Newsline 2 August 2013

The NSS campaigns for the separation of religion and state to ensure religious freedom for all. Join today!

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

News, Blogs & Opinion

	Oldham Council ordered to hand over land to ‘faith sensitive’ free school News \| Tue, 30th Jul 2013 Councillors in Oldham have reacted angrily to a ruling from the Department for Education ordering them to hand over a plot of land worth £4m to a new 'faith sensitive' free school. Oldham Council had planned to sell the site of the old South Chadderton secondary school to finance the Council's regeneration plans and to invest in its new secondary schools. However Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, has insisted that the land should be handed over without charge to the Collective Spirit Trust which plans to set up a "faith sensitive" free school. The people behind the proposed free school say it will be a "faith sensitive" school, but insist it is not a 'faith school'. The school's backers say parents want their faiths better represented in school, but want to avoid single faith or segregated schools. The school's timetable promises almost two hours of religious education in a school week that ends with an hour of collective worship. The power to order local authorities to transfer the sites of former schools to academies is granted to the Secretary of State under the Academies Act 2010. Oldham Council, which had proposed alternative sites for the Free School, said it was "extremely disappointed" by the final ruling from the Department for Education. Jim McMahon, Oldham Council Leader, said: "This is a prime development site adjacent to the M60. Its sale was an important part of our regeneration plans with significant value — not just in terms of finance, but also the great new homes it could have offered for local people. "We don't agree that it is in the best interest of local taxpayers to simply write off this site: especially when there was a viable alternative site for the Free School. "There's already been significant investment in Oldham's secondary schools, so I'm also concerned that this increasing fragmentation will lead to even more schools here chasing fewer pupils with less money." According to the school's consultation report, local council officers and politicians perceived the free school proposal to be a Muslim faith school by the back door, and expressed concern that the school could undermine local authority schools' attempts to build cohesion within local communities. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "It's hard to understand why a school that claims to place such an emphasis on cohesion, at the same time appears to be so focussed on religion. It's clear that this school will only appeal to parents who want religion to play a fundamental role in their children's education. 'Faith sensitive' schools can hardly claim to be truly inclusive if they marginalise children from non-religious or religiously unconcerned families. "All the statistics indicate that the British public are becoming increasingly less religious and more secular in their outlook. It is therefore concerning that our state school offering is heading in the opposite direction. We would prefer to see public funding only made available only to community schools that educate pupils in a secular context appropriate for all local children regardless of their religious and philosophical backgrounds."
	Appeal Court declines to rule on right-to-die cases News \| Wed, 31st Jul 2013 The Appeal Court has ruled that it has no power to grant people the right to voluntary euthanasia, and that it is a decision for parliament to make. The ruling related to Jane Nicklinson (who is continuing a case brought by her late husband, Tony) and Paul Lamb (right) who both suffer from incurable degenerative illnesses that have rendered them catastrophically disabled. Both Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, while in sound mind, expressed a desire to end their lives at a time of their choosing in order to end their suffering and die with dignity. Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said: ….The short answer must be, and always has been, that the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision. The repeated mantra that, if the law is to be changed, it must be changed by Parliament, does not demonstrate judicial abnegation of our responsibilities, but rather highlights fundamental constitutional principles. The circumstances in which life may be deliberately ended before it has completed its natural course, and if so in what circumstances, and by whom, raises profoundly sensitive questions about the nature of our society, and its values and standards, on which passionate but contradictory opinions are held. Addressing these life and death issues in relation to life before birth, the circumstances in which a pregnancy may be terminated were decided by Parliament. The abolition of the death penalty following the conviction for murder was, similarly, decided by Parliament. For these purposes Parliament represents the conscience of the nation. Judges, however eminent, do not: our responsibility is to discover the relevant legal principles, and apply the law as we find it. We cannot suspend or dispense with primary legislation. (paras 154 – 155) The Court also considered an appeal in the "Martin" case, brought by a man who wishes to end his life but needs the assistance of a third party. He argued that it should be lawful for a doctor or nurse to help him travel abroad to die with the help of a suicide organisation in Switzerland. In this case, the appellant was successful in seeking clearer guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for carers or health professionals assisting those wishing to end their life. His main submission was that whilst the DPP's policy provided the necessary degree of clarity for what he described as "class 1 helpers" (spouses, friends or family with emotional ties to the person committing suicide, the policy was defective in that it failed to give adequate clarity as to another group, which he described as "class 2 helpers" ((those with no emotional ties to the person committing suicide, such as healthcare professionals). Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Elias, in their majority judgment concluded that it was not sufficient for the Policy merely to list the factors that the DPP will take into account when deciding whether to consent to prosecution (see para 138). The Policy should give some indication of the weight the DPP accords to the fact that the helper was acting in his or her capacity as a healthcare professional (see para 140). They said it would be constitutionally improper for the DPP to guarantee immunity from prosecution in respect of any class of helpers (see para 142). Further, it would be impractical, if not impossible, for the DPP to lay down guidelines which would embrace every class 2 case but that it is not impossible or impractical to amend the Policy so as to make its application in relation to class 2 cases more foreseeable than it currently is (see para 144). Read the judgment here Source: UK Human Rights blog
	Prayer Spaces in Schools Opinion \| Thu, 1st Aug 2013 A worrying development in Britain's schools in the last two years, and not just in its faith schools, is Prayer Spaces in Schools (PSIS). PSIS is an organisation that says of itself: "Prayer Spaces in Schools enable children and young people to explore faith and spirituality from a broadly Christian perspective in a safe, creative and interactive way. A range of flexible resources can be adapted to work for participants aged 5 to 18 bringing an experiential dimension to a variety of subject areas and to pastoral aspects of school life." It is clear from this that the aim of this initiative is to get the Christian faith into all schools, faith-based or otherwise. The use of the expression 'broadly Christian perspective' flatters to deceive — it is a Christian perspective, period. It is the initiative of an organisation called 24/7 Prayer International, a registered charity which has links to the highly controversial Alpha Course programme which has its critics as well as its supporters. Of most concern is that a video on the 24/7 Prayer International website, and available on YouTube, proclaiming that healings have taken place in prayer spaces — which can be anything from dedicated classrooms or areas of classrooms to areas in school recreation and communal spaces such as cafeterias. An extract from the transcript of the