Newsline 5 April 2013

Download the full version of Newsline here (pdf)

News, Blogs & Opinion

	New research shows dwindling support for religion in Britain News \| Tue, 2nd Apr 2013 The Sunday Times commissioned a new YouGov poll (pdf) among 1,918 Britons to find out what they think about religion, which was published last week. When asked whether they believed in God, 51% or those questioned said they did not, 38% said they did (disproportionately women 44%, against 32% of men), Strangely, only 77% of Christians believe in God including 86% of Catholics. 11% are uncertain what to think. In answer to the question "how important, if at all, would you say religion is to your own life?" The majority (66%) admits that religion is not important, rising to 71% in the 40–59 years age group. 31% say that religion is important in their own lives, and this is especially true of the over-60s (42%), Londoners (41%), and Christians (68%, with 82% for Catholics alone). Respondents were then asked how they thought their own attitude to religion differed from those of their parents. 39% said that they are less religious than their parents are or were. Ten per cent feel they are more religious than their parents. Apart from the 10% who did not give an explicit answer, the remainder see themselves as equally religious (15%) or equally irreligious (27%) as their parents. Apart from the rites of passage, 55% say they never go to a place of worship. 7% claim to attend a place of worship on a weekly basis and a further 6% at least monthly. 29% say they go less frequently and, the latter figure being highest in Scotland (61%) and the Midlands and Wales (60%) and lowest for Christians (19%, particularly Catholics on 13%). The National Secular Society has suggested that these particular figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is well known amongst statisticians that respondents often overstate their religiosity. This trend is well demonstrated again here, as based on the respondents' answers, just under 12% of the population attend church – almost twice the actual percentage based on official church attendance figures. Only 29% consider that Britain can still be deemed a religious country, of whom one-quarter regard this as a bad thing. 16% assess that Britain is no longer a religious country and welcome the fact, including 22% of the 25-39 age cohort. 26% say that Britain is no longer religious but regret it. 54% have a great deal or fair amount of trust in priests, vicars, and other clergy to tell the truth, rising to 73% among Christians, with 40% having little or no trust in them. Clergy are the sixth equal most trusted profession on a list of eighteen occupations, the range being from 83% for family doctors to 13% for estate agents. A majority — 54% — rate the Church of England as doing a bad job in providing moral leadership. Thirty-one per cent contend that the Church of England is doing a good job. Still more, 69%, feel that the Church of England is out of touch. Even 53% of Christians take this line. Just 21% of all adults view the Church as being in touch. 10% have no opinion on the subject. A plurality (49%) say the Church of England is wrong to oppose same-sex marriage, including 66% of 18-24s, 63% of Liberal Democrats, 60% of Scots, and even 37% of Anglicans. 37% support the Church's position, with 57% for the over-60s and 52% of Anglicans. 13% are undecided. 78% feel that the Church of England should allow women bishops, including 89% of Liberal Democrats, 85% of Anglicans, 83% of Conservatives, 82% of women and Scots. Opponents of women bishops number 9% overall but 19% of Catholics, 15% of UKIP supporters, and 13% of Londoners. 13% do not know what to think. Only 28% correctly identify Rowan Williams as the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the best score — apart from Anglicans (and they only on 38%) — being recorded by Conservatives (35%). Ignorance is especially marked in Scotland(82%). Fewer (19%) can identify Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, leaving 81% unable to do so, including 71% of his own flock. 36% are optimistic that the new Pope, Francis, will do a good job, with Catholics (71%), Christians generally (50%), Liberal Democrats (46%), Scots (44%), Londoners (43%), and over-60s (41%) most hopeful. Unsurprisingly, 53% are unable to express a view at such an early stage in his pontificate, albeit 11% have already seen, read or heard enough to predict that he will do a bad job (including 20% of 18–24s).
	Catholic Church to lose control of some schools in Ireland – could this be the start of a seismic shift? News \| Wed, 3rd Apr 2013 Following a survey of parents by the Irish Department of Education, 23 primary schools across the country will be divested of their Catholic Church patronage. The move is part of the drive to encourage more choice and diversity in the types of primary schools in Ireland. At present 96% of primary schools are under the patronage of religious denominations – 90% of which are Catholic. In 2011 the Minister for Education established an expert group to consult with people and to make recommendations on how primary schools can become more inclusive of different traditions, religions and beliefs. In April 2012 the Minister Ruairí Quinn accepted and published the Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. In