Sharia gets put back in its rightful place!

Unlike the USA, the United Kingdom has no '1st Amendment' to its constitution.  When it comes down to it, it has no constitution either.  People argue with me that a constitution would not help us in any way and that might be a moot point, but the net result is that there is no requirement for the separation of church and state.  Indeed, with the Church of England still performing the function of 'the established church' in England (although not in other parts of the Union) the prospect of such separation is a long way away.

Few would argue that the established church is much of a threat to morality and decency in England.  Its priests have generally behaved much better than their counterparts in the Roman Catholic Church and although it has an unfair and entirely undemocratic influence on the running of the government it is hard to find it as threatening to to justice and decency as Islam.

Last year, the supposed guardian of justice in the legal profession "The Law Society" decided unwisely to publish guidance for the preparation of wills which were compliant with 'sharia law'.  Now wasn't that a strange thing to do?  Sharia has no legal position in UK (thank God!) and those who agree to be bound by it are giving up the legal rights that they have under the real law.  The big problem is that the oppressive and self-elected 'leaders' of Islam have taken time and trouble to 'shelter' their followers from the truth of the legal rights that they do have.  Any guidance from the Law Society seemed to support this abusive relationship between Islamic leaders (all men of course) and the people.

Thanks to the National Secular Society (and others), The Law Society finally saw the error of its ways at the end of last November.  Apparently "the Society had 'reviewed the note in the light of criticism' and they had 'withdrawn the note' and were 'sorry' ."

That gives two causes for delight.  The main one is that it is 'one in the eye' for creeping sharia and a blow for secularism in England.  The other is the rare opportunity to see a hint of contrition from the blood-sucking lawyers.  It is not often that we see that happen!

Read more at this NSS link.

New RDFRS newletter revealed

The Richard Dawkins Foundation(s) for Reason and Science (RDFRS) have released a newsletter, the first one being available here.  (As you might know, there are two RDFRSs.)

Being a fan of Richard Dawkins and his work (as many of you will have spotted a long time ago) I eagerly clicked the link to see what fascinating information it might contain.  Richard has such a good way of spotting interesting things and presenting them in accessible ways.  I thought there was a good chance that it would be another thing that I would subscribe to, but unlike many of the others that I almost dread having to read, this one was going to be something that I would be eager to see.

So - did it live up to my expectations?  Perhaps the existence of two separate but linked foundations, East and West of the Atlantic might make it difficult to choose the content.  There was quite a good article by Sean Faircloth who is a powerful speaker and writer, but apart from that there was a bit of advertising (which I accept as being necessary), mention of a new member of staff (yawn! who cares?) and a selection of other articles that failed to get my full attention.

All in all, I have to say that I found it surprisingly disappointing. 

Let's not give up on them too soon, as they might find their feet and decide which country they really want to talk to.  I don't really mind which one it is, as I do listen to a number of US-centric podcasts.  However, most of those give UK a greater degree of prominence than the first edition of this newsletter has done, from its American heartland.

Very little of Richard's flair and enthusiasm comes through just yet.  Please try harder.

Now if you want a really good newsletter, (which happens to be UK based), you could do worse than that of the National Secular Society, which you can find here.  I actually look forward to getting that one by e-mail every Friday.

The rights of man - more Thomas Paine

Last year I wrote about Thomas Paine, the first New Atheist, having just read his book 'The Age of Reason' which was decades ahead of its time when written in the 1790s.  I hadn't followed up the subject very much until this week I heard an interview on The Pod Delusion (episode 193) with actor Ian Ruskin (starting at time stamp 14:32).  Ruskin is putting on a one-man play about the life of Thomas Paine, and if I was in London (and not working that evening) I might have made the journey to Conway Hall.

I have often wondered where the concept of human rights came from.  The very idea that humans had irrevocable rights has only gained much traction in the last hundred years or so, even though there were hints of it in the previous century.  I have even quizzed a visiting human-rights lawyer on the topic - although I didn't actually get any useful information from her.

