Newsline 19 June 2015

Newsline 19 June 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

Former education secretary calls for abolition of collective worship law and reform of RE

News | Mon, 15th Jun 2015

The obligation on state schools in England and Wales to provide a daily act of collective worship should be scrapped, according to former education secretary Charles Clarke.

In a series of suggested reforms, he called for a new national syllabus for teaching religion and claimed the phrase religious education should be changed, suggesting 'religious and moral education' as an alternative.

Mr Clarke made the recommendations in a report on the future of religion and RE in schools by Westminster Faith Debates.

The report, co-authored by Linda Woodhead, professor of politics, philosophy and religion at Lancaster University, stops short of calling for an end to religious discrimination against pupils in faith school admissions but says more should to be done to develop fairer admissions procedures.

The law in England and Wales provides that children at all maintained schools "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship". Even in schools with no religious designation, the worship must be "wholly or mainly of a Christian character".

The National Secular Society, which has been advocating the removal of compulsory worship for decades, welcomed some of the report's findings, calling the policy proposals a "positive step in the right direction".

Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns Manager, said: "The role of religion in schools needs to be thoroughly reviewed. The obligation on schools to provide worship is an anachronism; the legacy of a society unrecognisable from the diverse and pluralistic Britain of today where citizens hold a wide variety of religious beliefs, and increasingly, no religious beliefs whatsoever.

"School communities, even in schools with a religious character, are made up pupils from a variety of religion and belief backgrounds. These are places of learning, not places of worship and this report goes some way to recognising that.

The NSS also cautiously welcomed the proposal to reform religious education.

"If we are to teach religion in schools, we certainly need a much more objective and even-handed approach. Religious education should be absorbed into a new National Curriculum subject under a different name that covers a variety of religious, non-religious and secular philosophies and worldviews", said Mr Evans.

While the NSS is supportive of many of the report's recommendations, the Society is critical of the report's defence of the continuation of faith schools.

Mr Evans added: "We must go further and challenge the whole concept of faith schools. Religious identities are not a good, logical or just criteria to organise schooling around. What we really need is a fully secular, inclusive and fair education system that teaches pupils about religions and beliefs with no attempt to inculcate them into a particular faith."

Charles Clarke, who served as education secretary from 2002 to 2004, said religion in schools must be re-examined "in the light of contemporary beliefs and practices, illuminated by the latest research".

"On this basis we propose a new educational settlement which can better foster genuine understanding of modern religion and belief, and allow young people better to explore their own and other people's religious and non-religious beliefs and come to their own conclusions", he said.

"The current requirement in statute for an act of collective worship should be abolished, and the decision about the form and character of school assemblies should be left to the governors of individual schools," he wrote.

The former Labour MP also called for a religious and moral education syllabus to be determined by the education secretary in agreement with a newly created advisory council consisting of experts on religion and education. This would follow formal consultation with representatives of religions, humanism and other belief systems.

Responding to the policy proposal, Reverend Nigel Genders, the Church of England's chief education officer said the Church "strongly supported the statutory requirement for collective worship in all schools".

He said the Church remained committed to the provision of high quality RE in schools, which he argued was "vital for a balanced understanding of the world today where more than 80% of the population are people of faith".

The Department for Education responded to the report by saying RE was "vitally important to help children develop the British values of tolerance, respect and understanding for others".

A DfE Spokesperson added: "Faith schools are an important part of our diverse education system, allowing parents to choose to have their child educated in line with the tenets of a faith".

Faith schools: education’s sacred cow

Opinion | Fri, 19th Jun 2015

Faith-based schools have been part of Britain's educational landscape for a long time. But as Britain's religious outlook changes, the time has come for some people to come to terms with their fear or unwillingness to question them, argues Stephen Evans.

Britain's religious landscape is rapidly changing. Polling consistently shows that a majority of Britons are not religious. The share of the population which is religious is also increasingly fractured into growing minority faiths. The proportion of people saying they are Anglican has fallen by two fifths in 10 years and Islam is set to grow rapidly in the UK this century. It's clear that our schools have a vital role to play in building social cohesion.

Given the conflict that plagues societies in which religion, sectarianism and segregation permeate every facet of life, it seems short-sighted to suggest that children's education should be organised around religious identities.

