Newsline 13 March 2015

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Christianity has “lost status” because of equality and human rights legislation, say evangelical Christians News \| Thu, 12th Mar 2015 An Equality and Human Rights Commission report has found that "some Christian employers, service users and providers" believe Christianity has "lost status" because of equality laws. In a new report published by the EHRC into the personal experiences of employees, employers and service providers concerning "religion or belief" in the workplace, many respondents described workplaces as an "inclusive environment" where they could take time off for religious holidays and discuss religion with employees or customers. However, some "employees and students" claimed to have "encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments" either because they were not religious, or because of a religious faith they held, whilst some Christians criticised equality and human rights law, blaming it for Christianity 'losing status' in the UK. The report drew attention to "some evangelical Christians [who] felt that Christian beliefs had lost their place in society and that this made it more difficult for them to express these beliefs in the workplace and in service delivery." This group of respondents felt there was now "less respect for religious beliefs." The EHRC found that some respondents "wanted to be able to discriminate on the basis of their religion in employment (for example, when recruiting new staff) and when providing goods, services and facilities." Mark Hammond, CEO of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the Commission would use the evidence to "examine how effective the law is in this area". Stephen Evans, campaigns manager for the National Secular Society, said: "Christians fearing that Christianity has lost its status is not a valid reason for revisiting our equality laws. We've got a good equality framework in the UK which means people's religion and beliefs are being accommodated so far as is reasonable, and competing demands are being balanced. Britain is a better, fairer, place for it. "However, what emerges from the report is a clear sense that there are some evangelical Christians who really do feel they have a right to express and manifest discriminatory beliefs in the workplace. Religious beliefs are a personal, private matter, and discrimination, whether derived from religious beliefs or not, has no place at work. The EHRC report found that respondents had "encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments in relation to holding, or not holding, a religion or belief". It also heard that "pupils with and without religious beliefs … described being mocked and ridiculed by teachers because of their beliefs." Whilst many people felt able to take time-off for religious holidays, "non-religious staff were resentful when they believed that religious colleagues received more favourable treatment in relation to time off and time away from work." The report also noted that tensions arose for staff when "religious colleagues used spaces (e.g. meeting rooms) that were not meant solely for religious purposes." Certain religious beliefs were also found to be causing problems in workplaces, with employers and managers concerned that some types of religious observance "led to reduced productivity and health and hygiene concerns". The report gives the examples of "employees fainting when fasting" and "infection control issues arising from the desire to wear headscarves in surgical theatres." Additionally, some managers "felt that it was difficult to discuss religious beliefs and observances with some staff in a reasonable way without them making a complaint." Some Christian employees raised 'conscience' objections to being "directly involved" in the marriage of same-sex couples, and asked to "look again" at the concept of "sufficient accommodation" for religious beliefs in the workplace. There were also complaints from some groups that sexual orientation 'trumped' religious beliefs. NSS president Terry Sanderson said: "I think it is important to emphasise that the group of 'evangelical Christians' who are creating this controversy are small in number and not likely to be representative of the average Christian in the workplace. Their constant agitating should not result in the Equality Act being compromised. "The previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams criticised them for being unreasonable and told them to 'grow up'." Many responses were concerned with how to deal with "harassment, unwelcome proselytising and discrimination", and the EHRC note that this was "especially the case when discriminatory views were expressed about women and LGBT staff." There were particular problems in health and social care, with respondents "concerned about practitioners outlining their own beliefs to vulnerable patients and clients." One doctor was recently stripped of their license to practice medicine after performing an exorcism on a mentally ill patient. The provision of vital services by religious groups was also raised in the consultation, with the "limited availability of care homes which were not run with a religious ethos" receiving criticism. The EHRC also received calls for better labelling of food to take better account of consumers' beliefs, to allow them to make more informed choices. The full report can be read here
	Social Integration Commission calls for limits on new faith schools News \| Mon, 9th Mar 2015 A new report by the Social Integration Commission has warned of segregation in Britain and called on the Department for Education (DfE) to place limits on new faith schools. The report, Kingdom United? Thirteen steps to tackle social segregation', warns that "highly diverse areas are not necessarily integrated" and that "school-age young people are segregated by ethnicity." The report notes that "increased numbers of children [are] being educated in peer groups dominated by a single faith group or community" and makes a number of recommendations to avert further social division in the UK. Given the dangers of segregation in a country which is on the whole becoming more diverse, the report argues that the DfE should only approve applications for new faith schools "when the petitioners have a clear plan for pupils to meet and mix with children from different faith backgrounds and communities." The Commission says that "every school should provide opportunities for their pupils to interact with children belonging to different ethnic groups and income backgrounds." The report was welcomed as "a step in the right direction" by the National Secular Society, which campaigns for inclusive schools underpinned by secular principles. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "The long-term impact of dividing children by their parents' religion should be obvious. This report demonstrates the huge potential damage to our society if children are divided by the religion of their parents, and the very real danger posed by lack of integration between different religious and ethnic groups. "Religion is a matter for parents and family life, the state should have no role in perpetuating religious divisions through schooling." "The solution is clear, parents have the right to raise their children in a religious tradition, but they should not have a right to isolate their children from other groups on the basis of faith, or to ask the taxpayer to fund the furtherance of their religious beliefs in schools. Children have the right to an education which prepares them for life in modern Britain." The Commission also calls upon the DfE to investigate "the potential benefits of requiring all schools to devise a social mixing strategy." The report attributes the increase in pupils being educated in faith schools to "the recent drive to open free schools", and raises the alarm over the potential consequences for social integration. The Commission argues that the increase in free schools needs to be reconciled with a "commitment to social integration". The report suggests faith schools from different religions could build new facilities for shared use, or "co-locating" faith schools "within shared campuses." One such school, believed to be the first in Europe, was recently approved to open in Scotland. The campus will be a joint site shared between Jewish and Catholic schools. The report argues that "all children should be taught about faiths and cultures other than their own" and that "all schools should seek to include opportunities within their religious studies programmes for pupils to mix with and study religious practices and ethical questions alongside children of different faiths and backgrounds." The Commission also found that "the small number of Muslim faith schools in the UK are experiencing particular difficulties in ensuring their pupils are able to meet and mix with children from different backgrounds." Citing "public anxiety regarding religious extremism in our schools" the Commission argues that "we must make promoting social integration an important element of our approach to education." In addition to its findings on faith schools, the report also argues that "publicly-funded moments of celebration should be open to people from all religions and none." The Commission found that "it is not uncommon for people to feel alienated by and unwelcome at nominally-public celebrations rooted in religious and cultural traditions other than their own." The National Secular Society campaigns for all public celebrations, such as the coronation, to be secular in nature, so that they are accessible to all.