Hearing more about Paine's work I am beginning to realise that he played a very significant part in the development of human rights thinking.  He might not had been the originator of all the concepts that he wrote about, but by distilling them into a book called 'The Rights of Man' he certainly brought them to the attention of the people.

Ruskin says that Paine deliberately chose not to protect the commercial rights to his work and that by doing so it meant that the books and pamphlets were circulated much more widely than they otherwise would have been.  Although not exactly a pauper at the time of his death, he was certainly not a wealthy man either.

He can also be remembered for a quotation that is still relevant today.

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” 

The latter part certainly applies in UK at the moment.

Lennox's non-fairy tale?

Oxford University Professor, John Lennox mumbled some incoherent nonsense (it is reported, e.g. here and here, and much better here) at the 'National Prayer Breakfast'.  Presumably Lennox is quite good at mathematics.  If not, he would not be a professor at Oxford University.  Nevertheless, if the reports of the event are to be believed then he seems to grasp very little of logic.  Isn't that surprising?

Apparently he 'preached' that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".

Can anyone explain to me how this can be true?  Surely atheism is the lack of all these religious fairy tales, not specifically the Christian fairy-tale that Lennox happens to like.

Perhaps Prof. Lennox has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, but if that is the only thing that makes him famous then perhaps he should be called 'a-famous'. 

As for blaming atheism for the "moral drift" in society, (as is reported), I would just point him to accounts of the activities of Roman Catholic Priests over recent years and indeed Muslim men who have married child brides over many centuries (collectively, at least).  Where is the moral drift now?  Has it been led by religious men, perchance?

Dismissing the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible, he said  "There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between world views, atheism and theism".

If not, why is he picking this particular fight? Moving on, we hear that:

"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is. 

Now . . . on this point we can agree.  One is a delusion and one is not. But then:

God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."

Lennox might tell us this.  But after all, this is just a fairy story!

Isn't it?

Dr Lennox was addressing over 600 people at the Bible Society-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament.
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpufvvOxford University Professor John Lennox told over 600 people at the National Prayer Breakfast why he is not convinced by atheism.

The math professor told guests at the Bible Society-sponsored event that atheism was a "delusion" and a "fairy tale for those afraid of the light".

He urged Christians to have "the courage to create public space" for the discussion of "a biblical worldview", as he pointed to the example of Tyndale, who translated the Bible into English 400 years ago and would eventually be executed.

Dr Lennox, who has been an outspoken critic of "God Delusion" author Richard Dawkins, blamed new atheism for the "moral drift" in society.

He also dismissed the common assumption that science and religion are not compatible.

"There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism," he said.

"God is not the same kind of explanation as science is. God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done."

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Dr Lennox was addressing over 600 people at the Bible Society-sponsored National Prayer Breakfast at the Houses of Parliament.
As Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, Dr Lennox has frequently spoken out against modern-day atheism, calling Richard Dawkins 'wrong'.
He said that the new atheism is responsible for 'the moral drift' in today's society. And he added that science and religion are not opposed.
'There is no necessary conflict between science and God, the real conflict is between worldviews, atheism and theism,' he said.
'God is not the same kind of explanation as science is,' he added. 'God is the explanation of why there is a universe at all in which science can be done.'
He warned that, 'The playing field is not level since atheism has become so dominant ... and is often regarded as the default position in the media.'
The risk of this is, he said, that society would forget 'the contribution of Christianity to the moral foundations of our society'.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Atheism is a 'delusion', a 'fairy tale for those afraid of the light'. That was the message from Prof John Lennox from Oxford University on Tuesday morning (25 June).
He also urged Christians to have 'the courage to create public space' for the discussion of 'a biblical worldview' in society - citing the example of Tyndale's translation of the Bible into English 400 years ago.
- See more at: http://www.baptisttimes.co.uk/index.php/national-news/986-atheism-a-delusion-john-lennox-#sthash.x2vSZjv2.dpuf

Action needed on FGM

Today, BBC Radio 4's 'Today' programme briefly mentioned the problem of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).  It interspersed this serious issue of child abuse in the name of Islam with trivial tales of someone high-wire walking across the Grand Canyon (or as it turned out, just across a tributary canyon).