video shows the presenter stating: "We have seen organic healings take place in prayer spaces. We have seen an 8-year old girl healed of eczema, we've seen a guy get healed of a stomach condition, we've seen someone else get healed of Crohn's disease." Crohn's Disease is a chronic inflammatory disorder, in which the body's immune system attacks the gastrointestinal tract and has traditionally been described as an auto-immune disease, but recent investigators have described it as an immune deficiency state. These dangerous claims that children can be cured of diseases through prayer should be sufficient evidence to ensure that this organisation finds no place in any school, not just denominational, yet PSIS states on its web site to have several hundred prayer spaces in schools around the UK. This initiative is now furthering its increasingly widespread take-up and upping its game. It is bold and brazen with it too — take yourself over to YouTube and search for "Prayer Spaces in Schools" and you will find a large number of videos, some posted by individual schools, and some containing complimentary contributions from teachers and heads about the Prayer Spaces initiative. In Scotland, for example, PSIS is exploiting the appalling Scottish Government guidance on Religious Observance which actively promotes a Christian ethos both in denominational schools (where one wouldn't think it was necessary) and the increasingly mis-named non-denominational schools where as many different events and types of school events are to be classified as RO. As an example, here is a quote from the chaplaincy team at Linwood High School in Renfrewshire: "At Linwood High School we have been looking at how we tackle the task of religious observance. All schools in Scotland are required to provide at least six opportunities for the school community to look at spiritual development. Much of the thinking behind this is about creating opportunities for experiential exploration rather than as an academic activity. Historically this has taken the format of assemblies. We, however, have felt that assemblies aren't the best place for authentic spiritual development to be fostered. We've looked at taking these religious observance opportunities (known within the school as Soul Space Experiences) outside of the assembly. We've used video projects, art installations, film clubs, and café based activities as vehicles to explore life's big questions. So, when we heard about the concept of Prayer Spaces in Schools we jumped at the chance to put one together for Linwood High School." Prayer Spaces in Schools holds regular development conferences across the UK, and is now enjoying the patronage of the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. The above comments from Linwood School show just how the school chaplaincy system is being exploited by evangelical groups to maximise indoctrination, although of course you won't see it called indoctrination now — the modern euphemism for indoctrination is 'spiritual development', as used above by Linwood High School. And while we all want our children to 'explore life's big questions', this initiative delivers one answer to these and one answer only — the Christian God. Note also the shift in emphasis going on here, away from 'academic activity' into 'experiential exploration' and the choice of language such 'authentic spiritual development', replacing 'worship' and 'prayer'. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that 'authentic spiritual development' means an end result of fully fledged believers in Jesus, all captured and converted in the 'Soul Space Experiences' education system. A range of mainstream and evangelical Christian organisations, leveraging their chaplaincy positions in schools, have decided that formal RO requirements and assemblies can be conveniently leveraged (they would say enhanced, I would say exploited) and more direct and aggressive approaches to targeting children in schools with Christian belief is an achievable result. In the case of Scotland at least, it is positively encouraged by the Scottish Government. It is also worth noting that the comment from Linwood High School is taken from the website of Prayer Spaces in Schools, and not from the school's own website, which contains no details of this whatsoever. As usual, parents are being kept in the dark about the degree to which their schools, and their children, are being targeted by evangelical groups, many of which hold and express questionable views on sexuality, sexual orientation, women's rights and evolution. So as church attendance continues to plummet along with the numbers of Britons professing religious belief, the Prayer Spaces in Schools initiative is turning schools into churches, and turning teaching increasingly into preaching. If people won't come to the church, the church must come to the people, and where better to target the intellectually vulnerable than in schools. It will take significant efforts by secularists around the country to claw this back. Any help you can give the NSS in researching what is happening in your local schools will be most welcome. Alistair McBay is the NSS spokesperson in Scotland.
	Saudi Arabia: 600 lashes and 7 years for activist guilty of 'insulting Islam' News \| Wed, 31st Jul 2013 A Jeddah court on July 29, 2013, convicted a liberal activist of violating Saudi Arabia's anti-cybercrime law and sentenced him to 600 lashes and seven years in prison. The Criminal Court found Raif Badawi, the founder of the Free Saudi Liberals website, guilty of insulting Islam through his website and in comments he made on television, and added three months to his term for "parental disobedience." The charges against Badawi were based solely on his peaceful exercise of his right to free expression, Human Rights Watch said. Badawi established his online platform in 2008, to encourage debate on religious and political matters in Saudi Arabia. He has been detained in Jeddah's Buraiman prison since his arrest on June 17, 2012. Criminal Court Judge Faris al-Harbi dropped a charge of apostasy, which carries the death penalty, after Badawi assured the court on July 24 that he is a Muslim. "This incredibly harsh sentence for a peaceful blogger makes a mockery of Saudi Arabia's claims that it supports reform and religious dialogue," said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "A man who wanted to discuss religion has already been locked up for a year and now faces 600 lashes and seven years in prison." Badawi's lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, told Human Rights Watch that Judge al-Harbi read the verdict aloud during a trial session on July 29, and that the court will send Abu al-Khair a written notification by August 6, and give him 30 days to appeal. Abu al-Khair said that the judge sentenced Badawi to five years in prison for insulting Islam and violating provisions of Saudi Arabia's 2007 anti-cybercrime law through his liberal website, affirming that liberalism is akin to unbelief. The judge ordered the closure of the website and added two years to Badawi's sentence for insulting both Islam and Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or religious police, in comments during television interviews. Abu al-Khair also said the judge added three months to the sentence for `Uquq, or "parental disobedience," apparently because of Badawi's numerous public confrontations with his father over the years. The judge dropped the apostasy charge after Badawi affirmed to the court that he is a Muslim and recited the Shehadeh, or Muslim declaration of faith, the lawyer said. The judge also threw out the evidence that Badawi had violated the anti-cybercrime law in comments on social media sites. Prosecutors initially charged Badawi in 2011, alleging that his website "infringes on religious values." According to the charge sheet, the prosecution's evidence included five postings by Badawi and anonymous members of his site critical of Saudi religious authorities, and two postings regarding theological questions. During a hearing on Badawi's case at the Jeddah Criminal Court on December 17, 2012, Judge Muhammad al-Marsoom prevented Badawi's lawyer from representing his client, the lawyer told Human Rights Watch. Judge al-Marsoom informed Badawi that he could face the death penalty if he did not "repent to God" and renounce his liberal beliefs. Badawi refused. Recommending a trial for apostasy, the judge referred the case to the Jeddah Public Court, which tries more serious crimes. In January, th ePublic Court refused to hear the case, and