rudolf) and yes more than content to wish you all… a Happy Christmas!

Mail peeved prisons pander to pagans

2011-12-21T11:02:00.001Z

Ross Clark of the Daily Mail has got his knickers in a twist over pagan prison inmates getting a day off work detail for the winter solstice.. He is also annoyed that the prison service is expected to provide facilities and chaplains for Wiccans, Rastafarians, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists and a whole host of minority religions. In typical Daily Mail fashion this is all the fault of the Human Rights Act…

You may not be surprised to discover that all this madness is a result of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees ‘the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion’.

He then goes on to whine that Christians on the outside don’t get their religious rights protected.

The great irony, of course, is that law-abiding citizens who are not in prison seem to be offered scant protection from this law when it comes to respecting their own rights. For example, there was the case of a Christian couple who were successfully sued after refusing to allow a gay couple to share a bed at their B&B establishment, or the case of another Christian couple, from Derby, who were forbidden from fostering children because they refused to drop their belief that homosexual acts are wrong.

Oh dear! He obviously doesn’t get the point that one person’s human rights end where someone else’s begins. You don’t get to discriminate on gender (or racial) grounds just because you are a bigot for Jesus. Anyway, what’s the problem with religious diversity in prison? Sure it will cost money to provide services for a multi-faith population, but if you are going to cater for the popular delusions of Christianity and Islam, you have to cater for all the others as well. I’m also tempted to ask what days off atheist prisoners are entitled to, maybe they get to celebrate Richard Dawkins’ birthday with spaghetti and meatballs? The best solution would be for prisons not to pander to religion at all except in a minimal way. This does not mean that individuals would lose the right to believe whatever supernatural bollocks they like, or even have the odd festival day to themselves, but the provision of chaplains and ritual paraphernalia at the tax payer’s expense would be better substituted for secular counselling and education. After all, the mainstream religions have their own network of priests, imams, vicars and pastors. If they want their respective flocks to be tended while in prison the churches should foot the bill. The fringe religions rarely have hierarchical structures anyway; modern pagans don’t need priests to lead them. Somehow though I don’t think Ross Clark is advocating for removing services from Christians, just from the rest, as though the crazy beliefs of a minority are somehow less important than the equally crazy beliefs of the majority.

"Evil" Christians boycott Tesco

2011-12-20T10:27:00.003Z

Nick Lansley, Tesco’s head of research and development, posted a message on his personal Flickr.com profile which said:

“I’m…campaigning against evil Christians (that’s not all Christians, just bad ones) who think that gay people should not lead happy lives and get married to their same-sex partners.”

This has predictably raised the ire of several religious groups who are planning to boycott the supermarket chain for which he works.

Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, said: “I won’t be shopping at Tesco this Christmas, and I am repeatedly hearing from other Christians who have already come to the same conclusion. “Mr Lansley is entitled to his opinions, and Christians are entitled to choose not to shop at Tesco.”

Leaving aside the fact that Tesco has distanced itself from the comments which were made in a personal capacity and in any event have since been removed, it is typical that Christians should consider it OK to impose a collective punishment on the store, it’s shareholders and employees in response to an individual excercising his rights to free speech. Mr Lansley is perfectly entitled to consider the attitudes of people, Christian or otherwise who oppose gay rights as evil and he should be able to say so.I understand why Tesco has asked him to remove the post, although the reasoning is flakey

"Our values as a company are such that we abhor criticism of any religion, and we knew nothing about Mr Lansley’s comments until they were brought to our attention. "We are very sorry that anyone might have thought that there was any blurring of the boundary between his personal comments and his work for Tesco. We have therefore asked him to remove the comments, and he has done so. "

They “abhor” criticism of religion? Really? I suspect that Tesco had no attitude either way until now. Anyway it’s a nonsensical opinion. They have no idea what socially repellent act some religious sect might come up with that is fully deserving of criticism. It just feeds into the notion that religion is especially privilaged and above reproach regardless of what it does or teaches.
Another interesting feature of this story is it highlights the real problem with David Cameron’s call for the country to return to Christian values.The Christians that Nick Lansley calls “evil” are by their own lights taking the moral position. Now I’m with Mr Lansley and diametrically opposed to the biblical homophobia that informs Christian attitudes on these matters. I too find it highly immoral that people are discriminated against based on their gender or sexual preferences, and just because a 1st century evangelical once wrote a bigoted postcard to the Corinthians about it doesn’t make it OK.Finally and in an effort to be fair, I would not have called the Christians “evil” in this way. They’re not evil although their predjudices, admittedly sincerely held, may well be. But you know what they say “hate the sin, love the sinner”. With pursuasion and yes, robust criticism of their religious presumptions, such “evil” attitudes can be changed.

Mr Cameron, please don't start "doing God"

2011-12-17T14:15:00.002Z

Prime Minister David Cameron wants a return to Christian values to combat what he sees as a decline in moral standards in the country. I'm not sure he realises how misguided this idea is; the last thing we want is a biblical agenda informing our view of morality.
First of all his statement that Christian values are central to Britain and they should be "treasured", including responsibility, hard work, compassion and humility is question begging. Are those values really Christian, or are they actually a desirable shared ethic that stands apart from Christianity? Britain is not as he maintains a Christian nation, we are in many ways the antithesis of America in that we are constitutionally Christian but largely secular in practice, which in an increasingly crowded multicultural society is in our favour. We should in my opinion be looking to ditch the established church not encourage it, but one thing at a time.
Although the Muslim council for Britain has welcomed Cameron's speech declaring that many biblical values are shared by Islam, Cameron's assertion that a strong Christian identity in Britain will make it easier for non Christians to practise their faith is wishful thinking. The ecumenicalism that religions display when faced with the secular disappears when they have no common enemy. Cameron's wishy washy liberal view of Christianity, which I suspect owes more to the Vicar of Dibley than any serious study of the King James Bible, is not the morality found in Islamic or Christian scripture.
The bible is not a repository of modern morality; it is misogynistic, homophobic and contrary to individual human rights. It is a licence for bigotry and persecution of minorities and legitimate twenty-first century lifestyles. It is this “morality” that the church seeks and Islam supports.
In asking the Anglican church to "keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country". he is demanding the impossible. Unless it is prepared to a take view that recognises women's rights to equal opportunity, reproductive health including abortion, gay marriage, and free speech including blasphemy it cannot speak to me and the vast numbers of liberal secular citizens of this country. Personally, I am not interested in a government that takes the foibles of a neolithic deity into consideration when framing what is acceptable in our society. We are not morally degenerate, as Cameron appears to think but there are undoubtedly many problems in society that need addressing. Religion however is not the solution, it is a retrograde knee jerk appeal to the lie of religious moral authority. If this country must have faith to improve, it should be faith in ourselves and each other, not superstition and religiosity.

Dawkins is not a "proper" atheist: Discuss.

2011-12-12T14:46:00.001Z

The Rev Dr Peter Mullen has an article on the Daily Telegraph’s blog page entitled Richard Dawkins says David Cameron is 'not really a Christian'. But is Dawkins a proper atheist?
Well according to the good Doctor, we can’t know if David Cameron is a true Christian or not, because only God (his god presumably) can know that. However we can be sure that Richard Dawkins is not a “proper” atheist because, apparently, he is not David Hume. Of Dawkins he says:-

We can, however, know that Dawkins is not a proper atheist – that is an intelligent atheist – from his own puerile writing and pathetic attempts at philosophical theology. For example, he writes: “Either God exists or he doesn’t. It is a scientific question. The existence of God is a scientific question, like any other.”

Hume on the other hand

did not possess an irrational, inhumane, roaring opposition to men of faith. He was a close friend of that great English Christian, Samuel Johnson. Unlike Dawkins, Hume did not wish to obliterate Christianity from the public realm. Hume was guided by a conscience which was generous enough to understand that other men’s consciences may guide them differently.

So his real beef is that Dawkins unlike Hume doesn't treat his world view with the respect he thinks it deserves. Funny how "proper" atheists are expected not to ridicule the ridiculous. The fact is that at the time Hume was writing, ridiculing religion would have been professional suicide, you had to be Voltaire to get away with that.
But forgetting about the ad hominems in this article, what about the specific charge of Dawkins' putative scientism? You see according to Mullen the existence of God cannot be a scientific question because

No competent theologians or philosophers – not even the atheist ones – have ever declared that God (if he exists) is an object in his own universe.

First of all, using the The Courtier’s Reply against Dawkins is old news, so if anyone is being puerile and intellectually lazy here it is Dr Mullen, secondly “competent” theologians should be able to understand that a god that exists outside of our observable universe is tantamount to one that doesn’t exist at all. Dawkins is absolutely correct to say that any deity that can interact, affect or otherwise influence events in our universe is testable by scientific means. Any claims to the contrary are a confession that you’re just making stuff up. Christianity, Mullen’s delusion of choice, makes factual claims about their God answering prayers for example. This is a testable hypothesis that has consistently failed, so no wonder he wants to immunise his beliefs against empirical enquiry. But, he can’t have it both ways, either his god is so ‘effin ineffable that he can’t be experimentally falsified, in which case that god can be safely ignored. Or he is the personal and interventionist god of the Abrahamic tradition and can be expected to be discoverable by physical means.
What is almost amusing here is the idea that Dawkins has never read Hume (who was more philosopher than theologian) or indeed any “sophisticated” theologians. I don’t know of any serious atheist who hasn’t some autodidactic grounding in theology as it is impossible to argue for atheism with an educated theist without it. It’s often been said that atheists know more about religion than believers do, and although I would not insult Dawkins by calling him a theologian, I’ll bet he’s a much better one than Mullen gives him credit for, and certainly a better theologian than Mullen is a biologist.

US foreign aid decisions to be based on gay rights

2011-12-07T14:03:00.001Z

US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has been addressing the palais de nations in Geneva as part of the celebrations of Human Rights Day.
In a very forthright speech she used the opportunity to advance the cause of LGBT rights throughout the world, whilst managing to recognise that America doesn’t have the best record itself on the issue.
This is a significant speech, because in the run up to an election year this puts the Obama administration firmly in the culture wars zone, standing against the likes of Newt Gingrich , Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann who have come to epitomise the religious right on the republican side. She said

Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse…

…I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home…

…It is violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. It is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay, or allow those who harm gay people to go unpunished. It is a violation of human rights when lesbian or transgendered women are subjected to so-called corrective rape, or forcibly subjected to hormone treatments, or when people are murdered after public calls for violence toward gays, or when they are forced to flee their nations and seek asylum in other lands to save their lives.

You can read the whole transcript here

Republican nominee and Texas Governor Rick Perry has already been on US television calling this Obama’s “war on religion” and I doubt his fellow bigots for Jesus will be far behind.
To my mind this is the first openly liberal and controversial policy stand the Obama administration has made since he was forced to water down his health care reforms. It will be interesting to see how this plays with the American voting public and could well be a touchstone issue for the Presidency.
More importantly if Obama goes through with his intention to tie US aid to LGBT human rights issues it could go a long way to stemming the poisonous attitudes that the Christian churches in Africa, with US fundie encouragement are promulgating among their people. It may not changed their warped religion addled mindset but may persuade them that self interest is not best served by persecuting people over their sexual orientation.

Can secularists take the heaven out of Devon?

2011-12-02T12:34:00.000Z

It’s not often the issue of Church / State separation appears in an English court. This is because unlike in America there is no legal or constitutional imperative for the two not to be entwined. Indeed, with bishops being members of the House of Lords our system of government specifically endorses religious involvement in politics.
However in Devon, Bideford Town Council is in court today over their custom of saying prayers before meetings.
The National Secular Society is taking the council to court on behalf of one of its councillors, Clive Bone who as an atheist claims he is embarrassed and disadvantaged at having to either sit through the event or leave the room.
Now personally, if I was him I would not turn up until the prayers were over, which if it exposed him to disciplinary action would make a perfect discrimination case to test.
However the discomfort of one atheist is not really the issue. Presumably, Bideford’s population contains no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans or Druids concerned that their council tax is funding these councillor’s daily conversation with their particular invisible friend. What will they do if someone gets elected who is not an atheist but a devout member of another faith? Get an Imam in to lead a prayer to Allah? I doubt it.
The NSS puts it this way…

The NSS contends that the saying of prayers in what should be a secular environment concerned with civic business is inappropriate and could put off people of other religions and none from taking part in an important democratic activity.

Which seems fair enough to me. In a rational world this wouldn’t even be an issue, whether it’s legal or not a council chamber is not a church (or a mosque/synagogue) and should not be wasting its time in prayer or tax payer’s money defending this case.
I’m predicting that the council will win this one and get to keep their prayers as the NSS are going into this on Human Rights grounds, which despite the mythos of the right wing press is not the legal panacea they claim.
The NSS case is

· those of no religion were being indirectly discriminated against without justification (and this unlawfully)
· the Council’s actions breach Articles 9 and/or 14 of The European Convention on Human Rights (right to freedom of conscience and protection from discrimination)
· the Council has no power to conduct prayers

In America the secularists would win this hands down but in good old Anglican Britain I can’t see it.

Another Prospective Free School Wants to Teach Creationism

2011-11-21T18:33:00.002Z

...and so it continues. Christian Family Schools Ltd (and if that title doesn't scare you I don't know what will) is bidding to open a free school in Sheffield with an unashamedly creationist agenda.
One would hope that Micheal Gove will reject this for the same reasons he rejected the application from The Everday Champions Church that wanted to start one in Newark. However it is clear that a strong enough signal failed to get through on that occasion. If the government insists on pursuing this flawed policy, it needs to make an explicit declaration that creationist dogma will be an automatic fail for such bids. At the moment it seems to be pursuing an "each case on it's merits" policy, which just gives the impression that there is a half open door to be be pushed at. It needs to be shut, quickly and firmly.

U.S Bishops confuse privilege with liberty

2011-11-15T16:24:00.000Z

Catholic Bishops in the U.S are fighting back. They are responding to the increasing acceptance of gay marriage in various states, and the requirement that their adoption agencies respect those unions with a ‘Religious Liberty’ Drive.Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York says

We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion […] well-financed, well-oiled sectors [are trying] to push religion back into the sacristy.

In fact all that is happening is that secular society is changing around them and rather than impinging on their religious “liberty” it is containing their previously enjoyed privilege to be bigots for Jesus.
In its frantic scramble to reclaim some moral high ground in the midst of the constantly evolving child abuse scandal it is choosing as its battlefield the rights of the LGBTQ community to a family life and the reproductive rights of women. It is demanding exemption from the laws that enforce those rights so that they can continue to oppress and discriminate against women and gays on spurious religious grounds.
I suspect that they are on the losing side of history on this, just as they were in their suppression of science in the past. But that doesn’t mean that they have no influence in the short term. Secular freedoms are ironically hard won in America, largely because for a modern secular democracy it is socially conservative with a high degree of religiosity. The message will be heard in Washington, particularly among Republicans with an election year approaching and recent victories in health reform (which includes access to contraception and abortion) and gender equality could easily be reversed.
We must not let the church redefine religious privilege as religious liberty.

Encouraging signs of a secular Tunisia

2011-11-07T12:34:00.000Z

It this is true then the Islamist party that is set to form Tunisia’s first post Arab Spring government is setting a great example for the rest of the region.
According to Ennahda party leader Rachid Ghannouchi the new constitution will focus on “democracy, human rights and a free-market economy”. He says:

“We are against trying to impose a particular way of life,”

We can only hope that such an attitude becomes the norm for Libya and others and that the revolutions do not become hi-jacked by more extreme elements.
Secular democracy is the only way to ensure freedoms and opportunities for all members of society and the west should do all it can to encourage this attitude to become a trend.

St Pauls and the Occupation: Not a lot to say really

2011-10-28T12:54:00.000+01:00

The former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey has taken a swipe at the dean and chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral over their handling of the Occupy London protest.
He seems to be siding with canon chancellor Giles Fraser, who resigned yesterday over suggestions that the Cathedral may now take legal steps to have the protesters removed.
In an article for the Telegraph he wrote

One moment the church was reclaiming a valuable role in hosting public protest and scrutiny, the next it was looking in turns like the temple which Jesus cleansed, or the officious risk-averse ’elf ’n safety bureaucracy of urban legend

Actually I’ve been equivocating about bothering to comment on this particular incident, despite it having a fairly high profile in the press. The cathedral has been closed to the public, ostensibly on health and safety grounds since Giles Fraser appeared to sanction the occupation of the area, resulting in the loss of some £20,000 per day in tourist revenue, but it has been difficult to tell whether this was a genuine concern or a passive-aggressive ploy to persuade the occupation to end.
In the event it actually now appears to be a conflict of opinion between members of the cathedral clergy, pitting a progressive liberal faction against a more conservative administration.
Carey and Fraser seem to be seeing this as an opportunity to align the Anglican Church with a popular liberal socialist agenda, in support of peaceful protest and grass roots activism. The Dean appears to be more concerned with revenue and displaying a more traditional church conservatism. There are similar stories of progressive Christians supporting the Occupy Wall Street protest in New York.
I have to be honest; I don’t really have a dog in this fight. The “Occupy” demonstrations don’t really seem to have much focus and whilst I support the peoples right to protest it’s not really clear what they are protesting against. I am not personally convinced that capitalism or even globalisation are unmitigated evils, so whilst highlighting the excesses and unfairness they can engender is fine and dandy, no one seems to be suggesting viable alternatives.
As for St Paul’s; they can’t have it all ways. If they want to be relevant and down with the kids on this they should shut up, be tolerant and stop playing games. The protest will have a natural life of its own and will wind down eventually without the church having to tie itself in ethical knots. Essentially as with all things, the church doesn’t really have anything useful to say here, as you can spin the Christian message to support any political or social agenda you like, as is evidenced by the Tea Party in the U.S. That dichotomy of opinion now appears to be evident in the microcosm of this little spat, but it should surprise nobody and concern us not a jot.