June last year he started the process to look at the possible transfer of some schools run by the Catholic Church to other school patron bodies in 44 areas around the country. Of those, 23 signalled a demand for change and the Catholic management of each of the schools will be given 6 months to provide proposals on how they plan to divest them. Mr Quinn said: "We cannot ignore this call for change." He added that he was confident of a generous response from the existing patron – the local Catholic bishop in each of the areas – to "the clear demand for change". In practical terms, it means that in any of these areas, where there may be several local Catholic schools, mergers will be necessary to free up a building for a school under different patronage. Where change is favoured, the multi-denominational Educate Together is the top choice and has been nominated as the patron for 25 schools, including in the five areas previously identified. Paul Rowe, of Educate Together, said the results clearly showed demand for diversity of school type exists across the country. The Catholic Church controls about 2,840, or 9 per cent, of almost 3,200 primary schools in Ireland – of which, the ones earmarked for change represent only about 1 per cent. But it could signal an important change in church-state relations over school patronage.
	Is this a true history of religious education or a rewriting of the facts? News \| Wed, 3rd Apr 2013 Secularists and humanists in the 1960s and 1970s played a critical role in stopping religious education in schools being used for proselytising. That's the claim being made in new research from the University of Exeter. A report by academics claims that secularist groups had a profound influence on how religious education developed against pressures from faith groups and educators. Researchers at the university with partners from the University of Worcester discovered that the National Secular Society and the BHA allegedly attempted to marginalise Christianity from the life and curriculum of state-maintained schools. The report also outlined how Christians and religious educators of the time apparently actively cooperated with these groups and invited discussions with secularists. Lead author Dr Rob Freathy said: "Our research does not simply portray an ideological war between competing groups struggling to control children's minds. Instead, we've unearthed a much more complicated story characterised as much by compromise and conciliation as it is by contestation and conflict." During the 1960s and 1970s, the term "religious studies" became more commonplace. At this time the secularist movement was focussing on abolishing or reforming the daily act of worship – a move that has popular support. Although the groups failed to change the 1944 Education Act, they managed to alter the aim of religious education away from trying to convert people and more towards recognising other religions and no religion as legitimate fields of study. Researchers found that Christians and secularists entered into discussions about how the subject could be developed to make it suitable for pupils and teachers regardless of their beliefs. Dr Freathy admitted he was surprised by the extent of the collaboration between Christians and secularists as he was by the non-religious lobbying. He said: "Many Christians and secularists worked together both informally and through official processes to develop multi-faith forms of religious education which would be suitable for all pupils and teachers regardless of their religious or secular backgrounds. Through such collaborative efforts humanists had a direct influence on the development of the form of religious education we see in schools today." In the 1950s, the majority of the population were nominally affiliated to one of the Christian denominations, while the Church remained a highly influential institution in national and social life. By the end of the 1960s the Church faced severe difficulties in the recruitment and retention of clergy, alongside a significant fall in the number of people calling themselves Christian and a big shift from the Christian identity of the country. Bill McIlroy, who was secretary of the NSS during this period, observed: "The authors deal specifically, but not exclusively, with campaigns organised by the National Secular Society in the early 1960s. It was an uphill struggle. The Society had for long been in a state of decline. It was too lethargic even to take advantage of Margaret Knight's two broadcasts on "Morals Without Religion", which had engendered considerable interest. "The tide turned in 1963 when David Tribe was elected President. Significantly, he announced that the issue of secular education was number one priority because the entire school system had become a vehicle for Christian indoctrination. So instead of open-air meetings at Hyde Park and Tower Hill, the NSS started using press releases, letters to newspapers, articles and a wide range of leaflets on social questions, written mainly by David Tribe. Public figures, including Members of parliament, openly supported and endorsed the Society's campaigns." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society at the moment, said: "I think this report probably overstates the influence that secular and humanist groups had on the process of change. The public and political mood at that time was in our favour, and it was a period of general societal reform. In some ways we now seem to be going backwards as religious schools proliferate and become increasingly evangelical in nature. Religious Education is becoming once more just a platform for proselytising in so many schools. And even now, nearly seventy years after the Education Act came into effect, forced worship is still the law in every school in the land." Mr Sanderson said that "perhaps the academics should now undertake research into the way that Religious Education is reverting to religious instruction with, apparently, the consent of the Government."