But that's exactly the recommendation of a new report calling for a new settlement on religion and belief in schools.

The policy proposal, published by former education secretary Charles Clarke and sociologist Linda Woodhead, recommends that "children of families of faith should where possible be able to attend schools of that faith, and that their current right to be given priority in the admissions process should not be removed."

There is an important debate to be had about the role of religion in schools, and this report makes an important contribution to that debate, but given Britain's rapidly changing demographics, this particular proposal strikes me as a dangerous recipe for yet more religiously segregated schooling and greater religious discrimination: the very features of our education system we should be distancing ourselves from – not endorsing. It also raises important questions over the value we place on young people's independent rights and religious freedom.

But the recommendation should come as no surprise. As far as education policy is concerned, faith schools have long been a sacred cow.

Much of the media commentary around the launch of the policy proposal centred on the long overdue recommendation to abolish the legal requirement on schools to provide a daily act of Collective Worship.

This really shouldn't be considered as a bold or even controversial proposal. The current legal position has zero credibility, is widely flouted and apart from the Department for Education and Church of England hierarchy, which are looking increasingly isolated in their archaic and entrenched positions, most people now agree with what secularists have been saying for decades - that the state shouldn't be mandating acts of worship by law.

The report also has interesting things to say about the way in which religious education is organised. Whilst some of the recommendations may be a step in the right direction, making progress will prove difficult – particularly with so many vested interests involved in the subject.

It's also doubtful whether the proposals go far enough to repair RE's tarnished reputation or to ensure that young people receive the sort of religion and belief education that allows them to take a truly objective and critical approach to the consideration of moral and ethical issues.

But it's the report's failure to advocate for a child-centred, inclusive and secular education system, based upon principles of equality and fairness, that most disappoints.

I raised these concerns with the authors at the report's launch event at the House of Lords. But one gets the clear impression, even from many of those arguing for the continuation of faith based schools, that their heart isn't really in it – it just that tackling the issue is in the 'too difficult department'.

In response my point about the undesirability of faith schools, two main reasons were advanced for not calling time on them, firstly; that it would be politically impossible; that parents simply wouldn't accept the discontinuation of them, and second; that it would be problematic from a human rights perspective.

On the first point, it's necessary to get one thing clear. Nobody is advocating the mass closing down of faith schools overnight. Parents would rightly be angered by that and why would anyone want to close down good schools and disrupt children's education. That's not what we're talking about. The way to a secular education system is to phase faith schools out starting with a moratorium on opening new ones.

It's certainly true that the churches and other faith groups would take exception to this. But in the main, parents aren't clamouring for faith schools. What they really want is good local schools. Linda Woodhead's own research confirms that academic standards, location, discipline and ethical values far outweigh faith-related reasons for choosing schools. Just 5% of parents would choose a school on the basis of giving a "grounding in faith tradition"; and only 3% for "transmission of belief about God".

Polling also indicates no real appetite for faith-based schools. Only a third of the adult population approve of state funding for faith schools. Nearly half actively disapprove, and the rest say they 'don't know'. Two-thirds of Muslim parents wouldn't want their children to go to a Muslim state school, if given the choice.

But even where parents do demand faith schools, such demands for a religious education, wholly on parents' terms, is simply unreasonable. Schools are not the place to push ideologies, political or religious. It's hardly the role of the state to promulgate Anglicanism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism – or atheism for that matter – through state education.

And whilst some ultra conservative parents may want to keep their children insulated from 'gentiles', 'kuffars' and 'infidels', the state should really think twice about actively encouraging that.

The second argument – that moving away from faith based education would interfere with parents' human rights, just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The courts have ruled that the right to education provided by Article 2 Protocol 1 of the Human Rights Act gives a right of access the education system that already exists. It doesn't require the government to provide or subsidise any specific type of education and it certainly doesn't oblige the state to fund religious schools of any kind.

Although parents have a right to ensure their religious or philosophical beliefs are respected during their children's education, this is not an absolute right. So long as these beliefs are properly considered, schools can depart from them if there are good reasons for doing so and it is done in an objective, critical and pluralistic way.

The notion that a system of inclusive, secular schools offering an objective and balanced education with equal access and esteem to all pupils would breach parent's human rights just isn't credible.