following a lengthy process to determine which court had jurisdiction, judicial authorities eventually transferred it back to the Criminal Court. Saudi authorities have long harassed Badawi for debating religious issues. In March 2008, authorities arrested Badawi and questioned him about his website, but released him a day later. In May 2008, Badawi was formally charged with "setting up an electronic site that insults Islam" and he left the country. He returned when prosecutors apparently decided to drop the charges, he told Human Rights Watch. In 2009, the authorities barred Badawi from traveling abroad and froze his business interests, depriving him of a source of income, he told Human Rights Watch. On March 18, 2012, the well-known cleric Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Barrak issued a religious ruling declaring Badawi an "unbeliever… and apostate who must be tried and sentenced according to what his words require." Al-Barrak claimed that Badawi had said "that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists are all equal," and that even if these were not Badawi's own opinions but "an account of the words of others, this is not allowed unless accompanied by a repudiation" of such words. Badawi and other contributors to his website declared May 7, 2012, "A Day for Saudi Liberals," hoping to spark an open discussion on distinctions between "popular" and "politicized" religion, Su'ad al-Shammar, the website's director, told Human Rights Watch. Badawi's wife and children moved abroad in 2012, fearing repercussions. International human rights law protects freedom of expression. International standards only allow content based restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances, such as cases of slander or libel against private individuals, or speech that threatens national security. Restrictions must be clearly defined, specific, necessary, and proportionate to the threat to the interest protected. The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, the UN Human Rights Committee said in its 2011 General Comment No. 34 regarding permissible limits on freedom of expression. Regarding restrictions for the protection of public morals, the committee in its 1993 General Comment 22 on freedom of religion observed "that the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical, and religious traditions; consequently, limitations... for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition." "King Abdullah has received praise for fostering dialogue and an exchange of ideas between religions, but it appears that Saudi authorities' tolerance for open discussion stops at Saudi borders," Houry said. Copyright Human Rights Watch and is reproduced under its Creative Commons Licence
	It’s not culture, it’s a crime against humanity Opinion \| Fri, 26th Jul 2013 When is a crime against humanity not a crime against humanity? When it is applied to women of course. Here's a quick description: Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion. To accompany this, here is (part) of an email I received this week: My life has become a nightmare as my father physically beats me. He hates that I wish to pursue higher education since he and my mother are trying to marry me off in a couple of months to an extremist Muslim who is not in the favour of educating woman just as my family. I wanted to get help here in Saudi Arabia but the laws here support the male guardians over anything else. Saudi government will not bring a father or a husband to justice for murdering their daughters or wives. I know that I cannot do this without fear of being killed from my father or government. In short, a crime against humanity is being committed in Saudi Arabia. The same can be said for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere; every bit of it is propped up by religion, justified by religion, and strengthened by religion. The re-Talibanisation of Afghanistan began in earnest last week when women were told they could not leave their house without being accompanied by a male guardian. This is the case in Saudi also. The Afghan order came in the form of a fatwa (religious ruling) which included a warning that any attempts to block it would result in "jihad". In other words, the clerics of Afghanistan have imprisoned and enslaved women (again), the fatwa was not over-ruled by the government, and thus a crime against humanity has been committed. Such crimes are committed routinely in Afghanistan and we were told this week that the number of rape victims languishing in prison there (for being raped) has increased by 50% in just one year. In Iran, the government commits a similar crime against humanity by stoning women to death for adultery, as well as other barbaric injustices. The Iranian penal code even stipulates the size of the stone; it cannot be so big as to cause a fast death, it cannot be so small as to cause a relatively painless one. They've got all bases covered. In Pakistan, a staggering 90% of women are subject to domestic abuse. Despite feeble attempts to deal with this, women still do not have any practical protection. Domestic violence is still "endemic" and the misogyny that drives it still mainstream. In summary, crimes against humanity are committed with impunity. But don't expect to hear them called that. When committed against a woman, a crime against humanity undergoes a remarkable metamorphosis and becomes "culture" (aka religion). "Culture" — for those insufficiently trained in politically correct totalitarianism — is entirely positive, cannot change, and if you disagree even slightly, you are a racist. Those are the rules. The United Nations, founded after World War II (partly) to promote human rights and global justice, has not — as you might expect — taken sufficient steps to stamp out these crimes. In fact, the opposite is true; Despite characterising freedom of speech as a universal right, the United Nations is being brow-beaten by the Organisation of Islamic Conference (Cooperation… whatever) in to accepting an international law preventing criticism of Islam — and you can bet that the practices carried out in its name (i.e. crimes against humanity) will be covered by this anti-blasphemy edict. In her fantastic book 'Are Women Human?' Catharine MacKinnon argues that human rights laws across the globe simply don't apply to women — such laws are side-stepped and ignored. Crimes against women are routinely sanitised as "tradition", "conservative", "cultural" and of course "religious" — all untouchable, all beyond criticism. When the Rushdie affair taught us the new rule on not criticising religion, we accepted it without question. Now, women all over the world are having their rights removed (including western women) because the truth about the religious nature of these crimes is suppressed. We cannot insult religion, and if a few women are imprisoned, raped, enslaved, tortured, humiliated, and beaten as a result — then so be it. See also: FGM: 30 million girls at risk
	It may be a new velvet glove, but it’s the same old iron fist at the Vatican Opinion \| Tue, 30th Jul 2013 You've got to give the Vatican credit for having installed a Pope who appears to be nice and cuddly and says all the right things. But as with everything pertaining to the Vatican, one needs to keep a sceptical antenna waving. Nothing is as it seems in that kingdom of lies and deception. The propaganda coup that they have pulled off by getting rid of the disastrous Ratzinger (retired through ill-health? Give me a break! It's clear, to me at least, that he was disposed of) and replacing him with the apparently cuddlier, kindlier and more modest South American, is brilliant. So far. But for those who are prepared to look beyond the carefully constructed image, it is clear that Senor Bergoglio is, in fact, as hard and unyielding as his cold-hearted predecessor. Bergoglio has just scored a big hit in Brazil where his inflated spectaculars rallied great crowds on Copacabana beach. On the plane back to Rome he answered questions from journalists who wanted to press him on the same "hot button" issues that so tormented Herr Ratzinger — and from which they gleaned so many column inches. It was very revealing. Take away the apparently emollient words and Bergoglio says exactly the same as Ratzinger. He thinks homosexuals should be treated with respect ("Who am I to judge? You can't marginalise these people," he says patronisingly). But then he goes on to say that the Church still condemns homosexual relationships and always will. So, it's business as usual and his implacable opposition to