	NSS honorary associate Iain Banks terminally ill News \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 Our valued honorary associate, the writer Iain Banks has announced that he has "months to live" after discovering he has cancer. You can read his statement here and sign his guestbook and leave a message here. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This is very sad news indeed, but Iain seems to be receiving it with typical stoicism. We send him our best thoughts and thanks for the support he has given the NSS." Read more here.
	Miliband should keep his party away from priests Opinion \| Wed, 3rd Apr 2013 Amid his spectacular enthronement, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, managed to say something spectacularly wrong. "There can be no final justice or security or love or hope in our society if it is not finally based on rootedness in Christ." People have been seeking security, love, hope in society since long before Christ, and millions do so today without His guidance. Ideas of a good society unite or divide people in their own terms. People can and do decide what makes a good society – and whether they have reached it – without reference to any religious or spiritual doctrine. The Labour party has always appealed to universal human values, and asked people to work for a "good society" which is derived from them. For many members the journey into the party may start from religious faith – but the subsequent journey and the final destination have different signposts. Unfortunately, instead of challenging the new Archbishop's egregious statement, the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, asked for an encore. He invited him to get more involved in political debates. "I said he should intervene" (he told The Times on 23 March). "The Church has a closeness" (a curious expression: did he mean a cloister?) "and a sense of what is happening in the community. It's good that he cares about injustice, it's good that he stands up and talks about poverty and disadvantage." Archbishop Welby (the first in our history with significant business experience) is undoubtedly too astute to turn the Church into the Labour party at prayer. Nonetheless, Ed Miliband's invitation was a mistake and a wrong turning in British politics. In Ernest Bevin's words, it opens a Pandora's Box of Trojan horses. For centuries, our country – at least the English part of it – has been blessedly free of religious politics. Faith-based parties have made no headway. Very few major political issues have been influenced by faith groups (although they have, almost without notice, taken control of around a third of our publicly-funded schools). Very few voters take guidance or direction from faith leaders. We need to keep things that way. They make it easier for our democracy to handle contentious issues, because our political divisions do not become articles of religion. The coalition government has already threatened this precious legacy by appointing the first-ever Minister for Faith, Baroness Warsi. Its motives were murky but it established Faith is an organ of government. Her official job description includes the promotion of faith and she has a budget (tiny but specified) for activities by people of faith. She told the House of Lords on 17 January that her specific role "is to ensure that the voice of people of faith is heard [in the formulation and implementation of policy], which has not always been the case." The Labour party has not challenged this position or its declared purposes, and now its leader wants to see more involvement of religion in British politics. His invitation to the Archbishop must logically extend to leaders of all other faith groups. If they accept it he will have an invidious task for which he is neither paid nor qualified: deciding what constitutes a religion (as opposed to a sect or a cult) and deciding whether any particular leader is truly representative of the community in question. Even churches with defined hierarchies regularly defy their leaders, particularly when they speak contentious social and political issues, and it is never profitable in any country for secular politicians to become embroiled in arguments within faith groups. Ed Miliband's invitation to the new Archbishop was peculiar since he remarked, in the very same interview on 23 March, that religion is "an incredibly vexed political issue" in the United States. Indeed. Organized American religious groups believe that they have a special right to influence the law and public policy at state and Federal level, and thereby to force non-believers to comply with religious values they reject. They seek public subsidies