Newsline 29 May 2015

If you believe that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us to support our work and campaigns. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

	NSS calls for investigation of Orthodox Jewish schools after driving ban on mothers News \| Fri, 29th May 2015 The National Secular Society has called on the Department for Education to investigate two independent Orthodox Jewish schools following demands that pupils be barred from school if dropped off by mothers after a driving 'driving ban' was imposed on women by school leaders. A religious ruling from rabbinic leaders of the Orthodox Jewish Belz sect says allowing women to drive violates "the traditional rules of modesty in our camp." Belz sect members run two large schools in north London, Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass, which educates 444 boys and Beis Malka, which is attended by 135 girls. Both schools are rated 'good' by Ofsted. The Jewish Chronicle has revealed that a letter sent out last week by the sect's leaders insists that as of August students would not be allowed to enter school if their mothers drove them there. According to the letter, the increasing numbers of mothers who drive has led to "great resentment among parents of pupils in our institutions". Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle, said he found the ban "repellent" and said the call to prevent children from attending the schools if their mothers drive them would have "profound implications". Commenting on the reports, National Secular Society campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said: "We trust the DfE will ensure that no child is ostracised or has their education disrupted on the basis of a misogynistic diktat handed down by religious leaders. "We have written to the DfE asking it to investigate whether these schools are being run by fit and proper persons, whether they are in breach of Independent School Standards by undermining the fundamental value of individual liberty and whether any discrimination has occurred contrary to Equality Act 2010." Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, told London's Evening Standard: "Blocking women from driving portrays this very patriarchal society where traditional values are upheld, but they are facing a changing world and they are reacting with an almost extremism. "They see any role that women take outside the home space as a bit of a problem and somehow it's really hard for them to see women being independent and doing things on their own." It is not the first time that Orthodox Jewish schools in Stamford Hill have caused controversy. In 2014 The National Secular Society uncovered evidence of the publicly funded Yesodey Hatorah girls' secondary school censoring exam paper questions on human reproduction and evolution. NSS campaigning led to the exam regulator Ofqual banning redaction of exam questions, a practice that had previously been tolerated on grounds of 'religious sensitivity'. The controversy raised questions over whether some faith schools are compromising children's education by shielding them from key scientific concepts. Earlier this year, the NSS raised concerns over the growing number of children being 'educated' in unauthorised religious schools, some of which are run by the Charedi community in Stamford Hill. UPDATE In a statement released to the National Secular Society, Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan said: "This is completely unacceptable in modern Britain. If schools do not actively promote the principle of respect for other people they are breaching the independent school standards. Where we are made aware of such breaches we will investigate and take any necessary action to address the situation."
	Court ruling: local authorities are under no obligation to subsidise transport to faith schools News \| Fri, 22nd May 2015 A judge has ruled that the state is not obliged to subsidise transportation to and from faith schools, despite ruling in favour of a Catholic school in a case over subsidised school transport. The Bishop Vaughan School has won only two out of six grounds of its case against Swansea Council over the Council's policy of phasing-out funding for subsidised transport to faith schools. Although the judgement will require Swansea's policy to be revised, the judge ruled that the state is not obliged to be "[subsidising] and/or paying the whole cost for transportation between home and school." The judgment is therefore unlikely to result in forcing any significant reversal to the cuts made in England. However, on the specifics of this case, the judge upheld the complaint against Swansea Council, ruling that the policy indirectly discriminated against black and minority ethnic (BME) children. The judgement concluded that the amended policy indirectly discriminated on grounds of race by maintaining free transport to 12 Welsh language schools where the intake is overwhelmingly white, whilst withholding it from prospective pupils of the county's six faith schools where pupils are far more likely to be from BME backgrounds than the average Swansea child. Swansea Council discontinued transport funding for pupils attending faith schools farther away than mainstream schools, but continued to fund transport for students attending Welsh-language schools. Whilst assistance to faith schools is made on a discretionary basis, the Council believed itself to be under a statutory duty to provide subsidy for parents who choose to their children to Welsh medium schools; the judge thought they had put too much emphasis on this. The Council stressed that pupils would have still been able to access a "good local school" and that the change was being implemented over six years, so that current students who benefit from the subsidy are not impacted. However, the Bursar of Bishop Vaughan School described the policy as "brutal" and the school governors, along with a pupil from the school and the Diocese of Menevia, claimed the policy was unlawful. Though they have won their case on other grounds, the judge ruled that the state is under no obligation to subsidise costs to faith schools. National Secular Society executive director Keith Porteous Wood commented: "We are relieved that, crucially, the court ruled that the policy did not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief and that Councils' obligations do not extend to subsidising or paying the whole cost for transportation between home and school. We applaud that and doubt therefore that the judgement will lead to local authorities in England being required to reverse their cuts to subsidies in faith school transport. "There were problems, however in stopping the subsidy for faith schools while retaining it for Welsh medium schools; subsidies may have to be for none or both. "We do not see this as an issue of discrimination against the religious. The cuts eliminate a privilege under which the religious have had subsidised transport denied to others." The full court ruling can be read here: https://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/diocese-of-menevia-v-city-of-swansea-(approved)-20.pdf
	72% support council’s bid to cut free travel subsidy for faith schools News \| Tue, 26th May 2015 Kirklees Council is considering ending free travel to faith schools in a bid to cut out unnecessary expenditure. The move has widespread local support, with 72% of 926 consultation responses in support of the measure. Currently, pupils receive free bus passes to faith schools- funded by the council- for secondary schools over three miles away and for primary schools more than two miles away from their home even if a closer school exists. A council report stated: "Returning to a statutory provision will remove the risk of requests for transport provision in the future from people of other religions and beliefs." The council is therefore proposing a return to the minimum transport provision it is required to provide. This is expected to save £110,000 a year. The cuts, if approved, are expected to come into force in September 2016 and will affect 456 pupils currently in receipt of free bus passes to attend faith schools. The Council says it is "impossible" to say how many children would change schools to save transport costs. National Secular Society campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There are huge costs involved in organising educational provision along religious lines. As well as being morally wrong and leading to social segregation, it is expensive and inefficient. As the Kirklees Council report finds, providing free transport to all faith schools when closer schools exist is not a cost taxpayers should be expected to pay." A final decision will be made by Kirklees Council in early June. The news follows a court ruling last week in which a judge concluded that the state is not obliged to subsidise transport costs between a child's home and a faith school if a closer mainstream school exists. Though the court ruled in favour of a Catholic school affected by transport-subsidy cuts proposed by Swansea Council, the judgment made clear that local authorities are not under any obligation to provide subsidised transport for pupils attending faith schools.
	Councillor called an “absolute disgrace” for asking that prayers not take place in official meetings News \| Tue, 26th May 2015 A local councillor has been called an "absolute disgrace" by a Conservative councillor for suggesting that it was "inappropriate" to hold prayers in council meetings. David Boothroyd, a Labour councillor and a non-believer, objected after the new Lord Mayor of Westminster asked a chaplain to lead the council in prayers. After the prayers had taken place, Mr Boothroyd raised a point of order and said, "It is entirely inappropriate to insert into a council meeting about the governance of the city a religious ceremony which may not have meaning for everyone here." "It is as wrong to have a religious observance that everyone has to participate in, regardless of faith, as it is to stop people with religious faith from praying if they want to. It is an imposition on us." In response to the imposition of prayers on the meeting, he went on, "In my case I want to make a solemn affirmation that I do solely, sincerely and solemnly declare that there is no rational basis for belief in gods." In response to councillor Boothroyd's point of order, the head of democratic services at the council cited the power of the Local Government (Religious etc Observances) Act. "In recent legislation it is expressly allowed to have religious ceremony in council meetings," the official responded. Conservative councillor Lindsey Hall said, "I thought Councillor Boothroyd's outburst tonight was an absolute disgrace. The Lord Mayor has always had a chaplain." National Secular Society spokesperson, Stephen Evans, commented on the case saying: "This just goes to show the unnecessary division and resentment that can be caused by imposing prayer in secular settings. The supporters of the Local Government (Religious etc Observances) Act called it a 'modest measure' to restore power to local authorities, in fact it essentially allows councils to publicly identify with a particular religious belief and impose its rituals on councillors whilst they carry out their civic duties for wish they were elected." The National Secular Society campaigned against the Act earlier this year, warning when the then-bill passed through the Commons that it would effectively impose "acts of religious worship on public servants", or else cause them to excuse themselves from meetings while prayers were said. In the past month Whitchurch Town Council decided to abolish their practice of holding prayers at the start of meetings, while a council in Northern Ireland suffered a bitter split over whether to hold religious observances or not. In April 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a town in Quebec which held prayers during council meetings.