That is shameful behaviour isn't it?

70 women go to the NHS every month for help relating to the medical problems caused by FGM, and this data only comes from the 6 of 15 specialist clinics that actually provided any data.  That might mean that the real figure is closer to 200 per month.

• Is this 'religious practice' illegal in UK?  Yes of course!  It is barbarism dressed up as religion.
• Are the authorities committing to its abolishment?  I suppose so.  They passed a law about it but that's as far as they went.
• Have they prosecuted anyone in the 18 years since the law was last clarified?  Not a single one (in spite of the 70 crimes per month).
• Is this the real face of Islamophobia?  I have no empirical evidence for the case, but it seems rather likely that people are afraid of being branded with this accusation.  Since they do have the data, why are they not acting to prosecute?
• What does this say about how big brother is watching us?  He doesn't have equality foremost in his mind!

Here we begin to see the problem with labels.  Islam, the religion of perpetual offence, has a special power over us and brands us as Islamophobes very easily.  Civil and criminal law is diverted in UK.  It is not that all muslims are in agreement over these matters.  However, the extremists shelter behind the nice people and all of them are fellow muslims first and only after that do they split into their various warring sects.

I say that the law is the law and although I would be reluctant to support lawyers, they must be able to do their work within the framework of clear secular law.

Religious 'law' (whichever religion) must be outlawed!  It is only truly outlawed after legal proceedings have succeeded.



Related links (although I don't seem to find one related to Today's feature):
Female genital mutilation victim was 'aged just seven'
MPs urge more action on female genital mutilation

Government-sponsored cruelty to animals

Here is another example of the spinelessness of the UK's barely elected government, and its indifference to animal rights along with human equality rights. 

The government has decided not to take the correct moral decision in this allegedly Christian country.  Instead they pander to the profits of religious minorities . . . for it is profit and commerce that counts for Cameron and his cronies . . . isn't it?  And halal and kosher butchers obviously need to make their profits.

Why is this decision stupid and wrong?  There are many reasons, but the following are obviously candidate reasons.

• Animal rights
• Surely we should avoid cruelty wherever possible
• Lies about these animals not suffering are to be doubted
• Religious rights
• Christians have to follow the law
• Secularists and atheists have to follow the law
• Muslims are exempt and can use their cruel slaughter techniques
• Jews are also exempt and can use their same-but-totally-different, cruel, slaughter techniques
• Human rights
• Why do secular abattoirs have to go to the extra expense of humane slaughter when religious abattoirs are permitted to avoid them?
• Since halal and kosher meat is over-produced and distributed on the open market, why should I have to eat it and not have a right to know what I'm eating?
• Since this meat is not labelled, what Quality Assurance is imposed?  Or are they exempt from QA too?  It wouldn't be a surprise . . . would it?
• Are religious people to be trusted in a secular world anyway?  When did you ever hear of anyone 'lying for secularism'?

I think the government is just frightened of the likely response from religious minorities if it took a fair and just stance. In doing this, it discriminates against the majority.

But then again, if this was an effective democracy they would not be in government anyway.

Progress for secularism

I was just enjoying a phone call with my mother who is a practising Anglican who lives in (fairly) rural Yorkshire. 

She told me how the vicar of her church is retiring in a month or two, and how his curate is off work with 'stress' and that he would not be applying to take over as vicar.

In my opinion you can't blame either of them for that. 

Meanwhile most of the neighbouring benefices are bereft of clergy.  Those who are there are not 'real' clergy but 'lay readers' and therefore they are not able to take communion services.

A few years ago I would have agreed that this was a tragedy.  English traditions are being swiftly eroded and the church is one of those traditions.

However, these days I'm covertly rejoicing about the idea of the impending demise of England's 'established church'.  I see this as good progress towards a secularist state.  That is to say that I don't begrudge anyone their religion but I have no desire to contribute towards it as a UK tax-payer.

Things Christians say, part 45: Can't you just make yourself believe?

