Letters to Newsline:

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.

Letters: 28 November 2008

From Rob Myers:
Someone asked in Newsline last week whether it was true that “protests by Islamic parents have succeeded in removing the teaching of the holocaust from the history curriculum”. It is not true. See the Teachernet website

From Robin Blick:
Gilliam McIver is rightly astounded and appalled by the thought that my claim that Islamic parents have succeeded in removing the teaching of the holocaust from the history curriculum might be true. Let me assure her it is true. She will, as I did, find this scandalous fact reported in the Mail and The Times Online of April 2, 2007.

From Dan Bye:
Secularists need to be very careful in seizing upon “political correctness gone mad” stories; they quite often turn out to be poisonous rubbish. Gilliam McIver asked in the last Newsline (21 November) whether it was true that “protests by Islamic parents have succeeded in removing the teaching of the Holocaust from the history curriculum.”

The short answer is no, it’s not true. Teaching about the Holocaust remains compulsory at Key Stage 3 (ages 11–14) in England (different rules apply to other parts of the UK). The misinformation, which appears to be inspired by racism, has been circulating in email spam for some time.

A report by the Historical Association in 2007, entitled “Teaching Emotive and Controversial History 3-19” is often cited in support of the claim. But that report cites just one school where the Holocaust was dropped from history lessons by teachers, because they lacked the confidence to confront any anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial that may have been expressed. We’ve seen similar fears in the teaching of biology, where teachers are often ill-equipped to deal with creationist views among pupils. Unfortunately, recent suggestions (for example by Michael Reiss) that teachers ought to be prepared to deal with anti-evolutionary opinion knowledgeably, through discussion and clear explanations of scientific method, have been conflated with advocating the teaching of creationism.

For more information on the Holocaust-teaching story, see the ever-reliable Snopes rumour-busting site.

From John Wainwright:
Faith bullying (the subject of last week’s Newsline editorial) was also discussed on the Sunday programme (Radio 4, 23 Nov), and it attracted a couple of comments from myself and another secular-minded listener, who made the following important point: “I hope we have not reached a stage where deference to religion is such that a child who express even the mildest scepticism or dissent over the beliefs of another is automatically labelled a 'bully’.”

Making such secular views known to the BBC programme makers and to the (admittedly few) people who read these comments is worthwhile in its own small way, and I'd encourage any Newsline reader who listens to Sunday to leave a message (which will of course be polite and intelligent and reflect well on the secular community!).

From Zoë Fairbairns:
It’s not just religious people who are opposed to “presumed consent” on organ donation. There are good secular and humanist arguments for insisting that our bodies belong to us rather than to the government – the same arguments which are made for free choice on abortion and assisted suicide.

We’re told that two-thirds of British people support presumed consent. Fine. Let them carry donor cards, and their consent will be — quite correctly — presumed. No doubt they are all carrying cards already. If they are not, the sincerity of their support must surely be questioned. Perhaps they only support it for other people?

An article entitled Organ Donation – an Outline for General Practitioners, published in 2002 by the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) makes clear that surgeons removing organs for donation frequently anaesthetise the “corpse” – suggesting that they are aware of the risk that it may not be a corpse at all. The article is available online.

I used to carry a donor card, but the RCGP article, coupled with the terrifying arrogance behind the notion of “presumed consent” has made me tear it up. As the sole proprietor of my body, I will certainly opt out of any “presumed consent” system. I hope I will not be required to fabricate a religious reason for this.

From Jonathan Davis:
I was reading this weekend the story of the Shrewsbury couple preparing to give birth to conjoined twins. They were going ahead with this against the advice of their doctors who (after their 12 week scan identified the condition) had urged that they consider the difficult decision of having an abortion. A quote from the mother stood out to me: “We decided against abortion because our religion is dead against that sort of thing anyway” [Sky News]. With the added revelation that the babies' father is the son of an evangelical preacher, this seems to me to be yet another startling example of religious belief helping to sway someone’s decision making process in a way which could cause great harm and even death, and it worries me that with all the publicity this case has produced, that others may follow their lead in choosing to be guided by their religious teachings and ignoring sound medical advice in the process.