Good News

2011-10-17T19:36:00.000+01:00

Back in March I wrote about a prospective Free School prepared to teach creationism as part of its ethos. Well, I'm pleased to report that its application has been refused, and for all the right reasons

The school’s bid was rejected on Monday, and the reason is now known. In having their bid rejected, the Church was told by the Department for Education that ‘The Secretary of State carefully considered your application, the views and beliefs of your organisation as set out in your application, your responses at interview and information about your organisation available in the public domain. He was unable to accept that an organisation with creationist beliefs could prevent these views being reflected in the teaching in the school and in its other activities. It is his firm view that the teaching of creationist views as a potentially valid alternative theory is not acceptable in a 21st century state funded school.’ The Church is now planning to re-apply for 2013, and is adamant that they would only teach the story of creation in RE.

This particular school was very high profile and many secularists wrote to Micheal Gove about their concerns for this particular bid. This proves that secular activism works, however we need to stay vigilant. Every round of approvals for free schools has a number of faith based applicants and few can be trusted to teach science in an unbiased Way. Until the secularisation of Children's education can be assured, every faith school needs scrutiny on the same level.

"There's no science without metaphysics", or is there?

2011-10-17T17:18:00.002+01:00

Have you ever had one of those conversations where, having admitted you are an atheist in Christian company you find yourself, yet again defending the scientific method as the only objective way of knowing things?
If you are unlucky, you’ll be subjected to a lot of metaphorical arm waving and claims that you are just blind to the evidence of God around you and stuttering badly informed appeals to the cosmological argument.
If you are luckier, as I was recently, you may get the argument that while the scientific method works up to a point, modern hypotheses for the nature of reality are more metaphysics than science.

There is some validity in this and so at least exercises the mind to explain. Take for example the standard model of particle physics with its exotic array of sub-atomic particles, endowed with flavours and spins to account for the diverse forces observed in nature.

A reasonable person could easily conclude that the existence of these particles is pure fantasy, that they have never been observed directly and any pretence that we really understand what they “look” like, is simply that.

However, said reasonable person is perhaps overlooking the fact that all of science is about constructing models. Newton had a model of gravity, as did Einstein, both of which work up to a point depending on circumstances but what is certain is that neither of them were absolutely correct. This inconvenient truth however does not prevent dropped objects from falling, or satellites staying in orbit.

This is really the point. Modern science can look like metaphysics but despite its esoteric appearance, it works. Without theoretical effects like quantum tunnelling your mobile 'phone wouldn’t function and the lack of direct observation of the phenomena is irrelevant to its efficacy.

This is why it is wrong to point to, say, string theory and insist that just because it is empirically un-falsifiable at the moment all sorts of epistemological relativism is justified. The statement “No-one has ever seen an electron ergo God”, is false and models of the world that require the existence of gods singularly fail to work as anyone who has prayed for a signal on a broken mobile could testify.

Religion in a nutshell

2011-10-07T11:40:00.000+01:00

Yeah I know, but after the previous post I couldn't resist...

Funny, but fail

2011-10-05T22:42:00.003+01:00

A Christian friend of mine shared this on Facebook recently. It's funny... no really, it is. As a caricature of the atheist worldview it works and as an atheist I take it in good part. Let's be fair, atheists are fond of similar caricatures of religious people that represent all faith positions as irrational and unthinking. Now of course you will have seen the obvious holes in the argument, but phrased as a joke we may forgive the dinosaur references and egregious omission of evolution by natural selection as a reason other than "magic".

The interesting bit is the appeal to the cosmological argument at the top, because this is where the joke really fails. For one thing, this is a straw man; no atheist except the laziest would maintain that "nothing magically exploded..." The big bang is a well tested theory, there is little doubt that as a cosmological event it happened at a specific distance away in time from now in the order of 14 billion years. Observations by various telescopes have failed to falsify the predictions contingent upon the big bang and as a working model of the observable universe it seems sound. However, hypotheses of the state of the universe preceding that event are still speculative and largely immune to experimental falsification. Consequently all scientists and most sceptics would say; "Hey! Just now, we don't know"

If this joke is representative of how theists interpret our position, we have work to do. It is work that won't go away just by pointing out the absurdity of the theistic position (which I did on Facebook anyway, 'cos you have to) as the real points are not in the scoring, but in the understanding of what science can reveal now and where its current limitations are.

It is, or seems to be, inevitable that the further science probes into the mysteries of this immense, complex and beautiful universe we inhabit the more improbable specific creation myths will become. It is also probable that, "common sense" perceptions of the universe will become undermined as working models become ever more abstract, not only to the layman but even the moderately scientifically literate.

That is both the comic appeal of this caricature and the root of its failure . It's not the literality, as there is none; It's the simplicity.

BC/AD Vs BCE/CE on the BBC

2011-10-03T13:08:00.001+01:00

What is it with this Christian persecution complex? It seems some Christians are never happy unless they can prove their precious and over privileged beliefs are being marginalised or “banned”.
This time it is over the substitution of the secular BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) for the “traditional” BC and AD on the B.B.C Religion and Ethics web site.
Since the site is for all flavours of religion this seems fair enough to me, after all what relevance is Anno Domini to a Buddhist? Also BCE/CE is the accepted academic format so would seem the logical choice.
Some people have protested that there is a BBC wide edict against the use of BC/AD, but this has been denied by Aaqil Ahmed the B.B.C head of religious programming.

"We have issued no editorial guidelines or instructions to suggest that anyone in the BBC should change the terms they use."

In any event colloquially many people read CE as Christian Era instead of Common Era, which is fine and makes some logical sense. The abbreviations themselves have also been around for some time

The English phrase "common Era" appears at least as early as 1708, and in a 1715 book on astronomy is used interchangeably with "Christian Era" and "Vulgar Era"

.
There is a definite oversensitivity to issues like this lately. Christians (and the more generally religious) don’t seem to realise the difference between not privaliging their world view and attacking it. Neither this country or the world at large is predomonantly Christian and with luck the last census will indicate this country isn’t even mostly religious, we shouldn’t need public discourse to be littered with assumptions of religious truth where other secular alternatives are available.

D'ya wanna be in my gang?

2011-09-27T11:41:00.000+01:00

Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels has caught the Pope Ratzi in the same act of hypocritical ecumenicalism as Rowan Williams.
He’s on a tour of his home country at the moment and while at a shared service with Lutherans (That’s Lutherans notice, Martin must be turning in his grave) he said

“The most urgent thing for ecumenicalism is, namely, that we can’t allow the push of secularism to force us, almost without noticing, to lose sight of the major similarities that make us Christians, and which remain a gift and a challenge for us,”

. Oh the irony. You can tell we’ve got the Vatican on the run when the Pope calls on one of the oldest protestant sects for help. What next; an appeal to the Dalai Lama?

"Gang up on the atheists" as the comic said to the Archbishop

2011-09-20T15:33:00.000+01:00

Catholic comedian Frank Skinner has been in conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams at a recent event called “The Gathering”. held at the cathedral.
It seems Frank has a problem with atheists…

Atheists we might see as people like those who deny global warming. You might celebrate their right, and defend their freedom of speech, to deny global warming – but if they're wrong, and millions of other people have taken their view, then it could end in a terrible, terrible disaster for a lot of people.

It’s a pithy but ultimately ironic choice of analogy. In the first place, it is rarely atheists that align themselves with global warming denialists, as we are the ones that appreciate the science and the evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real (I know there are some atheists who won’t agree, but they are definitely the minority). If anything it’s the fundi-evangelical Christian right that foment the conspiracy theories and deny the science. But beyond that is the thinly disguised Pascal’s wager that suggests that if the atheist argument prevails millions will be condemned to hell.
Frank does his best to frame this in an ecumenical way

At a time when secularism is a threat to the salvation of millions, believers should get together, find what we have in common, and sell that

But theologically this doesn’t fly. His own religion denies salvation to anyone who isn’t a Catholic, so there is no point in recruiting all the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists Ad Nauseam to the fray, let alone the Muslims, Hindus and Jews he is presumably letting into his big cosy theistic tent.
This naïve cuddly, “we’re all believers together” trope is a common one when the religious are confronted with the spectre of secularism. But this appeal to ecumenicalism is really a sham and a convenience that gets dropped once they have to deal with each other on their own terms.
Bizarrely, later in the conversation Frank touches on this himself when he compares faith to his other religion, football.

They all gave some sort of allegiance to his great game, but it’s compartmentalised by tribalism, In the Eighties people would be clubbing each other because they had different colours on, but it’s all about this brilliant game.

Yep! Exactly. Ask a West Ham supporter to be “ecumenical” about Chelsea fans and see where that gets you. You might engender some cooperation in a pub argument with rugby aficionados, but back on the terraces it’s business as usual. It is the same with religion; tribalism wins over cooperation in the end. In fact if that wasn’t the case I doubt that the “New atheists” Frank goes on to strawman as “sitting on leather chairs in gentlemen’s clubs with Dawkins and Bertrand Russell”, would be half so strident if religions really were the benign institutions he believes them to be.
It’s a funny sort of argument in my opinion, but then Frank Skinner is a comedian after all.

Catholics are back to fish on Fridays

2011-09-16T10:41:00.001+01:00

For centuries and certainly, even in my youth, fish on Friday’s was a kind of cultural ritual for Catholics in this country. Until the Second Vatican Council, Catholics were required to abstain from meat every Friday, as a form of penance in honor of the death of Jesus Christ on the cross, but this rule was rescinded and any chosen alternative form of penance was deemed acceptable.
Now Catholics in England and Wales are being asked to revive the practice.
The general secretary of the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, Father Marcus Stock, said

"Because sometimes penance in the past had become mechanistic, many bishops' conferences were wanting to use the opportunity to renew the spirit of penitence. I think what hadn't been envisaged at the time was that because people wouldn't be carrying out the same act together that this might lead to the loss of penance in people's lives."

At a time when the Catholic church should have bigger things to worry about, following the Cloyne Report and the wider child abuse scandal, they are back trying to micro manage the personal lives of the faithful.
I don’t think this is a coincidence. Many Catholics have lost trust in the church and its hierarchy in recent times, even if their core beliefs have not changed and this loss of authority is anathema to the Vatican. This smacks to me as a non too subtle ploy to re-assert some authority and cohesiveness on Catholics in the west and create the impression that the faithful are united behind the Bishops. I predict a series of similar initiatives over the next few months, along with more vocal efforts by the Church to assume the moral high ground on all sorts of issues it has no business meddling in.

As an aside, I can’t resist commenting on the absurd theology (is there another kind?) underlying this Friday penance.
For one thing, there is no evidence, biblical or otherwise that Jesus died on a Friday. In fact some readings of the scriptures make it a Wednesday
But Father Marcus makes it even sillier with this…

It's about recognising that a wrong was done when our Lord was crucified and killed, It's linked to almsgiving and concern for the poor and to bring to our minds that we have responsibilities - all of us.

Christian theology rests on the assumption that Jesus had to be crucified. Without their bloodied scapegoat for original sin, they haven’t got a religion so in what way can they consider it a “wrong”.
Also if it’s about almsgiving, fine, give something to charity and do it regularly. If you have to give up some treats to afford this and you are prepared to do it, more power to you but don’t parade your piety just because you eat environmentally suspect cod and chips in front of the telly instead of rib-eye steak on Fridays.

The rise of Chinese Christianity

2011-09-12T12:29:00.003+01:00

Watching from a European perspective it has long seemed that the last bastion of rampant evangelical Christianity was the U.S and to some extent even that is confined mainly to the Bible belt. However, somewhat under the radar there is now a phenomenal interest in Christianity emerging in China

China being China, the state has officially sanctioned Protestant and Catholic churches and maintains control of the clergy

The officially sanctioned Catholic Patriotic Association appoints its own bishops and is not allowed to have any dealings with the Vatican, though Catholics are allowed to recognise the spiritual authority of the Pope.

But underground churches are springing up in private houses, which the state appears to be tolerating as long as worship does not spill out into the public forum.
It’s difficult to know what to think about this. The suggestion has been made that it is a reaction to growing capitalism and greater freedom from the ideological atheism demanded by the communist party structure. Whatever the reason, the scale appears to be immense

It is impossible to say how many Christians there are in China today, but no-one denies the numbers are exploding.

The government says 25 million, 18 million Protestants and six million Catholics. Independent estimates all agree this is a vast underestimate. A conservative figure is 60 million. There are already more Chinese at church on a Sunday than in the whole of Europe.

That religion has been suppressed for so long and is now fighting back may not be surprising, but why Christianity? China has its own religious traditions such as Buddhism and Confucianism and you may think that the first shoots of revival would be from amongst these.
My guess is this is an unconscious homage to the U.S. The protestant work ethic that built the mighty economic engine that the U.S represents is the lure for the commercially aspiring modern Chinese citizen and they are seeing the Christian religion as a key part of this.

How much of a threat to secularisation this will be is not easy to predict. State control of religion will certainly fail and that is all to the good. Maintaining the party’s ideological atheism may also finally appear futile, which is also as it should be. But as China’s economic reach expands will we have another front on which to combat religionist superstition and bigotry, or will Chinese Christianity turn out to be a different animal altogether? Watch this space…

Should Jesus endorse mobile 'phones?

2011-09-07T10:31:00.001+01:00

The Advertising Standards Authority have upheld just short of one hundred complaints regarding this Phones4u advertisement displayed last Easter.

The ad, featuring a cartoon Jesus winking and making a thumbs-up sign to “Miraculous deals” on android ‘phones was deemed to be offensive to Christians and cannot be shown again.

Well O.K, we all know how precious the religious can be about their images and icons, so it’s unsurprising that the ASA got quite a few complaints. In comment on the judgement the ASA said:

'We considered that, although the ads were intended to be light-hearted and humorous, their depiction of Jesus winking and holding a thumbs-up sign, with the text "miraculous" deals during Easter, the Christian Holy Week which celebrated Christ's resurrection, gave the impression that they were mocking and belittling core Christian beliefs,'

Well possibly, but so what? Why do they feel that any beliefs require protection from mockery? I’m sure plenty of people could find something to mock in my core political and philosophical beliefs, but I wouldn’t take offence at that, mainly because I believe that I can make a good case for justifying them. Somehow the religious don’t have that level of confidence in what they believe forcing them to suppress criticism and mockery rather than meet it with rational argument.
The ironic thing about this ad though is that in my opinion Jesus is a poor choice of character to endorse mobile ‘phones. Think about it: he was hardly the world’s best communicator. Jesus left no first person account of himself or the god he purported to represent. What accounts he did leave were reportage and hearsay which even if you believe them to be accurate were couched in allegory, metaphor and parables so open to interpretation as to be practically meaningless. Then, for the last two thousand years, not a peep: he never ‘phones, he never writes, tweets, or posts a status on facebook. Let’s face it, if the risen Christ wanted to get a message to the world there was never a better time to do it. No more relying on open-air sermons on a Middle Eastern hillock or risking his gospel to the vagaries of mistranslation and political manipulation. He could make his presence and intentions for the world known at a stroke to countless millions of people all over the world (yes I know, he could have done this in the first place being omnipotent and omnipresent and all, but “mysterious ways”, indulge me).
No, call me cynical (I won’t be offended) but if I were head of marketing for Phones4u, neither Jesus nor his dad would be on my list of sponsors.

The end of the morning assembly?

2011-09-06T17:22:00.001+01:00

When I was at school each day started without fail with a morning assembly, where the masters would lead us in an act of prayer, bible readings and hymn singing as mandated by the law. The gap between the end of this session and the commencement of more secular notices was punctuated by the shuffling in of the minority of pupils who were not of the assumed Christian pursuasion and who had withdrawn at the behest of their parents.

In the news today is this story in which a BBC survey found that a majority of schools were not fulfilling their legal obligation to provide a daily act of collective worship. Interestingly 60% of the parents polled had no problem with this.
Unsurprisingly, in this multicultural and largely (in practice) secular country imposing a requirement on schools to spend time in religious observance seems silly and from my point of view sends a wrong headed message to pupils. The time would be much better spent in giving community and civic instruction; religion should be left at home where it belongs.
Predictably religious voices are taking the opportunity to equate faith with morality

A spokesman for the Church of England said the law stated schools provide collective worship and the church supported that.
He said: "It provides an important chance for the school to focus on promoting the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of its pupils.

Which as I have pointed out previously is a specious proposition and not born out by reality.
This spokesperson also goes on to say

"Collective worship is when pupils of all faiths and none come together to reflect - it should not be confused with corporate worship when everyone is of the same belief."

Which is just inane. What exactly is a person of no faith supposed to worship?
It is perfectly possible and I would say preferable to teach a school as a community; morals, ethics and civic responsibility without recourse to religion. Perhaps since the majority of parents don’t want this archaic display of superstition it is time to abandon it.

U.K "riots": Moral decline or civic failure?

2011-08-16T12:51:00.001+01:00

In the wake of the riots in London and other cities in the U.K the coalition government has been pointing the finger at moral decline in British society.

"For me it is clear that the root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing that I’ve spoken about for years. It is a complete lack of responsibility in our society. It is as much a moral problem as a political problem"

Says David Cameron.