	The Catholic Church is now paying the price for its past in Ireland Opinion \| Tue, 26th May 2015 NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood welcomes the Irish referendum result on marriage equality and argues that the Catholic Church's appalling recent history in Ireland shows it deserves to be discredited- as it now has been, by the overwhelming referendum "Yes" result. Last week, Ireland's citizens voted in a landslide to legalise same-sex marriage. Unsurprisingly, the constituencies most in favour of "Yes" were within 50 miles of Dublin followed by the larger cities. Those least in favour tended to be nearest to the meandering border with Northern Ireland, probably with a higher proportion of protestant voters. Variations in the percentage of turnout did not impact on the overall result. More rural areas tend to be less in favour, but not always. While the very rural Mayo and Galway East were only just in favour, the even more remote Galway west was over 60% in favour. The major lessons of the Irish referendum endorsement of same sex marriage by nearly 2:1 are religion-connected. Primarily, it showed just how out of step the Catholic Church is with the Irish population. Even more striking is the speed with which this country, so recently completely in hock to that same Church, has changed diametrically. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, notably more realistic than many of his episcopal brethren, recognised that the Referendum signified a "social revolution" that did not happen in one day. Indeed. In 1990 the Republic of Ireland had the highest proportion of weekly church attendance in Europe. At over 80%, it was in a class of its own; the next European contender was "only" 41%. An expert in religious statistics, Dr Peter Brierley, wrote just fifteen years ago that "the Irish Republic is the most religious country … in the world [I imagine he meant "Christian"] … with (in 1995) 98% professing an allegiance to a Christian church and 87% to the Catholic Church". Yet it wasn't many years later that the Catholic commentator Mary Kenny first bemoaned that Ireland had become "post-Catholic"; she now regards it as sometimes "anti-Catholic". Crucially, her Post Christian comment was made before public awareness had been raised about clerical child abuse in Ireland. But the Church's reputation had a lot further to fall with the constant drip feed of atrocities culminating and the dawning realisation that measured relative to its population, reported clerical child abuse is Ireland the highest in world. The referendum result is in part the Church paying the price for its shameless role in facilitating the continuation of that child-rape, sheltering clerical child-rapists from justice and denying justice to the victims. They were often punished for speaking out and told they were lying. To this day, the Church continues to fight tooth and nail every case and any compensation. The Irish people were no less disgusted when the Papal Nuncio refused to give evidence to a Commission on child abuse, claiming diplomatic immunity. In 2011 Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kennedy famously reportedly "accused the Vatican of covering up for paedophile priests in Ireland only three years [earlier]" precipitating the Nuncio's recall to the Vatican, after a groundswell calling for his expulsion. Until then the Church had got away with everything; religious influence on the Government had been total, the very antithesis of secularism. But even this unprecedented, and indeed previously unthinkable, public castigation certainly didn't lead to humility, if anything the opposite. In 2013 the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, in an attempt to derail same sex marriage plans, threatened the Government. In a submission to the Constitutional Convention on same sex marriage it warned: "... if there were two totally different definitions of marriage the Church could no longer carry out the civil element". As there are few civil registrars in Ireland, this would cause a major problem. Despite this, the Convention came out in support of same sex marriage which led to the Referendum. So the Church, shamelessly, tried again. The Tablet reported shortly before the Referendum that the "Church in Ireland threatened not to carry out the civil registration formalities customary at the end of Catholic marriage ceremonies". This was once again to no avail. Surely, having made the dire threat twice – is "blackmail" too strong a word? – and having been so completely ignored, has the Church not demonstrated its impotence more effectively than if it had not made the threats? The Church presumably did however realise that bullying voters, perhaps declaring that to vote "yes" would be a mortal sin, would not work. Seemingly at least some in the Church realised how little influence clerical pleading would have, and accordingly largely subcontracted the campaigning to lay organisations such as the Iona Institute. I accept that it was an uphill task arguing to denying equality to people in love who the Church still considers to be "intrinsically disordered" and has historically vilified, and worse. And the coming out stories precipitated by supporters of a 'Yes' vote would turn all but the most stone-hearted. But these lay organisations could hardly have made a worse mess of boosting the opponents. Their campaigns were not only negative, they were gratuitously insulting and economic with the truth to the point of parsimony. They even questioned whether prominent proponents "had rejected their faith". They scaremongered baselessly about the loss of religious freedom and attacked same sex adoption, despite it not being affected by the Referendum. And the disingenuousness simply drove voters all the harder to tick 'Yes' box, while turning the population even further from the Church. The second, even more painful, lesson for the Church in the longer term is that it was the young who were so overwhelmingly supportive of a 'yes' vote. Some travelled huge distances to register their vote. Touchingly, they dubbed the last Republic-bound boat train from London's Euston before the vote as the "Equality Train" and sent selfies to their friends. Memorably, Archbishop Martin was asking himself: "most of these young people who voted 'yes' are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church". If twelve years indoctrination has turned the youth, Ireland's future, against the Church, the only way they could be brought back, if it is possible at all, is for the Church to change out of all recognition. And that is beyond the Archbishop of Dublin. The final lesson is that this calls "time" on Northern Ireland's refusal to allow same sex marriages, the only part of the UK not to have them. Spain and Portugal, France, Benelux and Scandinavian countries have them and the populations of Germany and Italy are in favour of them. But it will be a hard battle; there was a clue in the Republic's constituencies near the Northern Ireland Border being least keen to vote 'yes'. And the politicians in the DUP, Northern Ireland's leading party, are even less keen than their supporters, and the Party has a veto. So this looks like having to be resolved in the courts, or even Strasbourg. It is only 100 miles between Dublin and Belfast, and the enthusiastic Referendum result has made the likelihood of a positive outcome in Northern Ireland much more likely, and urgent. The pressure is already building up. And maybe the ease with which this referendum passed suggests an attempt should be made to liberalise, or even humanise, the Irish Republic's absurdly restrictive abortion laws, where abortion is in practice means-tested - restricted to those who can afford to have this undertaken abroad. Every year thousands do make these lonely journeys, and others submit themselves to back street abortions. Keith Porteous Wood is the executive director of the National Secular Society. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS. The below table indicates how the vote broke down in descending order of % "Yes" vote in each constituency.
	Time for Christians of goodwill to say “Not In My Name” Opinion \| Tue, 26th May 2015 Most Christians don't feel the need to be exempt from equality legislation in order to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs. Terry Sanderson says it's time they spoke out against those that do. The efforts by some evangelical groups to secure special privileges for Christians in the workplace – mostly at the expense of the rights of other people – were in evidence again recently with another trumped up story of supposed discrimination on grounds of religion. The Christian Legal Centre said that a hospital-worker had suffered "religious discrimination" after she was disciplined for trying to bully a Muslim colleague into embracing her own evangelical version of Christianity. It was widely reported in the right wing press as another case of Christians being "persecuted" for their beliefs. When the matter came to court, a very different story emerged. Even though just about all their legal challenges have failed, the zealots of the Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Institute have been wildly successful in creating the idea that "something must be done" to protect Christians from the supposedly hostile society in which they live. That something is a "conscience cause" in the Equality Act that would relieve them of the duty to obey the law in the same way that everyone else must. In Northern Ireland just such an opt-out clause is high on the political agenda, and has been given new impetus by the "gay cake" row. Many people have said that it was wrong for Ashers Bakery to have been found guilty of discrimination because it refused to make a cake with a message in support of same-sex marriage iced on to it. The court did not agree and found the bakers guilty. It may seem like a trivial case, but it actually represents a very big principle. Can a commercial firm claim to have a religious identity? Can a bakery be "Christian"? By its own admission, many of its employees are not. The point is that this case was about whether gay people are truly equal members of society or whether Christians should have the "right" to render them second class. The law says that firms operating for commercial gain must serve all-comers equally. The evangelicals who are leading this campaign think they should not have to observe such a law as their "conscience" is more important than anything else. But not all Christians think this way. In fact, very few of them want to go down this route of intolerance, but the Christian Institute and the Christian Legal Centre purport to speak for them all when they talk about a "Christian conscience". We often ask moderate Muslims to denounce the extremists in their midst. Now it is time for Christians of goodwill to disown the Christian Legal Centre and its ilk and say loud and clear: "Not in my name".