From Nick Harding:
In response to the request for songs to play at Atheist weddings I would like to suggest Dear God by XTC. It’s on Fossil Fuel The XTC Singles 1977–92. Any song that was banned by religious bigots in America has got to be worth playing on a regular basis. One Florida-based radio station was threatened with a firebomb if they played it. Or by the same band Jumping in Gomorrah on their Go 2 album – sample lyric: “Jumping in Gomorrah and religion free!”

From Andrew Nixon:
My wife and I had Only With You by the Beach Boys played for our first dance at our wedding. A gentle and romantic song which is from the band's criminally overlooked early 70s career. No religious lyrics unlike their more well known love song, the admittedly excellent God Only Knows and a fantastic tune too. Also quite possibly the best song ever written by a drummer!

From Paul Braterman:
I fear I cannot join correspondent Gerry Moran (Newsline, November 21) in signing the e-petition calling for an end to sharia law in Britain which refers specifically to the use of Sharia courts in arbitration. If people choose to take their dispute to such a court, why within the bounds of existing law is that anyone’s business but their own?

Relatedly, as long as legal marital status remains the province of the normal civil courts, why is the role of Sharia courts in deciding the separate matter of Sharia divorce any more questionable than the role of the Orthodox Jewish Beth Din, which will not recognise a marriage between a male Cohen and a divorcee, let alone that of the Roman Catholic Church, which does not recognise divorce at all?

We may (I do) regret the fact that people take such mumbo-jumbo seriously, but liberation in such matters can only come from within.

From Michael Igoe
I’ve no objection to exorcism, if portrayed in drama (e.g BBC’s Apparitions). But does having Dawkins’ The God Delusion in my bedroom really damn me to Hell? If our ears are pestered relentlessly by the often homophobic godly, what’s wrong with reading the opposite viewpoint and so getting a balanced picture? Exorcism, however, is a very risky matter. Since my teens, I’ve had epilepsy. Godly people assured me it was through evil-doing. To the question, what I’d done wrong to deserve my seizures, no reply. Not a word on the subject from God either. In the six years my later marriage survived, somehow, my in-laws, rabid RCs all, repeated endlessly that I was under God’s curse or — again — punishment. It was plain my ‘offence’ was marital sex. Under the strain, unsurprisingly, the marriage folded: the self-fulfilling prophecy. If there was any curse at all, it was those very in-laws (and I have no doubt of that.)

I’ve been offered exorcism – and declined as politely as I could manage. If medication can, and does, relieve symptoms, is the alleged fiend in me afraid of a few pills? If so, I’m not impressed. Why just epilepsy? Is there a flu demon, or a dandruff devil too? I can see the absurd side of all this, but what of those who don’t, who are forced into exorcism and self-dread? Isn’t there a risk they’ll stop taking essential medication, to demonstrate their faith? With some epilepsy, mine included, not taking medication would mean death in months, a very nasty sort of death. I noticed one character in Apparitions, possessed by fiends, his torments clearly modelled on a severe epileptic seizure.

The truth is, there’s really only one fiend, one curse: superstition, as promoted by the godly.

From Dinah Foweraker:
I note Steve Hill’s comment this week that advertisers are not allowed to ‘make claims which cannot be substantiated’ – hence ‘There is probably no god’. I am looking forward to seeing the following statements on hoardings and buses:
Jesus probably loves you
Jesus was probably resurrected from the dead
If you believe in him you will probably have life everlasting
If you don’t, you will probably go to hell
Warning: Religion can probably damage your mental health. If you have a tendency to believe any of the above is probable, you are probably irrational and gullible. To seek help, call our Action Line and you will probably be put through to a sympathetic atheist.

From Paul Leigh:
I would strongly support the adoption of the ‘@’ sign as an expression of atheist/secularist conviction – far better than the awful 'brights'! May I suggest that, if the symbol was depicted in silver (Ag), it could also stand for 'ATheist or AGnostic', for those of a more flexible (pusillanimous?) disposition. If the NSS were to produce the appropriate lapel pins, I for one would be happy to buy one...

From Peter Curtis:
Loath as I am to mock a fellow secularist, Peter Magellan’s suggested logo to symbolise atheism — an upright magnifying glass — has already been spoken for. It is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyph ‘Was’ symbolising power and dominion and representing the god Seti – a god ‘great of strength’ (Wikipedia).

