Atheism, fuck yeah!
Welcome atheists, skeptics, freethinkers all,
to this little corner of godlessness.
~Mooglets

She was portrayed in the press as a victim of cruel religious discrimination - a poor persecuted Christian who had been “banned” by British Airways from wearing a simple cross at work. And all this while her Muslim and Sikh colleagues were parading about in hijabs and turbans.

The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Tony Blair came out in her defence. The Daily Mail took up the cudgels on her behalf. One hundred MPs spoke out in her favour. Bishops demanded a boycott of BA. Evangelical Christians went into paroxysms of righteous fury. At last - here was proof that they were innocent victims of Christianophobia - as practised by our very own national airline.

An open and shut case, you might think.Nadia Eweidawas a Christian martyr, pure and simple.

But hang on a moment. The employment tribunal, to which she complained, has justpublished its judgment, and it tells a rather different story. Not only did it kick out all her claims of religious discrimination and harassment, it also criticised her for her intransigence, saying that she:

“… generally lacked empathy for the perspective of others … her own overwhelming commitment to her faith led her at times to be both naive and uncompromising in her dealings with those who did not share her faith.”

One example of this was her insistence that she must never be required to work on Christmas Day, even though she had signed a contract that made it clear that she, like her colleagues, would be working in an operation that functions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore required shift working and bank holiday working, too.

In order to be fair to everybody, BA used a union-approved ballot system to ensure that those who worked on Christmas Day were fairly and objectively chosen. If their name came up, they were at liberty to negotiate with their colleagues to change shifts and days on a like-for-like basis. But not Nadia. She insisted that, because she was a Christian, she must not be required to work on Christmas Day - or Sunday, come to that.

The tribunal commented:

“[Eweida’s] insistence on privilege for Christmas Day is perhaps the most striking example in the case of her insensitivity towards colleagues, her lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives, and her incomprehension of the conflicting demands which professional management seeks to address and resolve on a near-daily basis.”

Eweida was originally suspended from work as a BA check-in clerk when she refused to wear a cross on a necklace underneath her uniform rather than on top of it. This breached stated uniform policy, which stated that no one was allowed to wear visible adornments around their neck.

But Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made.

But no - she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called theAlliance Defence Fund, whose affiliated lawyer wasPaul Diamond, a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.

The tribunal - unlike the Daily Mail - was required to look at all the evidence, and not consider only Eweida’s account of events. And having done so, it kicked the case out on all counts, saying that Eweida did not suffer any discrimination.

The tribunal concluded:

“The complaint of direct discrimination fails because we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances.”

The tribunal also heard how Eweida’s attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: “Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example,” said the judgment, “was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed.”

Indeed, the proselytising motivation of her desire to wear the cross over her uniform instead of underneath it was underlined when she said: “It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them.”

The details of this case make it clear that this is a woman who is wearing religious blinkers. In several instances she brought grievances and complaints against BA that had no basis in fact. She was convinced that BA was anti-Christian, and nothing would dissuade her from that opinion, despite the company jumping through hoops trying to accommodate the many and varied religious demands being placed on it. Indeed, there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida’s fight, and confirmed that BA was already “making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world” - but strangely we haven’t heard about them in the newspaper reports.

The tribunal notes that on the original claim form, Eweida states “I have not been permitted to wear my Christian cross; whilst other faiths (Sikhs, Hindu, Muslims) are permitted to manifest their faith in very obvious fashion. Secular individuals can show private affiliations.” The tribunal found the first and last assertions to be untrue. But Eweida would not be persuaded.

Her numerous demands for special treatment because of her religion showed a complete indifference to the effect it would have on the lives of others. Indeed, in one instance she made an accusation against the Christian Fellowship group that turned out to be completely fallacious, and the tribunal felt compelled to say: “We find it demonstrates to a degree the extent to which the claimant [Eweida] misinterpreted events, as well as her readiness to make a serious accusation without thought of the implications.”