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Can't you just make yourself believe?

Piano

Some people can clearly find ways to make themselves believe in God.  That fact is inescapable, and this is not a question of intelligence or rationality.  Those people are free to believe what they want.  In fact, it is observed that the more intelligent the person is, the more innovative they are at finding ways to rationalise their beliefs.

Then again it works the same for the opposite opinion.  If you find it difficult to believe things without any evidence (as I do) then I can say that I can't just make myself believe.

Empirical evidence might change that, but I would be very surprised if such evidence is ever forthcoming.

***

Forte

What do I have to do to get you to believe in the tooth fairy?  Or Santa Claus?  They are well documented in literature after all.  Yes, that literature is fiction, but then again many people believe the bible to be fictional too.  It is a collection of bronze age myths which are not well supported by historical evidence.



Last episode: Atheists are immoral
Next: Atheists are responsible for all the world's ills

Religious discrimination in Wales

Flint is a county in Wales.  It used to be most significant for having had a small detached section which was an island of Wales in North-West England.

Now it is notorious for another reason.

Apparently, according to the Daily Telegraph, parents will have to produce evidence that their children have been baptised before they can get on a bus to school!  Is this the UK's version of the bible belt?

So how can this type of activity be legal in a country like UK?

I blame the barely elected government for failing to act decently (again)!

Caste discrimination is not illegal??

I was amazed to find out today that it is not illegal in UK to discriminate against people of specific castes.

How can this be true in a 21st century Western Culture?  It seems almost unbelievable.  And apparently our government is doing little to change this. 

Fortunately The House of Lords has introduced an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Bill, as explained at the National Secular Society's site here.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "The Government set a poor example by refusing to follow the UN's recommendation last year to the UK to make caste discrimination unlawful – as it was obliged to do so by its international obligations. Instead, all the Government offered those suffering from caste discrimination was conciliation where there is conflict. The peers, however, were determined to aid the vulnerable more effectively by providing legal protection on caste. Their view prevailed, leaving the Government embarrassed."

I still find it incredible that caste discrimination was not outlawed over a hundred years ago!

I also like things that embarrass the current government!

Things Christians say, part 44: Atheists are immoral

A (more-or-less) weekly series (although there was a pause for a while) of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Atheists are immoral

or  You just don't want moral restraints - which is also addressed in this post

Piano

It is very frustrating to hear this old chestnut repeated over and over again.  Those who make this claim seem to think that it will become more true if they say if more often.  I leave it to the integrity and judgement of the reader to decide whether there is an validity in this approach?

So is it true?

I know atheists who sometimes joke about this topic.  Usually this happens in a situation where there is a question of honestly being discussed.  Take an example of having a meal with a group of people in a restaurant.  The bill is complicated, and the waiter makes an error and misses several of the meals off the bill, or maybe gives you the bill for a neighbouring table.  The net result is that the bill is for a figure much less than the actual price of the meals that you have eaten.

What do you do?  Well in a recent case of this in a restaurant in Oxford the table of atheists had this discussion.

Shall we be good honest typical atheists and tell the waiter about the error and pay the full sum? Or should we be typical Christians and read the bill like they read the bible - picking the bits they like and discarding the rest as irrelevant.  The choice was very easy and the waiter was suitably grateful.

Does this count as morality?

***

Forte

In this week when a pope has retired into a life where he is going to have to hide himself very well to avoid the risk of prosecution, let's look at a couple of big moral issues.

What does Jesus say about contraception?  I think you have to agree that he was silent on the subject, and only with the most convoluted theology could anyone claim any biblical teaching on the matter at all.  And yet the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is against the will of God, even where it is a matter of life and death.  Millions of people in Africa have been infected with HIV AIDS because of the teachings of priests, under the direction of The Vatican.  Is this objective morality?

Apologising for being too predictable, the issue of systematic cover-up of child abuse within the church must also be considered. (It is not just the pope, but it has happened in other countries too, notably UK as described here.)  Not only is it immoral in the minds of most people to abuse children, but then to move priests to new parishes were they can offend again is only compounding the problem and confounding justice.  To refuse to give the evidence to the secular authorities is not only immoral but specifically and clearly illegal.