I understand the rhetoric, but rhetoric it is and somewhat overblown in my opinion. Whilst the behaviour of those looting and “rioting” was reprehensible, the absolute numbers were a tiny fraction of the youth of this country and most of what was seen on our T.V screens looked more like opportunism than anything else.
Incidentally I put “rioting” in scare quotes because, despite the government designating them as such, these weren’t really riots in the sense of organised violent demonstrations of civic malcontent, just bunches of feckless, poorly educated kids with an inflated sense of entitlement looking for an outlet and a new pair of trainers.
Interviews with some of the looters revealed the lack of purpose or rational behind the violence

"We’re showing the rich we can do what we want"

was one of the more depressingly incoherent thoughts from a pair of girls in Croydon.
This not to say there’s no underlying problem here, I just don’t believe it is symptomatic of a recent moral decline, more a lack of education and a poor understanding of civic responsibility.
For example it has been said frequently that the politician’s expenses scandal and the greed of bankers has sent messages to deprived neighbourhoods that taking what you want is acceptable at any cost. But of course bankers have been rich and politicians have screwed their expenses for time immemorial. The fact that we now see this as wrong is more indicative of a moral rise than a decline, a wider understanding that egalitarianism is a thing to strive for and privilege a thing to be avoided. That politicians have been jailed should suggest that the culpable will face the consequences whatever their status.
The fact that the message has not got through to some teenagers in Croydon says more about the lack of political and social awareness in this subset of British youth than it does about moral decline.
I suspect that given the opportunity to hide in a crowd and get free stuff some kids and young adults of all generations past would have taken it, the difference now is that such opportunities are easier to manufacture.
If I were to offer a solution, my short answer would be education. Focus on those areas in cities known to be deprived and problematic, invest in social projects that schools can be a part of, teach civics, discourage tribalism (abolish faith schools) and encourage integration (invest in secular schools and institutions). Some of this takes money, which we know is in short supply, but the potential rewards are great and available in the relatively short term. Morality is largely about mutual self-interest, and a kid that torches local businesses that are potential employers simply does not understand where her own interest lies. This is a failure of civic instruction and these are concepts that parents in these circumstances may not understand sufficiently themselves to pass on. This is therefore a responsibility of society as a whole and good inclusive secular schools are the key.

Even I would go to this church

2011-08-05T13:14:00.001+01:00

Here is a heartwarming story about an atheist clergyman in Holland who is teaching Christianity as a humanist religion.

"When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that's where it can happen. God is not a being at all... it's a word for experience, or human experience."

Mr Hendrikse describes the Bible's account of Jesus's life as a mythological story about a man who may never have existed, even if it is a valuable source of wisdom about how to lead a good life.

This ticks a lot of boxes for me. For one thing I am pretty sure that the number of clergy worldwide who are in reality atheist or agnostic is a lot higher than might be apparent. Secondly a church that can expound and expand the good in people without recourse to a god is acknowledging what traditional Christians don't which is that people are intrinsically altruistic and don't need to be "saved".
One disappointing thing about the article though is this statement by Robert Pigott the journalist

But the message from Mr Hendrikse's sermon seems bleak - "Make the most of life on earth, because it will probably be the only one you get".

That's not a bleak message at all, it's a liberating one that encourages us to be the best we can be in the one life we have without burdening ourselves with guilt and fear about some mythical afterlife.

La La La La It's not our fault

2011-08-02T23:35:00.000+01:00

Fuck me the Pope's a wanker. Even if he actually believed this crap he should have the sense not to say it.
But yeah! Guess what? The Cloyne report is a pack of lies, the child abuse was the governments fault and by the way if a pedophile priest confesses we still won't tell you. I give up read it for yourself...
Tosser Pope absolves himself

The role of the confessional in the Catholic child abuse scandal

2011-07-30T20:26:00.000+01:00

The real scandal of the revelations about pedophile priests abusing children is not so much that it happened, although for the victims it is a personal tragedy, but that the Church so systematically covered for the perpetrators and failed to report cases to the secular authorities. Part of this is the unconscionable arrogance of the Holy See in believing its own cannon law supersedes the law of the countries in which it operates, but also the traditions of secrecy in the confessional will have provided ground cover for those priests who felt guilty enough to confess their transgressions to other priests.
The seal of the confessional is inviolate. No matter how heinous the crime committed by the "penitent", the priest hearing the confession is bound on pain of excommunication to keep the confession a secret. The only obligation on the priest is to seek advice from a superior, whilst still maintaining the anonymity of the penitent.
When the penitent is another priest confessing to fiddling with the altar boys, the "seal" provides an excellent excuse to keep the issue within the church and preserve its reputation. The dodgy priest's confessor need only seek advice and the hierarchy can begin operation cover-up.
In highly catholic countries, no government would question the seal of the confessional, but they should. If anyone has evidence that a serious crime has being committed, especially where circumstances suggest the crime will be repeated they should be legally bound to report this to the secular authorities before they talk to their superiors. It should be an offence for a priest to know about such crimes and not report them.
Pedophiles have a problem. Pedophilia is not of itself a crime, it is a psycho-sexual condition which like all other fetishes that fall outside of "normal" vanilla heterosexual concepts is probably more prevalent than anyone realises. Also, like most sexual orientations it is probably to some extent innate. However, no society is ever going to tolerate the sexual molestation of children, no matter how liberal it becomes and in my opinion rightly so.
I suspect, while offering no evidence whatsoever, that most pedophiles would rather not be attracted to minors so enforced celibacy in the priesthood may seem a good option for them. This will have the effect of concentrating these people within the ranks of the Catholic church and frankly, as long as they keep their vows of celibacy, that can only be a good thing. But if ever once they break those vows and molest children, they need to be exposed. The confessional is where they will go, and the confessional needs to grow up and 'fess up on its own account.

It must be the wrong kind of sharia...

2011-07-28T19:55:00.001+01:00

Isn't it ironic that one of the most conservative of British newspapers should get itself in a lather about a couple of stories involving alleged "sharia" in London boroughs?
O.K the stories are disturbing enough, in that a handful of Islamic dumbnuts have made unilateral statements that particular areas are under Sharia Law and will not tolerate alcohol, drugs, music, gay sex, liberated women prostitution or any other of the traditional liberties that grace British culture in the twenty-first century. But in all these cases the real law, you know, the one made by parliament and enforced by the police and the courts is dealing with them.
The irony lies in the fact that under normal circumstances, most of what this non existent sharia laws demands is exactly what the Daily mail would advocate if it wasn't being proposed by (faux) Muslims.

Vatican gets peevish

2011-07-25T15:41:00.001+01:00

Following the publication of the Cloyne report into child abuse by Catholic priests the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny issued a well-deserved rebuke to the Vatican over its continued attempts to save face rather than address the issues.
In response the Vatican has recalled its Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza for consultations.
However the Vatican cannot resist showing its offence at being publicly called out by Enda Kenny.

- The recalling of the Nuncio, a measure rarely used by the Holy See, denotes the seriousness of the situation, and the desire of the Holy See to deal with it objectivity and with determination, as well as a certain note of surprise and regret regarding some excessive reactions(my emphasis).

Excessive reactions? The gall of the church in the face of its abysmal behaviour is astounding. Even allowing for the absurdity of pretending it is in some kind of diplomatic relationship with the Irish state they are lucky their ersatz ambassador was not expelled.

Blag Hag's blogathon

2011-07-21T20:06:00.001+01:00

Why am I promoting a donation to a U.S secular organisation? Because like it or not, where the U.S goes so do the rest of us. The U.S is in danger of becoming the biggest threat to reason in the world. The best strategy is to help the youth of that christian besieged nation to break free. Here's a fun way to do it. BTW Jen is awesome.

Religious bigotry is still bigotry.

2011-07-18T12:15:00.000+01:00

Following on from the Equality Commission’s blatant misunderstanding of the difference between equality and privilege, the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks has mounted his own attack against equality legislation.
“Lord” Sacks, who occupies this privileged position merely by dint of being a Rabbi and for no good democratic reason, believes that in expecting religious people to obey equality legislation we are impinging on their religious freedoms. Even further he believes it will create a new “Mayflower” mentality where the faithful will leave in search of these freedoms

“I share a real concern that the attempt to impose the current prevailing template of equality and discrimination on religious organisations is an erosion of religious liberty. We are beginning to move back to where we came in in the 17th century - a whole lot of people on the Mayflower leaving to find religious freedom elsewhere.”

For one thing, this is a gross misreading of history, the Pilgrim Fathers left for America to escape the domination of one state sponsored religious orthodoxy for the freedom to pursue whatever faith they desired. In doing so the founding fathers wrote a constitution expressly preventing the U.S government from establishing or promoting one religion over any other, or indeed none.
Sure, we can argue that America has constant constitutional battles and challenges from the Christian right over this, they too make the same bleating calls for special dispensation, but essentially you are free to believe what you like.
Well guess what? You can believe what you like in the U.K too. You can believe that women are inferior to men, you can believe that gays are evil and bound for hell, you can believe that black people are the descendents of Ham and natural slaves. You can believe all of these things and you can justify it as a faith position (actually, probably the only way you could justify it). You can proclaim your misogynistic, homophobic, racist putrescent beliefs to your hearts content.
What you cannot do is impose those beliefs on other human beings. What you cannot do is refuse services to people you disapprove of if you are employed, or set up in business to provide those services. What you cannot do is put your beliefs above the law, those equality laws are there to ensure no citizens are discriminated against in the public sphere.
As an atheist there is no reason I cannot be a bigot too, it’s not exclusively the preserve of religion, and if I were I would be prevented from imposing my bigotry on society by the same equality legislation. Just because your bigotry has religious motivation does not privilege you in anyway. If you don’t want to perform civil ceremonies for gay couples, don’t be a registrar! That is the decision I would have to make were I so inclined. Just because you are a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim does not make your bigotry special.

Equality Commission gets it wrong!

2011-07-12T16:51:00.001+01:00

After a series of eminently sensible court rulings which dismissed cases of religious discrimination, the Equality Commission has now said that judges have been interpreting equality laws too narrowly.
Among the cases involved are

Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian, was sent home from work in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross

Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people

Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London

Some of which I have mentioned on this blog.
Admittedly some of the cases appear trivial, like insisting on wearing a cross when all other employees are forbidden to wear jewellery, whereas others are egregious, like refusing to council or conduct civil partnerships for gays.
This is not about equality, it is about religious privilage and the Equality and Human Rights Commission of all bodies should see that.
The most ridiculous justification comes from John Wadham, legal group director at the commission.

Our intervention in these cases would encourage judges to interpret the law more broadly and more clearly to the benefit of people who are religious and those who are not.
The idea of making reasonable adjustments to accommodate a person's needs has served disability discrimination law well for decades.
It seems reasonable that a similar concept could be adopted to allow someone to manifest their religious beliefs.

Making adjustments for someone with a disability is promoting equality. It allows people to participate on as near equal terms in employment and society as possible. Making religious accommodation is promoting inequality in that it is privileging some people to pick and choose their duties and obligations based on religious views.
Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Have we spent so long pussyfooting around religious sensibilities that we can’t see the consequences? Unless of course by equating religious belief with disability they are admitting that faith is disabling, in which case we should treat the religious exactly as the original judges in these cases ruled by helping them to function as rational fully competent members of society despite their handicap. Admitting defeat does not assist them to participate fully in society on equal terms, in the same way that not providing an access ramp marginalizes a wheelchair user.

Talking to the Taliban

2011-07-07T09:24:00.000+01:00

In the wake of announcements by President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron that substantial troop withdrawals are to be made from Afghanistan in the coming months, the prospect of engaging the Taliban in political talks has been raised by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic.
Now, while it is true that there are no ultimate military solutions to the problems in Afghanistan and a political resolution need to be found, I find it hard to believe that the Taliban can be engaged in this way. Even if the rhetoric from the west is true and the recent military surge has weakened the Taliban to the point where they could be persuaded to negotiate, what will they negotiate about?
The Taliban are not the Afghan equivalent of the IRA, their aims are not political or territorial they are cultural and religious.
The Taliban want an Islamist state and sharia law. They want to rule a country that forbids women an education and the right to work. It wants to force them to wear the burqa and be subject to male dominance. It wants to stone rape victims to death. It wants a theocracy with no god but Allah, where apostates and blasphemers can be killed with impunity.
These people do not have a middle ground, you cannot negotiate with Allah and whatever they appear to concede will quickly evaporate once they have the power and the west has gone away.
I have yet to hear any politician make this point, but I can’t believe they are not aware of it. Either they are afraid of insulting “moderate” Muslims by pointing out that it is their religion that is at the root of the problem or just a desire to seem reasonable in their engagement with the enemy. But whatever the reason it will do no good to pretend that the Taliban will, or even can negotiate in good faith.

Move over Palin...Make way for Michelle Bachmann

2011-06-28T16:47:00.001+01:00

I don’t usually mention U.S politics, except perhaps in passing as many of the well-known atheist blogs carry enough of that already. However I have to mention Michelle Bachmann’s bid to become the Republican candidate for the 2012 presidential election.

The thing is, I’m not sure whether I’m pleased, on the basis that no sane person would ever vote this bible thumping, homophobic tea bagger conservative wingnut into the White House. Or terrified because there just might be enough insane Republican voters to put her there.

Make no mistake about this; “President” Bachmann would make George Bush look like a ultra liberal “pinko”. If she were leader of the free world, not only would civil rights, free speech and rational government become a thing of the past in America, the de-facto theocracy she would attempt to impose would become one of the most destabilising influences in world politics imaginable.
If you were ever disturbed by Bush’s anti-intellectualism, try some of Bachmann’s quotes for size:

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican, was president, April 28, 2009

"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006

"Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas." -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, April, 2009

"Does that mean that someone's 13-year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus? That night, mom and dad are never the wiser." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on health care reform's potential to dupe parents, October 2009

If you trust the American people to find this rhetoric as absurd and abhorrent as I do, we have nothing to worry about and we can at least get another four years of Obama style centre politics (I won’t call him a liberal, all U.S politicians lean much further to the right than their equivalents in the U.K) and an administration that knows where the rest of the world is on a map. If on the other hand the Democrats over there don’t come out in force and vote, Bachmann’s God bothering, Christian nation brand of popularist conservatism could get her and the Tea Party Rethuglicans the power they crave. Then watch out!

This is sweet

2011-06-27T14:43:00.000+01:00

This is a cute little story.Five Norfolk parishes are to install beehives in their churchyards in order to help the environment in response to the decline in honeybees.

Naturally they are also using this as a way to “…bring the local community together”, for which read create an opportunity to evangelise. Well O.K, you can’t blame them for that and the project is of itself a worthwhile one, however I couldn’t resist a wry smile at this…

"If we can get people together to look after bees... barriers can be brought down and people might feel that it's safe to come into church as well."

I wonder in what sense people feel it is not safe to go to church, other than maybe they’ll get suckered into believing a lot of mystical nonsense and end up crooning hymns to a long dead Palestinian every Sunday. Sort of the same reason people don’t feel safe attending timeshare presentations, they know there is a danger they might end up buying something they neither want nor need.
Whatever, I wish the church well with the bees and hope the locals will still get involved while avoiding the obvious sting.

BHA calls out chair of EHRC

2011-06-21T22:25:00.000+01:00

It's difficult to improve on the statements in the BHA newsletter which run as follows (Wiki link mine)

Humanists call for EHRC Chair Trevor Phillips to apologise, following ‘sectarian and divisive’ statements

The Chair of Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Trevor Phillips has been called on to apologise by the British Humanist Association (BHA), after he made heavily biased remarks in favour of religious people and against the non-religious in an interview. The BHA has described Mr Phillips’ comments as ‘divisive and sectarian’.

With no reference whatever to the EHRC’s duties, which legally apply equally to the non-religious, Trevor Phillips stated: ‘Our business is defending the believer. The law we're here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It's an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.’

He also made a number of acerbic comments about those who are critical of religious beliefs – an important right of free speech, which it is also the purpose of his commission to defend – and suggested that they wanted ‘to drive religion underground’, with no supporting evidence.

Trevor Phillips has something of an ambiguous position on free speech in relation to religion. For example he did say in response to the Dutch cartoons of Muhammed

"One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is."

He has also spoken on the need for free speech to 'allow people to offend each other.'Which is definitely at odds with his current pronouncements.
I see no evidence that any secular body wants to drive religion underground. Personally I am passionate about exactly the opposite; religion should be visible, exposed and made to justify its claims. It is religion that hides in the shadows of obfuscation, theodicy and equivocation, not humanism and rational thought.