Now we read that there is another case in the pipeline for British Airways. An orthodox Jewish man is bringing a case of religious discrimination because he is required towork on Saturday, the Jewish Shabat.

And a demonstration by Sikhs has just taken place outside the Welsh assembly, demanding that a schoolgirl be permitted to breach the school’s uniform policy by wearing a ceremonial bangle, the kara.

As Jonathan Bartley, of the religious thinktankEkklesiasaid of the Eweida case:

“Like many of the other claims of discrimination being made by Christians, this has turned out to be false. People should be aware that behind many such cases there are groups whose interests are served by stirring up feelings of discrimination of marginalisation amongst Christians. What can appear to be a case of discrimination at first glance is often nothing of the sort. It is often more about Christians attempting to gain special privileges and exemptions.”

The National Secular Society has demanded that employers should be permitted to declare their workplaces secular spaces if they want to, without penalty. Attempts by employers to accommodate everyone have turned many workplaces into religious battlegrounds. It should now be OK to say: “Leave your religion at the door, please. And if you won’t and your religion doesn’t permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will.”

The Guardian

I remember this when she first got into the papers. It was laughable then and it is still laughable now - except now, with all the facts, I’m also kinda pissed at her. 

~Mooglets

Atheist John Richards, 89, was warned by cops he could be committing a public order offence.

They said his home made pro-atheism note might cause “alarms or distresses” to his neighbours.

But defiant John, from Boston, Lincs, has refused to remove the sheet of A4 paper - branding the police’s actions as “a threat to free speech”.

The grandfather-of-one fumed: “I wanted to make a statement. To show people it is okay to be an atheist.

“I wanted to show people that if they thought they were alone there was at least one other person who thought that.

“In an e-mail to the police I did say that I could be distressed by signs outside a church saying ’Jesus Saves’.

“But I don’t go around saying that they should be taking them down. Freedom of speech means anyone can express their views.

“If there is a complaint does the person concerned not have to prove that he or she was distressed?

“How exactly is distress monitored and assessed?”

Lincolnshire Police replied to his request to put up the sign in an email, which read: “If a complaint is made then it can lead to you being arrested and dealt with for the offence of section 5 public order causing alarm and distress.”

—-

TheSun

You know what? Fuck you. It’s a tiny drop in the fucking water compared to the sheer amount of religious paraphernalia to be found on any given fucking street in the UK.

Church’s have their myriad signs, individuals have their myriad personal religious items/images in various windows/doorways, shops have them, Mosques and Temples have them, other religious buildings have them, random posters on walls, people handing out religious propaganda on the street, yelling about their brand of fairy tale on corners, on buses, on streets full of busy shoppers and so on. 

And you people are getting fucking uppity about one little A4 page with a barely legibly sized font in one pensioner’s window?

Seriously?

Fucking seriously, now?

Fuck you.

~Mooglets

The Roman Catholic Church is planning to enlist the support of more than a million regular worshippers in opposition to Government plans for same-sex marriage.

Senior bishops are preparing to draw up a letter to be read at Masses across England and Wales when the Government consultation on plans to redefine marriage gets under way later this month, it is understood.

It would be only the second time in recent history that a joint pastoral letter on behalf of all Catholic bishops in England and Wales has been issued on an issue of political importance.

The move is being proposed as the debate over extending marriage to homosexual couples gathers momentum. At the weekend Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the most senior Catholic cleric in Britain, accused the Coalition of trying to “redefine reality” and branded the proposals a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

Although the proposals would not extend to Scotland, he argued that they would nevertheless “shame the UK in the eyes of the world”.

Cardinal O’Brien is one of only two British members of the College of Cardinals, the body which elects popes. Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the former Archbishop of Westminster, remains a voting cardinal until he turns 80 in August.

The remarks drew robust responses from politicians including Harriet Harman, the deputy Labour leader, who accused the Cardinal of “scaremongering”. “I don’t want anybody to feel that this is a licence forwhipping up prejudice,” she said. Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said: “If he supports marriage, the Cardinal should welcome the fact that many lesbian and gay couples want to get married.”