The fact that many parents can't avoid a faith-based education because they happen to be in a faith school's catchment area is far more injurious to parents' right to education. The Government's plans for 500 new free schools over the next five years, which could result in a proliferation of faith-based schools, should be a far greater concern for those worried about religious freedom and parental rights.

Attempts will be made to discourage unfair admissions arrangements and open up faith schools to all young people. Whilst any reduction in the degree of discrimination tolerated in our schools is welcome, it does leave you with the problem of religious organisations running schools as if they're religious communities when they quite clearly are not. The potential for conflict and risk to community cohesion there is clear. Many non-practising 'cultural Christians' tolerate church schools (and if their results are good, may even feign belief to get into them) but will be less likely to want to send their child to an Islamic, Sikh or Hindu free school. Such schools are likely to remain undersubscribed silos of segregation. However limited school places are, parents will still rightly expect to be able to secure a state education without a religious ethos being imposed on their children.

But I for one wouldn't want to see religion jettisoned from schools. Objective religion and belief education is valuable in helping young people to understand the significance of religion in society, and the importance of faith to many people.

But far more important I think, is integrated schooling. The best way of building mutual understanding, trust and the common values that we're going to need in multifaith Britain, is to ensure that our publicly funded schools are spaces where children and young people of all backgrounds are encouraged to learn and live together side-by-side.

We've almost won the argument on compulsory worship, let's just hope we don't have to wait so long for people to finally admit that organising education around parents' religious beliefs really isn't the greatest idea.

This article was originally published at Huffington Post.

NSS welcomes closure of school inspectorate with alleged extremist links

News | Mon, 15th Jun 2015

The National Secular Society has welcomed the news that the Bridge Schools Inspectorate (BSI) is to close, after strongly criticising the organisation for the extremist views of some of its inspectors.

Andrew Gilligan reported in the Telegraph on Sunday 14 June that the BSI will now "cease operations in October after coming under strong pressure from ministers and Sir Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of schools."

The NSS warned in May 2014 that "religious hardliners" were inspecting independent faith schools and wrote to Ofsted in a consultation response to express its concerns about links between the BSI and religious extremists.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There must be rigorous inspection of independent religious schools, with fair and impartial inspectors. It has been clear for a very long time that the BSI was tainted by association with inspectors who hold extreme religious views; the evidence has been out there for many years- so this is welcome, if long overdue, news."

The BSI was set up in 2008 to inspect private Muslim and Christian faith schools that are members of the Association of Muslim Schools UK (AMS-ULK) or the Christian Schools' Trust (CST). The NSS has consistently warned that it was wholly inappropriate to have faith schools reviewed by their own special inspectorate- and that many of the organisation's inspectors held extremely troubling views.

Lord Baker, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Education warned in 2006 "it'll be much easier for extremists to infiltrate [independent schools] and to radicalise the students" if Muslim faith schools were inspected by what he called "a separate inspectorate for Muslim schools."

The NSS has previously warned that "a number of the individuals carrying out inspections on behalf of BSI hold homophobic, misogynistic, anti-apostate and creationist views."

The Society noted to Ofsted in 2014 that: "One inspector highlighted in reports is Ibrahim Hewitt, who is the founder and chair of trustees of the Al-Aqsa school in Leicester. Mr Hewitt has been reported to have said that adulterers should be stoned to death, that a man can take on a second wife if his first fails to satisfy him sexually, and [he] has compared gay people to paedophiles."

The Telegraph report on the BSI said that "some schools [inspected by the BSI] use racist and anti-Semitic textbooks blaming the Jews for the ills of the world."

In one school rated as "good" by the BSI , the Telegraph reports that a teacher was secretly recorded telling children they must choose either "the way of the Prophet" or "the way of the kuffar."

The BSI has blamed "unforeseen staffing pressures" for its termination as an independent inspectorate.

NSS: Christians have nothing to fear from secularism

News | Wed, 17th Jun 2015

More practising Christians in the UK identified secularism as a "social and political issue" than poverty, in a new poll by ComRes.

When asked what the main "social" "political" and other issues facing "Britain today" were, social justice emerged as the main concern, with 27% naming "inequality" and the "gap between the rich and poor"; followed by 18% who expressed concern about secularism.