As not a lot of people know that, the magnifying glass symbol is more likely to be confused with the ancient Egyptian hieroglyph 'Ankh' – an upright magnifying glass with a horizontal bar across the junction of the glass circle and the handle (see Wikipedia). The literal interpretation of its meaning is ‘life’. There is much controversy over its origin. The one I prefer is that it is the superposition of the male symbol of Osiris (the cross) upon the female symbol of Isis (the oval) – symbolising intercourse. For the Coptic Christians it symbolises life after death. Moral: avoid symbolism — it will be misinterpreted — stick to rational argument, i.e. “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

From Sheila Kinsella:
I have sympathy with Shaun Joynson re: Samaritans Purse (Newsline last week). My local paper has a blatant bias towards all things Christian, this includes vast amounts of publicity for The Alpha Course, Baptist Street Wardens, and the infernal Shoe Box Campaign (and periodic ranting, Christian letter writers, usually regarding homosexuality!). I have been in battle with the Editor for several years, but have realised that often my protestations are fuel for his fire! I wrote at length about how ‘Samaritans Purse’ exploits our children and older people into providing a vehicle for their unsavoury global proselytising. The Editor waited a week before publishing my comments, and in the meantime obtained a statement from that organisation protesting their genuine altruistic credentials. Also in the same edition there was a two-page spread of smiling photos of all ‘the generous people’ who gave to this worthy cause – making me look a real meany! Ho Hum!

From David Panton:
While I entirely agree with John Rushby-Smith’s sentiments about rabidly catholic composer James MacMillan’s fatuities, one of the composers John lists was in fact ‘faith inspired’ for at least part of his career.

Igor Stravinsky’s

Symphony of Psalms

From Garry Otton:
I’ve just seen the Guidance on Spiritual Care and Chaplaincy in the NHS Scotland report, Holyrood’s latest pro-religionist document. Given the size of it, I bet it cost a pretty penny! I see from the Working Group it’s the usual suspects: Catholics, Church of Scotland and Islamists with Humanists mopping up any New Age misfits. Where are the Spiritualists? They represent the majority religion in Scotland now? There are more followers of psychic Glaswegian Derek Ogilvie than the potty Bishop of Motherwell. And more people glued to 6ixth Sense with Colin Fry on Living TV than tuning in to Thought for the friggin’ Day on BBC Scotland. The NHS boards are being asked to ‘promote research which broadens and enlightens the evidence base for the efficacy of spiritual and religious care in health”. Where is the Clause that prohibits the promotion of religion in hospitals?

From Desmond Barber:
While reading reviews of Daniel Everett's book Don’t sleep, there are snakes in which he, a linguist, describes his loss of faith while trying to teach a tribe in the Amazon about Christianity, I recalled reading about other communities/tribes in south and middle America that lived happily without religion until the Europeans arrived. I have the impression that I saw those accounts in material available from the NSS. If that is correct, can anyone suggest where I should look?

From Mike Ryan:
Even more good news from American politics. It appears that all the right-wing nuts are getting their knickers in a twist due to the fact that Obama hasn't attended church since becoming the president-elect, over three Sundays ago! Let's hope the administration continues on a similarly secular vein

From Giles Enders (South Place Ethical Society):
Muriel Fraser is quite wrong in her characterisation of the Humanist Liaison group (Newsline last week). The members of the Humanist Liaison Group are the British Humanist Association, the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association, the Rationalist Association and the South Place Ethical Society. By the decision of these organisations, the ‘intention of the group is to foster increased communication and understanding between its members, and cooperation and collaboration on matters of mutual interest’.

From Bob Hamilton:
Beverley Rowe’s interpretation of atheism seems to me to be completely at odds with what atheism actually is. I will assume that when she says that religions “are belief systems based on authority” and that “atheism is a belief system that denies authority” he is referring to supernatural authority, and not just any authority. Otherwise atheism would equate to anarchy.

To use the term “scientific truths” and then to qualify it with “as best established at any time” is creationist-speak. It’s dangerous to just accept the two terms having any meaning when put together and so I will spend a couple of paragraphs justifying that statement.

If something is a “scientific truth” then there is no belief involved, it just IS. Gold is an element. No qualification required, it’s just a fact. It’s not a fact “as best established at any time”. It's a fact that has been proven and described (by people with more knowledge than me). But just because I don’t know the details doesn’t mean that I can’t read about it from many and varied different scientific sources. If I had the resources, I could prove it for my own satisfaction using known, documented, and reliable methods.

A scientific theory on the other hand, is simply something that may or may not be true. After rigorous testing by peers, it may either be recognised as a fact, or shown to be false. But at no time is it a fact “as best established at any time”. Various facts may add weight to the theory, or may destroy it. So for example, I can understand people not “believing in” the theory of evolution in 1900, because there was little that was understood as supporting evidence. But in 2008 a multitude of facts have supported it. It has become a fact, and is only referred to as NOT being a fact by those who don’t want it to be true.

Everybody is born an atheist. They don’t have to believe it, they don’t “believe” anything about the supernatural. There is no reason to suppose that that situation wouldn't continue into later life, except that believers start telling them about gods, and creationism, and suchlike. In fact, “Sleep tight, mind the bed bugs don’t bite” is probably the first idea they get that there’s something to be afraid of when they’re asleep.

Fire burns skin, and that can be gleaned from getting burned by fire. Fear teaches us not to put our hand in the fire again. One fear is taught by word of mouth, one is learned the practical way. As time passes, people don’t have to “believe” that the bed bugs are to be feared, they gradually lose that belief. But they know that fire burns.

I’m not a believer in the supernatural Beverley, and I’m not a believer in disbelief, and I’m not fooling myself. You want me to believe in something, then Show Me. Refusal to consider it worthy of any thought until you’ve shown me some evidence is not a belief.

From Paul Stevenson:
Beverley Rowe surely has it wrong (Newsline last week). I am not fooling myself - I am not a believer but I am an a-theist. To believe in something is to be sure that something is true in the absence of any adequate evidence. I strive to have no beliefs at all. People easily conflate
the words ‘belief’ and ‘thinking that something is the case’ - a very different thing. (I think that Norwich City will lose again tomorrow but I don't believe they will). Simple really - but if you tell people that you strive to have no beliefs they look at you as if you are doo-lally.

From Martin Gill:
In response to Beverley Rowe’s comments that “Atheists who think they are not believers are fooling themselves” it should be pointed out that she is entirely wrong and is actually using a favoured canard of the religious.

Atheism is the absence of belief. It is not a belief. Two people can be atheists with entirely opposed views. Much as I dislike the religious loonies trotting out Stalin, they are correct that Stalin was an atheist, but his beliefs (basically that anyone that disagrees with him should be killed) have nothing in common with my own beliefs, nor I suspect with those of any members of the NSS. Far from denying authority, Stalin-the-atheist, considered himself the ultimate authority and used that authority to impose atheism (just as religious leaders impose their religion) on his nation, and there wasn't much evidence of any belief in scientific truth on his part either.

I am not defined by what I don't believe in, i.e. gods, but what I do believe in; human rights, civil liberties, the basic goodness of humanity, reason, critical thought and the effectiveness of science for understanding the world we live in.

What I believe can be defined as humanism, rationalism and similar -isms; those *are* beliefs and value systems. Atheist just means I don't believe in gods; it says nothing about what I, or Stalin, actually believe in. Saying that all atheists share beliefs just means you're saying that you share common beliefs with Stalin. I doubt that you do; and you shouldn't be encouraging the religious to think that of you; or the rest of us.

From Pete Watts:
Ian McKellen rips out the pages of Leviticus that offend him in hotel Bibles. However, by doing this he is essentially duplicating what many Christians do mentally, who ignore the fact that it calls for the death penalty for male gay sex and also prohibits the eating of pork and shellfish and other things that modern Christians don’t concern themselves with. The absurd and outrageous part of the Bible need drawing attention to, and the hypocrisy of the selective reading of it by modern devotees. Perhaps the offending pages should be left alongside the book, with a note: “How can anyone believe this tripe? And if you believe some of it, why not all of it?”

From Jane Turner:
Regarding the vexatious question of Gideon Bibles left in hotels, as mentioned by David Owen in last week's Newsline; you might like to know about the Abimelech Society. Hope this helps!