or tax concessions for their views and practices. They try to punish politicians who oppose them. The American elections last year suggested that the influence of organized religion is waning: voters, particularly younger ones, did not take their church's agenda to the ballot box and they did not vote with a secondhand conscience. Just when America is breaking free of the thrall of religious politics, our political parties seem determined to bring it to Britain. Ed Miliband should (politely) withdraw his invitation to the Archbishop and the implied one to other religious leaders. He should announce that his party will not solicit votes, members or money on religious grounds, nor give religious groups any special access to policy making. In government, he should commit Labour to protect all religious beliefs but promote none, while also making clear that religious belief will always yield to the law and to basic human rights, particularly those of women and children and the right of expression. It would be "the right thing to do" and politically profitable. This article was first published in the Yorkshire Post and is reproduced with the permission of the author
	After Lord Carey’s attack, Prime Minister assures us that he is a good Christian Opinion \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 Still wincing from Lord Carey's attack, the Prime Minister David Cameron put out his own Easter message, assuring religious organisations that "As long as I am Prime Minister, they will have the support of this government." Downing Street, which rejected Lord Carey's criticisms, insisted Mr Cameron's message had been written before the attack and was not a response. The Prime Minister said he was "particularly proud" of his government's decision to protect overseas aid spending to meet an international development commitment. Quoting the Bible, he said: "St Peter reminds us of the hope that comes from new birth through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Christians, it also reminds us of Jesus's legacy of generosity, tolerance, mercy, and forgiveness. "That legacy lives on in so many Christian charities and churches both at home and abroad. Whether they are meeting the needs of the poor, helping people in trouble, or providing spiritual guidance and support to those in need, faith institutions perform an incredible role to the benefit of our society. "As long as I am Prime Minister, they will have the support of this government. With that in mind, I am particularly proud to lead a government that has kept its promise to invest 0.7% of our gross national income on helping the world's poorest, and I am grateful that we have been able to partner with both Christian and non-Christian charities to relieve suffering overseas." It had been "an extraordinary few days for Christians" with the enthronement of Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury and the election of a new pope, he said. Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Carey said he believed Mr Cameron was "sincere" in his desire to make Britain a place "where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully".
	Where there is state religion, there is less freedom Opinion \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 In a recent paper, "State Religion and Freedom: A Comparative Analysis", published by the Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, Professor Steven Kettell discusses the findings of his comparative analysis on the relationship between state religion and individual freedom. Although he notes that his findings should be viewed with some caution - given that his research requires more detailed analysis – provisionally, his study reveals some very interesting findings and his overall thesis is a compelling one. Kettell's study highlights two significant findings. The first is that state religions are shown to be disproportionately clustered in those countries classed as "less free". The second finding is that in those countries with a state religion, there are significantly lower levels of political and civil freedom (i.e. in terms of political rights, civil liberties, and religious persecution) and a notably higher degree of government and social regulation of religion, as well as higher levels of favouritism toward religion. The study found, according to one index, that nearly half of those countries classed as 'not free' possess a state religion, compared to just 12% of those countries classed as free. In other words, the further down a country was on the freedom scale, the more likely it was to have a state religion. Interestingly, the research also noted that the form that the state religion took had an impact on freedom. Whilst according to one index used, just one of those countries with an Islamic state religion was considered free, according to another there was no free country with Islam as its state religion. By contrast, the vast majority of free countries with a state religion were Christian (i.e. Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox). Political systems also played a significant role however; perhaps unsurprisingly none of the countries classed as 'not free' and all those considered free were liberal democracies, regardless of whether or not they possessed a state religion. Nevertheless, the pattern observed in terms of the relevance of a state religion's form when it comes to levels of freedom in a country, was consistent for liberal democracies also. In response to these findings, the question that then might be asked is: Why do we see this negative impact of state religion on freedom in a country? Kettell dismisses the often-pointed to factors of human development, religiosity or religious diversity as central to a lack of freedom in those societies with state religions. Instead, he contends, the reasons behind this phenomenon are likely to be based on the institutional dynamics of state religion. Kettell argues that since the very purpose of a state religion is to promote and support one particular religious perspective over any other, and to do so by extending political, legal and financial support for an institutional representation of that perspective, it is not overly surprising that such an arrangement should lead to limitations in political and religious freedoms. What recognising one religion as a state religion does, Kettell argues, is to ground the authority and legitimacy of the state on sectarian criteria, and to imbue within the notion of national identity one particular religious affiliation. This inevitably institutionalises a ranking of citizenship. Thus, not only does this kind of institutional favouritism and biased conception of religious legitimacy undermine notions of civic equality, fairness, and individual freedom, it inevitably generates social divisions and tensions around religious issues, fosters intolerance of those not subscribing to the state religion, and corrodes the very democratic legitimacy and accountability which helps guarantee freedom in the first place. Significantly, the paper concludes that the only way to avoid this negative correlation between state religion and freedom, and to best ensure the protection and promotion of human rights and freedom is to maintain a secular state; a state that is free from the institutional imperative to legitimise and officially recognise any one particular set of beliefs, a state that treats all citizens equally regardless of what they choose to believe. The paper can be seen by subscribers here
	Costa Ricans move towards secularism News \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 The Catholic Church may be losing its grip on the Central American country of Costa Rica. At present, Costa Rica is one of the few Western countries to have an official state religion. But a poll conducted by Unimer, for the newspaper La Nacion, showed that 47% of the Costa Rican population would rather live in a secular state – up from 41% two years ago. 30% of those questioned said they didn't mind if Costa Rica has an official religion or is secular, while 23% supported having the Catholic Church as an official religion (down from 27% in 2011).
	Majority oppose ritual slaughter of animals News \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 A new Yougov poll for the Jewish Chronicle shows a majority back a ban on religious slaughter. 45% of respondents supported a ban, 27% were against and 28% said they didn't know. The same poll found an almost even split among the population as to whether male circumcision on religious grounds should be outlawed, with 38% supporting a ban, 35% against and 27% undecided. Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein, head of the Federation Beth Din, said: "It's worrying and it shows we need to do a lot more public relations to put our case." 41% of 18-24 year-olds would ban both shechita and circumcision. The most striking difference emerges in the political inclinations of those polled. As many as 71% of people who say they would vote UKIP back a ban on religious slaughter, and 51% support a ban on male circumcision — the only political allegiance where more than half back bans in either case. Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, senior rabbi of the Masorti movement, was also not surprised by the figures because "there has been a lot of discussion acrossEurope". He said there had not been proven to be "a kinder method" to kill animals than shechita. "The real issue is the frequent cruelty within the meat industry generally and the question of how animals live their lives, not only how they die." The National Secular Society has long campaigned for stricter legislation to ban religious slaughter. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "The prevailing scientific consensus is that slaughter without pre-stunning causes unnecessary and avoidable pain and distress to animals. We therefore support an end to the exemption from animal welfare legislation that permits religious communities to slaughter without prior stunning. "For as long as such exemptions are granted, meat from religious slaughter without pre-stunning should at least be accurately labelled, which would enable consumers to make an informed choice about the food they purchase. It is disturbing that at present, this isn't the case, and consumers are being hoodwinked into subsidising the religious slaughter business, often against their will." A consultation on new domestic legislation, The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (to be brought into force later this year), closed in September 2012. Read the NSS's response to this consultation.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