	Creationism blocked in Scottish science classes News \| Thu, 28th May 2015 The Scottish education minister has stated that creationism should not be taught in science classes in publicly-funded Scottish schools. Alasdair Allan, Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages, said that creationism is not a "scientific principle" and "it should therefore not be taught as part of science lessons." The announcement came after a statement by the Holyrood Parliament, following a petition and campaign by the Scottish Secular Society urging the Scottish Government to tackle the issue, after cases emerged of Christian fundamentalists handing out creationist literature in schools. NSS spokesperson for Scotland Alastair McBay commented: "Scottish secularists have done a superb job in tackling this issue in the face of predictable opposition from religious interests. The degree of infiltration in Scotland's schools, particularly non-denominational ones, by Christian fundamentalists, means that we must all remain vigilant as these people take no notice of Government edicts and will continue to teach such nonsense under a flag of freedom of religious expression. Creationist beliefs may be a topic for religious education classes, but they have no place in the science classroom." The Scottish Secular Society's petition had called on the Scottish Parliament to "urge the Scottish Government to issue official guidance to bar the presentation in Scottish publicly funded schools of separate creation and of Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent, and deep time." The Scottish Government had previously not explicitly stated that the teaching of creationism as a valid scientific theory was prohibited, but has now done so. The Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland said that the debate was "an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time." In January 2015, a motion was put forward by two MSPs which called for Scottish children to be made "aware" of creationist teaching. One of the supporters of the motion, John Mason MSP, tweeted: "I think science is better sticking to what exists. How and why things came about is probably better not included in science." In England, the Department for Education has previously stated that teaching creationism as scientific fact is "wrong" and that schools are not permitted to teach creationism instead of valid and thoroughly evidenced scientific theories. The DfE says it will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum.
	Queen’s Speech: concerns over illiberal Government counter-terror plans News \| Wed, 27th May 2015 The National Secular Society has expressed concern over new "anti-extremism" plans announced in the Conservative Government's first Queen's Speech. A new Extremism Bill will introduce "Extremism Disruption Orders"- previously promised by Theresa May, and "banning orders"- which will allow the Home Secretary to target and ban radical groups. Additionally, "closure orders" will give local authorities the power to close down premises used by religious extremists. An Investigatory Powers Bill is also promised, and it is thought that it will contain many measures blocked by the Liberal Democrats under the Coalition. The Government claims the proposals will "promote social cohesion" and "protect people by tackling extremism". When renewed plans for "Extremism Disruption Orders" were first announced by the Home Secretary earlier in May, the National Secular Society warned the plans could have a "chilling effect" on free speech. Responding to the speech, NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood commented: "There is a need to confront extremist ideology, but the vagueness of the orders and low prosecution thresholds are likely to result in a very significant threat to freedom of expression". He called for a stronger civil society approach to tackle religious extremism, rather than one which relies on draconian new legislation. The Christian Institute previously argued that the proposals could even exceed the Labour Government's 'religious hatred' plans or Section 5 of the Public Order Act in terms of the danger posed to free expression. The National Secular Society has however welcomed the Government's apparent delay in delivering its manifesto pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act. The Conservative Government's first Queen's Speech saw a pledge to "bring forward proposals for a British bill of rights". This has led to speculation that the Government will only offer a consultation, and will not press ahead with legislation to repeal and replace the Act. Amnesty International responded that the UK already has a British Bill of Rights in the form of the current Human Rights Act. Legislation will also be introduced to increase the powers of the Charities Commission to close down charities in breach of the rules. The National Secular Society has repeatedly warned about religious charities misusing their charitable status.
	Christian leaders need to prioritise their targets Opinion \| Thu, 28th May 2015 It is tiresomely common to have some Christian leaders describing secularism as intolerant, bigoted, militant or aggressive. At a time when Christians are being met with genuine persecution around the world, Benjamin Jones argues that Christian leaders should prioritise their targets and drop their hysterical language. Last week Douglas Murray wrote an article for the Spectator arguing that "secularists need to prioritise their targets." In it he made the reasonable point that secularism faces far larger threats than the arcane arrangement of the House of Lords, and that "one religion in particular" is the clear and greater danger to secularism today. It's a point I agree with - but not one that is a fair criticism of the National Secular Society's work. Godless Spellchecker makes the counter-case here and writes: "It's true that far too many individuals and organisations are more than happy to take a swing at the 'lesser' evils of a Christian flavour – yet develop a mysterious case of chronic arm fatigue where the religion of peace is concerned. However, I just feel it's a tad unfair to make this point in the context of the National Secular Society and secularists in general." In any case, there are some Christians who are in far greater need of refocusing their efforts and priorities than secularists. Earlier in May, a Catholic former High Court judge said that secularism in the UK was on a par with religious repression under the Tudors- a hysterical claim, dutifully repeated by Catholic news outlets. Sir Michael Tugendhat said secularists have a view of "freedom of speech which is as restrictive of that of Elizabeth I". It is – needless to say- an extremely offensive and wilfully ignorant argument to make, but we won't be issuing a fatwa against him. Perhaps if Sir Michael hadn't upset himself so much he could have remained calm enough to see that the National Secular Society these days spends a great deal of its time defending freedom of expression from religious extremists. Naturally, this includes the freedom of speech of religious people. Tugendhat argued that secularists wanted to force religion into the "private sphere" and went on to say that "the terrible story of the Tudor-Stuart religious divisions should be a reminder that freedom which is confined entirely to the privacy of a person's home is a form of oppression." Likewise, Cardinal Nichols has (again) compared secularism with religious fundamentalism, warning of both "religious fundamentalism" and "aggressive secularism" in the same breath. What does the world look like to people like Sir Michael and Cardinal Nichols? Do they really look at the video propaganda of the Islamic State and see an equivalent evil in equality laws? Is secularism causing hundreds of British teenagers to leave their homes and families behind to join a brutal war? Are the writings of secularists being used as license to kill and murder? The Vatican denounced the Irish referendum as a "disaster for humanity". Of all the things today that merit that label- is marriage equality really the one to pick? While I have misgivings about the Ashers case, having to ask one of your employees to bake a cake topped with a slogan you disagree with is not the same as or even remotely comparable to being taken to the shores of a failed North African state and facing a brutal execution; yet some Christian leaders use almost the same language ('militant', 'aggressive', 'repressive') to describe both. It leaves the impression that Sir Michael- if taken at his word- actually believes secularists are a greater threat to Christians than religious fundamentalism. This is the product of a heavily distorted worldview, and it is something that Douglas Murray has argued against before. If only there was some sense of proportionality in the histrionic language these Christian leaders use. There isn't much difference between the language of Cardinal Nichols and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, who last year described secularism in Europe as "apocalyptic." Finally though, on the point about the House of Lords, removing institutional religious privilege now would set the helpful precedent that religion is not to be institutionally privileged by the state. I put it that this precedent will be a helpful one to have in 2050, when Muslims in the UK will certainly outnumber Anglicans. The number of Anglican churchgoers (1.7 million in 2008) was already vastly exceeded by the total number of Muslims (2.7 million in 2011) seven years ago. It would be very helpful to have a clear, established precedent that clerics are not granted seats in the legislature when other faiths start making demands about proportionality and demanding their own seats and votes (as happened in education with non-Christian faith schools). While I would not say the House of Lords is more important than our campaign work on education or free speech (for example), it is not an irrelevant issue either. Benjamin Jones is the NSS communications officer. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS.