This 18% also included those concerned with "spiritual/religious decline" and the "erosion of Christian values."

Notably, Christians polled were more concerned about secularism as a 'social issue' than poverty (12%), which ComRes listed separately from "social justice".

14% put immigration at the top of their list of concerns. 3% said the "threat of Islam/Islamisation" was the main issue facing the UK.

But the President of the National Secular Society said Christians and religious believers have "nothing to fear", and "a lot to gain" from a secular state- even if it means the loss of traditional privileges for the established church.

Terry Sanderson, NSS president commented, "There is obviously a confusion among some Christians about terminology. The creators of this survey and many of its respondents seem to be confusing secularisation with secularism. Secularisation – the process whereby attachment to religion drops in a society - is not the same as 'secularism'- the constitutional framework of a secular state. This poses no threat to religion; in fact it protects all religions and none from the imposition of any single religion's doctrines on society at large.

"Religion can and does thrive in secular states, as in the United States. While religiosity in the US is now starting to fall, it can hardly be claimed that religion is side-lined or that religious people are 'pushed out' of public life in America.

"As the makeup of religion in the UK continues to change increasingly drastically, Christians will, in fact, find secularism ultimately protects them- as much as it protects atheists, non-believers and members of minority faiths."

Mr Sanderson added: "We certainly hope that it is not the case that 18% of UK Christians 'fear' secularism. The Secular Charter of the NSS states explicitly that the rights of religious people to believe and worship must be protected by law, as I have argued many times before.

"I suspect also that many respondents would consider 'poverty' to be a 'social justice' issue."

Asked by ComRes, in research paid for by Tearfund, to identify the "main issues" facing "the world over the next 10 years" practising Christians in the UK identified climate change and environmental issues most often, with 28% selecting environmental concerns.

The National Secular Society recently criticised the Pope's encyclical on climate change for ignoring the role Catholic social teachings and the ban on contraception play in driving unsustainable over-population.

The full poll can be seen here.

See also: "Why 'Militant' Secularism is for Believers, Too" by NSS president Terry Sanderson.

Academic claims university atheists are “militant”

Opinion | Thu, 18th Jun 2015

A paper published by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education has claimed that atheists can be "militant" on university campuses, while describing religion as a "public good" and the exclusion of religion from the public sphere as "repressive."

Professor Craig Calhoun, Director of the London School of Economics, has said atheists make "free speech an issue" in efforts to "challenge the faith and beliefs of religious students". He described "controversies over religious cartoons" as 'disruptive to "campus harmony" and compared rows over free speech and blasphemy to 'clashes' between religions.

The Professor referred to his university's outrageous censoring of students for wearing "Jesus and Mo" t-shirts as a "small episode" and said that "harmony was restored eventually but not without acrimony, accusations and threatened lawsuits." Professor Calhoun fails to acknowledge that any friction was ultimately down to censorious student union officials ordering the removal of materials they deemed "offensive" and the threats of physical removal from LSE officials unless the students censored themselves.

The National Secular Society supported the students involved, Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis, back in 2013, after they were threatened with being physically removed from the LSE Freshers' Fair unless they covered the 'offensive' t-shirts. At that time, Professor Calhoun said staff had "acted in good faith".

The two said that LSE only issued a "half-apology" for the scandal, and noted that it "took the threat of legal action to elicit an acknowledgement of our grievances." In spite of this, Calhoun still complains about the action needed just to bring about LSE's feeble response.

Now however, the Professor has said, "Atheists have recently grown more active – even militant – within universities, often making free speech an issue as they seek to challenge the faith and beliefs of religious students." He accused "new atheists" of 'making a point' of "mocking religious convictions and symbols."

The Professor might be advised that it isn't atheists making an "issue" of free speech all across the world; this right is under attack almost daily from militant Islamists. In his paper, he gives the appearance of begrudging the inconvenience caused to university administrators when atheists and others simply make use of their most fundamental rights. It isn't 'militant' atheists threatening anyone.

On events at the LSE Fresher's Fair, Calhoun also says that LSE students "approached Muslim students … wearing T-shirts taken to mock Jesus and Mohammed." This seems to be factually incorrect; Moos and Phadnis' own account of the events reveals that LSE Student Union officials approached them, and began removing material from their stall at the Fresher's Fair. Calhoun's language sounds deliberately loaded, to imply that members of the Atheist, Humanist and Secularist society sought confrontation, when in fact they were "manning the stall" at the Fair.