Meanwhile, Alan Duncan, the Conservative international development minister, who is in a civil partnership, said that the plans would not apply to religious marriage.

“I don’t think they need cause any upset for Cardinal O’Brien because they’re not really going to affect him,” Mr Duncan said.

But one of Mr Duncan’s Conservative colleagues, Peter Bone MP, argued that the parents and teachers who objected to promoting same-sex marriage in schools could be ostracised.

“If marriage is redefined, schools will have no choice but to give children equivalent teaching on same-sex marriage, even those children of a very young age, including those at primary school,” he wrote.

“So what will happen to parents who because of religious, or philosophical beliefs take their children out of lessons?

“Parents who object will be treated as bigots and outcasts, possibly excluded from being on the PTA [Parent Teacher Association], or from being a governor.

“Discriminated against and persecuted because they hold views that have been enshrined in our laws and have been the cornerstone of our society for 2,000 years.

“And what of the teachers who object to teaching about same-sex marriage. Will they face disciplinary action? How will it affect their careers?”

Five years ago, a pastoral letter issued by the then Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, helped secure the future of faith schools whose funding and status was in doubt at the time.

LAST November, you may recall, we reported on the start of a Parliamentary inquiry into claims that Christians in the UK were facing “intolerable levels of persecution”.

Well, the Christians in Parliament all-party group, led by Conservative MP Gary Streeter, have now published their findings – and their report, Clearing the Ground, opens by saying that in the UK:

There is a high level of religious illiteracy which has led to many situations where religious belief is misunderstood and subsequently restricted.

And it alleges that civic and legal authorities in the UK, suffering from this so-called ‘religious illiteracy’, have forced laws on Christians:

Compelling them to provide services that they had never previously offered and which may be contrary to their beliefs.

This led Simon Barrow, co-director of the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia to say of the report:

This is not clearing the ground, it is muddying the water.

In his scathing response, Barrow says:

Initial impressions from this report are that it raises significantly more questions than it answers. For example, it seems to assume that most people who are convinced Christians automatically share, or should share, a range of prejudices – notably against LGBT people – which make them unwilling to comply with requirements to act in a non-discriminatory way in the provision of public services.

This is not the case. Many Christians from all traditions believe that equal treatment of others is not simply a legal requirement but a Christian obligation.

He continues:

The report employs the dubious notion of ‘competing rights’ to seek to posit a clash between Christians (taken to be a homogenous group) and gay people (who are assumed to be quite separate from Christians). In fact, the whole point of the human rights convention and UK equalities legislation is to seek to ensure fair treatment regardless of religion or belief, or indeed sexual orientation. It protects Christians against discrimination as much, but no more, than anyone else.

He went on to point out that:

The Christians in Parliament document also jumbles up a range of quite distinct and different legal cases, advocating the notion of ‘reasonable accommodation’ in a way that stretches from matters like workplace dress, where negotiation may be entirely appropriate, through to cases where exemption from equality requirements in the provision of goods and services would clearly disadvantage and discriminate against those not sharing narrowly conservative Christian views. This is not ‘clearing the ground’, it is muddying the waters.

Mr Barrow added:

The bottom line here is that being a Christian is no longer a ‘trump card’ in public life in the way that it may once have been, and many Christians whose views are not reflected by this report will undoubtedly say, on strong theological grounds, ‘nor should it be’. Christianity is a free choice, and freedom of belief is abused when it is imposed on people, particularly in a limited and limiting way.

The general public mood now is that discrimination and prejudice against gay people, for example, is as unacceptable in public life as discrimination against black people or any other social or ethnic group. It is very sad that some Christians find this hard to accept, and wish to maintain a privileged position for themselves, regarding equal treatment as ‘discrimination’ against them.

He also pointed out that legal cases brought by a small number of religious complainants have failed again and again.

