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

A prominent vicar from Wales has sensationally resigned, this week – citing homophobia in the church as his main reason for quitting.

Specifically, he has resigned over the issue of same-sex marriage, which continues to divide members of the religious community. 

The Reverend Andrew Morton, pictured speaking to the BBC, claims that some members of the Anglican communion - including elements of the Church in Wales - have become more homophobic.

Morton, the vicar of Llangybi in Monmouthshire, is the first clergyman in Wales to step down over the matter, the BBC add.

The Church in Wales said it a “matter of regret” for clergy to resign over an issue yet to be resolved by the church.

The resignation comes shortly after The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, said that the United Kingdom is in danger of losing its identity over gay rights and feminism.

In a recent address to Welsh teenagers, the 61 year-old – who recently resigned from his role to return to academics – claimed that identity had become a “slippery” word because too much emphasis has been placed on the rights of minority groups.

Instead, he insisted that society focus on the common good. 

“Identity politics, whether it is the politics of feminism, whether it is the politics of ethnic minorities or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last ten or 20 years because before that I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome,” he said.

“And so minorities of various kinds and … women began to say: ‘Actually we need to say who we are in our terms, not yours’ and that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and legislation that followed it.

“We are now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back and saying identity politics is all very well but we have to have some way of putting it all back together again and discovering what is good for all of us and share something of who we are with each other so as to discover more about who we are.”

PinkPaper

A five-year-old girl is thought to have become the UK’s youngest victim of forced marriage.

She was one of 400 children to receive assistance from the government’s Forced Marriage Unit in the last year.

The figures have emerged as the public consultation into criminalising forced marriage in England, Wales and Northern Ireland comes to an end.

Amy Cumming, joint head of the Forced Marriage Unit, said 29% of the cases it dealt with last year involved minors.

“The youngest of these was actually five years old, so there are children involved in the practice across the school age range,” she said.

To protect the child, the authorities have not disclosed details of the case or where the marriage took place.

But the case comes as no surprise to the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (IKWRO), which deals with more than 100 cases of forced marriage a year.

“We have had clients who are in their very early teens, 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds, the youngest case we had was nine years old,” said IKWRO campaigns officer Fionnuala Murphy.

Now the consultation on forced marriage has come to an end, IKWROs hope it will become a criminal offence.

“Our organisation is pro-criminalisation because we believe that it will empower victims to know that this is a crime, to stand up to their parents and to stand up for their own rights and it will enable them to come forward and seek help and say what’s happening to me is wrong.”

Violent abuse

Author Sameem Ali is all too familiar with the trauma of being a child bride - she was only 13 years old when she was taken to Pakistan by her mother on a holiday.

As a teenager she was excited about the trip, but when she arrived at the family’s ancestral village, she discovered she was to be married to a man twice her age, whom she had never met.

“The whole family turned up with an imam and they forced me into this marriage. I didn’t really understand what was happening at the time.

“I was only a child. There was no way I could say no. There was no support there whatsoever.”

Eight months later she returned to the UK after suffering months of violent abuse.

“I was brought back to this country when I was 14 years old and pregnant,” she said.

She eventually fled the relationship and is now happily married with two children and helps other young people at risk.

However, Sameem is concerned that making forced marriage a criminal offence will deter victims from speaking out.

“I think it will be detrimental to the victim. The victims will stop coming forward, because nobody will want to point the finger at their parents,” she explained.

“The young person will not come forward if it’s a criminal offence. They will not stand up in court and testify against their parents.”

Law change

In 2011 the Forced Marriage Unit helped deal with around 1,500 cases, but many more are thought to go unreported.

Forced Marriage Protection Orders were introduced in 2008 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007.

A potential victim, friend or police can apply for an order aimed at protecting an individual through the courts. Anyone found to have breached one can be jailed for up to two years for contempt of court, although this is classed as a civil offence.

The prime minister wants the law to go further and ordered a public consultation on making it a criminal offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to force a person to marry against their will.

In Scotland the breach of a forced marriage protection order is also a criminal offence in Scotland punishable by prisons.

Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone said the government would now look at all the arguments.

“We will now consider all of those views and responses to the consultation before we make a decision on the best way to protect vulnerable people.

“We are determined, working closely with charities and other organisations doing a tremendous amount in this area, to make forced marriage a thing of the past.”

A decision is expected to be announced later this year.

BBC News

This is an intersectional issue - both religious and cultural. Hence it’s appearance on this tumblog.

~Mooglets

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the United Kingdom is in danger of losing its identity over gay rights and feminism.

In a recent speech to Welsh teenagers, the 61 year-old – who recently resigned from his role to return to academics – claimed that identity had become a “slippery” word because too much emphasis has been placed on the rights of minority groups.

Instead, he insisted that society focus on the common good. 

“Identity politics, whether it is the politics of feminism, whether it is the politics of ethnic minorities or the politics of sexual minorities, has been a very important part of the last ten or 20 years because before that I think there was a sense that diversity was not really welcome,” he said.

“And so minorities of various kinds and … women began to say: ‘Actually we need to say who we are in our terms, not yours’ and that led to identity politics of a very strong kind and legislation that followed it.

“We are now, I think, beginning to see the pendulum swinging back and saying identity politics is all very well but we have to have some way of putting it all back together again and discovering what is good for all of us and share something of who we are with each other so as to discover more about who we are.”
 
He added: “Identity isn’t just something sealed off and finished with … it’s always work in progress. Once we start saying, “This is my identity and that’s it” then I think we are in danger of really fragmenting the society we belong to.”

The comments come shortly after he scolded British people who rely on state welfare and social benefits as a danger to society.

Pink Paper

Why is this man ever allowed to open his mouth, let alone why is he ever given a public forum to espouse his hateful views?

~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.

Former Metropolitan Police officer Brian Paddick has hit back at Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s comments on homosexuality.

The London Mayoral candidate has asserted that there is “no intellectual argument” against same-sex marriages.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien,  leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, accused the Government of arrogance ahead of a consultation on the issue this month. 

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he claimed that plans for gay marriage were a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.”

He added: “The Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.

“No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.”

But Paddick – who is gay – has hit back.

“Same-sex marriage should simply be a universally accepted human right for everyone,” he said.  

“If we really believe in equality, there is no sound intellectual argument against gay marriage. There may be religious objections, as there are religious objections to equality for women, but that does not mean we should be ruled by them.”

Meanwhile, the UK gay Humanist charity the Pink Triangle Trust has also slammed O’Brian’s condemnation.

George Broadhead, the PTT’s secretary and veteran gay activist, said: “Given the Roman Catholic Church’s well-known views and policy on gay sexual relationships and rights, including Civil Partnership, not to mention Cardinal O’Brian’s previous homophobic outbursts, his latest are totally predictable. His contention that gay marriage would shame the UK in the eyes of the world is also bizarre. 

“Has the cardinal not heard that gay marriage has already been legalised in no fewer than ten countries: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and The Netherlands? I am not aware that any of these countries have suffered shame or any sort of pariah status as a result. This just shows how out of touch with reality the Roman Catholic Church has become.”

Pink Paper

The head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, took to the media this weekend to launch an attack on the government’s plans to hold a consultation on legalising gay marriage. In an opinion piece for the Sunday Telegraph, O’Brien threw his weight behind the campaign by the Coalition for Marriage (C4M),launched by religious groups last month and spearheaded by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, and echoed C4M’s emphasis on the “redefinition” of marriage:

“Redefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools, and for wider society. It will redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society. The repercussions of enacting same-sex marriage into law will be immense.

But can we simply redefine terms at a whim? Can a word whose meaning has been clearly understood in every society throughout history suddenly be changed to mean something else?”

Having branded proposals for legalising gay marriage as “madness” and “a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”, and argued that gay marriage would “create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father”, O’Brien went on to deploy a bizarre and, you could argue, rather offensive analogy:

“Disingenuously, the Government has suggested that same-sex marriage wouldn’t be compulsory and churches could choose to opt out. This is staggeringly arrogant.

No Government has the moral authority to dismantle the universally understood meaning of marriage.

Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that “no one will be forced to keep a slave”.

Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?”

O’Brien continued his attack on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, restating his view that legalising gay marriage will “shame” the United Kingdom. Asked whether his slavery analogy was “inflammatory”, O’Brien defended the words he used in the Sunday Telegraph:

“I think it’s a very, very good example as to what might happen in our own country at this present time, and I feel I’ve a duty, I’ve a responsibility, to preach and to teach, and this is one of the ways in which I do it. … It is a perfectly good example as to what could happen in our own country if we go this way, and as I say I am simply handing on the teaching of the Christian church down through the years.”

Asked whether states that have already legalised gay marriage are violating human rights, the Cardinal continued:

“Countries where this is legal are indeed violating human rights. We know that, we know what the United Nations declaration states, and we know what follows on from something like this. It seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge, and it’s changing the whole notion of what marriage and what a family is.”

Today presenter John Humphries concluded by asking O’Brien whether he is afraid that his views risk creating the impression that the Catholic Church is “way behind society”. The Cardinal responded by suggesting that society may have “progressed” too far:

“I think it’s time now to call a halt to what you might call ‘progress’ in society, I don’t call ‘progress’ the things that are happening nowadays, and when we talk about the thin end of the wedge, we remember that Abortion Act in 1967, when we were told there would be clearly-defined ways when abortion might take place, and now we know there is around seven million abortions since that happened, and further aberrations are hinted at at this present time. The same would happen if same-sex unions were defined as marriages. Further aberrations would be taking place, and society would be degenerating even further than it has already degenerated into immorality.”

Same-sex marriage looks set to become a key battleground in coming months. Today’s Daily Telegraph reports that the Catholic Church is planning to mobilise its congregations in opposition to the plans, while secular and liberal Christian campaigners have rallied to condemn the recent attacks on gay marriage. Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has condemned O’Brien’s remarks, suggesting that the Cardinal should welcome the fact that gay couples wish to get married:

“Cardinal O’Brien is out of touch and intolerant. Opinion polls show that most Christians support gay equality and that 61 of the public support the right of gay couples to have a civil marriage in a register office. Only 33% disagree … If he supports marriage, the Cardinal should welcome the fact that many lesbian and gay couples want to get married. Same-sex marriage does not detract in any way from heterosexual marriage. It does not diminish or devalue marriages between opposite-sex couples. 

Cardinal O’Brien has attacked government plans as an attempt to redefine marriage. But the churches have redefined marriage in the past. They no longer oppose divorce and the remarriage of divorced couples. There is no reason why marriage should not be redefined to include lesbian and gay couples.”

Meanwhile, a Coalition for Equal Marriage (C4EM) launches this week, supported by Stonewall, the British Humanist Association, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, the LGBT+ Lib Dems, the Pink Triangle Trust and the Metropolitan Community Church of North London. Over 11,000 people have signed a petition supporting gay marriage so far, and you can add your name by visiting the C4EM’s website.

New Humanist

A Catholic cleric who hit out at the “madness” of the Government’s gay marriage plans has been condemned for “scaremongering”.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, accused the coalition of trying to “redefine reality” and claimed the proposals were a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right.”

But his comments were roundly criticised amid fears the outburst would fuel prejudice.

In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Cardinal O’Brien wrote: “Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

“Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another?”

Plans to introduce civil gay marriages have divided the Conservative party and put David Cameron on a collision course with a number of religious leaders. Cardinal O’Brien’s attack was the most outspoken attack to date.

But the Prime Minister is a “passionate” advocate of the change, telling his party two years ago he supported gay marriage “because I am a Conservative”.

Margot James, the first openly lesbian Conservative MP, criticised the “apocalyptic language” used by the Cardinal and accused him of “scaremongering”

“I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk,” she told BBC 1’s Andrew Marr Show. “I think that the Government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. It is a purely civil matter.”

