Newsline 3 July 2015

Newsline 3 July 2015

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

News, Blogs & Opinion

Academy teaches “abstinence” as contraception and sex education in line with the “Maker’s Instructions”

News | Wed, 1st Jul 2015

A parent has raised serious concerns with the National Secular Society over the strongly religious nature of sex and relationships education at their child's school.

The sex and health education policy of the King's Academy in Middlesbrough warns pupils of the "consequences" if they ignore the "Maker's Instructions" about sex and relationships.

The taxpayer-funded school teaches "chastity outside of marriage", that "human life begins at conception" and that marriage is "the lifelong union between a man and a woman."

The school begins their policy statement on sex education by stating that they "believe that human beings are created to a Divine design".

The school says that "sexual information will be presented across the School Curriculum within a Biblical moral framework".

The Academy describes its ethos as based on "traditional Christian faith" and the school website says Jesus is "the perfect example of how to know God and love our neighbour as ourselves."

The mission statement for King's Academy says the school is "committed to upholding Biblical values, concepts and morality."

Noting that "other lifestyles exist", the school claims that delivery of SRE takes place in the "absence of judgemental dogma", but ends its policy with the teaching that abstinence is "the only 100% effective form of contraception".

Year 9 students have "special lectures" by "staff and medical practitioners" who present the "Biblical advice on chastity before marriage" and who give so-called "medical reasons" for abstinence before marriage.

The school covers "stereotyping and prejudice" about homosexuality but within the school's teaching "marriage is presented" as only between a man and a woman.

Religious education for Year 7 students covers different "gender roles" and "the institution of marriage".

The policy notes that parents have the "right to withdraw" their child from the programme, but given the pervasive nature of religion throughout the teaching, and that the Bible is presented as authoritative "across the School Curriculum" and throughout different subjects, it is unclear how realistic such a right to withdrawal actually is for parents who do not want their pupils taught SRE from a 'biblical' perspective.

The National Secular Society has urgently raised the issue with Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education, noting our serious concerns about the provision of sex and relationships education by faith schools.

The parent who contacted the NSS about the school said: "This is why we need a fully secular education system for state-funded schools." The parent added that the school's policy needed to be "fully exposed" and that the public "has a right to know" what taxpayer-funded schools are teaching.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "If the Government seriously wants to prepare young people for adult life it should ensure that all schools, including faith schools, free schools and academies, have a statutory duty to teach comprehensive and unbiased sex and relationships education.

"Any school which allows its religious ethos to take precedence over the health and wellbeing of its pupils is not worthy of public funding.

"Evidence suggests that abstinence based approaches can be worse than ineffective, leaving young girls more vulnerable to teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. LGBT children are also put at risk by the ability of faith schools to teach SRE within their religious framework.

"If schools are unable to distinguish between evidence-based fact and religious belief then there are serious questions as to whether they're capable of running schools in young people's best interests.

"Children's education shouldn't be based on dogma. Taxpayers should not be paying for the propagation of religious beliefs in state-funded schools."

Maintained secondary schools are required to provide basic sex education but academies and free schools do not have to follow the National Curriculum and so are not under the same statutory obligations.

In February 2015, MPs on the Education Select Committee recommended sex and relationship education become mandatory. The Government's response to the select committee report is expected soon.

In a submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the National Secular Society this week warned that some schools are failing to put the best interest of young people first and urged the Committee to recommend that UK legislation should require all state-funded schools to provide comprehensive age appropriate sex and relationships education with no permitted opt-outs.

NSS briefs UN committee on state of children’s rights

News | Wed, 1st Jul 2015

The National Secular Society has warned that faith schools are becoming increasingly divisive and inimical to the realisation of children's rights in a submission to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The warning came in a briefing to the pre-sessional working group ahead of the Committee's examination of the UK's progress in implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In its submission the NSS made recommendations relating to concerns about the way in which faith-based education is impeding the realisation of young people's rights under the Convention.