	Eric Pickles' 'evangelical charter' on its way to becoming law Opinion \| Thu, 12th Mar 2015 A small group of Christians in parliament are changing the law to give local authorities the power to summon councillors to prayers. Stephen Evans argues that the right to freedom of religion should always be balanced by the right to be free from religion. A small group of Christians in parliament are changing the law, almost unimpeded, to give local councils the power to introduce prayers to their meetings. Communities secretary Eric Pickles, who regards Britain as a "Christian country" was outraged by the National Secular Society's 2012 High Court victory which delivered a landmark ruling that local councils had no statutory powers to summon councillors to prayer. The local government (religious etc. observances) bill is his revenge. Immediately after the ruling, Pickles vowed to strike a blow for "freedom to worship over intolerant secularism". Shortly after the ruling he fast-tracked the Localism Act's 'general power of competence' which he claimed gave principal councils the power back to include acts of worship as part of their official meetings. According to his department, this new bill simply corrects what it regards as an anomaly – and extends the power to hold prayers to smaller town and parish councils. This claim shouldn't be taken at face value. Despite Pickles' protestations, it's not at all clear that the Localism Act actually permits principal councils to include acts of worship within their official business. Playing to the gallery and incensed by hysterical Daily Mail headlines about Christianity being 'under attack', Pickles announced that the "general power of competence" in his new Localism Act would "effectively reverse" the high court's ruling on council prayers. But this is an untested assertion. There is no mention of prayers in the Localism Act, nor in any of the debates which gave rise to it. Keith Peter-Lucas, a local government lawyer and partner at public services law firm Bevan Brittan, has expressed doubt about Pickles' wishful thinking: "This general power has been oversold as a universal panacea. Despite the secretary of state confidently saying that this immediate implementation should effectively overtake Mr Justice Ouseley's ruling, the new general power may actually offer little assistance in this instance." A number of other senior lawyers have also expressed doubt whether the Localism Act does, as Mr Pickles claims, make the inclusion of prayers in local authority meetings lawful. The Act was clearly not passed with that express intention. So it seems the scope of this bill may not be as modest as its proponents would like us to believe. The bill also gives authorities in England an explicit power to "support, facilitate, or be represented at religious or similar events". But can't they already do this? Somewhat bizarrely, it's claimed by the bill's backers that, left unchallenged, the high court ruling could prevent local councillors from laying a wreath at a Remembrance Sunday event. At second reading in the Lords, Lord Cormack even suggested the bill was necessary to allow councils to close roads so people attending such ceremonies could do so safely. This is nonsense on stilts. The high court ruling simply clarified that local authorities have no power to hold prayers as part of their formal meetings or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda. Of course councillors should be free to facilitate and attend important local community events where there may sometimes be a religious element, but there is absolutely nothing in law that currently prevents them from doing so. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous and should raise alarm bells about the real motivation behind this bill. The effect of this bill is to give councils and a range of other authorities such as fire and rescue authorities, joint waste authorities, internal drainage boards and even Transport for London the power to 'support religion' and impose prayer. It reads like an evangelicals' charter. It is true that nobody will be "forced to pray", but surely the religious freedom bar should be higher than that? This bill will permit local authorities to summon councillors to acts of worship. They may excuse themselves from the religious element of the meeting, and – if they can face it – shuffle out and, when the moment seems right, slink in again in full view of the public gallery. But there's no justification for placing such a burden on councillors. Surely our civic meetings should be conducted without anyone feeling compelled to participate in prayers, or feeling excluded, or that they have to absent themselves from any part of the meeting. Secularism promotes inclusivity. Prayers do not. In arguing in favour of the bill, MPs and peers have remarked that both the House of Commons and House of Lords begin proceedings with prayers. It is indeed true that when the Chamber is at its busiest, parliamentary prayers act as a bizarre and antiquated seat reservation system; on certain days MPs and peers have no option but to attend prayers in order to reserve a seat. But this, to some 'quaint' tradition, also serves to assert the superiority of Christianity and the Church of England in particular at Westminster. Although the 'appeal to tradition' is persuasive to some, many regard parliamentary prayers as an anachronism –inimical to a modern pluralistic secular democracy. Opposing the bill in the Commons, Conservative MP James Arbuthnot said the practice seemed "out of touch with the majority of the people we represent, because only a tiny proportion of our constituents go to church." Perhaps some MPs and peers ought to check their privilege. Local authorities aren't religious communities. They should strive to be seen to serve the whole community equally. Councillors and the local communities they serve will not share a particular faith characteristic. Institutionalising a particular religion within the formal business of a council meeting or identifying the council with a belief - or even a range of beliefs - impedes councils from being equally representative of all local citizens. Given that Christianity is the dominant religion in the UK, some councils may decide to start with Christian prayer. In other areas, Islamic observance may be chosen. This is the case in Oldham, where we see elected councillors standing to attention as the Mayor's imam declares "Allahu Akbar" and prays to the Almighty Allah to help those who are suffering in all parts of the world – but particularly Palestine. Many who find the prayers embarrassing and possibly even anathema will choose to quietly but uncomfortably sit through them rather than leave the chamber. They are at the least the victims of bad manners, but is it not completely unreasonable to impose acts of worship on the unwilling? Surely there should never be any compulsion in religion. This is why religion belongs in the private, rather than the public, sphere. As the Earl of Clancarty argued at the Lords' second reading, the bill will be a "recipe for divisiveness and potential problems". Many local councillors make a huge contribution to the communities they serve. Many will be motivated by their personal faith, and if they wish to pray for guidance prior to meetings they are free do so. But why do we need a law to enable believers to impose their worship on others by making a public show of it? A point so many politicians miss is that freedoms of thought and conscience apply equally to all believers and non-believers alike. The right of individuals to freedom of religion should always be balanced by the right to be free from religion. This bill is an attempt by a handful of religious enthusiasts in parliament to facilitate the encroachment of religion into secular spaces. Secularist peers have tabled a number of amendments in the Lords to make sure they don't get away with it. I wish them Godspeed. Stephen Evans is the campaigns manager for the National Secular Society. The views expressed in the blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Secular Society. This post originally appeared at politics.co.uk.
	New NHS guidance requires hospitals to provide pastoral care to non-religious News \| Tue, 10th Mar 2015 New guidance published by NHS England will require hospitals in England to consider the needs of non-religious patients by ensuring they have access to appropriate pastoral care. The National Secular Society has cautiously welcomed the new guidance, after previously criticising an earlier draft for failing to adequately recognise the needs of patients who do not identify with a religious faith. The NSS has longstanding concerns about the inappropriate and unsustainable nature of faith-based chaplaincy in the NHS. The report, Promoting Excellence in Pastoral, Spiritual and Religious Care, sets out to "respond to changes in the NHS, society and the widening understanding of spiritual, religious and pastoral care." The guidance states that "it is important to note that people who do not hold a particular religious affiliation may still require pastoral support in times of crisis" and defines chaplaincy as "intended to also refer to non-religious pastoral and spiritual care providers who provide care to patients, family and staff". The guidance also makes clear that patients and service users have a right to expect that chaplaincy care will be experienced as neither insensitive nor proselytising. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "The acknowledgement that the non-religious should have equal access to appropriate pastoral support is to be welcomed. As the new guidance acknowledges, society has changed drastically in recent years, and a significant number of patients are not being best served by religious-only chaplains. "However, the adoption of a multi-faith approach, rather than a truly secular system of chaplaincy, is problematic. With finite resources available, there is a real risk that a multi-faith chaplaincy service will still leave the non-religious and those of minority faiths disadvantaged. "Rather than providing chaplaincy within a religious framework, the NHS should strive to offer emotional and practical support to all patients and staff equally – with pastoral care positions being open to anyone with the necessary skills to provide such support, regardless of their religion or belief. "Religious care, where required, could be provided and funded by the religious communities themselves". Dr Antony Lempert of the Secular Medical Forum said: "The recognition by NHS England that it is not only religious people who require comfort and pastoral support at times of distress is welcome and long overdue." He added that whilst the new chaplaincy guidance is "certainly a step in the right direction" it "doesn't go nearly far enough." Dr Lempert noted that there is still a requirement for chaplains to "abide by the requirements of their sponsoring religious or belief community" and argued that "in certain cases this may result in conflict between the traditional views of some religions and in particular disapproval of certain lifestyle choices or expression of sexuality and the non-judgmental, supportive role that all NHS staff should be offering." Dr Lempert added that "it is encouraging that the authors of the new guidance have at least recognised this potential conflict and have advised that all chaplaincy staff should adhere to equality legislation above all." However he questioned how this was to be reconciled in practice with the fact that "certain religious groups following religious dogma have fought equality legislation tooth and nail." "The recommendation that a proportion of NHS jobs be reserved for people of faith runs counter to the direction and spirit of equality legislation. If chaplains are to be employed by the NHS, about which there remains considerable debate, then they should be employed on merit just like everybody else. "All chaplains should be able to provide succour and support to all patients irrespective of their own or the patients' personal beliefs. If specific religious care is requested by patients then the chaplain should be able to signpost patients in the right direction. "To suggest that certain religious groups of patients deserve specific religious staff of their own denomination to cater for their special needs serves only to maintain the traditional privileges afforded to religious groups. If chaplains are to be appointed on the basis of their religion to serve patients of their religion then such an overtly religious role should be paid for privately by the religious groups who will benefit from this." In 2009/10 NSS research revealed £29 million was spent on hospital chaplaincy from NHS budgets.