NSS Speaks Out

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood was quoted in the Express after an investigation into the Methodist Church uncovered reports of nearly 2,000 alleged abuse cases - including 914 allegations involving sexual abuse. Keith also appeared on BBC London to discuss the driving ban imposed on women by an Orthodox Jewish sect.

Both Keith and our campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, appeared on LBC this week to discuss the way in which religion is taught in schools.

Stephen also had a letter published in the Western Mail concerning the implications of a Catholic school's court victory against Swansea Council's transport to faith schools policy.

Quotes of the Week

"People talk about Islamophobia [but] the real Islamophobia … is to assume that if you say anything that might be controversial or upsetting to Muslims, they might come and kill you."
Tom Holland, historian and author, after delivering the inaugural Christopher Hitchens lecture.

"The idea the country belongs to a religious sect is seen as simply absurd".
Norman Davies, Professor Emeritus at University College London, speaking on the continued existence of an established Church given the decline of religion in the UK.

"The believer needs to recognise that blasphemy isn't necessarily a matter for panic, let alone violence".
Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury.

Essays of the Week

We cannot choose which free speech we will defend and which we will not
Padraig Reidy, Index on Censorship.

Video: de-radicalising Muhammad
Tom Holland's "Christopher Hitchens Lecture" from the Hay Festival.

Skyping with the enemy: I went undercover as a jihadi girlfriend
Anna Erelle, Guardian.