NSS Speaks Out

Lord Carey's ill-considered — not to mention slightly unhinged — comments about the Prime Minister "aiding and abetting aggressive secularists" made the front pages of the papers over Easter, mainly because there was no other news. The NSS was quick to get in a response that was widely carried.

As well as an appearance by Keith Porteous Woodon BBC Radio Five Live, we were quoted by ITV, BBC, Metro, London Evening Standard, Gulf Times, Independent, Belfast Telegraph and Malaysian Digest.

The BBC Asian Network picked up our story from last week about madrassas in Bradfordand interviewed Terry Sanderson. The story was also covered by Patheos.

Quotes of the Week

"Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We're not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."
(Jorge Bergoglio — Pope Francis — on same-sex marriage)

"When it comes to women's rights, gay rights, free speech, and matters of social equality in general, the predominantly Islamic Middle East is a wasteland of religious conformism and misogyny."
(Michael Luciano, PolicyMic)

"You don't have to share the battier views of the one-time Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey about David Cameron "aiding and abetting aggressive secularism" and Christians supposedly being "driven underground", to feel that a country where Easter passes unobserved is a country where secularism has become the norm, without anyone really noticing, let alone caring."
(Mary Dejevsky, Independent)

"I'm getting really tired of these religious wackos telling me what God thinks, and then demanding that their interpretation be made to apply to everyone through legislation."
(Democratic Underground)

Essays of the Week

Britain and the Court of Human Rights – Governments need to be constrained from their worst excesses
(Sophie in 't Veld, Independent)

Aggressive secularism: the new tyranny
(Dean Burnett, Guardian)

Upcoming Events

A talk by Sue Cox of Survivors Voice Europe - York

Mon, 8th Apr 2013

	New research shows dwindling support for religion in Britain News \| Tue, 2nd Apr 2013 The Sunday Times commissioned a new YouGov poll (pdf) among 1,918 Britons to find out what they think about religion, which was published last week. When asked whether they believed in God, 51% or those questioned said they did not, 38% said they did (disproportionately women 44%, against 32% of men), Strangely, only 77% of Christians believe in God including 86% of Catholics. 11% are uncertain what to think. In answer to the question "how important, if at all, would you say religion is to your own life?" The majority (66%) admits that religion is not important, rising to 71% in the 40–59 years age group. 31% say that religion is important in their own lives, and this is especially true of the over-60s (42%), Londoners (41%), and Christians (68%, with 82% for Catholics alone). Respondents were then asked how they thought their own attitude to religion differed from those of their parents. 39% said that they are less religious than their parents are or were. Ten per cent feel they are more religious than their parents. Apart from the 10% who did not give an explicit answer, the remainder see themselves as equally religious (15%) or equally irreligious (27%) as their parents. Apart from the rites of passage, 55% say they never go to a place of worship. 7% claim to attend a place of worship on a weekly basis and a further 6% at least monthly. 29% say they go less frequently and, the latter figure being highest in Scotland (61%) and the Midlands and Wales (60%) and lowest for Christians (19%, particularly Catholics on 13%). The National Secular Society has suggested that these particular figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is well known amongst statisticians that respondents often overstate their religiosity. This trend is well demonstrated again here, as based on the respondents' answers, just under 12% of the population attend church – almost twice the actual percentage based on official church attendance figures. Only 29% consider that Britain can still be deemed a religious country, of whom one-quarter regard this as a bad thing. 16% assess that Britain is no longer a religious country and welcome the fact, including 22% of the 25-39 age cohort. 26% say that Britain is no longer religious but regret it. 54% have a great deal or fair amount of trust in priests, vicars, and other clergy to tell the truth, rising to 73% among Christians, with 40% having little or no trust in them. Clergy are the sixth equal most trusted profession on a list of eighteen occupations, the range being from 83% for family doctors to 13% for estate agents. A majority — 54% — rate the Church of England as doing a bad job in providing moral leadership. Thirty-one per cent contend that the Church of England is doing a good job. Still more, 69%, feel that the Church of England is out of touch. Even 53% of Christians take this line. Just 21% of all adults view the Church as being in touch. 10% have no opinion on the subject. A plurality (49%) say the Church of England is wrong to oppose same-sex marriage, including 66% of 18-24s, 63% of Liberal Democrats, 60% of Scots, and even 37% of Anglicans. 37% support the Church's position, with 57% for the over-60s and 52% of Anglicans. 13% are undecided. 78% feel that the Church of England should allow women bishops, including 89% of Liberal Democrats, 85% of Anglicans, 83% of Conservatives, 82% of women and Scots. Opponents of women bishops number 9% overall but 19% of Catholics, 15% of UKIP supporters, and 13% of Londoners. 13% do not know what to think. Only 28% correctly identify Rowan Williams as the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, the best score — apart from Anglicans (and they only on 38%) — being recorded by Conservatives (35%). Ignorance is especially marked in Scotland(82%). Fewer (19%) can identify Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury, leaving 81% unable to do so, including 71% of his own flock. 36% are optimistic that the new Pope, Francis, will do a good job, with Catholics (71%), Christians generally (50%), Liberal Democrats (46%), Scots (44%), Londoners (43%), and over-60s (41%) most hopeful. Unsurprisingly, 53% are unable to express a view at such an early stage in his pontificate, albeit 11% have already seen, read or heard enough to predict that he will do a bad job (including 20% of 18–24s).
	Catholic Church to lose control of some schools in Ireland – could this be the start of a seismic shift? News \| Wed, 3rd Apr 2013 Following a survey of parents by the Irish Department of Education, 23 primary schools across the country will be divested of their Catholic Church patronage. The move is part of the drive to encourage more choice and diversity in the types of primary schools in Ireland. At present 96% of primary schools are under the patronage of religious denominations – 90% of which are Catholic. In 2011 the Minister for Education established an expert group to consult with people and to make recommendations on how primary schools can become more inclusive of different traditions, religions and beliefs. In April 2012 the Minister Ruairí Quinn accepted and published the Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. In June last year he started the process to look at the possible transfer of some schools run by the Catholic Church to other school patron bodies in 44 areas around the country. Of those, 23 signalled a demand for change and the Catholic management of each of the schools will be given 6 months to provide proposals on how they plan to divest them. Mr Quinn said: "We cannot ignore this call for change." He added that he was confident of a generous response from the existing patron – the local Catholic bishop in each of the areas – to "the clear demand for change". In practical terms, it means that in any of these areas, where there may be several local Catholic schools, mergers will be necessary to free up a building for a school under different patronage. Where change is favoured, the multi-denominational Educate Together is the top choice and has been nominated as the patron for 25 schools, including in the five areas previously identified. Paul Rowe, of Educate Together, said the results clearly showed demand for diversity of school type exists across the country. The Catholic Church controls about 2,840, or 9 per cent, of almost 3,200 primary schools in Ireland – of which, the ones earmarked for change represent only about 1 per cent. But it could signal an important change in church-state relations over school patronage.