	UK government criticised for stalling on caste discrimination News \| Wed, 11th Mar 2015 The Government has been criticised for not taking action to tackle caste-based discrimination after a long campaign by anti-caste campaigners to have it specifically recognised under anti-discrimination laws. Baroness Garden of Frognal has written to NSS honorary associate Lord Avebury, stating that the Government "have no plans to launch the consultation imminently, since it would not be appropriate to run public consultation of this sort in the period immediately before an Election." In 2013 the Government undertook to "carry out a full public consultation on the prospective legislation in early 2014." Shortly after this guarantee, Lord Avebury warned that the Government was intentionally dragging out the process of dealing with caste-based discrimination until the General Election. Now, Baroness Garden writes that "there is now no longer sufficient time in the current Parliament for public consultation of the appropriate length for this complex and controversial issue to be carried out." The Government claims that a remedy for caste discrimination is already available under the Equality Act 2010. It has argued that an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling made complaints about caste-based discrimination possible under the "ethnic origins" provision of the Equality Act. However in February 2015 Lord Avebury questioned this, and noted that the judgement in question "is not binding on all future cases of caste discrimination." Additionally, House of Commons research concluded that caste discrimination is currently unlawful only if "the circumstances of the case fall within the existing prohibition of race discrimination." Peers were highly critical of the Government's handling of caste discrimination in February, and NSS honorary associate Lord Cashman described the Government's "procrastination" as "entirely unacceptable". Research suggests that as many as 200,000 people in the UK may be affected by caste based discrimination. Baroness Garden wrote that the Government has "always slated that we completely oppose caste discrimination and in that context we note that the judgment opens the possibility of legal remedy for claims of caste-associated discrimination under existing legislation". The National Secular Society has argued that this remedy is at best partial, and that the Government has an obligation to enact secondary legislation tackling caste directly. Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, said: "The government has been directed to introduce anti-discrimination legislation by parliament and the UN. For it to defy both can only be explained by conflict with a strong vested interest. "Victims of caste discrimination deserve much better and will rightly feel betrayed by the Government's failure to meet its obligations." He added that the NSS would continue to lobby the new Government after May's General Election to ensure it takes the appropriate action.
	Deference to faith is preventing effective challenges to the “horror” of witchcraft accusations and persecution News \| Thu, 12th Mar 2015 The Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network (WHRIN) has warned that "considerable reluctance" to intervene in people's faith is preventing an effective response to suffering caused by witchcraft accusations. WHRIN, which campaigns for a "world where all people can live freely without fear of their rights being abused due to the belief in witchcraft", urges serious consideration for the suffering caused by witchcraft accusations and persecution (WAP) and warns that the issue has "slid beneath the radar." They write of how "women accused of witchcraft are beaten to death in India, mutilated in South Africa and Uganda, and burned alive in Papua New Guinea, while elderly women die in their burning houses in Kenya. Small children and even babies may be subjected to cruel treatment and violence because of these misguided beliefs." In a written statement to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Gary Foxcroft, executive director of WHRIN, warns that the killing of women for witchcraft "has not be consigned to the history books" and urges more research into the problem to establish its scope and how many women are effected by WAP. Mr Foxcroft writes that "there appears to be considerable reluctance to intervene in areas that impinge on people's faith" and notes that "many in the international community fear being seen as contravening Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights" which guarantees freedom of religion and belief. However, he argues, "there must be greater understanding that this right does not supersede other human rights, such as the right to life." WHRIN compares the approach to witchcraft accusations and persecution with female genital mutilation (FGM) and other forms of gender-based violence which are perceived to be related to religious or cultural beliefs and argues that persecution because of beliefs about witchcraft has been neglected. WHRIN are contributing to the growing research in this field and have challenged the assumption that such practices are exclusive to any particular country or culture. In 2012 the Metropolitan Police warned that children believed to be possessed by evil spirits or believed to be witches are at "clear and immediate risk of significant harm". The group has called on the UN to "do more to understand why these abuses are still taking place, why so little is being done to stop them and why governments, UN bodies, NGOs and faith groups remain unaware and unresponsive" and urges for "concerted pressure on governments, UN agencies, faith leaders, and civil society to ensure that the current scourge of WAP does not to continue." Read the full WHRIN statement to the UN Commission on the Status of Women here.
	The Church, gratitude and the erosion of innocence Opinion \| Wed, 11th Mar 2015 A parent writes about the problem of innocuous children's activities run with a hidden religious agenda, and defends his right to raise his children how he wishes, without organisations using playgroups as a cover for proselytising to children. There are probably many dads out there who would find this image beautiful. Not me. In fact, it makes me very uneasy – and it's particularly concerning to me now because I've just found out that my own 3 year old daughter is being led in prayer at a local playgroup. The Church still plays a big role in the community in the UK. Churches and church halls are great facilities which run and host any number of activities and groups, some of which are very handy for parents looking for something to do with their kids. And it's all put forward as being very open and caring and innocent and, quite honestly, I'm made to feel bad for being sceptical. But, of course, I try to be magnanimous – mostly for my daughter, who deserves a variety of activities – and trust that these activities, held in church-halls, which purport to be god-free, are indeed run out of the goodness of people's hearts, rather than as an opportunity to sow the seeds of religion in innocent young minds. So, you can imagine my surprise when my daughter put her hands together one night as I put her to bed, and began reciting a prayer. It was a heart-sinking moment, which marks a crushing realisation in my life as a hopeful person and dad; I cannot protect her. And some people can't help themselves. Turns out she was being led, with the rest of the children at the playgroup, in saying grace. The playgroup is held in the hall of a Catholic church but, like all of these groups, the suggestion is and has repeatedly been made to me, that this is simply a matter of logistics. And, when dealing with the minds of 3 year old children, you'd be forgiven for assuming that there would be nothing more to it, right? It is at this point in the post where I issue the obligatory disclaimer stating that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and that they can raise their child in any way they see fit. And you may well be thinking what the big deal with saying grace is anyway? It might be tempting to say it's all harmless, but pick a god you don't believe in – and let's start getting your child to pray to them, shall we? I emailed the group organiser for clarification on the church's involvement in the group and her response was either massively sarcastic or worryingly oblivious. She seemed to take my "concerns" to mean I wanted more religion in the group, and even invited me to run a bible stories session. Fair dues to her, if that is a zing it's a good one – but forgive me if I don't laugh very long or hard for her lack of sympathy over my concerns. It now falls to me to either be the bad guy and pull my child out of the group, leaving my mother-in-law at a loose end every Monday, or throw away my principles and go along with the "harmless" ritual. Every dad will face these moments where they feel their children slip away ever so slightly, and I think this might be my first. And it is so sad that this world, in which I find so much beauty, holds such traps. The views expressed in the blog are those of the author alone, and are not necessarily the views of the National Secular Society. This blog was first published at the Dads Rich Pageant blogsite and is reproduced here with kind permission.