gay marriage remains unshakable. On the question of the involvement of women — yes, they should play a "full part" in Church life, he says. Except that they will never, ever be permitted into the priesthood and they will never, ever have any real power or influence. Put the kettle on, sister — and my apartment needs cleaning. He says that God "forgives and forgets" sins if there is repentance (but he, quickly adds, God doesn't forget crimes, such as the rape of children). So the Vatican's despicable history of persecution and corruption is all OK now because it repented and God has forgiven and forgotten. Handy, isn't it? And I'm sure all those heretics it burned at the stake and those women it used as slaves in the Magdalene Laundries will take great comfort from the fact that the Vatican is truly sorry. So just shut up about it and let it drop, will you? Bergoglio makes big noises about being the pope of the people, the pontiff of the poverty-stricken and the weak and disenfranchised. He makes very public gestures about living in modest accommodation and not wanting to wear fancy costumes all embroidered with jewels. What's not to like? Well, if he is as orthodox and dogmatic as this talk to journalists suggests, then his heart is as hard as any tyrant's. He will do nothing about the ban on condoms in countries afflicted by AIDS, he will do nothing to force the hands of the religious orders who refuse to pay for their past cruelties in Ireland and leave it for the taxpayer to pick up the tab. And we have yet to see any move to address the issue of child rape and exploitation by priests. (He made it illegal in Vatican City, but how many children live there?). The Vatican's untold wealth remains untouched, while millions starve. He makes patronising gestures like washing the feet of prisoners. But his past shows that he is conservative to the core and will change nothing except, perhaps, the window dressing of the papacy. Bergoglio is going to have to do more than smile and speak in a kindly voice to convince this cynic that he is one iota different to the two horrors who sat on the throne of St Peter immediately before him. He is no reformer. If he had been, the powers-that-be in the Holy See wouldn't have let him anywhere near the papacy.
	A right for one is a right for all Opinion \| Tue, 30th Jul 2013 Charles C. Haynes argues that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution must be vigorously defended from religious attacks. Government in America must be neutral among religions and neutral between religion and non-religion — at least that's how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But escalating conflicts involving government treatment of the non-religious — atheists and humanists — reveal that far too many government officials are confused and conflicted about the meaning of "neutrality." In recent months alone, an atheist monument stirred controversy in Florida, an atheist applicant for citizenship was instructed to join a church, and a congressional committee nixed atheist chaplains. Let's start with the first-ever atheist monument, a 1,500-pound bench erected alongside a Ten Commandments monument in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Florida. After a local Christian group installed the Ten Commandments monument last year, American Atheists sued to have it removed. When county officials refused, the atheist group decided to put up a counter-monument featuring quotations from various American founders about church-state separation and passages from the Bible describing punishments for violating the Ten Commandments. Bradford County set the stage for this confrontation in 2011 when it designated the space a "free speech forum" in order to allow a local Christian group to put up a Ten Commandments display. But county officials soon realized that once the courthouse courtyard is open to one, it must be open to all. American Atheists, of course, would rather have no monuments on government property. But if you can't beat them, join them. The tactic of putting an atheist message next to a religious message puts governments on notice that any attempt to promote religion on public property will be answered by demands for equal treatment from the non-religious. The push-back from atheists in places like Bradford County is triggered by the fact that equal treatment for the non-religious is difficult to come by in a society where religion is often privileged. Consider the cruel choice faced by Margaret Doughty, a British-born atheist who has lived in the U.S. for 30 years. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services informed Doughty earlier this month that unless she joined a church her application for naturalized citizenship would be denied. Doughty ran into this roadblock because she can't in good conscience swear that she is willing "to take up arms to defend the United States." The government, it turns out, routinely grants conscientious objectors exemption from this oath — but only if they belong to a religion that opposes the bearing of arms. This policy puts atheists and humanists seeking citizenship — but who have moral objections to war — in the unfair and unjust position of either joining a church or being denied American citizenship. What makes this particularly galling is that the Supreme Court made clear years ago that draftees with moral and philosophical beliefs that impose a duty not to participate in war must be granted conscientious objector status on the same basis as those with traditional religious convictions (Welsh v. United States, 1970). After letters of protest from the American Humanist Association and other groups representing atheists and humanists, the immigration service backed down — and Margaret Doughty is now an American citizen. Immigration officials may finally understand the meaning of equal treatment for the non-religious. But many members of Congress have yet to learn this First Amendment lesson. Recently, the House Armed Services Committee voted down an amendment to the defence bill that would have authorized atheist and humanist chaplains in the military. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist chaplains serve in all branches of the military. But a majority of the members of the Armed Services Committee apparently believe that the non-religious don't have the same needs as the religious for counselling, support and community. These and many other clashes involving atheists fighting for equal treatment could be avoided if government officials understood that religious liberty isn't just for the religious. As guaranteed by the First Amendment, religious liberty is built on a simple, but profound, principle: A right for one is a right for all. Charles C. Haynes is Director of the Religious Freedom Project. This article used with permission. Newseum Institute. 2013.
	Pentecostal churches thriving in London as traditional denominations decline News \| Wed, 31st Jul 2013 Since 2005, there has been a 50% increase in the numbers of people attending Pentecostal Churches in London — a phenomenon explained by a large influx of immigrants from Africa during that period. In the same period, the number of Anglican church-goers has declined by 9%, while Catholic worshippers have risen by 1%, again mainly due to immigration from Eastern European and Latin countries. The new study carried out for the evangelical group The London City Mission by the Brierley Consultancy showed that 230,000 people attended Pentecostal services last year compared to 198,300 at Catholic Masses. According the Churches Census, which recorded congregation sizes on a Sunday in October 2012, Pentecostal churchgoers now make up 32% of Sunday worshippers in London, compared to 27% for Catholics and 12% attending Anglican churches. In 1979, 333,700 Catholics went to church on Sunday. This represents a decline of 40%, the same percentage decline as for Anglican churches. Other traditional Christian denominations have also declined since 2005, with the Methodists down 11%; United Reformed down 14% and Baptists down 9%. All are continuing to decline. Overall, though, because of the Pentecostal growth, church-going in London rose by 16 per cent between 2005 and 2012 to 720,000. This means that nearly 10% of Londoners attend a church each week, compared with 5.6% nationally. Pentecostal churches now make up 30% of the total number of churches in London — more than 1450 of them. The only other denomination with more than 1,000 churches in the capital is the Church of England.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