Labour’s Deputy Leader Harriet Harman said she hopes the comments would not end up “fuelling or legitimising prejudice”. “We have had prejudice, discrimination and homophobia for hundreds of years, that doesn’t make it right,” she told the show. “I don’t want anybody to feel that this is a licence for whipping up prejudice.”

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

Last year, the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries sealed a landslide victory in our annual Bad Faith Award contest after accusing humanists of favouring infanticide. Her suggestion prompted numerous objections and refutations from humanists, who were keen to point out that a) they don’t support infanticide and b) even if someone who is a humanist did, it wouldn’t therefore apply to all humanists.

Those arguments, however, seem to have had little impact on Dorries, who has this afternoon repeated her assertion that humanists favour infanticide. The prompt for doing so was the news that the Journal of Medical Ethics has just published a paper entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”, in which Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University consider whether the arguments used to justify abortion could also be used to justify the killing of newborn babies. The abstract of the paper is as follows:

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Controversial? Yes. Evidence that humanists support infanticide? No, of course not. Even if the authors happened to be humanists (I can’t find any information, admittedly in a brief search, that indicates whether they are or not), that wouldn’t have any bearing on what other humanists think. But that hasn’t stopped Dorries taking to Twitter to repeat her sweeping attack on humanists, posting two tweets, one linking to the Catholic Herald’s coverage of the story and the other to the Telegraph’s, both saying the following:

“This is also position of humanists, justification being that commiting the infanticide makes you happy”

And she hasn’t stopped there, following it up a few minutes later by saying:

“Evan Harris is a humanist and humanists support this http://tgr.ph/xlwj1G why do people wonder at his Dr Death Moniker. #welldeserved”

Dorries, of course, is a leading voice in the anti-abortion lobby, and humanists generally (but not universally) tend to be pro-choice, which probably explains why she is so keen to denounce humanism in this way. She is, of course, welcome to take issue with the arguments advanced by humanists who are pro-choice – indeed, it is in everyone’s interests to have a sensible debate about the issue. But it would be interesting to know why she feels the need to make such sweeping, ill-informed generalisations about humanists. Does she really think that all humanists, or a significant numbers of humanists, are in favour of infanticide?

If so, what is her evidence for this? And if not, why does she keep repeating the accusation? Does she think “humanists” are a large, monolithic group who all share the same infanticidal views, or does she recognise that it is a label that covers a diverse array of views, and that humanists will often disagree with each other, even over abortion. Does she not realise that many of her constituents in mid-Bedfordshire will be humanists, and will not appreciate her making sweeping comments about them in this way?

Those are just some of the questions Dorries’ latest comments raise - it would be very interesting to hear her answers.

Update: Looking at Dorries’ most recent tweets, it appears people have been tweeting her with some similar questions. Several seem to have asked her to explain why she accuses humanists in general of supporting infanticide. In reply, Dorries makes a statement about “the humanist movement [giving] an heroic accolade [to] the humanist who does believe this”. Here she is referring to Peter Singer, who, in her second blog post about humanists last October, she used as evidence that “humanists” support infanticide (in her first post she referred to a humanist who had “recently commented”, and then when challenged for evidence she produced some of Peter Singer’s writings from the 1970s and 1990s). Peter Singer was named ”Australian Humanist of Year” by the Australian Humanists in 2004 and, following Dorries’ logic, because he has explored the question of infanticide in his work, this means that humanists in general are in favour of infanticide. Which is clearly not the case, but there doesn’t seem to be any way of explaining this to Dorries.

In fact, as I was typing this update, one of our Twitter followers suggested to Dorries that her argument is “The same as saying all catholics are in favour of peodophillia”, to which she then replied, copying out Twitter name (@NewHumanist) in:

“No its not, we send Peodophiles to prison. Humanists give advocates of baby killing awards.” 

I have tweeted back to her with two questions:

 An Australian humanist organisation gave Peter Singer an award, therefore humanists in general support infanticide? (link)

and

Do you really think majority of humanists (millions worldwide, and many of your constituents, surely) support infanticide? (link)

I will of course, let you know if I receive replies.

New Humanist

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.