Religion is just a conspiracy theory

2011-06-14T14:36:00.002+01:00

When I say “religion is a conspiracy theory”, I do not mean this in the Dan Brown sense with cabals of black frocked priests and secret societies hiding some deep “truth” from the rest of the world. No, I mean that religion, all of it, is a conspiracy theory.
In the classic conspiracy theory the underlying assumption is that there is an agent or agents clandestinely manipulating events that on the face of it have otherwise perfectly logical and rational explanations. Hence when Princess Diana has a fatal car accident in a French tunnel, (a predictable outcome of being driven too fast by a drunk driver while not wearing a seat belt) it becomes a murder plot involving MI5, senior members of the royal family, the British government, the French police, several coroners and the British and French judiciary. Or, when a lone gunman with a history of assassination attempts on US senators kills President Kennedy, a decades long confabulation of CIA, Russian or Zionist plots are implied as the “real” reason.
The typical signature of conspiracy theories is that they fail the test of Occam’s razor in that the “official” explanation of events is usually much more parsimonious than the conspiracy theory. Assumption is piled on assumption, collaborator upon collaborator until an edifice of daunting complexity is built, all to point to the original premise that “something fishy” is going on.
Our natural tendency to assume intelligent agency behind the simplest of phenomena is one explanation for the appeal and tenaciousness of conspiracy theories. This may be an evolved survival mechanism, if a bush moves in the savannah it is better to assume the presence of a predator and be wrong than assume the opposite and be eaten. Similarly, if enough people shout “tiger!” just because you can’t see it is probably not a good idea to ignore the warning.
Religion got started this way; If it rained or failed to rain, if you survived an illness or not, if the volcano blew, if the lightening struck. All these things required an explanation for the evolving human brain and in the absence of scientific explanations, intentionality was assumed and the conspiracy of the gods was born.
Once the conspiracy was established the familiar tropes emerged. Assumptions piled on assumptions, collaborators upon collaborators, fables upon fables all forming a self serving self supporting edifice that in the absence of cold hard facts to the contrary just grew and grew. Enough people have been yelling “GOD!” for long enough that it takes a strong will to resist buying into the conspiracy. You might not get eaten, but you could wind up in hell.
However, we have now had the police investigation, the results of the judicial enquiry are in and the official records have been made public. Yes, hundreds of years of scientific enquiry and examination of the facts have now proved conclusively that the conspiracy of the gods is just another confabulation. There is no Machiavellian mind behind the volcano, the rainfall or the lightening and no reason to believe there is one hiding behind any of the natural phenomena we observe, no matter how the universe shakes and rustles.

Bashing the (Arch)bishop

2011-06-09T14:06:00.000+01:00

Dr Rowan Williams the current Archbishop of Canterbury has ruffled some political feathers by viciously criticising the current coalition government.
In an article for New Statesman magazine, he accuses the coalition of “committing Britain to radical, long-term policies for which no-one voted", and accusing them of creating “anxiety and anger” in the country by moving forward with swift reforms without sufficient public debate.
Now I suspect that Dr Williams is one of those people I would like in person. As churchmen go, he is a small “l” liberal, with something of a radical past and a nuanced theology, which actually makes me suspect that like a lot of intelligent people in church hierarchies his religious beliefs are far from literal.
I also have some sympathy with some, though not all of his concerns though perhaps for different reasons. He, for example is sceptical of Cameron’s “Big Society” as am I, but where he sees it as a cover for spending cuts, I see it as a cover for faith communities to gain undue influence (maybe he’s missing that opportunity). Also like me he is critical of “Free Schools” although I’m not sure of his motivation (mine is outlined elsewhere).
But all this aside and regardless whether I agree with the substance of his article, the attention it has drawn is yet another example of the ridiculous amount of weight we give to religious opinion. Dr Williams is a theologian (a dubious academic discipline at the best of times) and a poet; he is a member of the House of Lords purely by dint of being a Bishop, totally un-elected and representative of nobody’s views but his own. He cannot even be said to be representing the views of his flock, since Archbishop is not a position you reach democratically. What exactly is his constituency that makes his voice so powerful in the political arena?
The answer of course is the continuation of the established church, a situation that has so little relevance in our multicultural and largely secular society that it is surely time we divorced religion (and certainly a specific religion) from our government altogether. This in my view would be the best outcome of wholesale reform of the House of Lords.
It would not prevent high profile clergy from expressing their political and social opinions and nor should it, but it would put them in the appropriate position of being just another voice in the marketplace of ideas, rather than a privileged arm of government allowing us and our elected officials to treat those opinions accordingly.

Troops from 16 Air Assault Brigade hold Afghan service

2011-06-08T17:25:00.000+01:00

I’m going to do my best not to sound churlish about this, nor am I intending to trivialise the tremendous risks and sacrifices made by our troops abroad. But I could not help thinking that the thanksgiving service held today at St Edmundsbury Cathedral in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk need not have been, and should not have been such an explicitly Anglican one.
It’s a fair bet that a significant number of the troops attending will be atheists or agnostics, of those that are religious as well as Anglicans there will be Catholics, other protestant sects, Hindus Sikhs and Muslims, so it seems unfortunate that the event was run by the state sponsored religion.
I understand the logic of course; the Queen is the head of the Church of England and Commander in Chief of the Army. These people fight on behalf of queen and country and the established religion gets the job helping them deal with the aftermath.
Lets leave aside for one moment the obvious snipe…

Soldiers from the Army's largest brigade have attended a service to give thanks for their return from Afghanistan and to remember the fallen.

i.e “Giving thanks” to some deity for safe return but conveniently ignoring the point that the same deity is presumably responsible for the deaths as well, in favour of considering why, in this enlightened age we cannot have secular ceremonies that would also have ecumenical religious aspects to allow soldiers of all faiths and none to find their own meaning and comfort.

Proselytising Doctors

2011-05-22T19:30:00.004+01:00

The Telegraph has highlighted this story of a doctor censured by the general medical council for discussing faith with his patients.
Dr Richard Scott is part of a practice called the Bethesda Medical Centre in Margate, Kent – a practice well-known for having Christian partners - and has been threatened with an Official Warning by the GMC and is currently under investigation following a complaint by the parent of young patient.

In 2010, Dr Scott saw a patient on the practice list at the request of the patient’s mother. At the end of the consultation, the patient and doctor discussed religion, each being of different faiths. The patient has continued to seek treatment from the practice, but his mother filed an official complaint, claiming that the GP had not offered medical advice during a consultation, but instead, talked about Jesus! [source]

Apparently Dr Scott claims he only did so after a lengthy medical consultation and that no objection was made at the time.
Actual facts about this seem to be scarce. It is clear that the Bethesda practice is overtly christian in nature and perhaps someone not of that faith should choose a different practice if they do not want to be exposed to it. However, most people in this country would normally expect a medical professional to confine their advice to the domain in which they were consulted i.e medicine and keep their religion to themselves. If a practice wants to style itself on christian lines, perhaps to demonstrate faith as a motivation to public good, I suppose that's fine, but it should not be seen as an invitation to evangelise. Also the suggestion that the parent did not complain at the time is hardly surprising. Most people are polite and naturally deferential to doctors who are among the most respected professionals in the country, so while someone like me might well call them out on such an unwarranted intrusion into non-medical areas, a mother accompanying a child may well wait until later to complain.
On the available evidence I cannot decide whether the GMC are over reacting to this event or not. If this is the first time such a complaint has been made, I would take the view that sullying the personal record of a doctor with twenty-eight years unblemished service is probably harsh and unnecessary. Also, I would hope that the good doctor has learnt that such transgressions of professional boundaries are inappropriate and avoid them in future.
Beyond that, personally I would call the matter closed, except to say that attempts by the Telegraph and Christian Concern to frame this as evidence of persecution of christians is absurd and unhelpful. Christians and indeed all faiths are at complete liberty to ply their wares, set out their stalls and attract the "rubes" to their own peculiar and contradictory brands of irrationality without restriction. But, as consumers of professional services, be it medicine or any other, nobody should expect religion to be offered as part of the package if they didn't buy into it at the outset.

Update:

the description of the Bethesda Medical Centre on the NHS website is rather extraordinary (bold emphasis added):

WELCOME TO BETHESDA MEDICAL CENTRE

Bethesda was a place in Bible where Christ healed a lame man and means literally 'house of mercy'
The 6 Partners are all practising Christians from a variety of Churches and their faith guides the way in which they view their work and responsibilities to the patients and employees. The Partners feel that the offer of talking to you on spiritual matters is of great benefit. If you do not wish this, that is your right and will not affect your medical care. Please tell the doctor (or drop a note to the Practice Manager) if you do not wish to speak on matters of faith.

"So it seems faith is something patients must opt out of at that surgery." [Source]

I like this joke

2011-05-04T16:14:00.001+01:00

I've always liked Emo Phillips but you don't hear much from him these days. Anyway commenter "democommie" over at Despatches From the Culture Wars posted this and I thought I'd share...

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Emo Phillips

Bin Laden: Thoughts on conspiracy and jubilance

2011-05-03T11:34:00.001+01:00

Ever since the news broke that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by a U.S task force in his Pakistani compound, almost everyone I’ve talked to has suggested that the American government might be making it up.
The desire to see conspiracy theories in practically everything to do with 9/11 is, to my mind, totally bizarre and the credibility of such theories close to zero.
For a start, what possible benefit is there to lying about killing Bin Laden? The only possible one I can think of (that they might just get away with) is that they actually have him in custody, but don’t want Al Qaeda to know. In which case they’ll pump him for whatever they can get then kill him and bury him at sea. But it’s hard not to suppose that Obama could resist the propaganda win of actually having Bin Laden stand trial.
But anyway, that’s not what is being claimed. People are saying it’s a stunt to restore Obama’s popularity, or to cover for death by natural causes but that’s not credible as Al Qaeda could expose either in a heartbeat. Sorry people, but sometimes the world is exactly as it appears to be.

So accepting the fact that he is dead, does it really do the American people any justice to be seen dancing in the streets with jubilation?
In my opinion no, nor is it seemly for their politicians or ours to be claiming a moral win for assassinating an individual on someone else’s sovereign territory. Incidentally, assassination is probably the correct word here, because it seems that the operation was mounted with no intent to apprehend him, only kill.
For one thing, to his ultra-Islamist followers, we have just delivered a martyr. They believe he is in paradise right now. For another, in reality death is no punishment for Bin Laden, as he no longer exists (not even in paradise), so we have denied the world an opportunity to actually make him pay for his crimes. I know, I know… to the Christian right he is suffering that punishment in the fires of hell, but we have no more reason to believe that, than that he’s getting started on his first couple of dozen virgins. If we want people punished we should use due process and the international courts. That’s how we maintain the moral high ground and advance democracy and the rule of law, not by deploying hit squads.

I’m not saying that the world is not a different and potentially safer place by killing Osama Bin Laden it’s just that celebrating the death of anyone, no matter how dangerous to society, seems wrong.
We can be pleased, that for now, the game has tipped in our favour. We can accept that our all too human desire for vengeance had been temporarily appeased. But celebrating in the streets at the death of Bin Laden makes us no better than the Muslims that celebrated the assassination of Salman Taseer
Presumably given his extensive family there will be people who loved Osama Bin Laden as a son, a brother or a father. They will not be celebrating.

Who wants a Templeton then?

2011-04-19T09:10:00.004+01:00

I hate to lay into one of Britain’s most popular science presenters, not to mention one of the country's pre-eminent fertility specialists in this way. But Dr Robert Winston is not the ambassador for scientific rationality we might wish him to be.
In this interview with Sam Harris he nails his accomodationist colours firmly to the wall in such a nauseating post-modern way that any claim that he understands the point of the scientific method goes completely out of the same second floor window he presumably uses (pace Isaac Newton) when he leaves for work in the morning.
Take this exchange:

SH: Religious language is, without question, unscientific in its claims for what is true. We have Christians believing in the holy ghost, the resurrection of Jesus and his possible return – these are claims about biology and physics which, from a scientific point of view in the 21st century, should be unsustainable.

RW: You talk as if science is an absolute, and I don't think it is at all. It isn't the truth either, because I don't believe there is such a thing as "the truth". You rail against the ultimate truth of what some people believe – ie religion, God, Jesus, whatever. I don't, because I don't think it makes any more sense than railing against scientific truths. I say "truths" in inverted commas, because truths have a habit of being altered as we develop our knowledge.

Sure scientific truths are subject to change, or more accurately refinement as new evidence presents itself. But that is completely different from religious “truths” inferred from ancient neolithic tomes and and believed to be unchangeable for eternity, whatever the evidence against them.
It’s embarrassing. This is the kind of idiocy we expect from the U.S on a regular basis, but it’s cringe making from one of the U.K’s most prominent scientists. It matters too, because Dr Winston is an influential person, a popular educator in a country where scientific literacy is not all it should be and it gives succour to the “intelligent design” proponents who would redefine science to suit their creationist agenda.
The bizarre thing is, no matter how much respect Dr Winston has for religion (and that’s entirely a matter for him) I find it hard to understand how a scientist of his stature can really believe there is no difference between the “truths” of science and religion. A cynic might think he was angling for a Templeton prize, and if he keeps this drivel up, he might just get one.

Islamic bus ad campaign

2011-04-05T12:44:00.000+01:00

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Association has launched an ad campaign on U.K buses in an attempt to improve the image of Islam in the country and counter Islamophobia.

I think this a worthy aim and if it stops a few people from treating Muslims as a stereotype as opposed to individuals within a particular faith community all the better.

But, an even better way to show the world that Islam can stand for Loyalty, Freedom and Peace would be to actively promote and live those virtues. When Muslim groups stand up for the rights of others to examine and critique their beliefs, when they call for the abolition of blasphemy laws in Pakistan and other Muslim states and when they unequivocally denounce the violence perpetrated by extremists in the name of Islam and when they explicitly acknowledge the rule of secular democratic laws above Sharia, then they will win support from more British people of all faiths and none.

What's their problem with evolution?

2011-04-04T12:07:00.003+01:00

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986)

Why do fundamental Christians dislike the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection so much? It might be tempting to think that it is because as Dawkins says it is the killer argument against the necessity of God in the creation of life and man in particular.
But as proponents of theistic evolution point out, there is nothing inherent in TOE that negates a role for a god of sorts, albeit an un-falsifiable one. Even belief in Intelligent Design is possible in a ‘god of the gaps’ sort of way, at least until actual real science plugs the gaps.
Of course fundamental, biblical literalists would argue that God already explained how creation happened, so TOE must by definition be wrong (this is why Muslims have a problem with it). But I think there is another reason why they dislike the idea that man in particular evolved and was not a special creation. It is also a reasoning that spills over into less literal Christian’s problem with evolution. Original sin.
For a Christian the only point of Christ’s crucifixion and subsequent resurrection is to show the way to salvation from Adam’s heinous crime of disobedience to God in the Garden of Eden. If there was no garden, no Adam and Eve and no act of disobedience, a simplistic understanding of Original Sin is not possible. You can invent theodicies to cover of course, ascribing God’s intentions to the outcome of evolution as a fallen and imperfect mankind. But this is not the sort of narrative that sits well with the bloody and tortuous scapegoating of a god-man on a cross. Cleansing the world in such a sadistic way of the sins of billions of years of evolution set in train by a deity who planned in advance that man would evolve to be imperfect has theological problems of its own. But Adam created whole with free will and the chutzpah to rebel (with a little goading by the missus) can be squeezed much more neatly into the idea.
Evolution gnaws at the very heart of Christian dogma in a way that almost nothing else does. Except to a literalist a 14 Billion year old universe with a Big Bang at the front end doesn’t present big problems for Christians theologically speaking, but evolution definitely does.

Islam = "peace"

2011-04-03T22:17:00.000+01:00

Well following my last post (not because of it you understand) I was hoping for a groundswell of Muslim opinion condemning the murders of U.N officials in response to the (idiot) Pastor Terry Jones' burning of one of several million two-a-penny copies of the Qur'an. Waiting... still waiting... still waiting. O.K! It's not going to happen is it?
This is my call out to "moderate" Muslims (I know you're not reading, but indulge me) Give me one good ethical explanation why murdering innocent people in Afghanistan should be justifiable for one book burnt by an arsehole in America. Just one... surely it can't be that difficult? Waiting... still waiting... no?! I didn't think so to be honest. Get out of the dark ages people and be fucking quick about it. Your religion is not sacred to those of us who don't share it and you need to get used to that fact. A book does not equal a life, if you cannot appreciate that basic moral fact, you are as despicable an individual as I can contemplate

If only this was an April Fool's joke

2011-04-01T22:19:00.001+01:00

There has been an outburst of violence in Afghanistan in response to Pastor Terry Jones' burning of a copy of the Qur'an on the 20th March of this year. To be honest, I didn't even know the idiot had followed through with his threat to do this, originally scheduled to be done on the last anniversary of 9/11. But, to be clear, the violence in Afghanistan, which has lead to the death of "at least seven U.N workers" is not his fault.
The Qur'an is a book, just a fucking book. The book he burned was his book, bought and paid for, one of millions printed every year, containing the same words that can be found on the internet (if you can be arsed to read the turgid thing) and no matter how sacred some fanatical muslims want to consider it they have no right to insist that the rest of us consider it anything more than it is. In my opinion it is the lunatic ravings of a deluded and deranged paedophilic despot. You may think otherwise, so what?
Terry Jones is despicable, stupid and I wouldn't give him the time of day but he is not the villain here.

The ECHR couldn't have got this more wrong.

2011-03-19T00:11:00.000Z

I am, unsurprisingly, a supporter of the European Court of Human Rights. But, this decision to overturn a previous ruling banning the display of crucifixes in Italian schools is wrong, wrong, wrong! In the first place the fallout of the latest decision doesn't just cover Italy, it is binding on all 47 countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which of course includes the U.K. But its reasoning is so illogical as to make me ashamed to be a supporter of this usually rational institution.
For example

11.6 Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant
central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and
despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom,
including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the
secular State.

Which is an argument they use to justify a claim that the crucifix is a cultural symbol and not a religious one.
I call bullshit! Despite the inquisition? Despite anti-semitism? What person with any humanity would want to pin their cultural heritage on such a bloody symbol. Let's be clear, the enlightenment, as far as we have it, has no basis in christianity. If anything religion has fought against our instincts to be inclusive and co-operative since Adam was a non existent juvenile.
This is one of the areas where the U.S has a legal defence in the non establishment clause in their constitution. Admittedly it's a battleground over there but the legal precedents exist and can be defended by committed secularists. In Europe, a notionally less theistic region (particularly in the northern countries) those church/state separation clauses are not written into law, which is why bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights should be very, very careful in these cases.
Europe, all of it, is becoming more and more multi-cultural, so this is not about subjecting children to any old religion in the classroom, undesirable as that may be, but about the effect of having specifically Christian symbols around children who identify as Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or any number of other “cultural” religions. It sends a message to these kids that they are “other” and outside of the mainstream culture they find themselves in.
School is not the place for this sort of message and the court has got this badly wrong. I hope there is a route of appeal, this should not be allowed to stand.