NSS Speaks Out

Keith Porteous Wood was on LBC Radio talking about the Archbishop of Canterbury and Wonga.

Keith was also on BBC Radio Scotland's popular Call Kaye programme about the latest revelations of child abuse at Fort Augusta Catholic school.

NSS Scottish spokesperson Alistair McBay had this letter in the Scotsman.

Quotes of the Week

"Popular opinion is not a case for changing obedience to God. But, let me be equally clear, an overwhelming change which affects the opinions of the majority of people, especially our young people, is a revolution we must pay attention too. Not to do so would be foolish."
(Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, Telegraph)

"Many payday loan customers are as likely to visit a church as the Archbishop is to win Olympic gymnastics gold."
(Martin Lewis, Telegraph)

"Most religious organisations keep time with an internal clock about four centuries behind GMT."
(Ellen Jones, Independent)

Essays of the Week

Marriage Bill – it's time for a divorce between Church and state
(Jonathan Chaplin, Church Times)

The difference between secular law and secular culture
(James Croft, Patheos)

Upcoming Events

NSS fundraiser - Tribute to Marlene Dietrich

Fri, 4th Oct 2013

	Oldham Council ordered to hand over land to ‘faith sensitive’ free school News \| Tue, 30th Jul 2013 Councillors in Oldham have reacted angrily to a ruling from the Department for Education ordering them to hand over a plot of land worth £4m to a new 'faith sensitive' free school. Oldham Council had planned to sell the site of the old South Chadderton secondary school to finance the Council's regeneration plans and to invest in its new secondary schools. However Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, has insisted that the land should be handed over without charge to the Collective Spirit Trust which plans to set up a "faith sensitive" free school. The people behind the proposed free school say it will be a "faith sensitive" school, but insist it is not a 'faith school'. The school's backers say parents want their faiths better represented in school, but want to avoid single faith or segregated schools. The school's timetable promises almost two hours of religious education in a school week that ends with an hour of collective worship. The power to order local authorities to transfer the sites of former schools to academies is granted to the Secretary of State under the Academies Act 2010. Oldham Council, which had proposed alternative sites for the Free School, said it was "extremely disappointed" by the final ruling from the Department for Education. Jim McMahon, Oldham Council Leader, said: "This is a prime development site adjacent to the M60. Its sale was an important part of our regeneration plans with significant value — not just in terms of finance, but also the great new homes it could have offered for local people. "We don't agree that it is in the best interest of local taxpayers to simply write off this site: especially when there was a viable alternative site for the Free School. "There's already been significant investment in Oldham's secondary schools, so I'm also concerned that this increasing fragmentation will lead to even more schools here chasing fewer pupils with less money." According to the school's consultation report, local council officers and politicians perceived the free school proposal to be a Muslim faith school by the back door, and expressed concern that the school could undermine local authority schools' attempts to build cohesion within local communities. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "It's hard to understand why a school that claims to place such an emphasis on cohesion, at the same time appears to be so focussed on religion. It's clear that this school will only appeal to parents who want religion to play a fundamental role in their children's education. 'Faith sensitive' schools can hardly claim to be truly inclusive if they marginalise children from non-religious or religiously unconcerned families. "All the statistics indicate that the British public are becoming increasingly less religious and more secular in their outlook. It is therefore concerning that our state school offering is heading in the opposite direction. We would prefer to see public funding only made available only to community schools that educate pupils in a secular context appropriate for all local children regardless of their religious and philosophical backgrounds."
	Appeal Court declines to rule on right-to-die cases News \| Wed, 31st Jul 2013 The Appeal Court has ruled that it has no power to grant people the right to voluntary euthanasia, and that it is a decision for parliament to make. The ruling related to Jane Nicklinson (who is continuing a case brought by her late husband, Tony) and Paul Lamb (right) who both suffer from incurable degenerative illnesses that have rendered them catastrophically disabled. Both Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, while in sound mind, expressed a desire to end their lives at a time of their choosing in order to end their suffering and die with dignity. Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said: ….The short answer must be, and always has been, that the law relating to assisting suicide cannot be changed by judicial decision. The repeated mantra that, if the law is to be changed, it must be changed by Parliament, does not demonstrate judicial abnegation of our responsibilities, but rather highlights fundamental constitutional principles. The circumstances in which life may be deliberately ended before it has completed its natural course, and if so in what circumstances, and by whom, raises profoundly sensitive questions about the nature of our society, and its values and standards, on which passionate but contradictory opinions are held. Addressing these life and death issues in relation to life before birth, the circumstances in which a pregnancy may be terminated were decided by Parliament. The abolition of the death penalty following the conviction for murder was, similarly, decided by Parliament. For these purposes Parliament represents the conscience of the nation. Judges, however eminent, do not: our responsibility is to discover the relevant legal principles, and apply the law as we find it. We cannot suspend or dispense with primary legislation. (paras 154 – 155) The Court also considered an appeal in the "Martin" case, brought by a man who wishes to end his life but needs the assistance of a third party. He argued that it should be lawful for a doctor or nurse to help him travel abroad to die with the help of a suicide organisation in Switzerland. In this case, the appellant was successful in seeking clearer guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for carers or health professionals assisting those wishing to end their life. His main submission was that whilst the DPP's policy provided the necessary degree of clarity for what he described as "class 1 helpers" (spouses, friends or family with emotional ties to the person committing suicide, the policy was defective in that it failed to give adequate clarity as to another group, which he described as "class 2 helpers" ((those with no emotional ties to the person committing suicide, such as healthcare professionals). Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Elias, in their majority judgment concluded that it was not sufficient for the Policy merely to list the factors that the DPP will take into account when deciding whether to consent to prosecution (see para 138). The Policy should give some indication of the weight the DPP accords to the fact that the helper was acting in his or her capacity as a healthcare professional (see para 140). They said it would be constitutionally improper for the DPP to guarantee immunity from prosecution in respect of any class of helpers (see para 142). Further, it would be impractical, if not impossible, for the DPP to lay down guidelines which would embrace every class 2 case but that it is not impossible or impractical to amend the Policy so as to make its application in relation to class 2 cases more foreseeable than it currently is (see para 144). Read the judgment here Source: UK Human Rights blog