Upcoming Events

Social cohesion - lessons from the Pennines

Wed, 10th Jun 2015

The Equality Act 2010: five-years on

Mon, 22nd Jun 2015

	NSS calls for investigation of Orthodox Jewish schools after driving ban on mothers News \| Fri, 29th May 2015 The National Secular Society has called on the Department for Education to investigate two independent Orthodox Jewish schools following demands that pupils be barred from school if dropped off by mothers after a driving 'driving ban' was imposed on women by school leaders. A religious ruling from rabbinic leaders of the Orthodox Jewish Belz sect says allowing women to drive violates "the traditional rules of modesty in our camp." Belz sect members run two large schools in north London, Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass, which educates 444 boys and Beis Malka, which is attended by 135 girls. Both schools are rated 'good' by Ofsted. The Jewish Chronicle has revealed that a letter sent out last week by the sect's leaders insists that as of August students would not be allowed to enter school if their mothers drove them there. According to the letter, the increasing numbers of mothers who drive has led to "great resentment among parents of pupils in our institutions". Stephen Pollard, editor of The Jewish Chronicle, said he found the ban "repellent" and said the call to prevent children from attending the schools if their mothers drive them would have "profound implications". Commenting on the reports, National Secular Society campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said: "We trust the DfE will ensure that no child is ostracised or has their education disrupted on the basis of a misogynistic diktat handed down by religious leaders. "We have written to the DfE asking it to investigate whether these schools are being run by fit and proper persons, whether they are in breach of Independent School Standards by undermining the fundamental value of individual liberty and whether any discrimination has occurred contrary to Equality Act 2010." Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, told London's Evening Standard: "Blocking women from driving portrays this very patriarchal society where traditional values are upheld, but they are facing a changing world and they are reacting with an almost extremism. "They see any role that women take outside the home space as a bit of a problem and somehow it's really hard for them to see women being independent and doing things on their own." It is not the first time that Orthodox Jewish schools in Stamford Hill have caused controversy. In 2014 The National Secular Society uncovered evidence of the publicly funded Yesodey Hatorah girls' secondary school censoring exam paper questions on human reproduction and evolution. NSS campaigning led to the exam regulator Ofqual banning redaction of exam questions, a practice that had previously been tolerated on grounds of 'religious sensitivity'. The controversy raised questions over whether some faith schools are compromising children's education by shielding them from key scientific concepts. Earlier this year, the NSS raised concerns over the growing number of children being 'educated' in unauthorised religious schools, some of which are run by the Charedi community in Stamford Hill. UPDATE In a statement released to the National Secular Society, Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan said: "This is completely unacceptable in modern Britain. If schools do not actively promote the principle of respect for other people they are breaching the independent school standards. Where we are made aware of such breaches we will investigate and take any necessary action to address the situation."
	Court ruling: local authorities are under no obligation to subsidise transport to faith schools News \| Fri, 22nd May 2015 A judge has ruled that the state is not obliged to subsidise transportation to and from faith schools, despite ruling in favour of a Catholic school in a case over subsidised school transport. The Bishop Vaughan School has won only two out of six grounds of its case against Swansea Council over the Council's policy of phasing-out funding for subsidised transport to faith schools. Although the judgement will require Swansea's policy to be revised, the judge ruled that the state is not obliged to be "[subsidising] and/or paying the whole cost for transportation between home and school." The judgment is therefore unlikely to result in forcing any significant reversal to the cuts made in England. However, on the specifics of this case, the judge upheld the complaint against Swansea Council, ruling that the policy indirectly discriminated against black and minority ethnic (BME) children. The judgement concluded that the amended policy indirectly discriminated on grounds of race by maintaining free transport to 12 Welsh language schools where the intake is overwhelmingly white, whilst withholding it from prospective pupils of the county's six faith schools where pupils are far more likely to be from BME backgrounds than the average Swansea child. Swansea Council discontinued transport funding for pupils attending faith schools farther away than mainstream schools, but continued to fund transport for students attending Welsh-language schools. Whilst assistance to faith schools is made on a discretionary basis, the Council believed itself to be under a statutory duty to provide subsidy for parents who choose to their children to Welsh medium schools; the judge thought they had put too much emphasis on this. The Council stressed that pupils would have still been able to access a "good local school" and that the change was being implemented over six years, so that current students who benefit from the subsidy are not impacted. However, the Bursar of Bishop Vaughan School described the policy as "brutal" and the school governors, along with a pupil from the school and the Diocese of Menevia, claimed the policy was unlawful. Though they have won their case on other grounds, the judge ruled that the state is under no obligation to subsidise costs to faith schools. National Secular Society executive director Keith Porteous Wood commented: "We are relieved that, crucially, the court ruled that the policy did not discriminate on grounds of religion or belief and that Councils' obligations do not extend to subsidising or paying the whole cost for transportation between home and school. We applaud that and doubt therefore that the judgement will lead to local authorities in England being required to reverse their cuts to subsidies in faith school transport. "There were problems, however in stopping the subsidy for faith schools while retaining it for Welsh medium schools; subsidies may have to be for none or both. "We do not see this as an issue of discrimination against the religious. The cuts eliminate a privilege under which the religious have had subsidised transport denied to others." The full court ruling can be read here: https://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/diocese-of-menevia-v-city-of-swansea-(approved)-20.pdf
	72% support council’s bid to cut free travel subsidy for faith schools News \| Tue, 26th May 2015 Kirklees Council is considering ending free travel to faith schools in a bid to cut out unnecessary expenditure. The move has widespread local support, with 72% of 926 consultation responses in support of the measure. Currently, pupils receive free bus passes to faith schools- funded by the council- for secondary schools over three miles away and for primary schools more than two miles away from their home even if a closer school exists. A council report stated: "Returning to a statutory provision will remove the risk of requests for transport provision in the future from people of other religions and beliefs." The council is therefore proposing a return to the minimum transport provision it is required to provide. This is expected to save £110,000 a year. The cuts, if approved, are expected to come into force in September 2016 and will affect 456 pupils currently in receipt of free bus passes to attend faith schools. The Council says it is "impossible" to say how many children would change schools to save transport costs. National Secular Society campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "There are huge costs involved in organising educational provision along religious lines. As well as being morally wrong and leading to social segregation, it is expensive and inefficient. As the Kirklees Council report finds, providing free transport to all faith schools when closer schools exist is not a cost taxpayers should be expected to pay." A final decision will be made by Kirklees Council in early June. The news follows a court ruling last week in which a judge concluded that the state is not obliged to subsidise transport costs between a child's home and a faith school if a closer mainstream school exists. Though the court ruled in favour of a Catholic school affected by transport-subsidy cuts proposed by Swansea Council, the judgment made clear that local authorities are not under any obligation to provide subsidised transport for pupils attending faith schools.