It seems like we will have to keep making this point, I certainly don't plan to stop, but "harmony", "cohesion" and "feelings" do not, must not, cannot trump the most fundamental rights of all- like freedom of speech and expression.

In his paper, Calhoun seems extremely dismissive of secularism. He writes, "Attempts to exclude [religion] from the public sphere are intrinsically repressive." He doesn't seem to mind the LSE Student Union physically, literally excluding atheists, humanists and secularists from a literal public space though. His institution had to be threatened with legal action just to exact a modest "half-apology", as the students in question described it.

Extending his analysis, the Professor compares secularism- and the concept that religion and the state should be separate (not that religious people may not fully participate in public life)- to exclusion and repression of Catholics.

Worryingly, he also writes, "the pursuit of integration shouldn't block attempts by minorities to create their own cohesive groups. Without some level of self-segregation, those in small minorities will always have relationships mainly with members of the majority – and so will the majority."

Given the almost weekly defections of young Muslims to the Islamic State, is "self-segregation" really any part of the answer? Is it not in-fact a key part of the problem?

Benjamin Jones is the communications officer of the National Secular Society. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author, and may not represent those of the NSS.

Crowdsourced constitution calls for secular state

News | Wed, 17th Jun 2015

The London School of Economics has published its "People's Constitution" which would enshrine secular principles across the UK.

The document calls for the separation of church and state and was built upon values and issues chosen at a "packed open meeting" in October 2013. Thousands of people contributed to the crowdsourced constitution in the two years after the meeting, before a convention at the LSE in April 2015 saw the public's and expert contributions formalised into a single, unified text.

In a blog introducing the paper, Conor Gearty, a Professor of human rights law, warns that "crisis is around the corner" for the UK's governance and writes that the country faces "moral as well as constitutional" issues in how it is run.

The Constitution says that "people of all faiths and no faith shall have equal rights" and it enshrines the principle that faith groups shall not be granted "favoured status" within government or society.

Touching on an issue of important to secularists during a time of public sector cuts and as the size of the state shrinks, the document also sets out that public services should only be provided by faith groups if they can deliver them "in a manner prescribed by law" and "in line" with the secular values of the constitution proposed.

The Constitution also explicitly sets out freedom of non-religious belief, saying that "every individual is free to have no religion and to express non-religious ideas."

The National Secular Society has called on the Government to recognise the true extent of global discrimination against atheists and freethinkers, particularly in light of events in Iraq and Syria, with the imprisonment and lashing of Raif Badawi in Saudi Arabia, and the numerous murders in Bangladesh committed by Islamists targeting secular and non-religious bloggers.

Mirroring the Constitution of the United States of America, the LSE crowdsourced constitution says that "Parliament shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or "prohibiting the free exercise" of religious belief.

An NSS spokesperson commented: "If the United Kingdom were to ever have a written constitution we would hope it would resemble the admirable secular principles set out in this proposal and of our own Secular Charter."

The LSE's crowdsourced "People's Constitution" can be read here

Preacher James McConnell faces prosecution for calling Islam “Satanic"- the state again tramples over free expression

Opinion | Thu, 18th Jun 2015

Free speech for all is threatened once more by the senseless prosecution of another Christian preacher. His religious freedom is the same liberty that defends secularists, atheists, people of all religions and none.

"Islam is heathen, Islam is satanic, Islam is a doctrine spawned in hell," thundered Belfast Pastor James McConnell in a sermon last year.

For a Christian preacher Islam surely is "heathen" by definition. But he is now to be prosecuted for the 'crime' of speaking his mind and talking about his faith. He has been charged for saying something "grossly offensive" (as the Northern Ireland Public Prosecution Service put it).

In spite of warm, fuzzy inter-faith dialogue (recently criticised quite strongly by the Archbishop of Canterbury), the fundamental premise of most religions is surely exclusivity; that Jesus and Mohammed cannot both be right.

But it is now considered a matter for law enforcement if a clergyman asserts the uniqueness of his doctrine and its incompatibility with other religions. McConnell's offence "was one of sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive", the BBC reports.

The prosecution has come about despite McConnell issuing a fairly grovelling apology in which he said he had not intended to "arouse fear or stir up or incite hatred" against Muslims.

The state is acting as a Ministry of Religious Truth and Moderation, clamping down hard on evangelical preachers and others who make traditional claims about the primacy of their faith's claims- sometimes doing so with exciting language. This is a deeply anti-secular position. "Offense" trumps all.

Courageously, and rightly, McConnell appears to have refused to accept a caution, and his case will now go to court.

The preacher, last year, said: "'People say there are good Muslims in Britain - that may be so - but I don't trust them." If we substituted the word "Muslim" for the word "atheist" or the word "Catholic", would he have been prosecuted? We know the answer: No. Of course not.

If someone said, "I don't trust atheists", there is not a chance in Pastor McConnell's hell they would be prosecuted for it. Nor should they be.

"There are cells of Muslims right throughout Britain," the 'firebrand' preacher went on, in case we weren't clear on his views.

He has said since: "I have nothing against Muslims, I have never hated Muslims, I have never hated anyone. But I am against what Muslims believe. They have the right to say what they believe in and I have a right to say what I believe." If only the law saw things with this clarity.

The consequences of this situation are remarkably similar to those of the case of Michael Overd, the street preacher in court earlier this year. I ask again, given that scripture of all three monotheistic faiths makes claims like McConnell's, is it now illegal to read scripture aloud, in public? Are the books containing said passages now outlawed?

A Christian theologian has been warning anyone who will listen this week that the Government's plans to create 'extremism disruption orders' could outlaw Christian teaching that Jesus is the 'Son of God'. It seems he was right, but in McConnell's case this has already come to pass, without the added, draconian legislation that Rev Dr. Mike Ovey has been warning of.

You can watch the offending sermon from McConnell here, though we, and the Belfast Telegraph, are presumably sending a "grossly offensive" communication by linking to it. For the sake of testing the law, I would like to add that I consider both the doctrines of Islam and the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland to be Satanic- and worse besides. I want to see if I get the 'knock-on-the-door' one night, surely we all will soon at this rate.

Benjamin Jones is the NSS communications officer. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author, and may not represent those of the NSS.

Secular Medical Forum warns that new Conscientious Objection Bill threatens provision of patient care

News | Thu, 18th Jun 2015

Secular doctors have voiced serious concerns about the Conscientious Objection (Medical Activities) Bill, which had its first reading in the House of Lords on 4th June 2015.

The legislation would greatly expand the existing provision which allows for staff to opt-out of involvement in procedures such as the termination of a pregnancy. Under the new law, the opt-out would include "any supervision, delegation, planning or supporting of staff" involved in abortions or "the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment."

Dr Antony Lempert, a practising GP and chair of the Secular Medical Forum, commented: "Conscientious objection to the active participation in the ending of someone's life or performing an abortion is fairly uncontroversial. However, patients must not be left in a position whereby the doctor is abandoning them because they have chosen a particular reasonable, legal treatment option.

"Patients making informed treatment choices should be supported by healthcare professionals whether or not their beliefs and values are shared.

"The risk is that granting doctors and nurses wider freedoms to withdraw from providing care risks compromising the provision of care; this is something we have seen in other countries such as Italy where some patients have been unable to access abortion services."

Dr Lempert expressed his concerns that the bill appears to undermine a Supreme Court judgment from December 2014 in which two midwives seeking an exemption from any abortion-related activity were advised that, whilst they did not need to participate in any aspect of the abortion itself, their professional responsibilities did extend to wider roles such as the supervision of nursing colleagues.

The legislation could potentially encompass medical staff even tangentially "participating in" abortion or the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.

The Secular Medical Forum have warned that the proposed bill could even result in doctors and nurses withdrawing from providing treatment to "vulnerable patients who have different beliefs and values."

"Doctors and nurses choose our professions; patients don't choose to need our professional expertise," he said. "Healthcare professionals should take responsibility for choosing a suitable role that will not bring their own beliefs into conflict with the care they are expected to provide to patients. Where there is conflict, doctors may need to set aside their own personal beliefs in order to provide care as specified in GMC guidance for doctors."