	Prayer Spaces in Schools Opinion \| Thu, 1st Aug 2013 A worrying development in Britain's schools in the last two years, and not just in its faith schools, is Prayer Spaces in Schools (PSIS). PSIS is an organisation that says of itself: "Prayer Spaces in Schools enable children and young people to explore faith and spirituality from a broadly Christian perspective in a safe, creative and interactive way. A range of flexible resources can be adapted to work for participants aged 5 to 18 bringing an experiential dimension to a variety of subject areas and to pastoral aspects of school life." It is clear from this that the aim of this initiative is to get the Christian faith into all schools, faith-based or otherwise. The use of the expression 'broadly Christian perspective' flatters to deceive — it is a Christian perspective, period. It is the initiative of an organisation called 24/7 Prayer International, a registered charity which has links to the highly controversial Alpha Course programme which has its critics as well as its supporters. Of most concern is that a video on the 24/7 Prayer International website, and available on YouTube, proclaiming that healings have taken place in prayer spaces — which can be anything from dedicated classrooms or areas of classrooms to areas in school recreation and communal spaces such as cafeterias. An extract from the transcript of the video shows the presenter stating: "We have seen organic healings take place in prayer spaces. We have seen an 8-year old girl healed of eczema, we've seen a guy get healed of a stomach condition, we've seen someone else get healed of Crohn's disease." Crohn's Disease is a chronic inflammatory disorder, in which the body's immune system attacks the gastrointestinal tract and has traditionally been described as an auto-immune disease, but recent investigators have described it as an immune deficiency state. These dangerous claims that children can be cured of diseases through prayer should be sufficient evidence to ensure that this organisation finds no place in any school, not just denominational, yet PSIS states on its web site to have several hundred prayer spaces in schools around the UK. This initiative is now furthering its increasingly widespread take-up and upping its game. It is bold and brazen with it too — take yourself over to YouTube and search for "Prayer Spaces in Schools" and you will find a large number of videos, some posted by individual schools, and some containing complimentary contributions from teachers and heads about the Prayer Spaces initiative. In Scotland, for example, PSIS is exploiting the appalling Scottish Government guidance on Religious Observance which actively promotes a Christian ethos both in denominational schools (where one wouldn't think it was necessary) and the increasingly mis-named non-denominational schools where as many different events and types of school events are to be classified as RO. As an example, here is a quote from the chaplaincy team at Linwood High School in Renfrewshire: "At Linwood High School we have been looking at how we tackle the task of religious observance. All schools in Scotland are required to provide at least six opportunities for the school community to look at spiritual development. Much of the thinking behind this is about creating opportunities for experiential exploration rather than as an academic activity. Historically this has taken the format of assemblies. We, however, have felt that assemblies aren't the best place for authentic spiritual development to be fostered. We've looked at taking these religious observance opportunities (known within the school as Soul Space Experiences) outside of the assembly. We've used video projects, art installations, film clubs, and café based activities as vehicles to explore life's big questions. So, when we heard about the concept of Prayer Spaces in Schools we jumped at the chance to put one together for Linwood High School." Prayer Spaces in Schools holds regular development conferences across the UK, and is now enjoying the patronage of the Church of Scotland and the Church of England. The above comments from Linwood School show just how the school chaplaincy system is being exploited by evangelical groups to maximise indoctrination, although of course you won't see it called indoctrination now — the modern euphemism for indoctrination is 'spiritual development', as used above by Linwood High School. And while we all want our children to 'explore life's big questions', this initiative delivers one answer to these and one answer only — the Christian God. Note also the shift in emphasis going on here, away from 'academic activity' into 'experiential exploration' and the choice of language such 'authentic spiritual development', replacing 'worship' and 'prayer'. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all of this is that 'authentic spiritual development' means an end result of fully fledged believers in Jesus, all captured and converted in the 'Soul Space Experiences' education system. A range of mainstream and evangelical Christian organisations, leveraging their chaplaincy positions in schools, have decided that formal RO requirements and assemblies can be conveniently leveraged (they would say enhanced, I would say exploited) and more direct and aggressive approaches to targeting children in schools with Christian belief is an achievable result. In the case of Scotland at least, it is positively encouraged by the Scottish Government. It is also worth noting that the comment from Linwood High School is taken from the website of Prayer Spaces in Schools, and not from the school's own website, which contains no details of this whatsoever. As usual, parents are being kept in the dark about the degree to which their schools, and their children, are being targeted by evangelical groups, many of which hold and express questionable views on sexuality, sexual orientation, women's rights and evolution. So as church attendance continues to plummet along with the numbers of Britons professing religious belief, the Prayer Spaces in Schools initiative is turning schools into churches, and turning teaching increasingly into preaching. If people won't come to the church, the church must come to the people, and where better to target the intellectually vulnerable than in schools. It will take significant efforts by secularists around the country to claw this back. Any help you can give the NSS in researching what is happening in your local schools will be most welcome. Alistair McBay is the NSS spokesperson in Scotland.
	Saudi Arabia: 600 lashes and 7 years for activist guilty of 'insulting Islam' News \| Wed, 31st Jul 2013 A Jeddah court on July 29, 2013, convicted a liberal activist of violating Saudi Arabia's anti-cybercrime law and sentenced him to 600 lashes and seven years in prison. The Criminal Court found Raif Badawi, the founder of the Free Saudi Liberals website, guilty of insulting Islam through his website and in comments he made on television, and added three months to his term for "parental disobedience." The charges against Badawi were based solely on his peaceful exercise of his right to free expression, Human Rights Watch said. Badawi established his online platform in 2008, to encourage debate on religious and political matters in Saudi Arabia. He has been detained in Jeddah's Buraiman prison since his arrest on June 17, 2012. Criminal Court Judge Faris al-Harbi dropped a charge of apostasy, which carries the death penalty, after Badawi assured the court on July 24 that he is a Muslim. "This incredibly harsh sentence for a peaceful blogger makes a mockery of Saudi Arabia's claims that it supports reform and religious dialogue," said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "A man who wanted to discuss religion has already been locked up for a year and now faces 600 lashes and seven years in prison." Badawi's lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, told Human Rights Watch that Judge al-Harbi read the verdict aloud during a trial session on July 29, and that the court will send Abu al-Khair a written notification by August 6, and give him 30 days to appeal. Abu al-Khair said that the judge sentenced Badawi to five years in prison for insulting Islam and violating provisions of Saudi Arabia's 2007 anti-cybercrime law through his liberal website, affirming that liberalism is akin to unbelief. The judge ordered the closure of the website and added two years to Badawi's sentence for insulting both Islam and Saudi Arabia's Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, or religious police, in comments during television interviews. Abu al-Khair also said the judge added three months to the sentence for `Uquq, or "parental disobedience," apparently because of Badawi's numerous public confrontations with his father over the years. The judge dropped the apostasy charge after Badawi affirmed to the court that he is a Muslim and recited the Shehadeh, or Muslim declaration of faith, the lawyer said. The judge also threw out the evidence that Badawi had violated the anti-cybercrime law in comments on social media sites. Prosecutors initially charged Badawi in 2011, alleging that his website "infringes on religious values." According to the charge sheet, the prosecution's evidence included five postings by Badawi and anonymous members of his site critical of Saudi religious authorities, and two postings regarding theological questions. During a hearing