Now try to tell me that atheists have lower standards of morality!

Who is it that fails to demonstrate moral restraints?


Last episode: God bless the pope
Next: Can't you just make yourself believe?

Things Christians say, part 43: Bless the pope.

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

God bless the pope

Piano

Admittedly not all Christians would like God to bless the retiring pope. But on balance I have even found that died-in-the-wool Protestants are more likely to support the pope that to support my view that he should be prosecuted for all the evil done in the name of his church.

Many would like him to have a long private retirement, in solemn prayer, forgiven for all his deeds.

I suppose he could be allowed solitude without living in luxury.  Justice might be better served it it could be arranged for him to be solitary in a prison cell for the rest of his days.

After all, he has a hotline to God, so he wouldn't be lonely.

***

Forte

There's an alternative point of view about Pope Benedict, of course.  Tim Minchin presented it in quite a forthright song - The Pope Song.  Follow the link if you want to hear it, but I should warn you that it contains bad language from the very beginning.  Alternatively this one is a slightly more entertaining and less polished performance. 

You might be offended by the repetition of disrespectful terms and tha amount of swearing.  Does it need to be so offensive?  Well I think it was done deliberately to make a strong and valid point.  As Minchin sings (towards the end of the song), if you find  him more offensive than the Catholic Church's tacit approval of the activities of many of its priests, then you are the one who is morally misguided!

Last episode: Who are you to question the almighty?
Next: All atheists are immoral

Restoring the right to insult!

The UK Government has been threatening for some time to introduce dangerously restrictive clauses into Section 5 of its 'Public Order Act', but it seems that common-sense has prevailed after all.

By including the word 'insult' in the act, it made it possible that you might be arrested for calling someone a policeman in the wrong tone of voice.  (And yes - that definitely was the wrong tone of voice in the last sentence.)

The fight against this egregious intrusion into civil rights has been led by the organisation called Reform Section 5, with support from many others including the National Secular Society (NSS).

That the government has backed down on this case seems truly surprising. Yes -  they experienced their heaviest ever loss in the House of Lords, being out-voted 3 to 1, but this rarely seems to make a difference to the barely elected coalition.

Read more about the story on the NSS newsletter.   While you are there, why not consider joining the organisation.

Dogma against alleged dogma - from The Pope

If the pope preaches that agnosticism contains its own dogmas, does that make it an example of someone using dogma to fight another dogma, or is it just a fallacious claim that is unsupportable.

In his January 5th statement, The Pope stated "Today’s regnant agnosticism has its own dogmas and is extremely intolerant regarding anything that would question it and the criteria it employs".

Let's think about that.  Can it logically be true?  If agnosticism is the state of claiming that you can't (or don't) know whether to believe in God, wouldn't the people who are agnostic want to ask questions and wouldn't they be interested in any questions that shed light on the situation?  It is only by a process of discussion that they can get off the fence on one side or another, and surely that is something quite important.

In other words, even more than usual, The Pope is preaching nonsense that is unsupportable by evidence of any kind.

This is another of those cases of Christianity claiming to be the victim, when in fact it is preying on other innocent victims for the sole benefit of the priestly class.  All Christianity works towards this aim, but the Roman Catholic Church's work is particularly egregious.

One also has to ask the question - does the wise old Pope confuse agnosticism with atheism or secularism?  He might perceive all three as threats.  I wonder why he singled out agnosticism.

Perhaps he is even more afraid of atheism and didn't dare to use the word.

A hollow victory - with a wry smile!

The news this week is full of the 'victory' in the European Court of Human Rights of an employee of British Airways, who wanted to wear a cross over her uniform.

What a hollow victory!  She was awarded the magnificent sum of 2000 euros in compensation for her distress.  The size of that award demonstrates that the whole case was risible, and that the judges in the court have a sense of humour after all.  When you consider that every lawyer involved in the long series of court appearances leading to this small 'victory' probably earned an order of magnitude more money than their client was awarded, you have to ask who really won the case.  As usual - it was the lawyers.