	Councillor called an “absolute disgrace” for asking that prayers not take place in official meetings News \| Tue, 26th May 2015 A local councillor has been called an "absolute disgrace" by a Conservative councillor for suggesting that it was "inappropriate" to hold prayers in council meetings. David Boothroyd, a Labour councillor and a non-believer, objected after the new Lord Mayor of Westminster asked a chaplain to lead the council in prayers. After the prayers had taken place, Mr Boothroyd raised a point of order and said, "It is entirely inappropriate to insert into a council meeting about the governance of the city a religious ceremony which may not have meaning for everyone here." "It is as wrong to have a religious observance that everyone has to participate in, regardless of faith, as it is to stop people with religious faith from praying if they want to. It is an imposition on us." In response to the imposition of prayers on the meeting, he went on, "In my case I want to make a solemn affirmation that I do solely, sincerely and solemnly declare that there is no rational basis for belief in gods." In response to councillor Boothroyd's point of order, the head of democratic services at the council cited the power of the Local Government (Religious etc Observances) Act. "In recent legislation it is expressly allowed to have religious ceremony in council meetings," the official responded. Conservative councillor Lindsey Hall said, "I thought Councillor Boothroyd's outburst tonight was an absolute disgrace. The Lord Mayor has always had a chaplain." National Secular Society spokesperson, Stephen Evans, commented on the case saying: "This just goes to show the unnecessary division and resentment that can be caused by imposing prayer in secular settings. The supporters of the Local Government (Religious etc Observances) Act called it a 'modest measure' to restore power to local authorities, in fact it essentially allows councils to publicly identify with a particular religious belief and impose its rituals on councillors whilst they carry out their civic duties for wish they were elected." The National Secular Society campaigned against the Act earlier this year, warning when the then-bill passed through the Commons that it would effectively impose "acts of religious worship on public servants", or else cause them to excuse themselves from meetings while prayers were said. In the past month Whitchurch Town Council decided to abolish their practice of holding prayers at the start of meetings, while a council in Northern Ireland suffered a bitter split over whether to hold religious observances or not. In April 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled unanimously against a town in Quebec which held prayers during council meetings.
	The Catholic Church is now paying the price for its past in Ireland Opinion \| Tue, 26th May 2015 NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood welcomes the Irish referendum result on marriage equality and argues that the Catholic Church's appalling recent history in Ireland shows it deserves to be discredited- as it now has been, by the overwhelming referendum "Yes" result. Last week, Ireland's citizens voted in a landslide to legalise same-sex marriage. Unsurprisingly, the constituencies most in favour of "Yes" were within 50 miles of Dublin followed by the larger cities. Those least in favour tended to be nearest to the meandering border with Northern Ireland, probably with a higher proportion of protestant voters. Variations in the percentage of turnout did not impact on the overall result. More rural areas tend to be less in favour, but not always. While the very rural Mayo and Galway East were only just in favour, the even more remote Galway west was over 60% in favour. The major lessons of the Irish referendum endorsement of same sex marriage by nearly 2:1 are religion-connected. Primarily, it showed just how out of step the Catholic Church is with the Irish population. Even more striking is the speed with which this country, so recently completely in hock to that same Church, has changed diametrically. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, notably more realistic than many of his episcopal brethren, recognised that the Referendum signified a "social revolution" that did not happen in one day. Indeed. In 1990 the Republic of Ireland had the highest proportion of weekly church attendance in Europe. At over 80%, it was in a class of its own; the next European contender was "only" 41%. An expert in religious statistics, Dr Peter Brierley, wrote just fifteen years ago that "the Irish Republic is the most religious country … in the world [I imagine he meant "Christian"] … with (in 1995) 98% professing an allegiance to a Christian church and 87% to the Catholic Church". Yet it wasn't many years later that the Catholic commentator Mary Kenny first bemoaned that Ireland had become "post-Catholic"; she now regards it as sometimes "anti-Catholic". Crucially, her Post Christian comment was made before public awareness had been raised about clerical child abuse in Ireland. But the Church's reputation had a lot further to fall with the constant drip feed of atrocities culminating and the dawning realisation that measured relative to its population, reported clerical child abuse is Ireland the highest in world. The referendum result is in part the Church paying the price for its shameless role in facilitating the continuation of that child-rape, sheltering clerical child-rapists from justice and denying justice to the victims. They were often punished for speaking out and told they were lying. To this day, the Church continues to fight tooth and nail every case and any compensation. The Irish people were no less disgusted when the Papal Nuncio refused to give evidence to a Commission on child abuse, claiming diplomatic immunity. In 2011 Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kennedy famously reportedly "accused the Vatican of covering up for paedophile priests in Ireland only three years [earlier]" precipitating the Nuncio's recall to the Vatican, after a groundswell calling for his expulsion. Until then the Church had got away with everything; religious influence on the Government had been total, the very antithesis of secularism. But even this unprecedented, and indeed previously unthinkable, public castigation certainly didn't lead to humility, if anything the opposite. In 2013 the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference, in an attempt to derail same sex marriage plans, threatened the Government. In a submission to the Constitutional Convention on same sex marriage it warned: "... if there were two totally different definitions of marriage the Church could no longer carry out the civil element". As there are few civil registrars in Ireland, this would cause a major problem. Despite this, the Convention came out in support of same sex marriage which led to the Referendum. So the Church, shamelessly, tried again. The Tablet reported shortly before the Referendum that the "Church in Ireland threatened not to carry out the civil registration formalities customary at the end of Catholic marriage ceremonies". This was once again to no avail. Surely, having made the dire threat twice – is "blackmail" too strong a word? – and having been so completely ignored, has the Church not demonstrated its impotence more effectively than if