on Badawi's case at the Jeddah Criminal Court on December 17, 2012, Judge Muhammad al-Marsoom prevented Badawi's lawyer from representing his client, the lawyer told Human Rights Watch. Judge al-Marsoom informed Badawi that he could face the death penalty if he did not "repent to God" and renounce his liberal beliefs. Badawi refused. Recommending a trial for apostasy, the judge referred the case to the Jeddah Public Court, which tries more serious crimes. In January, th ePublic Court refused to hear the case, and following a lengthy process to determine which court had jurisdiction, judicial authorities eventually transferred it back to the Criminal Court. Saudi authorities have long harassed Badawi for debating religious issues. In March 2008, authorities arrested Badawi and questioned him about his website, but released him a day later. In May 2008, Badawi was formally charged with "setting up an electronic site that insults Islam" and he left the country. He returned when prosecutors apparently decided to drop the charges, he told Human Rights Watch. In 2009, the authorities barred Badawi from traveling abroad and froze his business interests, depriving him of a source of income, he told Human Rights Watch. On March 18, 2012, the well-known cleric Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Barrak issued a religious ruling declaring Badawi an "unbeliever… and apostate who must be tried and sentenced according to what his words require." Al-Barrak claimed that Badawi had said "that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists are all equal," and that even if these were not Badawi's own opinions but "an account of the words of others, this is not allowed unless accompanied by a repudiation" of such words. Badawi and other contributors to his website declared May 7, 2012, "A Day for Saudi Liberals," hoping to spark an open discussion on distinctions between "popular" and "politicized" religion, Su'ad al-Shammar, the website's director, told Human Rights Watch. Badawi's wife and children moved abroad in 2012, fearing repercussions. International human rights law protects freedom of expression. International standards only allow content based restrictions on expression in extremely narrow circumstances, such as cases of slander or libel against private individuals, or speech that threatens national security. Restrictions must be clearly defined, specific, necessary, and proportionate to the threat to the interest protected. The mere fact that forms of expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, the UN Human Rights Committee said in its 2011 General Comment No. 34 regarding permissible limits on freedom of expression. Regarding restrictions for the protection of public morals, the committee in its 1993 General Comment 22 on freedom of religion observed "that the concept of morals derives from many social, philosophical, and religious traditions; consequently, limitations... for the purpose of protecting morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single tradition." "King Abdullah has received praise for fostering dialogue and an exchange of ideas between religions, but it appears that Saudi authorities' tolerance for open discussion stops at Saudi borders," Houry said. Copyright Human Rights Watch and is reproduced under its Creative Commons Licence
	It’s not culture, it’s a crime against humanity Opinion \| Fri, 26th Jul 2013 When is a crime against humanity not a crime against humanity? When it is applied to women of course. Here's a quick description: Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion. To accompany this, here is (part) of an email I received this week: My life has become a nightmare as my father physically beats me. He hates that I wish to pursue higher education since he and my mother are trying to marry me off in a couple of months to an extremist Muslim who is not in the favour of educating woman just as my family. I wanted to get help here in Saudi Arabia but the laws here support the male guardians over anything else. Saudi government will not bring a father or a husband to justice for murdering their daughters or wives. I know that I cannot do this without fear of being killed from my father or government. In short, a crime against humanity is being committed in Saudi Arabia. The same can be said for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere; every bit of it is propped up by religion, justified by religion, and strengthened by religion. The re-Talibanisation of Afghanistan began in earnest last week when women were told they could not leave their house without being accompanied by a male guardian. This is the case in Saudi also. The Afghan order came in the form of a fatwa (religious ruling) which included a warning that any attempts to block it would result in "jihad". In other words, the clerics of Afghanistan have imprisoned and enslaved women (again), the fatwa was not over-ruled by the government, and thus a crime against humanity has been committed. Such crimes are committed routinely in Afghanistan and we were told this week that the number of rape victims languishing in prison there (for being raped) has increased by 50% in just one year. In Iran, the government commits a similar crime against humanity by stoning women to death for adultery, as well as other barbaric injustices. The Iranian penal code even stipulates the size of the stone; it cannot be so big as to cause a fast death, it cannot be so small as to cause a relatively painless one. They've got all bases covered. In Pakistan, a staggering 90% of women are subject to domestic abuse. Despite feeble attempts to deal with this, women still do not have any practical protection. Domestic violence is still "endemic" and the misogyny that drives it still mainstream. In summary, crimes against humanity are committed with impunity. But don't expect to hear them called that. When committed against a woman, a crime against humanity undergoes a remarkable metamorphosis and becomes "culture" (aka religion). "Culture" — for those insufficiently trained in politically correct totalitarianism — is entirely positive, cannot change, and if you disagree even slightly, you are a racist. Those are the rules. The United Nations, founded after World War II (partly) to promote human rights and global justice, has not — as you might expect — taken sufficient steps to stamp out these crimes. In fact, the opposite is true; Despite characterising freedom of speech as a universal right, the United Nations is being brow-beaten by the Organisation of Islamic Conference (Cooperation… whatever) in to accepting an international law preventing criticism of Islam — and you can bet that the practices carried out in its name (i.e. crimes against humanity) will be covered by this anti-blasphemy edict. In her fantastic book 'Are Women Human?' Catharine MacKinnon argues that human rights laws across the globe simply don't apply to women — such laws are side-stepped and ignored. Crimes against women are routinely sanitised as "tradition", "conservative", "cultural" and of course "religious" — all untouchable, all beyond criticism. When the Rushdie affair taught us the new rule on not criticising religion, we accepted it without question. Now, women all over the world are having their rights removed (including western women) because the truth about the religious nature of these crimes is suppressed. We cannot insult religion, and if a few women are imprisoned, raped, enslaved, tortured, humiliated, and beaten as a result — then so be it. See also: FGM: 30 million girls at risk