The legislation was proposed by Baroness Nuala O'Loan, and came 22nd in the ballot of Private Members' Bills. In 2014, Baroness O'Loan quit the British Medical Association's medical ethics committee because of the organisation's support for extending abortion rights to Northern Ireland. She said at the time: "I believe in the sanctity and sacredness of human life, so I could not commit to anything inconsistent with that position".

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There is a balance between recognising the legitimate conscientious objection of medical practitioners directly involved in procedures, and providing safe and comprehensive access to healthcare.

"We fear that this Bill, if it gets through the significant parliamentary hurdles in its way, would upset that balance drastically, and allow for an inappropriately wide exemption- covering people who are at the very periphery of these services. This would clearly have a damaging effect on patients' access to healthcare."

The Second reading of the Bill is yet to be scheduled.

Tribunal to rule on Gay clergyman refused NHS chaplaincy job because he is in same-sex marriage

News | Tue, 16th Jun 2015

A Bishop stripped a Church of England clergyman of the licence needed to take a hospital chaplaincy job because he is in a same-sex marriage.

Canon Jeremy Pemberton has now taken his case to an employment tribunal and is arguing under the 2010 Equality Act that he was the victim of unlawful discrimination at the hands of the Church. The tribunal began on Monday 15 June 2015, and will continue for a week.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "There are numerous problems around how chaplaincy services are provisioned, but it is particularly troubling to see this apparently open discrimination applied to a job that is paid for by the taxpayer, supposedly to offer a service of spiritual care to all".

Canon Pemberton was blocked for promotion in 2014 and refused the documentation required to take a new job working as 'bereavement manager' for Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Despite the fact that NHS chaplains are funded by the taxpayer and not the Church, the Canon still required a licence from the diocese to move from his post into the new role. Owing to his marriage, the offer of the promotion was withdrawn.

When the offer was retracted in August 2014, Canon Permberton said: "I'm not going to bow out gracefully and take a low profile. I think this needs to be tested [legally] and I think in due course it probably will be somewhere."

He also commented that "there are … quite a lot of gay and lesbian Church of England chaplains working in the health service."

In March, new guidance published by NHS England required hospitals to consider the needs of non-religious patients by making sure they had access to appropriate pastoral care- and it defined chaplaincy in broad terms, encompassing "non-religious pastoral and spiritual care providers who provide care to patients, family and staff."

The National Secular Society and the Secular Medical Forum cautiously welcomed the guidance at the time, and the Society has now reiterated the call it made then for a "truly secular system of chaplaincy".

Mr Evans added: "If someone is qualified to be a chaplain, they should not be disqualified because they are in a same-sex marriage or because of their sexual orientation.

"These kinds of problems will exist however, where the provision of chaplaincy support is explicitly religious and 'multi-faith'. If religious organisations want to provide support for people in hospitals, they should be free to do so. But it is not right that a taxpayer-funded post is denied to someone by the Church, because the applicant is in a gay marriage."

The BBC reported that "the Church will argue that its doctrine and pastoral guidance make clear that those in holy orders cannot enter into a same-sex marriage, as the Church still sees marriage as solely between a man and a woman."

When proceedings began, Church lawyers said Pemberton had contradicted Church teaching.

Canon Pemberton earlier said that in spite of the consequences, it was the "right thing to do" to marry his now-husband. He still works as an NHS chaplain in Lincolnshire.

"Fidelity to our Christian patrimony” makes UK great, says Catholic bishop

News | Tue, 16th Jun 2015

The Bishop of Portsmouth has urged Catholics to be 'vociferous' when taking part in the "democratic process".

According to the Tablet, Bishop Philip Egan described a "chasm" between modern society and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, particularly on social issues.

To bridge this gap, the Bishop said Catholics have a "critical duty" to "participate vociferously in the democratic process" to contribute the Church's "distinctive, saving message".

He added that what makes Britain great is faithfulness to "Christian patrimony", a claim he has made before.

"Sometimes people envisage British values as 'decency', the NHS, red pillar-boxes or warm beer. No! What makes Britain great is fidelity to our Christian patrimony, a concern for justice, freedom and the rule of law, values derived from love of God and neighbour, fused with our native genius," the Bishop said.

The Tablet reports that the Bishop argued politics was about founding a society on the values of Catholic social doctrine.

Recent research found that 49% of Britons, by far the largest group, have no religion. Unlike the Church of England, the Catholic Church has decreased as a percentage share of the population relatively slowly; 8% of Britons said they were Catholic in 2014, compared with 10% in 1983. The National Centre for Social Research attributes this slower decline to immigration.

Bishop Egan previously said that MPs who voted in favour of same-sex marriage "shouldn't be receiving Holy Communion."

Meanwhile, the Pope's 'draft' encyclical on climate change, leaked before it was due for publication, has called for "changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production and consumption to combat ... warming".

Responding to the leaked draft of the papal encyclical, in which Pope Francis warns that the world is heading for "unprecedented destruction" unless mankind confronts climate change and reforms the way it treats the planet, Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said:

"The Pope's well-intentioned words fall rather flat when taken in conjunction with Catholic dogmas that undermine so much of what he hopes for. The ban on contraception contributes to unsustainable overpopulation, more disease and large families among people least able to sustain them. The greatest contribution that the Pope could make to the welfare of the planet is to get his Church to reverse the ban on contraception, and to stop it using its privileged position at the United Nations to obstruct aid initiatives that include contraception."

Government urged to tackle sharia ‘courts’ and religious tribunals by women’s rights and secular campaigners

News | Tue, 16th Jun 2015

Almost 200 signatories, including the National Secular Society and women's rights groups, have called on the Government to tackle the spread of "parallel legal systems" like sharia 'courts'.

In an open letter, the campaigners have called on the Government to take "concerted measures to stop the development of parallel legal systems and to facilitate full and proper access to justice for all citizens" and to protect "one secular law for all".

Before the election the Conservative Party pledged to review the role of sharia 'courts' operating in the UK, in a move welcomed by the National Secular Society.

The campaigners write: "Over the years, we have witnessed with increasing alarm the influence of 'Sharia courts' over the lives of citizens of Muslim heritage.

"Many abused women from minority backgrounds, for instance, are increasingly forced to either represent themselves in court in what are often complex family legal proceedings or go to 'Sharia courts' that operate entirely outside the rule of law."

The campaigners say that sharia 'courts' are used to "restrict and deny rights" and have a particularly negative effect on "women and children." They add that sharia 'courts' represent an "assault" on civil liberties.

The campaigners are asking the Government to "re-affirm the principle of the separation of religion and the law."

"Opposing 'Sharia courts' is not racism or 'Islamophobic'; it is a defence of the rights of all citizens, irrespective of their beliefs and background to be governed by democratic means under the principle of one law for all. What amounts to racism is the idea that minorities can be denied rights enjoyed by others through the endorsement of religious based 'justice' systems which operate according to divine law that is by its very nature immune from state scrutiny."

The signatories also call for the end of Beth Din arbitration tribunals in "family matters".

Signatories include British Muslims for Secular Democracy, the Quilliam Foundation, Maryam Namazie of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, Muslims for Progressive Values, Peter Tatchell, Sarah Haider of Ex-Muslims of North America, Pragna Patel of Southall Black Sisters, the historian Tom Holland, columnist and writer Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and dozens of others.

NSS Speaks Out

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood spoke on LBC and BBC Radio Merseyside about the Clarke-Woodhead proposals on compulsory worship in schools. Our full response can be seen above. We were also quoted on the proposals in Christian Today.

Additionally, our campaigns manager Stephen Evans posted a blog in the Huffington Post on faith schools, education's 'sacred cow', and this has been re-published above.

Keith was quoted in the Telegraph on Pope Francis' encyclical on climate change, noting that the Pope had overlooked the role of the Church's social teaching in exacerbating environmental problems. Keith had a letter on this published in the Evening Standard.

He was also quoted in the Sunday Times, speaking out against "gay conversion" therapy.

The NSS was mentioned in the Mid Devon Gazette on council prayers, after Tiverton Town Council took the controversial decision to begin holding them during official meetings.

The Society was also quoted in the Independent, Telegraph and Breitbart on the recent case of a Muslim nursery worker asked to wear a jilbab that did not cover her feet.

NSS president Terry Sanderson was quoted in Church Times on the case of a Christian nursery worker who was found to have been wrongly dismissed.

Our opposition to and concerns about 'extremism disruption orders' was also picked up by Breitbart.