The UN Committee has previously raised concerns about the extent of segregation in Northern Ireland schools and in its submission the NSS says insufficient progress has been made in addressing this, pointing out that just 7% of children in Northern Ireland currently attend integrated schools.

The NSS also warned that the organisation of education around religious identities in other parts of the UK, fuelled by the Government's free school initiative, is leading to greater religious and ethnic segregation. The submission says the opportunity for schools to play a vital role in building social cohesion is being missed.

In a series of proposals on education the NSS urge the Committee to recommend that:

  • Children and young people's access to local schools is never determined by their religious beliefs or activities, or those of their parents.
  • All new publicly funded schools are secular in character and truly inclusive and equally welcoming to children of all religion and belief backgrounds.
  • Legislation is changed to remove any requirement on children to "take part" in worship and make attendance at collective worship voluntary in all schools.
  • Legislation is passed requiring all state-funded schools, including faith based schools, to provide age-appropriate and objective sex education.

The NSS also raised concerns about the prevalence of children being taken out of mainstream education to attend unregistered religious schools without proper regulation or oversight.

The submission said a greater emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring that all children receive an education which allows them to develop to their fullest potential; develops respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and prepares the child for responsible life in a free society.

To that end the NSS urged the Committee to recommend that the UK Government does everything within its power to ensure that all children and young people attend registered schools which are subject to regulation and monitoring.

The NSS' warnings come as the Children's Rights Alliance for England (CRAE) released an alternative report to a Government submission, welcomed by 76 NGOs, warning that the Government had failed to "fully address" recommendations made by the UN in 2008.

The CRAE report points to emerging evidence of the free school programme leading to "narrow or religiously-based curricula being taught in some places, religious proselytization, unequal treatment and gender segregation" in violation of children's rights to a broad and tolerant education under Article 29 of the CRC.

It notes that "16% of places at state schools are allocated on the basis of religion, despite evidence that religious selection criteria may lead to discriminatory selection of pupils and curtail children's ability to make their own choices over religious beliefs."

In addition to expressing concerns about education and social segregation exacerbated by faith schools, the National Secular Society raised issues around child abuse by clerics and a "consistent pattern" of abuse being covered up by religious institutions.

The NSS called on the Committee to demand that all diplomatic avenues are exploited and pressure is applied to "secure co-operation and the recovery of necessary evidence" held by the Catholic Church.

Because of this, and other large-scale abuse, the NSS has recommended that the Committee call for the UK to introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse, including within religious organisations, and urged that within the "maximum ability of the law" the duty should apply to historic abuse, with severe penalties for non-compliance.

Student secular society’s website deleted after “ominous” threat sent from Saudi Arabia

News | Thu, 2nd Jul 2015

The Manchester Free Speech and Secular Society's website has been deleted, shortly after the group received a message warning they would "feel remorse" if they didn't stop criticising Islamic fundamentalism.

The Free Speech and Secular Society (FSS) was sent a message, from an IP address in Saudi Arabia, which warned: "Please stop mocking Muslims otherwise you will feel remorse."

A spokesperson for the Society said that on the same day the sinister message was received, "someone tried to get access to the website, as multiple accounts received password reset prompts that weren't initiated by the account holders."

Despite not thinking much of the initial apparent threat or the attempts to hack into the website, by the 27 June the Society found that their website had been deleted entirely. The hacker "deleted everything that could be deleted," according to the FSS. "No message was left on the site."

The FSS contacted their webhosting service who confirmed unambiguously that it was not their doing or the result of a technical error. The Society sent a response to the email address used to issue the warning, but has had no further reply.

"Given the timing of the ambiguous message, we inquired with the sender whether he had anything to do with it, but as of yet we have received no response," the FSS said in a statement.

They added that it was "quite shocking" that even a "small and insignificant society as ours, promoting liberal values, was targeted all the way from Saudi Arabia. This just adds to the sad reality that free speech today is very much under threat."

The FSS said that they had "some articles critical of Islamic fundamentalism" on their website, and also commentary about their Student Union's decision to ban the FSS from displaying the 'survivors' edition' of Charlie Hebdo published after the attack on their Paris office.

The Society writes that their focus is on "free speech and secularism" and that they have been "hacked and threatened for supporting free speech".

The historian Tom Holland said the society had been "menaced" by "enemies of free speech".

Ben Jones, the National Secular Society's communications officer, commented: "This appears to be a particularly sinister attempt to stop debate, criticism and commentary about and around Islam. We hope the Manchester Free Speech and Secular Society have their website restored soon and can recover from the attack quickly. We offer our solidarity and support. No-one group or individual should be left to face the danger of defending free speech alone.

"Threats to freedom of expression are coming thick and fast and from all quarters. Whether it is student unions censoring student comedy shows for 'blasphemy', or university administrators cancelling events about Islam to avoid causing 'offence' or on other spurious grounds, or the invidious prosecution of Christian preachers for criticising Islamic beliefs, the right to freedom of expression must be defended.

"There are concerted attempts to establish global blasphemy laws coming from the OIC, who still long for a global law against the 'defamation of religion'; from terrorists using violent jihad; moves by complicit student unions and universities to indirectly support these efforts in the interest of 'cohesion'; and in this case from hackers and what the FSS call 'cyber-jihadists'. No matter what form the attack comes in, free speech must be defended."

Tim Montgomerie need not worry, secularism and tolerance go hand in hand

Opinion | Thu, 2nd Jul 2015

There's nothing "anti-Christian" about a society that sets about dismantling historic religious privilege, argues Stephen Evans.

In a Times opinion piece about the power of forgiveness – so poignantly expressed in Amazing Grace, the former slave trader turned preacher John Newton's hymn of redemption, Conservative Party activist Tim Montgomerie this week expressed fear about religion's dark side leading us to "eradicate all vestiges of religion" from society.

Montgomerie believes "secular fundamentalism" is making us a less tolerant society, and seems to suggest a return to "True Christianity" is our best hope of salvation.

To make his argument that Britain and America's post-Christian societies are at risk of slipping into "anti-Christian societies", Montgomerie cites three 'danger signs': the mounting campaign to close all faith schools; the questioning of Tim Farron's legitimacy to lead the Liberal Democrats; and the fear of the chief justice of the US Supreme Court that opponents of Christian morality "are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent" which means no charitable status for faith-based groups and no room for believers in the public square, argues Montgomerie.

It's disappointing to see the comment editor of The Times so lazily trotting out this oft- repeated Christian victimhood narrative – that a shift towards a secular society is creating a society hostile to Christians.

Let's look at each of these 'danger signs' in turn.

There does indeed seem to be some sort of growing consensus that publicly funded religious schooling might not be the way to go. But those that think that way aren't necessarily "anti-Christian". As I've previously argued, with Britain's religious landscape rapidly changing, an education policy that facilitates the segregation and education of children around their parent's religious identities seems misguided. Religious schooling represents a squandered opportunity to encourage social cohesion but is also problematic in principle; beyond objective education, schools shouldn't be used to promulgate religious beliefs.

Most would agree that parents should be free to bring up their children in accordance with their beliefs – but isn't it also reasonable to believe that the state shouldn't involve itself in religious inculcation? There's nothing 'anti-Christian' about a society that chooses to move towards a non-sectarian, inclusive system of education.

On the questioning of Tim Farron's legitimacy to lead the Liberal Democrats, this has nothing to do with him being a Christian per se (after all, Charles Kennedy was a "Christian of Catholic disposition"), but on whether his supernatural affiliations affect his objectivity.

Farron has supported 'conscience opt-outs' to allow civil registrars to refuse to carry out same-sex marriages, has called abortion "morally objectionable" and "always wrong", suggested pupils at faith schools should have less of an entitlement to objective sex education, and along with other members of the Christians in Parliament group, publicly criticised an Advertising Standards Agency ruling that that a Christian ministry could no longer claim, in their advertising, that God can heal people from medical conditions.

Speaking at a Parliamentary prayer breakfast, Farron also told fellow MPs "Christianity is not a bit true. It's either wrong or utterly compellingly true" – surely Liberal Democrats are right to be concerned about their potential leader using such absolutist rhetoric?

It's not "anti-Christian" to judge a politician on their words and deeds. The unreasonable position is to suggest his beliefs should be insulated from criticism simply because he's a Christian.

Montgomerie's final point about "no charitable status for faith-based groups" appears to be a complete straw man.

Who's arguing that faith-based groups can't be charities?

There was until recently an automatic presumption that all religious organisations provided a public benefit. Rightly, this is no longer the case. The advancement of religion is still deemed a charitable purpose, but today, religious groups wishing to partake in tax avoidance are expected to demonstrate that the way in which they carry out their aims is for the public benefit, as do all other charities.

If Christians feel victimised by having to explain to the Charity Commission how their organisation provides a public benefit, that's more of a reflection of how privileged they've historically been. Clearly, some Christians have become too comfortable with the status quo in Britain.

And that's the nub of the problem. The current Christian narrative of persecution and discrimination is obviously false by any objective measure, but in the minds of some Christians, the loss of religious privilege is clearly perceived an attack.

That's why secularists of all faiths and none need to calmly and repeatedly set out the case as to why the privileging of Christian beliefs – or any religious beliefs for that matter – is no longer reasonable or desirable in modern multi-faith (and increasingly no faith) Britain. Of course religious believers are as welcome in the public square as anyone else – it's just that they should no longer be allowed to dominate it or expect their religion to dictate the lives of others.

For example, the relatively small number of Christians opposed to same-sex couples having the right to marry are welcome to voice their opposition, robustly, if they want, but they can't seriously expect to be able to prevent gay couples from having equal rights, or to be able to pick and choose what kind of people they provide services to or which equality laws they follow.

In his column, Montgomerie asks us to consider who represents the true face of religion: is it the congregation of Emanuel Church, who so graciously offered their forgiveness to the white supremacist accused of slaying their fellow believers; or it is the suicide bombers and the people leaving Britain to fight for Isis?

This is of course a false dichotomy. There is no true face of religion. Personally, I'm quite taken with the mysticism of the Sufi poets, but not for a second would I argue this is Islam's 'true face'. Islam has many faces. Some quite beautiful, some very ugly.

Religion really is a personal matter for the believer. It's clearly not something most of us can agree on.

And that's why it's best kept out of public life. Religion needs to be engaged with to some extent – like the air, it's just there – but the days of basing public policy around it need to come to an end.

The idea that the slow erosion of Christian privilege is creating an "anti-Christian" society is nonsense. It's creating a more equal, tolerant, vibrant and pluralistic society in which the state leaves matters of faith, religion and belief to individuals.

But Montgomerie says our "moral priorities are messed up" and prescribes "True Christianity" to get us back on track. Fortunately, the days of Christians being able to impose Christian values on others appear to be numbered. Rejoicing in that doesn't make you any more "anti-Christian" than not wanting Islamic values imposed on you makes you "anti-Muslim". It just makes you a secularist.

Widespread local denial over Trojan Horse, as DfE accuses select committee of ‘downplaying’ the scandal

News | Tue, 30th Jun 2015

A Birmingham councillor has warned of widespread local denial over the Trojan Horse scandal, days after the DfE said downplaying the affair risked undermining counter-extremism efforts.

Councillor Matt Bennett warned that the "narrative in the community is that the whole [Trojan Horse affair] was a stitch up."

The Birmingham Mail reports that Tahir Alam, formerly chairman of the Park View Trust and reportedly the "prime mover" behind the scandal, had "spoken to an audience of 180 people… without anyone arguing against him", according to Councillor Bennett.

"He has put this narrative out there and it needs to be tackled," the councillor added.

"Trojan Horse has been very, very damaging to community relations."

The council is reportedly concerned that schools outside the control of local authorities are particularly vulnerable to infiltration by hardliners and extremists, a concern shared by the National Secular Society.

The deputy leader of Birmingham City Council, councillor Ian Ward, said that there was "a narrative that does not recognise the outcomes of the inquiries and their recommendations."

His comments reflect the findings of the Department for Education which recently published a report that accused the education select committee of downplaying "the seriousness of events in Birmingham" in a way which "risks undermining our efforts to tackle extremism."

The select committee, which investigated the Trojan Horse allegations, found that there was "no evidence of extremism or radicalisation, apart from a single isolated incident" and that there was "no evidence of a sustained plot" or similar situations "elsewhere in the country."

The Department for Education has strongly criticised this finding, and said that a "particular hard line strand of Sunni Islam" had left pupils "vulnerable to radicalisation" and that the "life chances of young people attending these schools was wilfully narrowed".

The DfE argues that children were left "vulnerable to indoctrination by extremist ideologies."

There have been several prior investigations around the Trojan Horse scandal, and the DfE report highlights Peter Clarke's review, which found a pattern of behaviour which "emerged over two decades" before the scandal made headlines.

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager for the National Secular Society, commented: "Until we successfully challenge the mind-set that says it's legitimate for schools to be used to promote the religious agendas of the adults involved in running them, the risk of a repeat of what happened in Birmingham will remain.

"It's clear from the concerns the City Council have expressed that the number of schools now free from local authority control could make the situation considerably worse and leave many more schools open to this kind of infiltration in the future.

"As for the debate about whether the takeovers were a 'plot' or not, in some ways it is much more concerning if it was not an organised scheme. If the problems did just emerge from the local community, that would be far more troubling than a small, organised group of people deliberately subverting the schools.

"This is particularly concerning given Councillor Bennett's warnings about the widespread denial among the local Muslim communities over the Trojan Horse affair. While we are glad to see the DfE taking steps like a national database of school governors to obstruct deliberate 'plots', there are much deeper underlying problems which need to be addressed."

Supreme Court legalises same-sex marriage across USA

News | Fri, 26th Jun 2015

In an historic case the US Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that same-sex couples have a legal right to marriage.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, argued: "Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfilment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations."

He said that prohibitions on same-sex marriage placed a "burden" on the "liberty of same-sex" couples and were contrary to "central precepts of equality".

Justice Kennedy added that gay people do not "disrespect the idea of marriage" but "respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfilment for themselves."

"Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

The ruling requires states to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

President Obama enthusiastically welcomed the decision and said it was a "big step in our march toward equality."

Chief Justice Roberts strongly criticised the decision in his dissent and told advocates of gay marriage: "do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

He dismissed the ruling as the view of "five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law." He said "five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law" and that the issue of marriage equality had been 'stolen' by the ruling which "cast a cloud over same-sex marriage".

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood said: "The ground is falling out from under the religious-right. For all intents and purposes they have lost the culture war. This is a momentous day for the civil rights of LGBT people."

The ruling was also welcomed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State who said it was a "beautiful day for civil rights and true religious liberty", but warned that it would "spur a new round of 'religious freedom' battles" as religious right groups seek to undermine the historic ruling.

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland, a challenge against the ban on gay marriage has cleared its first major legal hurdle, after a Belfast high court judge ruled that there is a sufficient case for a judicial review.

The challenge was brought by two same-sex couples, including Grainne Close and Shannon Sickles, who were the first same-sex couple to have a civil partnership in the UK.

The couple said, "we believe that religious policy and religious views shouldn't be affecting public policy."