NSS Speaks Out

Politics UK featured a comment piece from NSS campaigns Manager Stephen Evans on the Bill to give councils back the power to impose prayers. He also appeared on BBC Sussex and Surrey to discuss the findings of the Equality & Human Rights Commission's survey on religion and belief in the workplace. He was also quoted on this topic in the Telegraph and in the Huffington Post.

Stephen also appeared on a BBC Radio Kent debate about a new Church of England free school that plans to reserve places for children of churchgoers and was quoted by Breitbart on attempts to criminalise depictions of Mohammed.

In a busy week of media he also discussed secular objections to the funding of faith initiatives from police budgets on BBC Radio Northampton and was quoted on this in the Police Oracle.

Campaigns officer Alastair Lichten gave a talk on secularism as a Human Rights issue at Sheffield Freethought Convention, organised by the University of Sheffield Secular & Atheist Society.

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood attended the launch of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's Human Rights and Democracy Report and also attended the TES hustings on education and a Theos conference on 'Chaplaincy in the UK'.

Quote of the Week

"The truth is that Islamist terrorism will only be defeated when we defeat the ideas that nurture it. That's why an ideological offensive against Islamism is crucial. We need to rebut fundamentalist ideas with enlightenment ones."
Peter Tatchell, Telegraph.

Essay of the Week

A new low: Charlie Hebdo's murdered staff receive an 'Islamophobe of the Year' award.
Douglas Murray, Spectator.

Upcoming Events

'Moral Majority and Moral Minority: The values and beliefs of religious and non-religious people in the UK today'

Mon, 23rd Mar 2015

Secularist of the Year 2015- Sold Out

Sat, 28th Mar 2015

	Christianity has “lost status” because of equality and human rights legislation, say evangelical Christians News \| Thu, 12th Mar 2015 An Equality and Human Rights Commission report has found that "some Christian employers, service users and providers" believe Christianity has "lost status" because of equality laws. In a new report published by the EHRC into the personal experiences of employees, employers and service providers concerning "religion or belief" in the workplace, many respondents described workplaces as an "inclusive environment" where they could take time off for religious holidays and discuss religion with employees or customers. However, some "employees and students" claimed to have "encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments" either because they were not religious, or because of a religious faith they held, whilst some Christians criticised equality and human rights law, blaming it for Christianity 'losing status' in the UK. The report drew attention to "some evangelical Christians [who] felt that Christian beliefs had lost their place in society and that this made it more difficult for them to express these beliefs in the workplace and in service delivery." This group of respondents felt there was now "less respect for religious beliefs." The EHRC found that some respondents "wanted to be able to discriminate on the basis of their religion in employment (for example, when recruiting new staff) and when providing goods, services and facilities." Mark Hammond, CEO of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said the Commission would use the evidence to "examine how effective the law is in this area". Stephen Evans, campaigns manager for the National Secular Society, said: "Christians fearing that Christianity has lost its status is not a valid reason for revisiting our equality laws. We've got a good equality framework in the UK which means people's religion and beliefs are being accommodated so far as is reasonable, and competing demands are being balanced. Britain is a better, fairer, place for it. "However, what emerges from the report is a clear sense that there are some evangelical Christians who really do feel they have a right to express and manifest discriminatory beliefs in the workplace. Religious beliefs are a personal, private matter, and discrimination, whether derived from religious beliefs or not, has no place at work. The EHRC report found that respondents had "encountered hostile and unwelcoming environments in relation to holding, or not holding, a religion or belief". It also heard that "pupils with and without religious beliefs … described being mocked and ridiculed by teachers because of their beliefs." Whilst many people felt able to take time-off for religious holidays, "non-religious staff were resentful when they believed that religious colleagues received more favourable treatment in relation to time off and time away from work." The report also noted that tensions arose for staff when "religious colleagues used spaces (e.g. meeting rooms) that were not meant solely for religious purposes." Certain religious beliefs were also found to be causing problems in workplaces, with employers and managers concerned that some types of religious observance "led to reduced productivity and health and hygiene concerns". The report gives the examples of "employees fainting when fasting" and "infection control issues arising from the desire to wear headscarves in surgical theatres." Additionally, some managers "felt that it was difficult to discuss religious beliefs and observances with some staff in a reasonable way without them making a complaint." Some Christian employees raised 'conscience' objections to being "directly involved" in the marriage of same-sex couples, and asked to "look again" at the concept of "sufficient accommodation" for religious beliefs in the workplace. There were also complaints from some groups that sexual orientation 'trumped' religious beliefs. NSS president Terry Sanderson said: "I think it is important to emphasise that the group of 'evangelical Christians' who are creating this controversy are small in number and not likely to be representative of the average Christian in the workplace. Their constant agitating should not result in the Equality Act being compromised. "The previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams criticised them for being unreasonable and told them to 'grow up'." Many responses were concerned with how to deal with "harassment, unwelcome proselytising and discrimination", and the EHRC note that this was "especially the case when discriminatory views were expressed about women and LGBT staff." There were particular problems in health and social care, with respondents "concerned about practitioners outlining their own beliefs to vulnerable patients and clients." One doctor was recently stripped of their license to practice medicine after performing an exorcism on a mentally ill patient. The provision of vital services by religious groups was also raised in the consultation, with the "limited availability of care homes which were not run with a religious ethos" receiving criticism. The EHRC also received calls for better labelling of food to take better account of consumers' beliefs, to allow them to make more informed choices. The full report can be read here
	Social Integration Commission calls for limits on new faith schools News \| Mon, 9th Mar 2015 A new report by the Social Integration Commission has warned of segregation in Britain and called on the Department for Education (DfE) to place limits on new faith schools. The report, Kingdom United? Thirteen steps to tackle social segregation', warns that "highly diverse areas are not necessarily integrated" and that "school-age young people are segregated by ethnicity." The report notes that "increased numbers of children [are] being educated in peer groups dominated by a single faith group or community" and makes a number of recommendations to avert further social division in the UK. Given the dangers of segregation in a country which is on the whole becoming more diverse, the report argues that the DfE should only approve applications for new faith schools "when the petitioners have a clear plan for pupils to meet and mix with children from different faith backgrounds and communities." The Commission says that "every school should provide opportunities for their pupils to interact with children belonging to different ethnic groups and income backgrounds." The report was welcomed as "a step in the right direction" by the National Secular Society, which campaigns for inclusive schools underpinned by secular principles. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "The long-term impact of dividing children by their parents' religion should be obvious. This report demonstrates the huge potential damage to our society if children are divided by the religion of their parents, and the very real danger posed by lack of integration between different religious and ethnic groups. "Religion is a matter for parents and family life, the state should have no role in perpetuating religious divisions through schooling." "The solution is clear, parents have the right to raise their children in a religious tradition, but they should not have a right to isolate their children from other groups on the basis of faith, or to ask the taxpayer to fund the furtherance of their religious beliefs in schools. Children have the right to an education which prepares them for life in modern Britain." The Commission also calls upon the DfE to investigate "the potential benefits of requiring all schools to devise a social mixing strategy." The report attributes the increase in pupils being educated in faith schools to "the recent drive to open free schools", and raises the alarm over the potential consequences for social integration. The Commission argues that the increase in free schools needs to be reconciled with a "commitment to social integration". The report suggests faith schools from different religions could build new facilities for shared use, or "co-locating" faith schools "within shared campuses." One such school, believed to be the first in Europe, was recently approved to open in Scotland. The campus will be a joint site shared between Jewish and Catholic schools. The report argues that "all children should be taught about faiths and cultures other than their own" and that "all schools should seek to include opportunities within their religious studies programmes for pupils to mix with and study religious practices and ethical questions alongside children of different faiths and backgrounds." The Commission also found that "the small number of Muslim faith schools in the UK are experiencing particular difficulties in ensuring their pupils are able to meet and mix with children from different backgrounds." Citing "public anxiety regarding religious extremism in our schools" the Commission argues that "we must make promoting social integration an important element of our approach to education." In addition to its findings on faith schools, the report also argues that "publicly-funded moments of celebration should be open to people from all religions and none." The Commission found that "it is not uncommon for people to feel alienated by and unwelcome at nominally-public celebrations rooted in religious and cultural traditions other than their own." The National Secular Society campaigns for all public celebrations, such as the coronation, to be secular in nature, so that they are accessible to all.
	Eric Pickles' 'evangelical charter' on its way to becoming law Opinion \| Thu, 12th Mar 2015 A small group of Christians in parliament are changing the law to give local authorities the power to summon councillors to prayers. Stephen Evans argues that the right to freedom of religion should always be balanced by the right to be free from religion. A small group of Christians in parliament are changing the law, almost unimpeded, to give local councils the power to introduce prayers to their meetings. Communities secretary Eric Pickles, who regards Britain as a "Christian country" was outraged by the National Secular Society's 2012 High Court victory which delivered a landmark ruling that local councils had no statutory powers to summon councillors to prayer. The local government (religious etc. observances) bill is his revenge. Immediately after the ruling, Pickles vowed to strike a blow for "freedom to worship over intolerant secularism". Shortly after the ruling he fast-tracked the Localism Act's 'general power of competence' which he claimed gave principal councils the power back to include acts of worship as part of their official meetings. According to his department, this new bill simply corrects what it regards as an anomaly – and extends the power to hold prayers to smaller town and parish councils. This claim shouldn't be taken at face value. Despite Pickles' protestations, it's not at all clear that the Localism Act actually permits principal councils to include acts of worship within their official business. Playing to the gallery and incensed by hysterical Daily Mail headlines about Christianity being 'under attack', Pickles announced that the "general power of competence" in his new Localism Act would "effectively reverse" the high court's ruling on council prayers. But this is an untested assertion. There is no mention of prayers in the Localism Act, nor in any of the debates which gave rise to it. Keith Peter-Lucas, a local government lawyer and partner at public services law firm Bevan Brittan, has expressed doubt about Pickles' wishful thinking: "This general power has been oversold as a universal panacea. Despite the secretary of state confidently saying that this immediate implementation should effectively overtake Mr Justice Ouseley's ruling, the new general power may actually offer little assistance in this instance." A number of other senior lawyers have also expressed doubt whether the Localism Act does, as Mr Pickles claims, make the inclusion of prayers in local authority meetings lawful. The Act was clearly not passed with that express intention. So it seems the scope of this bill may not be as modest as its proponents would like us to believe. The bill also gives authorities in England an explicit power to "support, facilitate, or be represented at religious or similar events". But can't they already do this? Somewhat bizarrely, it's claimed by the bill's backers that, left unchallenged, the high court ruling could prevent local councillors from laying a wreath at a Remembrance Sunday event. At second reading in the Lords, Lord Cormack even suggested the bill was necessary to allow councils to close roads so people attending such ceremonies could do so safely. This is nonsense on stilts. The high court ruling simply clarified that local authorities have no power to hold prayers as part of their formal meetings or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda. Of course councillors should be free to facilitate and attend important local community events where there may sometimes be a religious element, but there is absolutely nothing in law that currently prevents them from doing so. To suggest otherwise is simply disingenuous and should raise alarm bells about the real motivation behind this bill. The effect of this bill is to give councils and a range of other authorities such as fire and rescue authorities, joint waste authorities, internal drainage boards and even Transport for London the power to 'support religion' and impose prayer. It reads like an evangelicals' charter. It is true that nobody will be "forced to pray", but surely the religious freedom bar should be higher than that? This bill will permit local authorities to summon councillors to acts of worship. They may excuse themselves from the religious element of the meeting, and – if they can face it – shuffle out and, when the moment seems right, slink in again in full view of the public gallery. But there's no justification for placing such a burden on councillors. Surely our civic meetings should be conducted without anyone feeling compelled to participate in prayers, or feeling excluded, or that they have to absent themselves from any part of the meeting. Secularism promotes inclusivity. Prayers do not. In arguing in favour of the bill, MPs and peers have remarked that both the House of Commons and House of Lords begin proceedings with prayers. It is indeed true that when the Chamber is at its busiest, parliamentary prayers act as a bizarre and antiquated seat reservation system; on certain days MPs and peers have no option but to attend prayers in order to reserve a seat. But this, to some 'quaint' tradition, also serves to assert the superiority of Christianity and the Church of England in particular at Westminster. Although the 'appeal to tradition' is persuasive to some, many regard parliamentary prayers as an anachronism –inimical to a modern pluralistic secular democracy. Opposing the bill in the Commons, Conservative MP James Arbuthnot said the practice seemed "out of touch with the majority of the people we represent, because only a tiny proportion of our constituents go to church." Perhaps some MPs and peers ought to check their privilege. Local authorities aren't religious communities. They should strive to be seen to serve the whole community equally. Councillors and the local communities they serve will not share a particular faith characteristic. Institutionalising a particular religion within the formal business of a council meeting or identifying the council with a belief - or even a range of beliefs - impedes councils from being equally representative of all local citizens. Given that Christianity is the dominant religion in the UK, some councils may decide to start with Christian prayer. In other areas, Islamic observance may be chosen. This is the case in Oldham, where we see elected councillors standing to attention as the Mayor's imam declares "Allahu Akbar" and prays to the Almighty Allah to help those who are suffering in all parts of the world – but particularly Palestine. Many who find the prayers embarrassing and possibly even anathema will choose to quietly but uncomfortably sit through them rather than leave the chamber. They are at the least the victims of bad manners, but is it not completely unreasonable to impose acts of worship on the unwilling? Surely there should never be any compulsion in religion. This is why religion belongs in the private, rather than the public, sphere. As the Earl of Clancarty argued at the Lords' second reading, the bill will be a "recipe for divisiveness and potential problems". Many local councillors make a huge contribution to the communities they serve. Many will be motivated by their personal faith, and if they wish to pray for guidance prior to meetings they are free do so. But why do we need a law to enable believers to impose their worship on others by making a public show of it? A point so many politicians miss is that freedoms of thought and conscience apply equally to all believers and non-believers alike. The right of individuals to freedom of religion should always be balanced by the right to be free from religion. This bill is an attempt by a handful of religious enthusiasts in parliament to facilitate the encroachment of religion into secular spaces. Secularist peers have tabled a number of amendments in the Lords to make sure they don't get away with it. I wish them Godspeed. Stephen Evans is the campaigns manager for the National Secular Society. The views expressed in the blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Secular Society. This post originally appeared at politics.co.uk.
	New NHS guidance requires hospitals to provide pastoral care to non-religious News \| Tue, 10th Mar 2015 New guidance published by NHS England will require hospitals in England to consider the needs of non-religious patients by ensuring they have access to appropriate pastoral care. The National Secular Society has cautiously welcomed the new guidance, after previously criticising an earlier draft for failing to adequately recognise the needs of patients who do not identify with a religious faith. The NSS has longstanding concerns about the inappropriate and unsustainable nature of faith-based chaplaincy in the NHS. The report, Promoting Excellence in Pastoral, Spiritual and Religious Care, sets out to "respond to changes in the NHS, society and the widening understanding of spiritual, religious and pastoral care." The guidance states that "it is important to note that people who do not hold a particular religious affiliation may still require pastoral support in times of crisis" and defines chaplaincy as "intended to also refer to non-religious pastoral and spiritual care providers who provide care to patients, family and staff". The guidance also makes clear that patients and service users have a right to expect that chaplaincy care will be experienced as neither insensitive nor proselytising. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "The acknowledgement that the non-religious should have equal access to appropriate pastoral support is to be welcomed. As the new guidance acknowledges, society has changed drastically in recent years, and a significant number of patients are not being best served by religious-only chaplains. "However, the adoption of a multi-faith approach, rather than a truly secular system of chaplaincy, is problematic. With finite resources available, there is a real risk that a multi-faith chaplaincy service will still leave the non-religious and those of minority faiths disadvantaged. "Rather than providing chaplaincy within a religious framework, the NHS should strive to offer emotional and practical support to all patients and staff equally – with pastoral care positions being open to anyone with the necessary skills to provide such support, regardless of their religion or belief. "Religious care, where required, could be provided and funded by the religious communities themselves". Dr Antony Lempert of the Secular Medical Forum said: "The recognition by NHS England that it is not only religious people who require comfort and pastoral support at times of distress is welcome and long overdue." He added that whilst the new chaplaincy guidance is "certainly a step in the right direction" it "doesn't go nearly far enough." Dr Lempert noted that there is still a requirement for chaplains to "abide by the requirements of their sponsoring religious or belief community" and argued that "in certain cases this may result in conflict between the traditional views of some religions and in particular disapproval of certain lifestyle choices or expression of sexuality and the non-judgmental, supportive role that all NHS staff should be offering." Dr Lempert added that "it is encouraging that the authors of the new guidance have at least recognised this potential conflict and have advised that all chaplaincy staff should adhere to equality legislation above all." However he questioned how this was to be reconciled in practice with the fact that "certain religious groups following religious dogma have fought equality legislation tooth and nail." "The recommendation that a proportion of NHS jobs be reserved for people of faith runs counter to the direction and spirit of equality legislation. If chaplains are to be employed by the NHS, about which there remains considerable debate, then they should be employed on merit just like everybody else. "All chaplains should be able to provide succour and support to all patients irrespective of their own or the patients' personal beliefs. If specific religious care is requested by patients then the chaplain should be able to signpost patients in the right direction. "To suggest that certain religious groups of patients deserve specific religious staff of their own denomination to cater for their special needs serves only to maintain the traditional privileges afforded to religious groups. If chaplains are to be appointed on the basis of their religion to serve patients of their religion then such an overtly religious role should be paid for privately by the religious groups who will benefit from this." In 2009/10 NSS research revealed £29 million was spent on hospital chaplaincy from NHS budgets.
	UK government criticised for stalling on caste discrimination News \| Wed, 11th Mar 2015 The Government has been criticised for not taking action to tackle caste-based discrimination after a long campaign by anti-caste campaigners to have it specifically recognised under anti-discrimination laws. Baroness Garden of Frognal has written to NSS honorary associate Lord Avebury, stating that the Government "have no plans to launch the consultation imminently, since it would not be appropriate to run public consultation of this sort in the period immediately before an Election." In 2013 the Government undertook to "carry out a full public consultation on the prospective legislation in early 2014." Shortly after this guarantee, Lord Avebury warned that the Government was intentionally dragging out the process of dealing with caste-based discrimination until the General Election. Now, Baroness Garden writes that "there is now no longer sufficient time in the current Parliament for public consultation of the appropriate length for this complex and controversial issue to be carried out." The Government claims that a remedy for caste discrimination is already available under the Equality Act 2010. It has argued that an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling made complaints about caste-based discrimination possible under the "ethnic origins" provision of the Equality Act. However in February 2015 Lord Avebury questioned this, and noted that the judgement in question "is not binding on all future cases of caste discrimination." Additionally, House of Commons research concluded that caste discrimination is currently unlawful only if "the circumstances of the case fall within the existing prohibition of race discrimination." Peers were highly critical of the Government's handling of caste discrimination in February, and NSS honorary associate Lord Cashman described the Government's "procrastination" as "entirely unacceptable". Research suggests that as many as 200,000 people in the UK may be affected by caste based discrimination. Baroness Garden wrote that the Government has "always slated that we completely oppose caste discrimination and in that context we note that the judgment opens the possibility of legal remedy for claims of caste-associated discrimination under existing legislation". The National Secular Society has argued that this remedy is at best partial, and that the Government has an obligation to enact secondary legislation tackling caste directly. Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, said: "The government has been directed to introduce anti-discrimination legislation by parliament and the UN. For it to defy both can only be explained by conflict with a strong vested interest. "Victims of caste discrimination deserve much better and will rightly feel betrayed by the Government's failure to meet its obligations." He added that the NSS would continue to lobby the new Government after May's General Election to ensure it takes the appropriate action.
	Deference to faith is preventing effective challenges to the “horror” of witchcraft accusations and persecution News \| Thu, 12th Mar 2015 The Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network (WHRIN) has warned that "considerable reluctance" to intervene in people's faith is preventing an effective response to suffering caused by witchcraft accusations. WHRIN, which campaigns for a "world where all people can live freely without fear of their rights being abused due to the belief in witchcraft", urges serious consideration for the suffering caused by witchcraft accusations and persecution (WAP) and warns that the issue has "slid beneath the radar." They write of how "women accused of witchcraft are beaten to death in India, mutilated in South Africa and Uganda, and burned alive in Papua New Guinea, while elderly women die in their burning houses in Kenya. Small children and even babies may be subjected to cruel treatment and violence because of these misguided beliefs." In a written statement to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, Gary Foxcroft, executive director of WHRIN, warns that the killing of women for witchcraft "has not be consigned to the history books" and urges more research into the problem to establish its scope and how many women are effected by WAP. Mr Foxcroft writes that "there appears to be considerable reluctance to intervene in areas that impinge on people's faith" and notes that "many in the international community fear being seen as contravening Article 18 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights" which guarantees freedom of religion and belief. However, he argues, "there must be greater understanding that this right does not supersede other human rights, such as the right to life." WHRIN compares the approach to witchcraft accusations and persecution with female genital mutilation (FGM) and other forms of gender-based violence which are perceived to be related to religious or cultural beliefs and argues that persecution because of beliefs about witchcraft has been neglected. WHRIN are contributing to the growing research in this field and have challenged the assumption that such practices are exclusive to any particular country or culture. In 2012 the Metropolitan Police warned that children believed to be possessed by evil spirits or believed to be witches are at "clear and immediate risk of significant harm". The group has called on the UN to "do more to understand why these abuses are still taking place, why so little is being done to stop them and why governments, UN bodies, NGOs and faith groups remain unaware and unresponsive" and urges for "concerted pressure on governments, UN agencies, faith leaders, and civil society to ensure that the current scourge of WAP does not to continue." Read the full WHRIN statement to the UN Commission on the Status of Women here.
	The Church, gratitude and the erosion of innocence Opinion \| Wed, 11th Mar 2015 A parent writes about the problem of innocuous children's activities run with a hidden religious agenda, and defends his right to raise his children how he wishes, without organisations using playgroups as a cover for proselytising to children. There are probably many dads out there who would find this image beautiful. Not me. In fact, it makes me very uneasy – and it's particularly concerning to me now because I've just found out that my own 3 year old daughter is being led in prayer at a local playgroup. The Church still plays a big role in the community in the UK. Churches and church halls are great facilities which run and host any number of activities and groups, some of which are very handy for parents looking for something to do with their kids. And it's all put forward as being very open and caring and innocent and, quite honestly, I'm made to feel bad for being sceptical. But, of course, I try to be magnanimous – mostly for my daughter, who deserves a variety of activities – and trust that these activities, held in church-halls, which purport to be god-free, are indeed run out of the goodness of people's hearts, rather than as an opportunity to sow the seeds of religion in innocent young minds. So, you can imagine my surprise when my daughter put her hands together one night as I put her to bed, and began reciting a prayer. It was a heart-sinking moment, which marks a crushing realisation in my life as a hopeful person and dad; I cannot protect her. And some people can't help themselves. Turns out she was being led, with the rest of the children at the playgroup, in saying grace. The playgroup is held in the hall of a Catholic church but, like all of these groups, the suggestion is and has repeatedly been made to me, that this is simply a matter of logistics. And, when dealing with the minds of 3 year old children, you'd be forgiven for assuming that there would be nothing more to it, right? It is at this point in the post where I issue the obligatory disclaimer stating that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and that they can raise their child in any way they see fit. And you may well be thinking what the big deal with saying grace is anyway? It might be tempting to say it's all harmless, but pick a god you don't believe in – and let's start getting your child to pray to them, shall we? I emailed the group organiser for clarification on the church's involvement in the group and her response was either massively sarcastic or worryingly oblivious. She seemed to take my "concerns" to mean I wanted more religion in the group, and even invited me to run a bible stories session. Fair dues to her, if that is a zing it's a good one – but forgive me if I don't laugh very long or hard for her lack of sympathy over my concerns. It now falls to me to either be the bad guy and pull my child out of the group, leaving my mother-in-law at a loose end every Monday, or throw away my principles and go along with the "harmless" ritual. Every dad will face these moments where they feel their children slip away ever so slightly, and I think this might be my first. And it is so sad that this world, in which I find so much beauty, holds such traps. The views expressed in the blog are those of the author alone, and are not necessarily the views of the National Secular Society. This blog was first published at the Dads Rich Pageant blogsite and is reproduced here with kind permission.