	It may be a new velvet glove, but it’s the same old iron fist at the Vatican Opinion \| Tue, 30th Jul 2013 You've got to give the Vatican credit for having installed a Pope who appears to be nice and cuddly and says all the right things. But as with everything pertaining to the Vatican, one needs to keep a sceptical antenna waving. Nothing is as it seems in that kingdom of lies and deception. The propaganda coup that they have pulled off by getting rid of the disastrous Ratzinger (retired through ill-health? Give me a break! It's clear, to me at least, that he was disposed of) and replacing him with the apparently cuddlier, kindlier and more modest South American, is brilliant. So far. But for those who are prepared to look beyond the carefully constructed image, it is clear that Senor Bergoglio is, in fact, as hard and unyielding as his cold-hearted predecessor. Bergoglio has just scored a big hit in Brazil where his inflated spectaculars rallied great crowds on Copacabana beach. On the plane back to Rome he answered questions from journalists who wanted to press him on the same "hot button" issues that so tormented Herr Ratzinger — and from which they gleaned so many column inches. It was very revealing. Take away the apparently emollient words and Bergoglio says exactly the same as Ratzinger. He thinks homosexuals should be treated with respect ("Who am I to judge? You can't marginalise these people," he says patronisingly). But then he goes on to say that the Church still condemns homosexual relationships and always will. So, it's business as usual and his implacable opposition to gay marriage remains unshakable. On the question of the involvement of women — yes, they should play a "full part" in Church life, he says. Except that they will never, ever be permitted into the priesthood and they will never, ever have any real power or influence. Put the kettle on, sister — and my apartment needs cleaning. He says that God "forgives and forgets" sins if there is repentance (but he, quickly adds, God doesn't forget crimes, such as the rape of children). So the Vatican's despicable history of persecution and corruption is all OK now because it repented and God has forgiven and forgotten. Handy, isn't it? And I'm sure all those heretics it burned at the stake and those women it used as slaves in the Magdalene Laundries will take great comfort from the fact that the Vatican is truly sorry. So just shut up about it and let it drop, will you? Bergoglio makes big noises about being the pope of the people, the pontiff of the poverty-stricken and the weak and disenfranchised. He makes very public gestures about living in modest accommodation and not wanting to wear fancy costumes all embroidered with jewels. What's not to like? Well, if he is as orthodox and dogmatic as this talk to journalists suggests, then his heart is as hard as any tyrant's. He will do nothing about the ban on condoms in countries afflicted by AIDS, he will do nothing to force the hands of the religious orders who refuse to pay for their past cruelties in Ireland and leave it for the taxpayer to pick up the tab. And we have yet to see any move to address the issue of child rape and exploitation by priests. (He made it illegal in Vatican City, but how many children live there?). The Vatican's untold wealth remains untouched, while millions starve. He makes patronising gestures like washing the feet of prisoners. But his past shows that he is conservative to the core and will change nothing except, perhaps, the window dressing of the papacy. Bergoglio is going to have to do more than smile and speak in a kindly voice to convince this cynic that he is one iota different to the two horrors who sat on the throne of St Peter immediately before him. He is no reformer. If he had been, the powers-that-be in the Holy See wouldn't have let him anywhere near the papacy.
	A right for one is a right for all Opinion \| Tue, 30th Jul 2013 Charles C. Haynes argues that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution must be vigorously defended from religious attacks. Government in America must be neutral among religions and neutral between religion and non-religion — at least that's how the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But escalating conflicts involving government treatment of the non-religious — atheists and humanists — reveal that far too many government officials are confused and conflicted about the meaning of "neutrality." In recent months alone, an atheist monument stirred controversy in Florida, an atheist applicant for citizenship was instructed to join a church, and a congressional committee nixed atheist chaplains. Let's start with the first-ever atheist monument, a 1,500-pound bench erected alongside a Ten Commandments monument in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Florida. After a local Christian group installed the Ten Commandments monument last year, American Atheists sued to have it removed. When county officials refused, the atheist group decided to put up a counter-monument featuring quotations from various American founders about church-state separation and passages from the Bible describing punishments for violating the Ten Commandments. Bradford County set the stage for this confrontation in 2011 when it designated the space a "free speech forum" in order to allow a local Christian group to put up a Ten Commandments display. But county officials soon realized that once the courthouse courtyard is open to one, it must be open to all. American Atheists, of course, would rather have no monuments on government property. But if you can't beat them, join them. The tactic of putting an atheist message next to a religious message puts governments on notice that any attempt to promote religion on public property will be answered by demands for equal treatment from the non-religious. The push-back from atheists in places like Bradford County is triggered by the fact that equal treatment for the non-religious is difficult to come by in a society where religion is often privileged. Consider the cruel choice faced by Margaret Doughty, a British-born atheist who has lived in the U.S. for 30 years. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services informed Doughty earlier this month that unless she joined a church her application for naturalized citizenship would be denied. Doughty ran into this roadblock because she can't in good conscience swear that she is willing "to take up arms to defend the United States." The government, it turns out, routinely grants conscientious objectors exemption from this oath — but only if they belong to a religion that opposes the bearing of arms. This policy puts atheists and humanists seeking citizenship — but who have moral objections to war — in the unfair and unjust position of either joining a church or being denied American citizenship. What makes this particularly galling is that the Supreme Court made clear years ago that draftees with moral and philosophical beliefs that impose a duty not to participate in war must be granted conscientious objector status on the same basis as those with traditional religious convictions (Welsh v. United States, 1970). After letters of protest from the American Humanist Association and other groups representing atheists and humanists, the immigration service backed down — and Margaret Doughty is now an American citizen. Immigration officials may finally understand the meaning of equal treatment for the non-religious. But many members of Congress have yet to learn this First Amendment lesson. Recently, the House Armed Services Committee voted down an amendment to the defence bill that would have authorized atheist and humanist chaplains in the military. Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist chaplains serve in all branches of the military. But a majority of the members of the Armed Services Committee apparently believe that the non-religious don't have the same needs as the religious for counselling, support and community. These and many other clashes involving atheists fighting for equal treatment could be avoided if government officials understood that religious liberty isn't just for the religious. As guaranteed by the First Amendment, religious liberty is built on a simple, but profound, principle: A right for one is a right for all. Charles C. Haynes is Director of the Religious Freedom Project. This article used with permission. Newseum Institute. 2013.
	Pentecostal churches thriving in London as traditional denominations decline News \| Wed, 31st Jul 2013 Since 2005, there has been a 50% increase in the numbers of people attending Pentecostal Churches in London — a phenomenon explained by a large influx of immigrants from Africa during that period. In the same period, the number of Anglican church-goers has declined by 9%, while Catholic worshippers have risen by 1%, again mainly due to immigration from Eastern European and Latin countries. The new study carried out for the evangelical group The London City Mission by the Brierley Consultancy showed that 230,000 people attended Pentecostal services last year compared to 198,300 at Catholic Masses. According the Churches Census, which recorded congregation sizes on a Sunday in October 2012, Pentecostal churchgoers now make up 32% of Sunday worshippers in London, compared to 27% for Catholics and 12% attending Anglican churches. In 1979, 333,700 Catholics went to church on Sunday. This represents a decline of 40%, the same percentage decline as for Anglican churches. Other traditional Christian denominations have also declined since 2005, with the Methodists down 11%; United Reformed down 14% and Baptists down 9%. All are continuing to decline. Overall, though, because of the Pentecostal growth, church-going in London rose by 16 per cent between 2005 and 2012 to 720,000. This means that nearly 10% of Londoners attend a church each week, compared with 5.6% nationally. Pentecostal churches now make up 30% of the total number of churches in London — more than 1450 of them. The only other denomination with more than 1,000 churches in the capital is the Church of England.