This has not happened because there is bias or ignorance in the legal system, but because of a failure of evidence …  Specific attempts to show that the law has been inaccurately or unfairly interpreted have been notably unsuccessful, so attempts are now being made to insinuate prejudice. This is regrettable, to say the least.

Freethinker

It’s nice to see someone unafraid of calling these people out on their intolerant and bigoted bullshit.

~Mooglets

Michael Gove, the education secretary, is at the centre of an escalating row over how faith schools discuss homosexuality in sex education classes.

The TUC has accused Gove of failing in his legal duties by insisting that equality laws, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, do not extend to the school curriculum.

The TUC complains that the current situation sends mixed signals to the playground, because schools are legally obliged to condemn discrimination on sexual-orientation grounds but free to use religious materials that equality campaigners claim is homophobic.

Brendan Barber, the TUC’s general secretary, wrote to Gove in December expressing alarm that a booklet containing “homophobic material” had been distributed by a US preacher after talks to pupils at Roman Catholic schools across the Lancashire region in 2010.

The booklet, “Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be”, discusses a boy dealing with “homosexual attractions” which it suggested may “stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse”.

The booklet, which claims that “scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke”, explains that “the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding.”

Referring to the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against individuals, Barber said: “Schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely.”

But Gove insists: “The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.”

Gove’s response has triggered anger from the TUC. “Having written to the education secretary to express our worry about the distribution of homophobic literature in faith schools, his lack of concern is very alarming,” Barber said.

A DfE spokesman insisted: “Any school engaging in the promotion of homophobic material would be acting unlawfully.” But the row highlights a grey area over the teaching of sex education. A review intended to provide new guidelines on what was appropriate for schools to teach was kicked into the long grass when the last election was called.

“It would certainly be helpful if there was clarity as to what is appropriate for young people of all ages,” said Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall. “The water could no longer be muddied by people pushing age-inappropriate sex material on the one hand and fundamentalist anti-gay religious materials on the other.”

The row comes at the end of an extraordinary week in which the role of religion in society has come under acute scrutiny.

The chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips, said religious rules should be left “at the door of the temple” and give way to the “public law” laid down by parliament. Phillips said: “Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules – for example, child protection – then it has to go with public law.” Phillips spoke out after Baroness Warsi, the Tory minister, warned Britain was under threat from a rising tide of “militant secularisation”.

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, warned that Christianity was being marginalised. Days earlier, the high court ruled that councils had no statutory power to hold prayers in meetings, while the Christian owners of a bed-and-breakfast lost an appeal against a ruling that their policy of restricting double rooms to married couples discriminated against a gay couple.

Concerns that faith matters are being marginalised at school has prompted the creation of a new coalition of faith groups and politicians. The Religious Education Council of England and Wales is to back the creation of an all-party parliamentary group that will focus on protecting religious education in schools and stressing its value to young people.

A large delegation of Government Ministers is to visit the Vatican next week to consult about British Government policy with the Pope. Among the six ministers going to Rome are Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Alan Duncan, the Minister for International Development; and Greg Barker, the Energy and Climate Change Minister.

The delegation will be led by Baroness Warsi who will lecture at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy on the subject of the place of religion in modern political discourse.

The British delegation will reportedly discuss climate change, arms proliferation, religious tolerance, interfaith dialogue and the crisis in Somalia and the Horn of Africa with the Pope and Vatican officials.

The Daily Telegraph reports a “Vatican observer” as saying:

“It’s a very strong delegation and it’s a way of showing that the relationship with the Holy See didn’t end in a blaze of fireworks when the Pope’s visit finished. It’s one of the most comprehensive British visits ever in terms of the range of interests represented.”

The politicians will be accompanied by the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols.

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “What on earth is a delegation of senior British politicians doing consulting the last theocracy in Europe on our Government policy? We are a democratic nation and we didn’t vote for the Pope – so why are we involving him in policy-making? Polls show that very few people in this country agree with his teachings – and that includes Catholics.