Do I care that she won?  Of course not.  That is the basis of secularism.  If she wants to wear a cross over her uniform so that its chain get caught and breaks from time to time I don't mind.  It won't affect my views about her religion (even if I personally feel different about her as a rational being).  

If someone wears a cross so obviously and ostentatiously then I feel that it is open season for people to ask them questions.  They could be practical:

"What does the T stand for?"

or doctrinal

"Do you really believe that the wine turns into the blood?"

or theological, sectarian, denominational . . . or simply logical

"How do you actually know that the bible is true?"

None of those questions would be appropriate with a normal person who did not advertise their point of view using an iron age symbol of torture.

What the news has almost failed to mention is that the other three cases heard at the same time were dismissed.  One cannot discriminate against gay couples on religious grounds or put patients at risk. (I think it was slightly perverse and contra-evidential to assume that hospital managers know anything useful about running hospitals, but we will let that one slip as it is probably true that lawyers know even less about it!)

The strangest thing is that the British Airways case was only won because the airline had tried so hard to reach a compromise.  They had changed their uniform policy in order to appease - and as a result they lost the court case.

Never mind.  Almost everyone is laughing at a militant Christian and it was worth it.

Could Nick Cohen be the new Hitch?

At the National Secular Society's conference last September, Nick Cohen gave a rousing speech entitled "How modern blasphemy works in practice".

In his introduction he included a quote from the late Christopher Hitchens:

“Its not enough to have free speech.  People must learn to speak freely.”

The contents of his speech and accounts of his work lead me to wonder whether he might pick up the mantle that was so tragically dropped a year ago, and the following notes might help you to understand why I suggest this.

A lady had said to him that morning on his journey, “What's the point of the NSS?  You've won haven't you? We're a secular society.”

She was missing the point.  We have a de facto blasphemy law.  It has not been passed by parliament and is not enforced by courts.  It brings with it no right to be innocent until proven guilty and there is no right of appeal. Instead, it is based on the threat of violence.  There is a huge system of self-censorship which overwhelmingly hurts the country. 

Cohen often sees the fear in editors and broadcasters eyes.  If we provoke the intolerant then we put people at risk.  People have now worked hard to develop this whole theory that to insult Mohamed is to perpetrate Islamophobia when in fact it is nothing of the sort.  Those who threaten retaliation are little better than truculent children and we can't expect them to behave as Westerners.

He suggested going back through the great writers in favour of free speech.

Milton's Areopagitica, 1644, pointed out the absurdity of censorship.  What kind of person would want to be a censor?  It certainly couldn't be anyone of talent or they would want to do their own work.  On that basis, anyone who wants to be a censor is unfit to be one.

More recently, The Jewel of Medina by Sheri Jones strove mightily not to cause offence, and in her version of the story of the life of Mohamed, Jones made him tell his wife to remain with her parents until she had grown up (which probably never happened even if a real Mohamed actually did exist, for which there is absolutely no historical evidence).  The book got a $100K advance.   Then in spite of bending over backwards to avoid telling the truth she was accused of causing offence!  Publication of the book was pulled.  A professor in Texas had said “This book is an insult to Islam” so the publisher believed him.  Eventually it was released by a new publisher, whose home was subsequently fire-bombed.  The very fact that someone said the above led to fire-bombing. 

Also everyone is afraid to admit that self censorship exists.  Journalists all like to pose as dissidents in a dictatorship, challenging establishments, transgressing boundaries – normally this is nonsense.  They simply seem unable to acknowledge that certain topics are just off-limits.

One reason why the banking crash came out of the blue was that journalists knew that challenging a city institution costs a lot of money to defend.  But no journalists want to say that they and their editors are afraid of litigation.  Because we can't admit our fear we make excuses. 

Cohen wants to emphasise the importance of at least being honest about being a coward.  The language of the liberal left has been corrupted and turned on its head to accuse people of racism etc.  Many people who use this language are genuinely afraid.