it had not made the threats? The Church presumably did however realise that bullying voters, perhaps declaring that to vote "yes" would be a mortal sin, would not work. Seemingly at least some in the Church realised how little influence clerical pleading would have, and accordingly largely subcontracted the campaigning to lay organisations such as the Iona Institute. I accept that it was an uphill task arguing to denying equality to people in love who the Church still considers to be "intrinsically disordered" and has historically vilified, and worse. And the coming out stories precipitated by supporters of a 'Yes' vote would turn all but the most stone-hearted. But these lay organisations could hardly have made a worse mess of boosting the opponents. Their campaigns were not only negative, they were gratuitously insulting and economic with the truth to the point of parsimony. They even questioned whether prominent proponents "had rejected their faith". They scaremongered baselessly about the loss of religious freedom and attacked same sex adoption, despite it not being affected by the Referendum. And the disingenuousness simply drove voters all the harder to tick 'Yes' box, while turning the population even further from the Church. The second, even more painful, lesson for the Church in the longer term is that it was the young who were so overwhelmingly supportive of a 'yes' vote. Some travelled huge distances to register their vote. Touchingly, they dubbed the last Republic-bound boat train from London's Euston before the vote as the "Equality Train" and sent selfies to their friends. Memorably, Archbishop Martin was asking himself: "most of these young people who voted 'yes' are products of our Catholic school system for 12 years. I'm saying there's a big challenge there to see how we get across the message of the Church". If twelve years indoctrination has turned the youth, Ireland's future, against the Church, the only way they could be brought back, if it is possible at all, is for the Church to change out of all recognition. And that is beyond the Archbishop of Dublin. The final lesson is that this calls "time" on Northern Ireland's refusal to allow same sex marriages, the only part of the UK not to have them. Spain and Portugal, France, Benelux and Scandinavian countries have them and the populations of Germany and Italy are in favour of them. But it will be a hard battle; there was a clue in the Republic's constituencies near the Northern Ireland Border being least keen to vote 'yes'. And the politicians in the DUP, Northern Ireland's leading party, are even less keen than their supporters, and the Party has a veto. So this looks like having to be resolved in the courts, or even Strasbourg. It is only 100 miles between Dublin and Belfast, and the enthusiastic Referendum result has made the likelihood of a positive outcome in Northern Ireland much more likely, and urgent. The pressure is already building up. And maybe the ease with which this referendum passed suggests an attempt should be made to liberalise, or even humanise, the Irish Republic's absurdly restrictive abortion laws, where abortion is in practice means-tested - restricted to those who can afford to have this undertaken abroad. Every year thousands do make these lonely journeys, and others submit themselves to back street abortions. Keith Porteous Wood is the executive director of the National Secular Society. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS. The below table indicates how the vote broke down in descending order of % "Yes" vote in each constituency.
	Time for Christians of goodwill to say “Not In My Name” Opinion \| Tue, 26th May 2015 Most Christians don't feel the need to be exempt from equality legislation in order to live their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs. Terry Sanderson says it's time they spoke out against those that do. The efforts by some evangelical groups to secure special privileges for Christians in the workplace – mostly at the expense of the rights of other people – were in evidence again recently with another trumped up story of supposed discrimination on grounds of religion. The Christian Legal Centre said that a hospital-worker had suffered "religious discrimination" after she was disciplined for trying to bully a Muslim colleague into embracing her own evangelical version of Christianity. It was widely reported in the right wing press as another case of Christians being "persecuted" for their beliefs. When the matter came to court, a very different story emerged. Even though just about all their legal challenges have failed, the zealots of the Christian Legal Centre and the Christian Institute have been wildly successful in creating the idea that "something must be done" to protect Christians from the supposedly hostile society in which they live. That something is a "conscience cause" in the Equality Act that would relieve them of the duty to obey the law in the same way that everyone else must. In Northern Ireland just such an opt-out clause is high on the political agenda, and has been given new impetus by the "gay cake" row. Many people have said that it was wrong for Ashers Bakery to have been found guilty of discrimination because it refused to make a cake with a message in support of same-sex marriage iced on to it. The court did not agree and found the bakers guilty. It may seem like a trivial case, but it actually represents a very big principle. Can a commercial firm claim to have a religious identity? Can a bakery be "Christian"? By its own admission, many of its employees are not. The point is that this case was about whether gay people are truly equal members of society or whether Christians should have the "right" to render them second class. The law says that firms operating for commercial gain must serve all-comers equally. The evangelicals who are leading this campaign think they should not have to observe such a law as their "conscience" is more important than anything else. But not all Christians think this way. In fact, very few of them want to go down this route of intolerance, but the Christian Institute and the Christian Legal Centre purport to speak for them all when they talk about a "Christian conscience". We often ask moderate Muslims to denounce the extremists in their midst. Now it is time for Christians of goodwill to disown the Christian Legal Centre and its ilk and say loud and clear: "Not in my name".
	Creationism blocked in Scottish science classes News \| Thu, 28th May 2015 The Scottish education minister has stated that creationism should not be taught in science classes in publicly-funded Scottish schools. Alasdair Allan, Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland's Languages, said that creationism is not a "scientific principle" and "it should therefore not be taught as part of science lessons." The announcement came after a statement by the Holyrood Parliament, following a petition and campaign by the Scottish Secular Society urging the Scottish Government to tackle the issue, after cases emerged of Christian fundamentalists handing out creationist literature in schools. NSS spokesperson for Scotland Alastair McBay commented: "Scottish secularists have done a superb job in tackling this issue in the face of predictable opposition from religious interests. The degree of infiltration in Scotland's schools, particularly non-denominational ones, by Christian fundamentalists, means that we must all remain vigilant as these people take no notice of Government edicts and will continue to teach such nonsense under a flag of freedom of religious expression. Creationist beliefs may be a topic for religious education classes, but they have no place in the science classroom." The Scottish Secular Society's petition had called on the Scottish Parliament to "urge the Scottish Government to issue official guidance to bar the presentation in Scottish publicly funded schools of separate creation and of Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent, and deep time." The Scottish Government had previously not explicitly stated that the teaching of creationism as a valid scientific theory was prohibited, but has now done so. The Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland said that the debate was "an extraordinary waste of parliamentary time." In January 2015, a motion was put forward by two MSPs which called for Scottish children to be made "aware" of creationist teaching. One of the supporters of the motion, John Mason MSP, tweeted: "I think science is better sticking to what exists. How and why things came about is probably better not included in science." In England, the Department for Education has previously stated that teaching creationism as scientific fact is "wrong" and that schools are not permitted to teach creationism instead of valid and thoroughly evidenced scientific theories. The DfE says it will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum.