“This is an extremely undesirable development. The Government should be challenging the Vatican’s assumed and suspect power, not indulging it.”

National Secular Society

What the bloody fuck? 

Why the hell is my Government talking to the bloody Vatican about such important fucking issues? No, seriously, WHY?

Ugh. 

~Mooglets

A Christian group has been banned from claiming that God can heal illnesses on its website and in leaflets.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had concluded that the adverts by Healing on the Streets (HOTS) - Bath, were misleading.

It said a leaflet available to download from the group’s website said: “Need Healing? God can heal today!”

The group, based in Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, said it was disappointed with the decision and would appeal.

HOTS Bath said its vision was to promote Christian healing “as a daily lifestyle for every believer”.

‘False hope’

The ASA said the leaflet read: “Need Healing? God can heal today! Do you suffer from Back Pain, Arthritis, MS, Addiction … Ulcers, Depression, Allergies, Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Paralysis, Crippling Disease, Phobias, Sleeping disorders or any other sickness?

“We’d love to pray for your healing right now!

“We’re Christian from churches in Bath and we pray in the name of Jesus. We believe that God loves you and can heal you from any sickness.”

The ASA said it had been alerted to the adverts by a complainant, and concluded that they could encourage false hope and were irresponsible.

HOTS Bath said: “It seems very odd to us that the ASA wants to prevent us from stating on our website the basic Christian belief that God can heal illness.

“All over the world as part of their normal Christian life, Christians believe in, pray for and experience God’s healing; our ministry, in common with many churches, has been active in praying for God’s healing (of Christians and non Christians) for many years.”

The group said it had tried to reach a compromise, “but there are certain things that we cannot agree to - including a ban on expressing our beliefs”.

The Healing On The Streets ministry was started by Causeway Coast Vineyard church in Coleraine, Northern Ireland, in 2005 and has been taken up by dozens of churches across the UK.

BBC

For goodness sake! This is my patch! Bath is my stomping ground!

I know Bath is full of woo (I even attended a Homeopathy center there, back in my day’s of thinking woo had something for it) but this is going far and beyond. 

At least the ASA has taken a firm stance and banned the ads as the irresponsible nonsense that they are. 

~Mooglets

Comedy superstar (and rationalist) Tim Minchin was supposed to be on The Jonathan Ross Show this week. He’d even written a brand new song for it, as he explains on his blog:

“Being Christmas, I thought it would be fun to do a song about Jesus, but being TV, I knew it would have to be gentle. The idea was to compare him to Woody Allen (short, Jewish, philosophical, a bit hesitant), and expand into redefining his other alleged attributes using modern, popular-culture terminology.”

The recording went ahead as planned last Tuesday, everyone involved enjoyed it, and Tim even managed to finish in time to shoot off to the Hammersmith Apollo to join Brian Cox on stage at Robin Ince’s Uncaged Monkeys show.

But when the show airs tomorrow night, Tim will be nowhere to be seen:

“Subsequently, Suzi [the show’s producer] and her team edited the show and everybody was happy. Suzi felt it had a nice balance of big-ticket celeb action, local talent, and a nice bit of that cheeky, iconoclastic spirit for which Jonathan is known and widely loved.

And then someone got nervous and sent the tape to ITV’s director of television, Peter Fincham.

And Peter Fincham demanded that I be cut from the show.

He did this because he’s scared of the ranty, shit-stirring, right-wing press, and of the small minority of Brits who believe they have a right to go through life protected from anything that challenges them in any way.”

Fortunately, Tim already had the footage, and he’s uploaded it to YouTube for people to judge for themselves. If you ask us, it’s hard to imagine how the edifice of Christianity could have remained standing had the sensitive ears of Christian ITV viewers not been spared this gently blasphemous comedy number.

New Humanist

Gimme a moment and I’ll put the song up for y’all as well. 

~Mooglets