(John Stuart )Mill realised that there were other ways of confronting extremism than the law.  Online public opinion is one way now.  It is not hard to beat a holocaust denier in open argument and if you can't do it you shouldn't be in the business of trying.  It is important to have your answers ready and to make people feel absurd for using silly arguments.

A few hundred years ago you would know that the finest minds in the world, such as Isaac Newton, also had supernatural beliefs as a broad explanation of the world around them.  Now that is no longer possible.  As soon as you reach some level of knowledge you will know that the greatest minds of today do not hold those unscientific views now.  Religion is no longer able to be involved in high culture.  This makes religious people defensive and wary of learning.  Religion now knows itself to be intellectually on-the-back-foot.  Instead it can become ultra-fundamentalist and aggressive.

People don't understand the point of political extremism is that there always HAS to be something to keep their supporters inflamed. 

I think it is time for me to read more of Cohen's work, but first I need to complete reading Hitchens long book of essays, "Arguably"

Only two countries . . .

Did you know that there are only two countries in the world that do not have laws permitting divorce?

One of those isn't actually a real country, but more of a small patch of Italy which has a special dispensation to avoid paying tax on its obscene wealth.  It is The Vatican.  (It is also the 'country' with the highest crime rate per capita, and that figure even excludes the predatory activities of the priests who the Roman Catholic church has failed to surrender to the proper authorities.)

The other country, perhaps the only real country involved, is The Philippines.

UK census 2011 - good news!

The statistical results are now available for the national census of the UK, taken last year.  And those results are interesting in many ways, but from the point of view of a secularist the most interesting thing is what they say about attitudes to religion.

It seems that the number of people with no religion has jumped to 25%, and in Wales it is even higher.  The Office of National Statistics page gives the highlights of this section of the census.  As usual though, one has to ask what spin is being put on any statistical report.

'The religion question' on the census was the only one that was not mandatory.  The reason for this was not at all clear, but it gave 7% of people the chance not to respond to it.  Why would they not respond?  It seems unlikely that they preferred not to claim a religion but more likely that they did not want to admit to their doubts.  This idea might be supported by the observation that 

Between 2001 and 2011  there has been a decrease in people who identify as Christian (from 71.7 per cent to 59.3 per cent) and an increase in those reporting no religion (from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent). There were increases in the other main religious group categories, with the number of Muslims increasing the most (from 3.0 per cent to 4.8 per cent).

Norwich leads the way in atheism, with 42.5%.  I know that will disappoint at least one friend who likes to say that Brighton holds the record.  However, Brighton, with a disappointing 42.4% it will have to pull up its socks.  At least it has 9 years available to build up to a resounding victory in the next census.  To be fair to it, a larger proportion of the the Brighton population preferred not to answer the question, so it is possible that it still holds the lead in reality.

As you can imagine, the National Secular Society is not silent on the topic.  In Census shows huge drop in number of Christians in Britain they report on some of the results.  NSS president Terry Sanderson said: 

"Such an enormous reversal in the space of ten years is an indication of the huge upheaval there has been in religious attitudes in Britain.  It should serve as a warning to the churches that their increasingly conservative attitudes are not playing well with the public at large. It also calls into question the continued establishment of the Church of England whose claims to speak for the whole nation are now very hard to take seriously."

Atheist Canterbury

An atheist archbishop?

Aliens more believable than God!

Last week, the National Secular Society's newsletter reported that more Britons believe in aliens than believe in God.

A recent survey carried out by Opinion Matters for the makers of the new video game 'XCOM: Enemy Unknown' found that more people believe in aliens from other planets than believe in God. The survey of 1,359 UK adults found:

• 52 percent believe UFO evidence has been covered up because widespread knowledge of their existence would threaten government stability.
• 44 percent believe in God.

All statistics have to be taken with a pinch of salt, and I'm not sure whether this news is good or bad, or indeed what it says about my fellow Britons.  At first glance it sounds as though they are getting more sensible, but then you have to wonder about their lack of skeptical skills when it comes to conspiracy theories.