	Queen’s Speech: concerns over illiberal Government counter-terror plans News \| Wed, 27th May 2015 The National Secular Society has expressed concern over new "anti-extremism" plans announced in the Conservative Government's first Queen's Speech. A new Extremism Bill will introduce "Extremism Disruption Orders"- previously promised by Theresa May, and "banning orders"- which will allow the Home Secretary to target and ban radical groups. Additionally, "closure orders" will give local authorities the power to close down premises used by religious extremists. An Investigatory Powers Bill is also promised, and it is thought that it will contain many measures blocked by the Liberal Democrats under the Coalition. The Government claims the proposals will "promote social cohesion" and "protect people by tackling extremism". When renewed plans for "Extremism Disruption Orders" were first announced by the Home Secretary earlier in May, the National Secular Society warned the plans could have a "chilling effect" on free speech. Responding to the speech, NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood commented: "There is a need to confront extremist ideology, but the vagueness of the orders and low prosecution thresholds are likely to result in a very significant threat to freedom of expression". He called for a stronger civil society approach to tackle religious extremism, rather than one which relies on draconian new legislation. The Christian Institute previously argued that the proposals could even exceed the Labour Government's 'religious hatred' plans or Section 5 of the Public Order Act in terms of the danger posed to free expression. The National Secular Society has however welcomed the Government's apparent delay in delivering its manifesto pledge to scrap the Human Rights Act. The Conservative Government's first Queen's Speech saw a pledge to "bring forward proposals for a British bill of rights". This has led to speculation that the Government will only offer a consultation, and will not press ahead with legislation to repeal and replace the Act. Amnesty International responded that the UK already has a British Bill of Rights in the form of the current Human Rights Act. Legislation will also be introduced to increase the powers of the Charities Commission to close down charities in breach of the rules. The National Secular Society has repeatedly warned about religious charities misusing their charitable status.
	Christian leaders need to prioritise their targets Opinion \| Thu, 28th May 2015 It is tiresomely common to have some Christian leaders describing secularism as intolerant, bigoted, militant or aggressive. At a time when Christians are being met with genuine persecution around the world, Benjamin Jones argues that Christian leaders should prioritise their targets and drop their hysterical language. Last week Douglas Murray wrote an article for the Spectator arguing that "secularists need to prioritise their targets." In it he made the reasonable point that secularism faces far larger threats than the arcane arrangement of the House of Lords, and that "one religion in particular" is the clear and greater danger to secularism today. It's a point I agree with - but not one that is a fair criticism of the National Secular Society's work. Godless Spellchecker makes the counter-case here and writes: "It's true that far too many individuals and organisations are more than happy to take a swing at the 'lesser' evils of a Christian flavour – yet develop a mysterious case of chronic arm fatigue where the religion of peace is concerned. However, I just feel it's a tad unfair to make this point in the context of the National Secular Society and secularists in general." In any case, there are some Christians who are in far greater need of refocusing their efforts and priorities than secularists. Earlier in May, a Catholic former High Court judge said that secularism in the UK was on a par with religious repression under the Tudors- a hysterical claim, dutifully repeated by Catholic news outlets. Sir Michael Tugendhat said secularists have a view of "freedom of speech which is as restrictive of that of Elizabeth I". It is – needless to say- an extremely offensive and wilfully ignorant argument to make, but we won't be issuing a fatwa against him. Perhaps if Sir Michael hadn't upset himself so much he could have remained calm enough to see that the National Secular Society these days spends a great deal of its time defending freedom of expression from religious extremists. Naturally, this includes the freedom of speech of religious people. Tugendhat argued that secularists wanted to force religion into the "private sphere" and went on to say that "the terrible story of the Tudor-Stuart religious divisions should be a reminder that freedom which is confined entirely to the privacy of a person's home is a form of oppression." Likewise, Cardinal Nichols has (again) compared secularism with religious fundamentalism, warning of both "religious fundamentalism" and "aggressive secularism" in the same breath. What does the world look like to people like Sir Michael and Cardinal Nichols? Do they really look at the video propaganda of the Islamic State and see an equivalent evil in equality laws? Is secularism causing hundreds of British teenagers to leave their homes and families behind to join a brutal war? Are the writings of secularists being used as license to kill and murder? The Vatican denounced the Irish referendum as a "disaster for humanity". Of all the things today that merit that label- is marriage equality really the one to pick? While I have misgivings about the Ashers case, having to ask one of your employees to bake a cake topped with a slogan you disagree with is not the same as or even remotely comparable to being taken to the shores of a failed North African state and facing a brutal execution; yet some Christian leaders use almost the same language ('militant', 'aggressive', 'repressive') to describe both. It leaves the impression that Sir Michael- if taken at his word- actually believes secularists are a greater threat to Christians than religious fundamentalism. This is the product of a heavily distorted worldview, and it is something that Douglas Murray has argued against before. If only there was some sense of proportionality in the histrionic language these Christian leaders use. There isn't much difference between the language of Cardinal Nichols and the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, who last year described secularism in Europe as "apocalyptic." Finally though, on the point about the House of Lords, removing institutional religious privilege now would set the helpful precedent that religion is not to be institutionally privileged by the state. I put it that this precedent will be a helpful one to have in 2050, when Muslims in the UK will certainly outnumber Anglicans. The number of Anglican churchgoers (1.7 million in 2008) was already vastly exceeded by the total number of Muslims (2.7 million in 2011) seven years ago. It would be very helpful to have a clear, established precedent that clerics are not granted seats in the legislature when other faiths start making demands about proportionality and demanding their own seats and votes (as happened in education with non-Christian faith schools). While I would not say the House of Lords is more important than our campaign work on education or free speech (for example), it is not an irrelevant issue either. Benjamin Jones is the NSS communications officer. The views expressed in our blogs are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS.