Have Your Say
Please send your letters for publication to letters@secularism.org.uk. We want to publish as many letters as possible, so please keep them brief. We reserve the right to edit. Opinions expressed in letters are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the NSS.
From Michael Igoe:
In his Daily Telegraph article, Damian Thomson (quoted Newsline 2 October), snarls that word of Pope Benedict’s forthcoming visit is already smeared by the usual complaints of ‘kiddy-fiddling’ (sic). It's all so last year, isn't it? And the year before etc. ad infinitum.
Mr Thomson, try to grasp the reality of what you so airily dismiss. It’s also known as rape, where penetration takes place. Where that doesn’t happen, it’s called indecent assault. Both are serious offences – worse if carried out on a minor. Not so long ago, the former carried the death sentence. In many places, it still does. If you had children of your own so treated, would you be so willing to dismiss it as a boring irrelevance? I doubt so – and I certainly hope not, for their sake.
It doesn’t matter one single jot if the Ryan Report referred to Ireland. There are innumerable cases of the same kind, not least in the US, where some dioceses are virtually bankrupt from damages paid. You can be quite sure it’s going on in some RC environment at this minute, somewhere. ‘Suffer the little children’ indeed. It’s 'only' 1.5%–5% of clerics who fall by the wayside, we’re told. So, that’s all right then, is it?
And the Vatican tries another favourite tack to shuffle off blame: it's all the fault of homosexuals, deliberately and without evidence conflating homosexuality with paedophilia. It’s only the sort of argument you’d expect from an institutionally homophobic institution, peddling its loathing of difference in faith schools and thereby giving the green light to the most vicious form of bullying.
So, Mr Thompson, it’s only kiddy-fiddling, is it? Let’s laugh it off over a beer? The memory doesn’t just go away, not one bit of it. Be assured of that. No, write to me if you want a first-hand description of Catholic sexual sadism. Please do. I’m not looking for money. The NSS is welcome to provide my e-mail address. And, please, show some courtesy at least to Mr Porteous Wood. He’s more deserving of it than the arrogant pontiff. And those injured by his employees deserve some more respect and concern that you exhibit. That one phrase, ‘kiddy-fiddling’, is enough to condemn you. Think of your own children, then say it again. Just try it.
From Rose Longhurst:
Just a quick note to respond to Simon Poole’s suggested boycott of Sainsburys – I’m not sure the charitable trusts have anything to do with the supermarket, bar being originally set up by the same family.
From Sunny Bains:
Simon Poole is right! If you go to Sainsbury’s corporate site: and search for “family charitable trusts” you’ll find: “The Sainsbury family and its charitable trusts remain major shareholders...”
The question is whether Sainsbury’s is worse than any other company in this regard. But my impetus to shop Ocado just went up!
From James Robinson:
Thanks to Simon Poole for pointing out Sainsburys’ link to the Jerusalem Trust. I was shocked at some of the things they fund according to recent annual statements on the Charity Commission website e.g. £20,000 to the Right to Life Charitable Trust to fund anti-abortion DVDs, and money to promote the Alpha course in prisons. Their money seems to come from investment returns (shares in Sainsbury's left by a family member?) rather than company donations. If so I am not sure what effect a boycott would have because the supermarket probably has no control over what shareholders do with their returns. The link is embarrassing for the company though, especially with Sainbury family members acting as Trustees.
A better example of corporate giving is the Co-operative Group which has secularism at the heart of its grant making policy: “… projects that are deemed to promote a particular religion are excluded from the scheme. For example, an application to refurbish a building that is owned by a particular religious group, but is open to members of the community outside that group, would be considered. An application for prayer mats or new bibles would not be supported.”
Perhaps this is not surprising given the secularist roots of the co-operative movement. The father of the movement was religious sceptic and Utopian socialist Robert Owen, and the creator of the term ‘secularism’ was the Owenite and first president of the Co-operative Union, George Jacob Holyoake, who in turn influenced NSS founder Charles Bradlaugh. Most of the Rochdale Pioneers were committed Owenites and secularists: one of the original 1844 Rochdale Principles was ‘Political and religious neutrality’. With the corporate greed of recent years, and millionaires like Brian Souter using wealth to push their religious agenda, I think the democratic co-operative movement is something secularists can be proud to have played a founding role in.
From Nick Harding:
Although writer of the anonymous letter in last week’s Newsline has rightly reported the taxi driver, I have found that nothing shuts up an evangelista quicker than quoting scripture right back at them. Most times they are not expecting it. If accosted at the door or in the street and given the Jesus jive, respond by saying to them Matthew 10 34–39. I have never met a Christian who knows this passage (it’s obvious why). Either learn it whole or just tell them to look it up. Adding as a final cheeky coup de grace that you want nothing to do with any religion with a so-called saviour who talks like that.
Ed writes: To save readers looking it up, the passage Matthew 10:34-39 says: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.”
From Denis Watkins.
Listening to the BBC World Service, I have just had one of those, “Tell me it ain’t so” moments. I hear that Tony Blair is now Gordon Brown's favourite candidate to be the President of the EU as Angela Merkel’s opposition to Blair has lessened. How is this possible? I thought he was to be put before an Investigatory Tribunal, although many would prefer a Court, for his activities in the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction debacle. Preceded, of course, by suspicions of what he and George Bush are alleged to have agreed. He might also, at last, find himself mired in the BAE Corruption Investigation into bribes to sell armaments. Blair, as President of Europe, would be a coup for the Vatican whose influence is leaching away as secularism spreads in Europe. First a poodle for Bush and now a gofer for the Pope! This couldn’t happen, could it?
Dr Pedram Kazemi-Esfarjani
Here is one of the best and most comprehensive conversations with one of the Danish cartoonists, Kurt Westergaard, and a Danish former newspaper editor, who also is a historian and the chairman of International Free Press Society regarding the background and the consequences of the Danish Muhammed cartoons in defence of the free criticism of religions and free speech.
From Peter Hobden:
I feel one of the main reasons that religious-affiliated hospitals want religious status is that it offers them tax and financial benefits which would not be available to non-religious affiliated hospitals and establishments.
I am not saying the religious hospitals don't have some good people working for them, or that they don't treat patients properly. But I am saying that I suspect their ‘faith’ in affiliation is certainly a financial one in many cases.
This seems, to me, unfair under competition rules. Hospitals that are independent and non-religious will not have the large tax and financial relief which is given to the religious hospitals. If you are going to start a hospital business, it seems to make financial sense under present rules to affiliate with some kind of religion – anyone will do, you don’t need to believe any of its doctrine, as long as you can get the financial exemptions and incentives.
Has the Monopoly Commission or Trading Standards (or other appropriate body) ever investigated this apparently unfair competition in healthcare?
From Rob Blackett:
Regarding last week’s Newsline, I note a certain tension between the Quote of the Week: “A constitutional society upholds freedom of speech and thought: it has no interest in its citizens’ feelings. If it sought to protect sensibilities, there would be no limit to the abridgements of freedom that the principle would justify.” (Oliver Kamm, Times) and the choice of headline for a story about a US appeal court’s decision to overturn a judgment against preacher Fred Phelps on the ground that his actions were protected by his first amendment right to free speech: “Court gives Fred Phelps a free hand to abuse bereaved families”.
From Tanya Jones:
I thought you would be interested in this case reported in the Metro, where Tim Nicholson is trying to prove that his environmentalist views carry the same weight as religious belief when it comes to unfair dismissal. I was particularly shocked by the quote from the company's lawyer: 'It is not enough to have an opinion based on information.' So if you believe in an invisible man in the sky, you're protected from being sacked because of your belief, but if you believe in actual proven facts, your employer can sack you any time they like! If anyone was doubting the need for an organisation such as the NSS, this case should be food for thought!
From David Dalby:
There’s been a lot of news about the Pope visiting the UK. I’m puzzled. Why is he allowed in at all? Given his background in the Nazi party, and his, and the Catholic Church’s position on....well, pretty much everything really.
This is a serious comment. Louis Farakan of the Nation of Islam is not allowed into the UK and he shares identical views with the Pope on many subjects. Actually it could be argued that the NOI is less objectionable because it doesn’t shelter paedophiles. I’d complain to Gordon Brown, but I doubt if it would do any good.
From John Finch:
A recent debate on Sharia Law by Sky TV, seen on YouTube. I found this so called balanced debate very one sided, in that it gave one side both the first and the last segment. Now anyone connected with teaching knows the maxim about first and last impressions, so this is again another example of biased news reporting.
From Alan Gore:
David Dalby wrote: “I see the church is to create a rap song to encourage young people inside their walls.” Perhaps the pope will sing it as I’ve heard that he’s a rap singer.
From Maureen Tateson:
Steve Hill should be aware that the 1944 Education Act only affects children of compulsory school age. Any act of religious worship cannot be imposed on children of his daughter's age. The sooner the requirement of a compulsory act of worship every day in schools is removed will be a great step forward but very unlikely in the near future, I regret to say.
From Gavin Orland:
Last April in Quebec a Sikh teenager was let off scot-free by a court despite being found guilty of threatening two schoolmates with a hair-pin normally used to secure his turban. This is just normal run-of-the-mill political correctness, but it motivated me to consider further the double standards applied to religions and the issue of Sikhs carrying kirpans (knives) – which they think they must do at all times.
Part 10 of the UK Criminal Justice Act 1988, Section 139, states that it is an offence for any person to carry a bladed instrument, including penknives with blades of more than 3 inches, in a public place without having a good reason for doing so. “It shall be a defence”, it says, “for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him— (a) for use at work; (b) for religious reasons; or (c) as part of any national costume”.
I believe there should be one law of the land, and only one, and that these kinds of exceptions should not be made for merely mystical reasons – especially when it comes to carrying knives. Outrageous though this idea might seem to some, it is already the case in Denmark, where the law is consistent on knife carrying, regardless of religion. While Sikhs are not known for being particularly violent and waging jihad, what concerns me about these kinds of exceptions is that all a person has to do is insist that such-and-such is done “for religious reasons” and it seems this will earn it a special exempt status.
Speaking of waging jihad, I am serious when I say that a Muslim could legitimately claim that the Qur’an instructs him to wage war against disbelievers and thus he needs to carry a weapon for this purpose. Where does this leave the above ruling? As for the “part of any national costume” clause, this seems even more bizarre. As far as I can see, only (a) above is any reasonable justification for carrying a knife and the law should be tidied up with the removal of (b) and (c).
From Kevin Dixon:
Further to the report about the desperate rap song by the Anglican Church, the Bishop of Exeter has joined the campaign by giving out chocolate bars at Exeter Railway Station. So, the next time an elderly man offers you sweets and asks you back to his place, be even more afraid...