The DfE replies to my concerns.

2011-03-15T13:50:00.002Z

Back in February I wrote to the Department for Education regarding this story about the Everyday Champions Church, based in Newark, Nottinghamshire, who have made an application to open a free school in which evolution will be taught “as a theory”.
Anyway, I got a reply which reads as follows.

Academies and Free Schools will benefit from having freedom over the curriculum they deliver. However, we have been clear that creationism should not form part of any science curriculum or be taught as a scientific alternative to accepted scientific theories. The Department carries out a detailed assessment of the curriculum plans of all proposed Free Schools and we would not approve any proposals where we had concerns or proof that these provided for the teaching of creationism as science or any other areas of the curriculum outside denominational religious education (RE) and collective worship. We expect to see evolution and its foundation topics fully included in any such science curriculum. Once again, thank you for writing with your concerns.

Which on the face of it seems fine, but misses the point. Schools like the one Everyday Champions Church want to found, may well submit science curricula that pass muster. They may even be able to resist the temptation to sneak a little “Intelligent Design” in there when nobody is looking. But the fact remains that such a school will not be restrained from undermining the science in the rest of the curriculum. It would be exactly like the situation in some U.S schools where science teachers tell their pupils to learn evolution “as a theory” to pass the exams while making it clear they don’t believe it.
As my original post points out a teacher who does not understand the factual basis on which the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is founded, has no business teaching science. It is not good enough for the government to hope they can insulate science teaching from the rest of the curriculum and ethos of a school. It should actively prevent religious organisations from running free schools, or better still, scrap the whole misconceived notion altogether.

This is a difficult one...

2011-03-08T23:22:00.006Z

... a very difficult one! The background to this post is a petition that has been heavily circulated recently on facebook in response to a UK appeal court ruling that says sex offenders should have the right to appeal their inclusion for life on the sex offenders register. The home office rejects this and so understandably do victims and victim support groups of rape victims.

I am going to argue, not so much for the judgement of the court, as against the rational of the supporters of the petition opposing it.

The way the argument is usually framed is in the context of paedophiles who would also benefit from change in the law. This again is understandable, but unfortunate, as it injects a level of gut revulsion into an argument that needs to be explored in a more thorough and nuanced way. There exists a whole spectrum of sex offenders, from flashers through rapists to paedophiles, and I sequence it in this way to reflect most peoples idea of the severity of the offence. In reality, the courts reflect this hierarchy of unacceptable behaviour in the goal sentences they impose and the length of time offenders are required to sign the sex offender's register.

On the face of it there is some logic to requiring serial rapists or paedophiles to be on the register for life. After all, some pathological sexual behaviour has a very high recidivist rate. The petition itself cites this statistic

If they have killed once, abused a child or viewed indecent images, they will do it again if they think they can get away with it – and they always believe they will. The re-offending rate of a convicted paedophile is estimated at around 70 %

O.K there is no citation or supporting evidence offered for the 70% number, but let's assume it is true. That still leaves 30% of such offenders who consider themselves able to rehabilitate.

As a principle, any penal code in a liberal democracy has to take into account the possibility that any offender has the ability or possibility to reform. That is why all democracies with the regrettable exception of the US no longer contemplate the death penalty, regardless of the crime.

Be assured, the requirements of signing the sex register are not trivial. They have serious impacts on employability, access to education, social interaction, freedom of movement and abode that no reasonable person would accept in a free society and while they may always be applicable to some, it is not equitable to assume they are always appropriate to every sex offender found guilty of even a serious offence at some point in their life.

So, here's the difficult bit: Paedophiles! We all have an understandable and probably justifiable revulsion towards people who exploit children for their own sexual gratification, and I am not here to defend the practice. However, there is a moral dilemma here that is infrequently addressed and is in need of consideration in the context of this ruling.

Those of us that defend sexual liberty on the grounds that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice but genetically or developmentally determined, have to accept that this does not necessarily just apply to homosexual or trans-gendered people. It may be true (sans research) of paedophiles too. If that is the case, both they and we have a problem.

Paedophiles, assuming they have a “natural” if marginal sexual orientation have to live with a moral zeitgeist that demonises their behaviour, a behaviour which to them seems reasonable given their inclinations.

We are arriving at a point, happily, where we accept homosexuality in consensual adult circumstances as acceptable and not within the sphere of moral condemnation. We do not accept rape, because it is explicitly non consensual, and we do not accept paedophilic sex for essentially the same reason. We consider persons below a certain age not to be morally responsible agents and therefore unable to give informed consent. I'm not about to argue against this presumption because 1) I'm not a competent enough moral philosopher and 2) because my gut tells me it is a “right” position (although that doesn't mean it is necessarily a “true” position).

So, stating unequivocally that the two orientations are not in anyway connected, what, from a moral perspective, is the difference between say homosexuals and paedophiles?

I would say that although both sexual orientations are innate, paedophiles have to make a moral decision about consent in respect of sexual partners in a way that homosexuals don't. It is perfectly possible and usual for a homosexual to choose a willing sexual/life partner without having to make a rational moral decision (assuming no religious deontology), however a paedophile cannot do this, and probably should not do this in our society.

So, can a paedophile be rehabilitated? I see no reason why not. They will always be a paedophile given my naturalistic assumptions, but can they reach a point where they accept the moral injunctions? I think so, as long as they are supported properly.

Whether any given individual reaches a point in their life where they can be released from the sex offender's register would have to be down to the individual judgements of brave and experienced experts. But to live with the expectation that there was no hope of release into normal society would be a gross travesty of justice for that percentage of people who despite their natural inclinations, are genuinely capable of accepting, and abiding by, what constitutes currently acceptable behaviour. After all, realistically the offence would be on their permanent record. It's not as if a convicted paedophile would ever get a job in a school or a youth club, given the requirement for police record checks for such positions. All it would mean is that such a person, rehabilitated to the satisfaction of experts, would be able to forge and live a new life, free of stigma and condemnation, in the same way any truly reformed criminal can, and should, be able to do.

If you disagree, feel free to sign the petition

Tick "No Religion" in the 2011 Census

2011-03-08T13:49:00.002Z

If you’re a British adult, you will soon be asked to fill out the 2011 census. The data, collected every ten years, is used to inform government policy and investment based on the demographic revealed in the figures.

In every census there is a question about religious affiliation, which is often filled out unthinkingly by people of little or no religious faith. Either because they instinctively tick “Christian” because C of E or Catholic was the religion they were baptised into, or they treat it as a joke and write “Jedi” or “Church of Flying Spaghetti Monster” in the “Other” box.
However this year the British Humanist Association is campaigning for all non-religious people to tick the “no religion” box.

Although, if you write atheist or humanist or Jedi in the “other” box, you will be counted as non-religious for census purposes, if you actually are non religious it would send a stronger more consistent message to tick the “no religion” box.

Why does all this matter?

After the 2001 Census, the figures collected were used to justify the following policies:
§ Increase in the number of faith schools
§ The continuation of collective worship in schools
§ The public funding and support of ‘interfaith’ and faith-based organisations above the support offered to secular organisations
§ Suggestions of an increase in the role of faith in Britain under the coalition government
§ The appointments of government advisors on faith
§ Contracting out public services to religious organisations
§ Keeping the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords as of right
§ Continued high number of hours dedicated to religious broadcasting
§ Specific consultation at government and local level with ‘faith communities’ over and above other groups within society
§ Continued privileges for religious groups in equality law and other legislation

I believe that the true number of non-religious people in this country is far higher than the government figures suggest, and so does the BHA. If you are non- religious and want to persuade the government to spend our limited resources differently tick the No Religion box in the 2011 census

More on "homophobic" fostering

2011-03-01T09:34:00.001Z

Just an update on this story from yesterday. I heard the couple involved being interviewed on the Today programme this morning. They sound a very nice and sincerely Christian couple and I still think the judgement to not allow them to foster was wrong. However, they said a few things in that naïve way that the religious do that bear comment.
Eunice Johns, when pressed by the interviewer about what she would tell a child that thought they were gay, or raised questions about homosexuality, said

“I would love him…I wouldn’t tell him it was right… but I wouldn’t love him any less”.

Which is fine, unless her idea of loving is to tell the child s/he is wrong, which was a suggestion she had trouble refuting. She went on to give the usual “hate the sin, love the sinner” apologetic that Christians use thoughtlessly as a substitute for true tolerance which suggests that the couple may have a problem dealing appropriately with the situation should it arise.
However Mrs Johns did make another point that was very salient. Given the age group of children they wish to adopt, five to ten year olds, you would probably be more worried that they were having explicitly sexual and gender conscious questions at all. Not that an eight year old say, couldn’t self identify as gay, but the degree of sexualisation they would have had to be exposed to would be an issue in itself. One would hope that the Johns’ first reaction would be to involve the professionals at that stage and not try to deal with it by themselves.
Both Mr and Mrs Johns also went on to suggest the ruling was a discrimination against Christians saying it was fine for homosexuals to have rights, but Christians should have rights too. This is patent nonsense and they are doing their cause no favours by making this an issue of religious discrimination. The ruling was about their ability to support a child through issues of homosexuality, given their attitude to the subject. It strikes me that all this couple needed to resolve their conflict was a little counselling and advice, to the extent of just being honest.
It would be no compromise to their faith or harm to the child to be told that their religion considered homosexuality to be wrong, but that it is not a universally held opinion. They might also say that there are other people who can talk about these issues from other perspectives.
It is a shame that such an obviously well meaning couple have got themselves in this position and I could go on all day about the absurdity of their beliefs, but that is not the problem here. Neither side in this case seems to be employing common sense and by making religion the issue they are both missing the point and the opportunity.

Should this "Homophobic" couple foster?

2011-02-28T16:01:00.002Z

This is an unfortunate story. The high court has upheld a decision by Derby City Council not to allow a Christian couple to foster children because of their views on homosexuality. Eunice and Owen Johns, went to court after a social worker expressed concern when they said they could not tell a child a "homosexual lifestyle" was acceptable.

First of all I don’t think this is a Christian issue at all and shouldn’t be framed as such. This aspect of the story has either been emphasised to suggest the couple are “good” people and being hard done by , which is not necessarily the case, or to highlight that Christians are homophobic, also not universally true. What is true is that were they not Christians it is unlikely that the subject of homosexuality would have arisen in quite this way. I would be surprised if there were not plenty of people actively fostering who have wrong headed views about the LGBT community that have nothing to do with their religion.

For what it is worth I think this is a poor decision framed in the wrong context. This couple have fostered fifteen Children before, presumably perfectly satisfactorily. They are wanting to to be respite carers for short-term placements for a single child between five and ten years old. This being the case and if they are sincere, all this couple need to do is refrain from proselytising and avoid the subject, which should not be difficult with young children, even if highly sexualised by circumstances. Sensitive choice of placements by the council would help too. If they are aware that the child has gender orientation issues, send them somewhere else.

Why we're not ready for the "Big Society"

2011-02-22T16:44:00.000Z

David Cameron’s “big society” idea has taken a bit of a knock recently. For the most part this is because local government spending cuts appear to be affecting the very infrastructure that most people’s concept of “big society” requires. I’ll come back to this later as there is a valid argument that says if you are closing down already successful volunteer organisations like the citizen’s advice bureau, it’s a bit rich to expect local communities to start volunteering for other projects. Lead by example guys!
But actually I think “The Big Society” as Cameron wants it has a much deeper-rooted problem. Here in Britain, we just don’t get it!
Cameron is looking to the U.S model of public service provision where local communities provide a lot of the social welfare support, and where civically minded groups and individuals will tidy up public spaces or adopt a stretch of highway to clean. But this is a model baked in a completely different political environment. The U.S is a country of low taxation, small government, local legislature and local democracy. Historically U.S citizens have not expected the government to pay for the sorts of things we take for granted in Britain. However in Britain we are taxed relatively highly at both a national and local level, we pay our council tax and expect the park to be clean, a library available and support for the sick, old and homeless to be on tap. That is the way our country has worked for decades and we don’t see why it should be any different.
I’m not making a political case for a smaller welfare state here, just pointing out that even under Conservative governments we are a “big government” sort of country and it will likely take a long time and radical reform to change that. Even should we wish to.
As a result the U.S has developed a strong infrastructure that makes it possible for local communities to mobilise. Inevitably in such a religious country the churches and chapels are the primary hubs for local charity and civic projects, (which may be one of the few positive purposes they serve) but that is unlikely to be replicated here and it probably would not be a welcome development in any case. However if we are to agree that greater civic participation is a good thing, (and I can’t think of a reason why it wouldn’t be) the first thing we need is secular spaces where like-minded people can meet and organise. It doesn’t matter if that is a local library or the village hall or even the pub (actually especially the pub!). We also need local politicians to seed projects that need our input with some leadership and resources. The “big society” will have to start small, and we will have to be led by the nose for a while. So closing the libraries, and the advice bureaus is not a good move until we all get the “big” idea for ourselves.

James Randi's Challenge to Homeopathy Manufacturers and Retail Pharmacies

2011-02-08T22:55:00.000Z

Church plans to teach "creationism" in Free School

2011-02-07T10:35:00.002Z

It was inevitable that sooner or later some religious organisation would confirm my fears over the coalition’s Free School project. Here it is in the form of the Everyday Champions Church, based in Newark, Nottinghamshire, who have made an application to open a free school in which evolution will be taught “as a theory”.
Although their Pastor Gareth Morgan says...

'Creationism will be embodied as a belief at the Everyday Champions Academy but will not be taught in the sciences.

their website says

'values of the Christian faith will be the foundation of the school philosophy…We believe that the Bible is God's Word. It is accurate, authoritative and applicable to our every day lives.'

In which case it is difficult to see how the science will not be undermined by other areas of the curriculum.
I probably need not point out (but I will) that the very fact that they say evolution will be taught “as a theory” already shows a total lack of understanding about the scientific method. A theory in science is the highest status any explanation of the universe achieves. There is no graduation to “fact” or “law”, because science always allows for new evidence to modify a given theory. It is just as sensible to talk about a theory of gravity as it is about a theory of evolution.
Besides, the “theory” in The Theory of Evolution, following Darwin, is not a theory about whether life evolves, but how it does it.
The failure of the Everyday Champions Church to understand such fundemental scientific concepts should automatically disqualify them from being allowed anywhere near children's education.
Micheal Gove has consistently made assurances that children will be protected from extremist views in Free Schools and the best way he can demonstrate this is to quickly and publicly refuse this application, if only to dissuade other purveyors of neolithic superstitions from attempting the same.

On political correctness

2011-02-03T16:17:00.003Z

Invariably when stories like this or this one get aired, charges of “political correctness gone mad” are levied, as though the “right” of people to discriminate on gender or racial grounds is something that needs defending. This is unfortunate because it is undoubtedly true that excessive concern to be politically correct does lead to bad legislation and petty rules of social behaviour, which can be positively damaging to the cause of equality in our society.
In instances like the above, in which people running a business or providing a professional service have refused (in these cases on religious grounds) to serve members of the GLBT community it is not runaway political correctness to apply anti-discrimination laws and censure them. If you operate in a public space it is a sign of civilised behaviour to treat everyone who shares that space equally and to expect that others will do the same. When people are prevented from accessing services or transacting business on the grounds of race or gender it causes them genuine harm, financially, emotionally and in some circumstances, physically. It infringes their freedom to fully participate in wider society. This does not impinge on anyone’s right to hold sexist, racist or “otherist” opinions and should not restrict their right to voice them appropriately, it only restricts the ability to cause harm to others on the basis of such opinions. Charges of political correctness under these conditions are inappropriate and unhelpful.
But political correctness does exist and we need to be aware of it, especially when it is dressed up as protecting equality, but is in fact restricting public discourse.
One of the most pernicious forms of political correctness is the prohibition of certain types of language and particular words on the grounds that “it may offend” a certain subset of society. For example we have got to a point practically all over the English speaking world where the word “nigger” cannot be used in any context whatsoever, even if obliquely referencing the word itself. Recently BBC Radio 4’s PM program was discussing a new edition of Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn in which the word “Nigger” which appears over two hundred times has been redacted. Now to my mind the Bowdlerising of a classic novel in this way is of itself the worst kind of political correctness, but what made the radio discussion even more infuriating was the constant use of the euphemistic “N-word” instead of saying “Nigger”, which we all knew was the subject matter. Now both the redaction and the PM programme are attempting to avoid insulting the black community, but although there are ways of using the word that certainly would be insulting, this kind of usage isn’t; or at least shouldn’t be. In fact by sanitising the word, or removing it from context we are doing two things. One is that we are assuming a lack of reason and intelligence among black people that would cause them to be offended by such abstract usage; the other is that we are in danger of forgetting why its derogatory use is genuinely and quite understandably offensive.
I can make similar arguments about the use of “the C-word” or “the F-word” in contexts where adults should be able to discuss the language without fear of offending the vicar’s wife. We recently had the embarrassing spectacle of James Naughtie apologising profusely on air for accidentally saying “Jeremy Cunt” instead of “Jeremy Hunt” when referring to the coalition culture secretary on the Today Programme. Bearing in mind he wasn’t apologising for any possible insult to Mr Hunt, only that he had used an inappropriate word.
The other overly politically correct uses of language, as typically indulged in by town councils and public bodies, are when otherwise innocuous phrases are twisted out of context to cause some imagined offence to someone. I heard from a stand-up comedian recently about this gem from Tunbridge Wells Council who tried to ban the use of “Brainstorm” in favour of “Thought Shower” to avoid offending epileptics.
Similarly I find attempts to substitute “Christmas” with “Holiday” pointless and pathetic. Christmas is not a holiday I celebrate in a religious sense and neither do Muslims, Jews or Jedi but to deny that the majority of the country, Christian or otherwise, don’t relate to “Happy Christmas” as a greeting or on a council banner is ludicrous.
So as not to get carried away with overly politically correct language however, there are some substitutions with which I agree and don’t in my opinion constitute over reaction. For example substituting “Chair” or “Chairperson” for “Chairman” is entirely warranted as anything that implies a role is gender restricted is undesirable. “Access cover” instead of “Manhole cover” is also fine in my book (and sounds less like a butt plug).
The concept of political correctness is a useful one. In the somewhat disparaging way the term is used today it can be a way of pointing to excesses that limit free speech and confine our intellectual space. However it will cease to be useful if it is applied to laws and societal norms that are genuinely protecting minorities from discrimination, rather than just protecting them from imagined offence.

Islam, bigotry and the Baroness

2011-01-20T09:39:00.003Z

Baroness Warsi, Conservative party chairman and the first Muslim to be appointed to a British cabinet post, will today claim that “prejudice against Muslims has become widespread and socially acceptable in Britain”.
She believes that classifying Muslims as “Moderate” or “ Extremist” fuels misunderstanding and intolerance.

"It's not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of 'moderate' Muslims leads; in the factory, where they've just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: 'Not to worry, he's only fairly Muslim',"

There is a problem with this line of reasoning; although I don’t doubt that Islamophobia is prevalent in the west we have good reason to be wary. Recent experience with Islamist extremists, suicide bombers in London and constant reports of Islamic terrorism worldwide is evidence that a significant minority of Muslims are a threat to secular democracy and our peace and security. Although the Baroness will also urge Muslim communities to reject those who do resort to violent acts, saying...

"Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law. They also should face social rejection and alienation across society and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims."

...this is not a pattern of behaviour we have come to expect.
Now don’t think I’m arguing for bigotry and discrimination against Muslims, I definitely am not, but the danger of taking Baroness Warsi at face value is that we shut down legitimate discourse and criticism of belief structures that are, frankly, incompatible with secular liberal democratic values. She is also reported as blaming

“the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media”.

Which sounds perilously close to saying that religion should be beyond criticism and ridicule.
One thing should be made clear to the Baroness. Islam is a belief system, a worldview that unlike sex, race or gender orientation is a “lifestyle choice”. Nobody is born Muslim, even if brought up in a Muslim culture a rational adult can choose not to believe in Allah or revere the prophet, especially when they live in as diverse and multicultural a society as ours. That being the case Islam is and must remain fair game for the full gamut of social discourse, no matter how robust or offensive its adherents find it. This is not predjudice; the same freedoms apply to political opinions, other religions and moral views all of which have to compete in the “marketplace of ideas” and occasionally suffer in consequence.

Gay couple win B&B room ban case

2011-01-18T17:17:00.001Z

Here’s a bit of cheering news. A gay couple refused a double room in a Penzance B&B, have won their discrimination case.
Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy had booked the room in September of 2008, but were prevented from using it by the B&B’s owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull.
A Christian couple, the Bulls defence was that their

double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage

.
However Judge Rutherford said that, in the past fifty years, social attitudes in Britain had changed and it was inevitable that laws would "cut across" some people's beliefs.
Social attitudes notwithstanding, civil partnership is supposed to be legally equivalent to marriage, which makes the Bull’s actions clearly discriminatory. Although they did not believe "unmarried couples" should share a room the Bulls were in fact failing to recognise the status of Hall and Preddy’s civil partnership.
Interestingly we have no evidence that the Bulls were in the habit of rejecting unmarried heterosexual couples, which is a shame because if they weren’t it would be very telling.
The Judge has given leave for appeal so this story may run for a bit yet, but predictably there are some Christians who are missing the point of this very sound judgement. This from Mike Judge of the Christian Institute

Peter and Hazelmary were sued with the full backing of the government-funded Equality Commission. Christians are being sidelined.

Sidelined? Really? If he means they are being prevented from ignoring anti-discrimination law just because it contradicts their homophobic beliefs then yes, let’s have them sidelined. There are laws in this country which violate my principles too, that doesn’t mean I can escape justice if I am caught breaking them, and neither should it.

One Year Blogiversary

2011-01-14T13:18:00.001Z

Just in case there are enough of you reading this stuff to care. I just completed my first year of blogging as Atheist MC. Shame I'm off the booze this month, it's worth one drink at least to celebrate.

Papal "miracle" will make John Paul II a saint

2011-01-14T13:15:00.001Z

Now I suppose I shouldn’t care. If Ratzinger wants to make his predecessor a saint, then good luck to him.
But the pretext for doing so is laughable. Apparently a Nun, allegedly suffering from Parkinsons disease prayed to the deceased John Paul II and was cured.
This “miracle” cure was verified by church appointed doctors. That presumably is because no independent self-respecting doctor would commit to endorsing such a thing. But in any event it seems the circumstances are not quite so clear-cut.

last year there were some doubts about the validity of the miracle. A Polish newspaper said that a doctor who scrutinised the nun's case had concluded that she might have been suffering not from Parkinson's, but from a nervous disorder from which temporary recovery is medically possible.

Which seems a more plausible explanation.
Now John Paul was a likeable bloke; more than you can say for the current pontiff and if the Catholic Church want to bestow it’s highest but ultimately meaningless honour upon him that’s their decision. It would in fact be more of an accolade if they were to celebrate his actual achievements in life rather than imaginary ones in death, but that’s magical thinking for you.

Wakefield's MMR study is a fraud

2011-01-06T14:25:00.004Z

Dr Andrew Wakefield, the researcher responsible for the alleged link between MMR vaccine and autism has now been accused by the BMJ of deliberately falsifying data to back up his claims. They have reviewed the transcript of the General Medical Council hearings and compared them with the original research paper in the Lancet and the findings of investigative journalist Brian Deer
The latest findings suggest that Wakefield knowingly lied about the medical histories and subsequent symptoms of the twelve children examined for his study. In particular…

– only one child clearly had regressive autism and three did not have autism at all
– five children had concerns recorded about their development on their records predating MMR vaccination
– claims that the symptoms appeared days after vaccination were found to be wrong and in some cases these started months later.
– nine children had normal test results from their bowel but this was changed to 'non-specific colitis'
– some patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners and the study was commissioned and funded as part of planned litigation against the jab's manufacturer.

Wakefield has already been struck off the medical register in the U.K but he continues to protest his innocence and the truth of his claims from his new base in America where he also enjoys support from autism groups.
It cannot be emphasised enough: Study after study, including worldwide meta-analysis of all the data available for MMR has totally failed to find a link between the vaccine and autism. There has been a consequential rise in measles infections ever since poorly informed parents withheld vaccination from their children under the mistaken impression that they were being prudent or cautious and we are still not back to vaccination rates that ensure herd immunity. Measles in particular is not a trivial disease and complications can occur fairly frequently including bronchitis, and panencephalitis which is potentially fatal.
I’d like to think today’s revelations will finally end this fabricated controversy, but I’m not optimistic. The lack of critical thinking among the general population and the willingness of the press to give equal weight to the anti-vaccination lobby , evidence be damned, will probably keep it rumbling on.

Muslims celebrate Taseer assassination

2011-01-05T09:21:00.004Z

If anyone harbours any doubts that Islam is not a moderate or peaceful religion, the assassination of Punjab governor Salman Taseer should dispel them.
Taseer was shot by his bodyguard, Malik Mumtaz Hussein Qadri, because of his defence of a Christian woman recently sentenced to death for blasphemy. An out spoken liberal in a far from liberal country Taseer was a strong voice for tolerance and reason in the region and in consequence had angered many Muslims.Make no mistake, even if this assassination were the act of a lone extremist, the response from the Muslim community has been anything but encouraging. The “moderate” Barelvi sect of Sunni Muslims have warned that anyone who expresses grief over the assassination could suffer the same fate, saying.

"No Muslim should attend the funeral or even try to pray for Salman Taseer or even express any kind of regret or sympathy over the incident."

Only religion, could find justification in that kind of logic. Political assassinations are a feature of many societies and particularly in emerging democracies, still steeped in tribalism. But Islam’s western apologists should take note of the Muslim reaction to this killing and learn from it. Islam does not share the values of western secular society; it is repressive and regressive and will, in my opinion, never represent a force for reconciliation in the world.
In seeking political solutions in Pakistan and Afghanistan we should emphasise secularism and not attempt to accommodate religion in any form other than as a private right. Islam is not an honest broker or a willing partner in the region and probably never will be.

#Update:

Qadri appeared in court, unrepentant, where waiting lawyers threw handfuls of rose petals over him and others in the crowd slapped his back and kissed his cheek as he was led in and out amid heavy security.[source]

Atheism is so fucking boring

2010-12-30T20:53:00.005Z

Well no it isn't, at least not as a world view. A naturalist understanding of this amazing universe we find ourselves inhabiting is probably the most fascinating and liberating perspective any individual can take, beating superstition and religious dogma hands down.
However, the atheosphere turns out to be a very small pond where every story gets repeated and regurgitated on every blog I read. Take a look at the side bar here, I can pretty much guarantee that at least three of the blogroll links will be carrying the same story and the the same POV on any religious misdemeanour that hits the web. No surprise sure but exactly who are we talking to?
If PZ at Pharingula is anyone to go by he's reaching a whole bunch of people from creationist wingnuts to rational atheists, which is great; spread the word, absolutely. But if you're reading Greta Christina and Hemant at Friendly Atheist and Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism (brilliant bloggers all),you very quickly find that that the level of intellectual mutual masturbation is disturbingly high.
More disturbingly, I got pulled into a discussion over Christmas about the “reason for the season”, displayed my atheist credentials and the comment emerged “Oh xxxx is such an evangelist, pushes atheism every opportunity”. I am not xxxx but I know who she is.
I think we have a problem. Either we are are talking to ourselves and pretending we are advertising a message or we are are becoming predictable and risible (which is the theist's job).
I wish I was offering a solution but in reality I'm just raising a flag. Truth and evidence is on our side and so, hopefully, is history. But we cannot rely on both to come through the expediency of short term politics. Atheism needs a strategy, victory is not inevitable but it is worth the prize.

Ricky Gervais on God

2010-12-23T09:30:00.000Z

Comedian Ricky Gervais on the existence of God.

The awesome power of a lunchtime "prayer"

2010-12-15T17:07:00.000Z

As an atheist I obviously don’t pray. However like most people I do indulge in a certain amount of wishful thinking. I hope for beneficial outcomes in most of my activities and I may even articulate them to myself at the time…
“Let there be no jams on the M25 today”
“I hope the weather’s good at the weekend”
“Please, can I have a stress free day at work”
You get the picture? I’m only talking to myself and voicing a wish for my present or future circumstances, not appealing to an all powerful deity to intervene on my behalf and I would bet that it’s something most people do more often than they realise.
A case in point: This lunchtime at the supermarket, I took my sandwich to the automatic checkout. I had a pocketful of loose change and I didn’t want to change a £10.00 note and acquire any more. Trivial I know, but I specifically said to myself,
“It would be great if I had exactly £3.28 in my pocket so I can lose all this shrapnel”
So I pulled out all my change and started feeding coppers into the machine, hoping I wouldn’t fall short and have to feed in a note. So guess what? I had exactly £3.28 in coppers and silver in my pocket. Not a penny more or a penny less. I’m not even sure if the odds against a pocketful of small change exactly matching the price of a random purchase are calculable, but I wouldn’t mind betting they are pretty long.
So what’s my point? I probably make these random appeals to providence on a regular basis. Most of them are immediately forgotten and many of them never manifest. But even when they do turn up an immediate improbable result I don’t ascribe it to articulating the desire, I put it down to dumb luck and coincidence.
If however I was of a superstitious disposition I might have read more into the event and convinced myself that stating my desire actually brought about the outcome I wanted.
This is very close to what happens when people pray. They have a desire for the world to be a certain way and they externalise a normal internal dialogue by directing it at whichever deity. Mostly, if things turn out different they’ll ignore or forget the prayer. But if things turn out how they want they chalk it up as a prayer answered. One person praying for things with a high probability of happening anyway may even see a pattern of success in prayer. Every once in a while someone, somewhere will pray for something with very low odds of actually happening; spontaneous remission of a cancer for example. But improbable does not equal impossible and if they appear to get a result, it really confirms the power of prayer for them and they claim a miracle.
To complicate matters slightly, desiring outcomes that you yourself have a reasonable chance of effecting can also add to the appearance of voodoo. Positive thinking, affirmations or prayer may motivate us to put more energy and thought into making the world conform to our desires, making the apparent cause and effect even stronger.
So, if you want to believe in the power of prayer, it is not a hard delusion to fall into.

Tim Minchin and his Orchestra: A review

2010-12-14T13:37:00.001Z

Thought I’d write a quick review of Tim Minchin’s new live show. I saw it at the Brighton Centre 13th December, part of an Arena tour of the U.K. He says at the top of the show

”Nothing ruins comedy like arenas… But your enjoyment isn't as important as my self-esteem. ...”

and then goes on to give the lie to that statement by delivering a stonking mix of new and familiar material.
Ironically for the man who opened his last tour with the words “who needs a band?” this show sees him travelling with a 55-piece orchestra delivering sublime arrangements that both complement his piano playing and punctuate the comedy.
Atheists around the world know Tim as a master of sceptical wit and an outrageous anti-religionist. This show does not disappoint with the inclusion of The Pope Song and a hilarious new number, satirising belief in the power of prayer, about Sam’s Mum’s Cataracts.
A non-musical bit about Qur’an burning pastor, Terry Jones who Tim rightly calls an “idiot” involved the somewhat uncomfortable production of a copy of the book on stage. I won’t give the punch line away but it is the best dismantling of the concept of “sacred” I have ever seen.
If I had one disappointment it was that he did not deliver on my hope that the new animated version of “Storm” would be in the mix, but that will be a future pleasure well worth waiting for.

Wikileaks had to have one for atheists...

2010-12-11T20:20:00.005Z

…and here it is. Ratzinger attempted (and succeeded in) kyboshing the Murphy Commission of Enquiry into the sexual abuse of children by Catholic Priests in The Republic of Ireland.
This is proof, if more proof were needed that if not complicit in acts of child abuse the pope was explicitly protecting his church’s reputation rather than the rights of innocent children. There is no interpretation of these revelations that could exonerate this man. He is culpable and his church is rotten to the core. Any pretence at moral authority by the Catholic Church is an obvious sham and it is time to close this sorry chapter and have Ratzinger indicted by the International Court of Human Rights.

Government to neuter drugs body

2010-12-06T09:37:00.004Z

Just so this story doesn’t sneak by. The coalition government is planning to
remove the legal requirement for scientists to be included on its drugs advisory body.
This follows the sacking of Professor David Nutt from The advisory council on the misue of drugs after he criticised the government for ignoring evidence and politicising U.K drug classification.
It is difficult to see how any body not well versed in the scientific evidence could give meaningful advice to the government on this issue and this move seems to be proving Prof. Nutt’s point.

Governments have an appalling track record when it comes to a rational and objective recreational drugs policy. The failed strategy of blanket prohibition and baseless classifications needs a rethink informed by scientific evidence and staffing your “independent” advisory body with yes men won’t achieve that.

You see? They can get it right sometimes.

2010-12-04T22:33:00.004Z

Sometimes it is only fair that institutions that get criticised for the bad that they do should also get some credit when they get things right. When that institution is the Catholic Church I'm afraid that credit will come with some qualifications but credit it will be nevertheless.

The first thing that the Catholic Church has done right follows a statement from the Pope that condom use is permitted for Catholics “in exceptional circumstances” by which he means to protect against HIV transmission. Coming from the man who denied that condoms were a solution for aids this is a welcome U-turn.

As you might expect this was not an unqualified endorsement and there was some amusing confusion over exactly what the Pope was endorsing given that initially he appeared to be referring to male prostitutes exclusively, which on the face of it seems to also endorse gay sex as that is by far their primary market. Subsequent clarifications from the Vatican seem to suggest that condom use is now acceptable (if not preferable) in all circumstances where HIV transmission is a possibility.

The second thing is that the Pontifical Academy of Science (why does that seem like an oxymoron to me?) has come to the rational conclusion that GM technology is a valid contributor to alleviating food poverty in the third world.

GE technology, used appropriately and responsibly, can in many circumstances make
essential contributions to agricultural productivity by crop improvement, including
enhancing crop yields and nutritional quality, and increasing resistance to pests, as well as
improving tolerance to drought and other forms of environmental stress. These
improvements are needed around the world to help improve the sustainability and
productivity of agriculture.

The Vatican itself has stepped back a little from this position but signs of a rational and progressive view from such a dogma bound Church should be encouraged.

Why this matters is that like it or not the Catholic Church has a significant influence on the opinions of millions of followers. Insofar as the Pope can change false and damaging beliefs amongst his faithful, whenever his Church makes the right call it does no harm to tell it so.

Catholics get Scottish Ref sacked

2010-12-03T12:18:00.003Z

This story has been circulating for a few days courtesy of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.
It concernes Hugh Dallas, head of referee development for the Scottish Football Association who has been sacked for distributing by email this image of a doctored road sign.

I won’t add too much comment to this. Except to say that in the circumstances relating to the Catholic Church’s child abuse scandal, the Pope’s basic inability to accept responsibility and his recent unwelcome presence on our shores, anything that holds this sick institution up to ridicule is fine by me.

The SFA was cowardly to dismiss Mr Dallas in response to protests by the Director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, Peter Kearney, who is yet another individual who needs to learn the lesson that just because he finds something offensive doesn’t mean it isn’t true or valid free speech.

Teenage girl in Qur'an burning

2010-11-29T17:02:00.003Z

A 15 year old girl has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred for burning a copy of the Qur’an. Allegedly this was done to an English language version of the book at the girl's school and a video of the event posted on Facebook.
Now if this actually happened as described it was a stupid and pointless thing to do as it could only have been done with intent to insult Muslims. However, if the girl should be charged with anything it should be starting a fire on school property or vandalism, not “inciting religious hatred”. She is doing no such thing and to suggest otherwise is a violation of her right to free speech.
Non Muslims are not obliged to respect the Qur’an anymore than they are required to respect ...oh! Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. To everyone else it is just a book. If she bought it she can burn it if she wants to.
Catherine Heseltine, chief executive officer of the Muslim public affairs committee, said

burning the Qur'an was one of the most offensive acts to Muslims she could imagine.

Which shows a paucity of imagination in my opinion as I would rate say ethnic cleansing in Bosnia as far more offensive. However as I keep saying: No one has the right not to be offended. We cannot legislate for that, particularly as many special interest groups exist that could claim offense to almost anything.
So give the girl lines or a month of lunchtime detentions by all means, but don’t criminalise someone for expressing an opinion.

Well said Brenda! ...er Ma'am

2010-11-26T11:03:00.000Z

Well I never! It’s almost enough to turn me into a royalist (I said almost). Seems The Queen believes that atheists are just as moral as believers

"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."

Not that atheists need telling that, it should be self evident to anyone. As “defender of the faith” and head of the Anglican Church I hope her Archbishop and clergy take note that that is the official line and stop equating good exclusively with faith.

Christians claim they are not "ashamed"

2010-11-25T16:45:00.003Z

Here’s a strange thing. Christian Concern is launching a “Not Ashamed” campaign for Christmas along with a leaflet from former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey.
The idea is that these people are not ashamed to follow Jesus and speak out about their belief. George Carey puts it this way

”I’m proud of the sense of fairness and fair play that runs throughout our nation. I am proud of our tradition of tolerance and our historic commitment to welcoming the stranger.
Yet what many people don’t realise is that it is the Christian Faith that underpins these great strengths and that has enriched our nation in so many other ways”

Well of course I would take issue with the “underpinning” part. I think we are all perfectly capable of fair play and tolerance without religion and probably more so. But let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that the Anglican Church has some things it can be proud of.
However the thing I find bizarre about this campaign is the implicit assumption that somewhere in their theist subconscious they suspect that there is something to be ashamed of. Let’s face it; I would never feel the need to say I’m not ashamed to be an atheist. Why would I? I’m the one with a rational evidenced based worldview. But obviously, for Christian Concern the cognitive dissonance is beginning to bite. Perhaps it’s dawned on them that believing in magic sky fairies is something that a grown adult should feel ashamed of.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

2010-11-22T10:38:00.001Z

The BBC investigative programme Panorama has discovered that Muslim run weekend schools are teaching anti-Semitic and homophobic material from a Saudi text book. The schools teach the Saudi National Curriculum and are run under the name of “Saudi Students Clubs and Schools” in the UK. Due to a technicality they are exempt from full Ofsted oversight.
The material, which is being taught to 15 year olds, includes Sharia punishments for acts of sodomy for which children are told that the penalty is death and it states a difference of opinion whether this should be done by stoning, or burning with fire, or throwing over a cliff.
The books also teaches about the ”Protocols of the Elders of Zion” a demonstrably fraudulent text purporting to show a Jewish conspiracy to control the world.
Coalition education secretary Micheal Gove told the programme

“I have no desire or wish to intervene in the decisions that the Saudi government makes in its own education system. But I’m clear that we cannot have anti-Semitic material of any kind being used in English schools. Ofsted are doing some work in this area. They’ll be reporting to me shortly about how we can ensure that part-time provision is better registered and better inspected in the future.”

It is a shame that Mr Gove should equivocate with the Saudi government so blatantly but at least he recognises it is inappropriate for anyone to teach this material here.
We should be clear that we will not allow Islamic intolerance and paranoia to be imported into our society under cover of faith schools. Any institution that purports to teach children in this country, regardless of ethnic origin should have to undergo full scrutiny of Ofsted and be made to adopt a balanced approach. It may be fair enough to teach that the Qu’ran demands the death penalty in respect of homosexual acts, because it does: It is a regrettable and reprehensible fact. It is not acceptable to teach that it is morally correct in the context of a modern liberal democracy however.
It behoves us to be suspicious of the motives of any faith school, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu or whatever. The temptation for them to teach repressive dogma and intolerance will be overwhelming and in many with a fundamentalist bent it will be inevitable.
Hopefully the government will learn the lesson from this and make sure that any of the recently proposed free schools that are set up with a religious “ethos” are not allowed to promulgate similar ideas amongst our youth.

UK Libel reform

2010-11-11T15:06:00.001Z

Reposting this from Pharyngula. A message from Simon Singh

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particular dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at http://www.libelreform.org/sign

The grass is greener. Really?

2010-11-08T16:44:00.000Z

It seems that some conservative Anglican Bishops are defecting to Rome. Not that I care particularly, it’s still an over blown sinecure telling fairy tales whoever the boss is. However I do find it telling that these people are leaving a Church because it wants to ordain women and gays, for a Church that protects paedophiles.
There really is no explaining where some people’s priorities lie.

California: Proposition 19 on marijuana falls

2010-11-05T10:46:00.008Z

Lost in amongst the disappointing but predictable U.S midterm election results, was the similarly predictable and disappointing defeat of proposition19 in California. This bold attempt at reform of the marijuana laws in the state would have seen the drug legalised and regulated, recognising that prohibition of recreational substances not only fails to restrict consumption but fuels violent and organised crime both within the state and across the border in Mexico.
Had this proposition passed and been successfully implemented it would certainly have paved the way for adoption by other U.S states and possibly even other western democracies.
The No On Proposition 19 campaign was little more than scare-mongering and failed to address the issues, but obviously appealed to older conservative Californians sufficiently to deny the measure a majority.

All is not lost however. For one thing, the fact that this proposition was put before the states electorate at all means that the call for a rational, evidence based drug policy that recognises the failure of the prohibition approach is now part of mainstream discourse. It will re-emerge in California and should no longer be seen as a radical and irresponsible concept. For another, the 18 – 35 demographic voted largely in favour with 64% voting yes [source] which bodes well for future attempts.
One word of caution though, because this measure is limited to marijuana, even if it passed there is a danger that the full benefits in crime reduction would not be seen. Drug runners rarely deal in one substance and would doubtless continue to operate in harder drugs. Also much of the collateral damage caused by drug use is due to poor formulation or deliberate “cutting” of synthetic drugs with cheaper (often toxic) substances to improve margins. So whilst I would support any movement towards drug legalisation and regulation, I would not make too many claims for the benefit of legalising marijuana alone. What it could prove however is that there are few if any negative social consequences to the legalisation of recreational drugs and if it could work in just one state in the U.S it could work anywhere.

Gnu atheist / cultural Christian

2010-10-26T10:20:00.001+01:00

One thing about self-identifying as an atheist is that it can become very easy to invent moral dilemmas when it comes to celebrating religious festivals.
Like most people in this country I celebrate Christmas, buy Easter eggs for my kids and will cook and eat pancakes on Shrove Tuesday (despite ignoring Lent). Even Halloween, that most secularised (and Americanised) of high days has religious connections with All Hallows and I guess it is that imminent festival that has made me think about this.
The first obvious thing to say is that as an atheist I celebrate these holidays in name only, and the reason that I keep Christmas and not Hanukah is that I have been born into a notionally Christian country to C of E parents. Culturally, these days are significant to me and my family and friends as holidays, and an excuse to party. But I do also find myself drawn into religious settings at these times; school carol services in Church for example where not only my atheism but my antipathy to religion in general can make me feel hypocritical and uncomfortable. By supporting my daughter and the school’s social events I also end up supporting an institution and a belief system I disapprove of.
Of course sometimes you get the satisfaction of pointing out that these festivals are not Christian per se but were originally pagan and were either exapted by the Church for its own purposes or possibly stem from the pagan origins of Christianity itself. But surprisingly these facts are not always as welcome or interesting to everyone else as they are to me: Go figure!
Anyway pagan roots don’t really cut it, as those festivals were merely celebrations of earlier gods whose non-existence is on the same footing as the Christian one.
The more salient point about the timing of religious festivals is that they also tend to coincide with equinoxes and solstices, points in the year upon which the seasons turn and would have had real significance to our hunter-gatherer and agriculturalist ancestors. In fact this very significance would have given these times the religious significance they acquired, oblivious as our ancestors were of the physical reasons why they occurred.
In the west, even the most rural of communities is largely insulated from the vagaries of the seasons, but the cultural imperative to mark them lives on and gives a rhythm to the year and a reason to associate with friends and family.
So as Halloween approaches, whether you think of it as All Hallows Eve, or Samhain or the Autumnal Equinox it has been a time to notice for millennia as has Easter, Oestre or the Vernal Equinox and the Winter Solstice (A.K.A Christmas , Yule et al). I see no reason not to mark these times today, while taking every opportunity to strip them of any religious or occult meaning. High days and holidays have a purpose in their own right that affirms our humanity, which needn’t be sacrificed to spurious deities. So I’ll still keep Christmas as a culturally Christian atheist, but forgive me if I keep boring you with the secular details.

I.D Institute opens in Scotland

2010-10-14T16:42:00.000+01:00

The Institute for Intelligent Design has opened up shop in the U.K. Based in Scotland it is already peddling its pseudo scientific claptrap on line with its predictable “Oh my God! the universe is soooo complicated, it must be designed” argument from incredulity.
The worrying thing about this is that its director Dr Alastair Noble is a former HM Inspector of Schools and therefore may carry enough credibility (especially in Scotland where there is quite a strong fundamental Christian presence) to gain access to schoolchildren.
We can only hope that there are enough rational thinkers in the Scottish school system to see through this patent attempt to disguise creationism as science and that if they are allowed into classes at all it will not be junior science classes.
However letting them put material like this to a group of older students might be instructive, as I’m sure they would get laughed out of the classroom with such “persuasive “ arguments as

Recent advances in understanding cellular structure have revealed a highly sophisticated world of nano-technology on a breathtaking scale. These interlocking machines show all the hallmarks of engineering design and suggest a designing intelligence. When examined more closely, they show both specified and irreducible complexity, meaning that they conform to a previously specified plan (embedded in the DNA's information) and require all parts to be present to operate. That such systems could self-assemble through blind and purposeless forces flies in the face of all human engineering experience and is not a credible explanation.

Yep! By all means let a group of scientifically literate sixteen year olds loose on that drivel and I’m sure they would tear in to shreds, and not particularly politely.

The problem with moderate belief

2010-10-11T12:43:00.002+01:00

Many atheists will tell you that what people believe privately is their own business and that as long as religious ideas are not enshrined in law, a constitution or taught in schools as “science” there is no harm in it.
I agree with this stance up to a point and will not proselytise atheism to individuals who don’t otherwise expose themselves to the argument.
However I cannot help feeling slightly disappointed when someone who is in all other respects rational and intelligent turns out to be a theist. While I respect their right to believe, I can’t respect the belief itself and in some small way my respect for the individual is diminished.
The fact is that most theists (usually Christians in the U.K) are extremely moderate in their take on religion, even those who regularly attend churches. They apply religion to their lives gently, are usually ecumenical and are quietly tolerant of non-believers. Quite reasonably then they don’t understand why atheists like myself should care that these beliefs are prevalent in society.
My issue with such apparently benign religion though is the more sinister edifice it supports.
Unfortunately as we know, religion is not universally moderate and tolerant. In the U.S in particular the Christian right has a transparent political agenda. It wants to redefine America as a Christian nation, with fundamental Christian ideology at its social centre and seeks to influence the legislature accordingly.
This is not quite so evident in the U.K as yet, but the recent visit from Pope Benedict XVI gave cause for a variety of political sources to claim a greater role for faith in British society. For example Conservative party chair Lady Warsi said

the Labour government appeared to have viewed religion as essentially a rather quaint relic of our pre-industrial history. They were also too suspicious of faith's potential for contributing to society - behind every faith-based charity, they sensed the whiff of conversion and exclusivity and because of these prejudices they didn't create policies to unleash the positive power of faith in our society.

Warsi, a Muslim so moderate as to have been branded “not a true Muslim” by some exemplifies the problem. All the time enough people accept that religion is unassailably a force for good in society the greater acceptance there is for less moderate religious views. When politicians reinforce the idea it becomes more dangerous still.
There is a sliding scale of religious ideology that goes from “live and let live” to rabid intolerance of anything that does not conform to the dogma.
Not all Muslims are suicide bombers and not all Christians are homophobic creationist wingnuts. But those that are float on a buoyant sea of moderate belief that supports by degrees a more extreme agenda.
As an atheist and a humanist, I know that those of moderate faith can and would be just as tolerant, civically minded, loving and caring without religion as with it. By persuading such people to abandon irrational belief we can pull the rug from under the feet those who use the faux respectability of religion to justify bigotry, mayhem and violence.

IVF Nobel annoys the Vatican

2010-10-08T13:12:00.000+01:00

I suppose the Catholic Church’s response to awarding the Nobel Prize for Medicine to British IVF pioneer Robert Edwards was predictable. Predictable and depressing, because yet again the medieval institution is tainting a genuine human achievement giving hope to thousands of infertile couples, with its misguided moralising.
Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, while claiming to have spoken in a personal capacity still reflects the Vatican’s official view that IVF procedures create excess embryo’s which are either stored in freezers or destroyed.

In the best of cases they are transferred into a uterus but most probably they will end up abandoned or dead, which is a problem for which the new Nobel prize winner is responsible

He also claims the Nobel Committee “ignored the ethical questions” raised by fertility treatments.
It would be too much to ask I suppose that the Church will ever accept the obvious evidence that embryos are potential humans, not persons. Persons require consciousness, unless of course you believe in the existence of immaterial souls…Oh wait! That’ll be it then.
However the idea that IVF is wasteful of eggs and embryos totally ignores the fact that nature is, if anything, more wasteful. Estimates of the attrition rate for newly fertilised eggs range anywhere from 25 to 70% in normally fertile couples. When you bear in mind that the couples going through IVF are diagnosed as infertile, we can assume that left to their own devices something approaching 100% of their embryos would die. So even in religious fairy-tale land IVF is saving more souls than it destroys.
The Church should really just learn to shut up and let Robert Edwards enjoy his well deserved Nobel.

Atheists at the top

2010-09-28T16:18:00.003+01:00

So Ed Milliband has beaten his older brother to the top spot in the Labour Party.He's slightly to the left of his brother politically but what I find worth cheering is that both the Milliband brothers are atheists; culturally Jewish, but atheists all the same. So with Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also an atheist we might finally end up with a government that really "doesn't do God", rather than just saying it doesn't.

More on that ice cream advert

2010-09-27T17:10:00.000+01:00

I wrote about this ice cream advertisement a while ago, protesting that the ASA had been wrong to ban it as offensive to Catholics.
I wrote a short email to the ASA and they have responded...

Thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate that you disagree with the ASA’s decision to uphold complaints which were made against the Antonio Federici magazine advertisement.

Complaints made on the grounds of taste and decency are often challenging given their subjective nature, a fact reflected by a number of communications we have received from individuals both opposed to and supportive of our decision. Although you disagree with our ruling I would like to reassure you that the ASA made its ruling only after very careful consideration.

The advertising rules were created and are maintained by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP), a body representing all parts of the ad industry. The rules state that no ads should contain content that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence on the grounds of race, religion, sex or disability.

It is the ASA’s role to administer these rules and, in this case, we felt that the ad by Antonio Federici was likely to cause serious offence to some readers.

If you have not already done so, I would encourage you to read how the ASA Council reached its decision. Please access the ASA ruling in full,here.

If you read the full adjuducation as they suggest you will see that they got eight complaints from the readership of a particular magazine following which they concluded that...

the use of a nun pregnant through immaculate conception was likely to be seen as a distortion and mockery of the beliefs of Roman Catholics.

So what? why must anyone be protected from criticism or mockery of their beliefs? If they are going to go around claiming a god man was born of a virgin 2000 years ago, they should expect to be mocked in my opinion unless they can provide some evidence.
No-one has to take these ideas seriously in a free society, including advertisers and I still say the ASA was acting beyond its remit and with bad judgment.

Go easy on science budget cuts

2010-09-27T16:20:00.000+01:00

The coalition government is on a mission to reduce the budget deficit and is looking for spending cuts wherever it can find them. One of the casualties looks like being British science funding, which could lose anything between 10% and 25% of the 3.5 Billion pounds currently invested.
Leaving aside the debate about whether now is really the time to be cutting the deficit, given that economic recovery is not yet assured, there are some things that cannot go on the back burner if we want to stay at the forefront of technological development.
I am aware that everyone affected by the cuts; from welfare to health services, public sector redundancies to cancelled building projects, will plead special circumstances. But fundamental science is worthy of this consideration precisely because it impinges on so many aspects of this country’s success.
If our children are to be inspired to study sciences at school they need to see breakthroughs being made in this country, not abroad. If we want to sell new technology to the world, blue-sky research needs to happen now. The U.S, which in similar financial straights, is actually funding science as part of its stimulus package as Obama seems to understand the value of research to the economy.
There is a danger that Government will try to sell an application driven science to the general public, where funding is preserved for “practical” research. However historically this is not where the big breakthroughs come from. Cutting edge science is what generates the big ideas, even if the attrition rate is high. Cutting fundamental research is cutting opportunities, handing the ball to emergent economies and leaving U.K innovation in the doldrums for decades.
There is no doubt that we need to get better at commercialising the ideas we do have, but we need to foster an environment for those ideas to flourish.
If we must have cuts then science will surely share the pain, but it must not be seen as an easy target for government, nor should it bear an unfair portion of the burden.

Pope's visit a success? Meh!

2010-09-20T16:56:00.000+01:00

Pope Benedict XVI left British soil yesterday with the Vatican hailing his visit as a “spiritual success.
Well, maybe. On the face of it he was well protected from the “aggressive secularism” he perceives as being inherent in British society and he even had the Prime Minister defending our faith credentials.

"Faith is part of the fabric of our country. It always has been and it always will be,"

he said.
But the fact is that Benedict did not attract anything like the interest or crowds expected and I doubt that any minds have been changed by his speeches on Catholic Social Teaching, or more inclusion for religion in British society.
History is against him I believe. The Church is more and more on the wrong side of the moral debate on issues such as gender equality, AIDS and contraception, and this along with its appalling response to the child abuse scandal is the reason why the visit was so lacklustre.
On Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show, ex Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy suggested that Benedict XVI position on Church doctrine and morality was not significantly different from Pope John Paul II who visited twenty-eight years ago to wider acclaim. This he suggested was due to John Paul’s greater charisma, but I’m not so sure. If their positions are the same is it not more likely that the rest of us have moved on? Grown up even?
The Pope fears secularisation, not because it really does lead to a “pick and mix morality” (no more so than religion anyway) but because a secular society can do what the Church cannot. It can move with the times and free itself from outdated dogma. It can have the debate free from preconceptions and arrive at rational approaches to civil liberty and individual human rights. It can make religion irrelevant, or at best just one voice in the marketplace of ideas with no special privileges. Which of course is exactly how it should be.

Religion in "Big Society"

2010-09-16T14:36:00.001+01:00

With the Pope’s arrival for a four day state visit to the U.K comes a heightened debate about the role of religion in British society.
One of the reasons for Joseph Ratzinger choosing Britain for such a visit is his dismay at the application of equality laws preventing Catholic (or any religion's) discrimination against Homosexuals, which he sees as a secular imposition on the freedom of religion.
The Pope hopes to extend the influence of Catholic Social Teaching in the day to day political and social debate and sees this as a valid contribution to David Cameron’s “Big Society” program which seeks to engage the public and volunteer groups in wider engagement with their communities.
It worries me somewhat that voices within the coalition government, and I suspect Cameron as well, see the greater influence of religious groups in society as an intrinsically good thing. There are several reasons why it isn’t.
In the first instance Religion’s involvement in society rarely comes without strings. Organisations like The Salvation Army work with and feed the homeless, but expect their subjects to listen to Christian messages. Catholic adoption agencies want to exclude same sex couples from their pool of adoptive parents and evangelical groups working with Aids in the third world promote abstinence only policies and deny contraceptives save lives.
While religious groups working for social welfare are well intentioned they cannot help but carry the dogmas of their faith with them and as a result often confound the good they would otherwise do. In many cases they will deny evidence that contradicts their worldview.
This latter point is what makes their usefulness in wider social and ethical debates so moot. The opinions they offer are rooted in scripture and the mores of tribal cultures long past. They are not informed by science unless it happens to confirm their bias and even when they do make concessions to the secular view they want their own exemptions and demand dispensations and respect for their beliefs.
The Pope is already on this visit trying to warn Britain against “aggressive secularism”. During his meeting with the Queen he said…

"Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate."

…by which he means the adoption of societal norms that do not conform to his religious dogma.
There is no reason why religious groups should not have a voice in any debate, but in this they are no different from any special interest group. What we must not do is give them the credibility, degree of deference and public space that enables them to punch above their weight.

Ice cream ad offensive to Catholics

2010-09-15T17:17:00.000+01:00

This seems a trivial story but it isn’t. The Advertising Standards Agency has banned an advert for a brand of Ice Cream because it

"was likely to cause serious offence to readers, particularly those who practised the Roman Catholic faith"

The image is of a pregnant nun, eating ice cream with the strap line “Immaculately Conceived”.
The company, Antonio Frederici is trying to make a point with this advert, saying they want to

"comment on and question, using satire and gentle humour, the relevance and hypocrisy of religion and the attitudes of the church to social issues"

and they have plans to post follow up adverts on a similar theme close to Westminster Cathedral.
How many times does it have to be said? People have no right in our society not to be offended. Religion is fair game for mockery and satire and to do so has long been a tradition in this country. Where would British comedy have been without Dave Allen, Father Ted or Monty Python? All of these shows attracted criticism but quite rightly were never banned. You would after all think that an almighty God could defend himself without the help of the ASA, but the point is they should not be making this kind of judgment.
If an advert is promoting prejudice or anti-social behaviour or glamorising violence, or if an advert is making false claims for a product then that is the point at which the ASA should get a say. It should not be using its powers in the suppression of free speech.

Burning the Qu'ran

2010-09-10T12:43:00.000+01:00

The Pastor of a small Florida church has been hitting the headlines over the past few days over his plan to burn copies of the Qu’ran on the 11th of September in protest against the proposed Islamic centre to be built close to Ground Zero in New York.
Terry Jones has received direct appeals from President Obama, castigation from Hilary Clinton and direct condemnation from the leaders of several Islamic states over the plan. This if nothing else has ensured maximum publicity for his opposition to the Islamic Centre, plus I am sure he is relishing the attention.
It is of course a tawdry protest for a measly cause. There is no purpose other than blatant prejudice served by opposing the building and burning Qu’rans and to my mind this and only this is the reason to condemn the protest.

What is not a good reason to condemn the protest is the fear that it will incite Muslims to violence. There is a free speech issue here, which says that the right to express an opinion, no matter how misguided should not be stifled by the fear of violent retribution, and religious extremists in particular should not be given the message that threats of terrorism will silence criticism of their actions.
Unfortunately this is exactly the message that the U.S administration is sending, with Barack Obama saying it would be a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaeda and David Petraeus, the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, warned of retaliatory action against US troops after protests took place in the capital Kabul at which effigies of Jones were burned alongside the American flag.

Now there is no doubt that it is particularly easy to offend Muslims in this way, but that is no reason not to do it when appropriate. For example Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a particularly apposite protest against censorship of the television show, South Park, an episode of which attracted death threats for portraying the prophet.
The reason the Qu’ran burning is not appropriate is that, although the Pastor is attempting to frame this as free speech, the action has nothing to do with his right to protest against something he doesn’t like. Terry Jones is perfectly entitled to argue against the siting of the Islamic Centre through any forum he likes; burning the Qu’ran is a stunt and an irrelevence with deliberate intent to offend and incite hatred.

To any rational person the burning of any number of mass-produced “holy” texts, be the Bible, Qu’ran or Gita is a trivial act, more damned by the waste of resources than anything else. To the religious mind it’s a sacrilege so you might think a Christian Pastor would think twice before engaging in this kind of idiocy. After all wouldn’t he be offended if Bibles started to be burnt all over the Middle East?

As of today the burning is in his words “on hold”. If he backs down I hope that it will be because he realises what a mean minded protest it is and not because of threats of reprisal.

Handsome is as handsome does

2010-09-06T13:38:00.000+01:00

The ”Thought for the Day” today was given by Clifford Longley. His premise was that Pope Benedict is being criticised for what people “think” he thinks, rather than his actual position.
He compared this with the problem allegedly faced by the Tory party.

People often said they liked a particular policy - until they found out it was Tory policy. The problem facing the Catholic Church is somewhat similar - how to detoxify the brand,

However, the one example he quoted of a socially acceptable opinion…

"The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly," he declared. "We must prioritise the goal of access to steady employment for everyone" and "Food and access to water are universal rights of all human beings... Investment always has moral, as well as economic significance."

is so appallingly weak as to be next to useless. In fact the statement is practically a truism that almost anyone would agree with in principle, no matter how free market or profit driven they were. What it fails to say is what ethical policies should we follow to achieve that.
Well here’s a few suggestions for the Pope.
1 Encourage free access to contraception
2 Allow Women into the priesthood so as not to set a bad example to private industry
3 End opposition to abortion so that women can choose when to have families
4 Stop discriminating against Homosexuals thereby encouraging others to do so
5 Promote science and reason instead of faith and superstition so we can maximise the benefit of our intelligence

The Pope like the Church he represents and religion in general is full of worthy words, but his actions speak louder.

Blair against "those who scorn God"

2010-08-31T12:11:00.000+01:00

Tony Blair the former British Prime Minister who famously “didn’t do God”when he was in office has called upon all faiths to rally together against secular attacks from “those who scorn God”.

Those who scorn God and those who do violence in God’s name, both represent views of religion. But both offer no hope for faith in the twenty first century.”

Well he’s right of course, neither religious fundamentalism nor atheism offer hope for faith in the 21st century. However secularism does offer hope for peace, humanity and civilisation in this century which religion in any guise cannot.
The myth that world ecumenicalism will prevent the spread of religious extremism is a recurring one but which history shows is very unlikely to translate into reality. Maybe Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews and Hindus will unite against a common enemy. But only for as long as their competing faiths can stand it. Then it will be back to the tribalism, the terror and the bombs.
I have no idea how such an obviously well travelled, sophisticated and intelligent man like Blair can be taken in by this nonsense. The very fact that he has converted to Catholicism at a time when that particular cult has fallen into such disrepute shows a distinct lack of critical thinking from the man who lead the country into war alongside G.W Bush, that other famously religion deluded leader.

On Naming Ceremonies

2010-08-23T11:43:00.000+01:00

Frank Field Is a labour politician who has been appointed as an advisor on poverty to the new coalition government. One of the suggestions that he has come up with is the creation of secular naming ceremonies for newborns in response to the decline in Christenings and Baptisms.
This is a surprising suggestion coming as it does from a practicing Anglican, but in my view a welcome one.
His view is that ceremonies of this nature, being a secular rite of passage would help to highlight the responsibility of the parents, wider family and the local community towards the collective upbringing of our children and I think there is some merit in this.
Like the other significant milestones such as marriage and death, birth, or more accurately the welcoming of a newborn has for too long been in the province of religion. As a state we have recognised civil marriages for many years and they now take place outside of the sterile environment of the registry office. Crematoriums at any rate can host humanist funerals (although escaping Christian symbolism is still difficult). Non-religious naming ceremonies however when they happen are ad-hoc arrangements by parents who already feel motivated to introduce their child formally in this way.
Providing a structured secular ceremony accessible via registrars could well motivate other parents to do this
Many parents who are not religious, but who may not think deeply about these things will currently opt for a Christian ceremony anyway or more likely ignore the ritual altogether. It would not necessarily occur to them that organisations such as the British Humanist Association already have a great deal of experience in Naming Ceremonies hosted in hotels or other venues that can help cement a new child’s arrival into family and community.
Humanists and religious groups together could come up with a secular framework for all naming ceremonies that would become part of our society’s common ritual. Then, as with weddings, the participants would embellish the ceremony to conform to their own beliefs.

Mecca has a bigger one than London - so there!

2010-08-11T15:46:00.004+01:00

I love this…
I was alerted to this silly story of the giant clock in Mecca by Pharyngula.
The Saudi government is challenging Greenwich Mean Time as the reference point for global time by building a clock that is over six times larger than Big Ben, the clock in the tower at the Palace of Westminster in London.
First of all Big Ben has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of Greenwich observatory as the base line from which time is internationally agreed. This was done order for sailors to calculate longitude from the Greenwich meridian, which was by convention considered to have longitude zero degrees as internationally adopted at the International Meridian Conference of 1884. I don’t think anyone is going to relocate zero longitude at Mecca just because it’s got a big clock.
Secondly inhabitants of any particular part of the world don’t go around saying “It’s five O’Clock, so it must be two O’Clock in London” anymore than Arabic Standard Time is of interest to anyone else but an inhabitant of that time zone, or someone who wants to go or ‘phone there.
If the Saudis want to flaunt their oil wealth by building a gaudy clock to time their prayers by, that’s fine. But why turn it into a symbol of supposed Islamic supremacy by pitching it as a rival to Big Ben? Some kind of penis envy I guess. Whatever, Mecca isn’t the centre of the world anymore than London, Paris, New York or Chipping Sodbury is. We live on a (oblate) sphere whether the Saudis like it or not.
The other thing is, what are they going to set the clock by I wonder? Logically they will set it to AST which is defined as GMT+ 3 Hours. Duh!

NHS will still fund "nonsense on stilts"

2010-08-01T09:16:00.000+01:00

Just when you think reason is about to prevail some idiot in Government decides that uneducated public opinion has more weight than science when it comes to NHS funding.
Despite a damning report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee that said homeopathy was no better than a sugar pill placebo and was "nonsense on stilts", Health minister Anne Milton has decided it will not be banned on the NHS.
This goes beyond the issue of the £4M or so that goes towards supporting a totally non-effective treatment. It is giving credibility to a whole industry of superstitious woo and mumbo jumbo that in some instances causes real harm. Faith healing, crystals, shamanism and homeopathy do not work and governments should not be endorsing them, either explicitly or by implication.

Morality: What’s culture got to do with it?

2010-07-27T17:18:00.001+01:00

So I cross posted my last piece to my facebook notes, and a couple of days later, while sitting outside the pub, a friend of mine who read it said something like: “I agree with the sentiment, but if I was to critique it I’d want to know where moral relativism comes into it”.
It is of course an interesting question, because it is easy writing from a western perspective to define what is moral entirely in those terms. However as Brian pointed out we live in a multicultural society where issues such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) are emerging into our society’s consciousness.
I think FGM is an apposite subject to explore cultural and moral relativism. For example by defining what its practitioners call “female circumcision” as mutilation I am already making a moral judgment. Also it is a practice often defended on religious grounds despite it not being mandated in any scripture.
This is key in one respect. By calling this process “circumcision” it is equated with a practice that is religiously mandated in the Jewish and Islamic scriptures, although in reality circumcision is to FGM like cutting your fingernails is to amputating your hands.
In some African cultures the practice is part of puberty, a right of passage with the “surgery” being performed by an older woman, sometimes with a sharp stone with which she cuts the clitoris and often removes the labia minora. In other cultures the clitoris is cut at birth or during infancy.
You might think (from our western perspective) that women in these cultures would universally condemn the practice as they would remember the painful experience themselves. But this is to underestimate the power of tradition.
The reality is that not only men but many women in FGM societies defend the practice on religious or cultural grounds.

So, if even the victims of this practice support it, who am I to say it’s immoral?
The first part of my answer falls directly out of my previous post. Universally we agree on fundamental axioms of morality, acting selflessly to another’s benefit is moral; acting selfishly to another’s detriment is immoral. So the first thing to establish is to whose benefit is FGM?
Whether religiously inspired or not (but I bet it was) the prima facia reason for FGM is to control the sexuality of women. It desensitises the clitoris so discouraging masturbation, and leads to lack of lubrication making sexual intercourse uncomfortable. In the most extreme cases the labia majora are sewn together making sexual intercourse impossible until the procedure is reversed, usually when the girl is due to marry.
From this perspective it is clear that FGM is for the benefit of men and preservation of the culture, not for the woman.
This is not to say that FGM’s defenders do not make a case for benefit to the woman. One is hygiene. They argue that reducing the mucus producing area of the vagina promotes cleanliness, but while they may have thought this centuries ago, we now know that vaginal secretions are vital for the health and cleanliness of the organ, so if it was a valid argument once it isn’t now.
They also argue that because the practice is culturally endorsed it guarantees the girls’ acceptance into the culture. The circularity of this argument hardly needs pointing out.
So if the practice is not for the benefit of the girl it fails on that basic moral premise.
The other reason the practise is immoral is that it is always done to minors. The girls who have to go through this have no say in the decision, are usually not old enough to be moral agents themselves, yet they must live with the consequences throughout their lives.
In this scenario FGM is a violation of their human right to self-determination.

But, what about the right of the parents or elders to pass their cultural heritage onto their children? It is important, some say to defer consideration of the rights of the child to preserve cultural integrity.
To this I would say that cultures, ideas, ethnic groups do not have rights: Individuals do. It is not defensible to impose a cultural concept on an individual who may well in later life wish to adopt a totally different one. At least if a child is brought up in a belief system they can, if they choose abandon it for another at some time. However a victim of FGM can never reclaim her clitoris, or the fully functioning human sexuality she was deprived of.

FGM is an extreme example of a cultural practice that the west may see as immoral while the third world (or indeed some cultural relativists) may defend, so it throws the relativist argument sharply into relief. However I think that the basic reasoning presented here could be applied to any practice detrimental to individuals in another culture, done in the name of that culture. This would put male circumcision performed for anything other than medical reasons in that bracket. Again there are plenty of people including circumcised males who defend it, and barring some rare complications such as meatal stenosis it may to many seem a trivial mutilation. That doesn’t make it right and neither does the cultural context in which it is done.