	Is this a true history of religious education or a rewriting of the facts? News \| Wed, 3rd Apr 2013 Secularists and humanists in the 1960s and 1970s played a critical role in stopping religious education in schools being used for proselytising. That's the claim being made in new research from the University of Exeter. A report by academics claims that secularist groups had a profound influence on how religious education developed against pressures from faith groups and educators. Researchers at the university with partners from the University of Worcester discovered that the National Secular Society and the BHA allegedly attempted to marginalise Christianity from the life and curriculum of state-maintained schools. The report also outlined how Christians and religious educators of the time apparently actively cooperated with these groups and invited discussions with secularists. Lead author Dr Rob Freathy said: "Our research does not simply portray an ideological war between competing groups struggling to control children's minds. Instead, we've unearthed a much more complicated story characterised as much by compromise and conciliation as it is by contestation and conflict." During the 1960s and 1970s, the term "religious studies" became more commonplace. At this time the secularist movement was focussing on abolishing or reforming the daily act of worship – a move that has popular support. Although the groups failed to change the 1944 Education Act, they managed to alter the aim of religious education away from trying to convert people and more towards recognising other religions and no religion as legitimate fields of study. Researchers found that Christians and secularists entered into discussions about how the subject could be developed to make it suitable for pupils and teachers regardless of their beliefs. Dr Freathy admitted he was surprised by the extent of the collaboration between Christians and secularists as he was by the non-religious lobbying. He said: "Many Christians and secularists worked together both informally and through official processes to develop multi-faith forms of religious education which would be suitable for all pupils and teachers regardless of their religious or secular backgrounds. Through such collaborative efforts humanists had a direct influence on the development of the form of religious education we see in schools today." In the 1950s, the majority of the population were nominally affiliated to one of the Christian denominations, while the Church remained a highly influential institution in national and social life. By the end of the 1960s the Church faced severe difficulties in the recruitment and retention of clergy, alongside a significant fall in the number of people calling themselves Christian and a big shift from the Christian identity of the country. Bill McIlroy, who was secretary of the NSS during this period, observed: "The authors deal specifically, but not exclusively, with campaigns organised by the National Secular Society in the early 1960s. It was an uphill struggle. The Society had for long been in a state of decline. It was too lethargic even to take advantage of Margaret Knight's two broadcasts on "Morals Without Religion", which had engendered considerable interest. "The tide turned in 1963 when David Tribe was elected President. Significantly, he announced that the issue of secular education was number one priority because the entire school system had become a vehicle for Christian indoctrination. So instead of open-air meetings at Hyde Park and Tower Hill, the NSS started using press releases, letters to newspapers, articles and a wide range of leaflets on social questions, written mainly by David Tribe. Public figures, including Members of parliament, openly supported and endorsed the Society's campaigns." Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society at the moment, said: "I think this report probably overstates the influence that secular and humanist groups had on the process of change. The public and political mood at that time was in our favour, and it was a period of general societal reform. In some ways we now seem to be going backwards as religious schools proliferate and become increasingly evangelical in nature. Religious Education is becoming once more just a platform for proselytising in so many schools. And even now, nearly seventy years after the Education Act came into effect, forced worship is still the law in every school in the land." Mr Sanderson said that "perhaps the academics should now undertake research into the way that Religious Education is reverting to religious instruction with, apparently, the consent of the Government."
	NSS honorary associate Iain Banks terminally ill News \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 Our valued honorary associate, the writer Iain Banks has announced that he has "months to live" after discovering he has cancer. You can read his statement here and sign his guestbook and leave a message here. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "This is very sad news indeed, but Iain seems to be receiving it with typical stoicism. We send him our best thoughts and thanks for the support he has given the NSS." Read more here.
	Miliband should keep his party away from priests Opinion \| Wed, 3rd Apr 2013 Amid his spectacular enthronement, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, managed to say something spectacularly wrong. "There can be no final justice or security or love or hope in our society if it is not finally based on rootedness in Christ." People have been seeking security, love, hope in society since long before Christ, and millions do so today without His guidance. Ideas of a good society unite or divide people in their own terms. People can and do decide what makes a good society – and whether they have reached it – without reference to any religious or spiritual doctrine. The Labour party has always appealed to universal human values, and asked people to work for a "good society" which is derived from them. For many members the journey into the party may start from religious faith – but the subsequent journey and the final destination have different signposts. Unfortunately, instead of challenging the new Archbishop's egregious statement, the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, asked for an encore. He invited him to get more involved in political debates. "I said he should intervene" (he told The Times on 23 March). "The Church has a closeness" (a curious expression: did he mean a cloister?) "and a sense of what is happening in the community. It's good that he cares about injustice, it's good that he stands up and talks about poverty and disadvantage." Archbishop Welby (the first in our history with significant business experience) is undoubtedly too astute to turn the Church into the Labour party at prayer. Nonetheless, Ed Miliband's invitation was a mistake and a wrong turning in British politics. In Ernest Bevin's words, it opens a Pandora's Box of Trojan horses. For centuries, our country – at least the English part of it – has been blessedly free of religious politics. Faith-based parties have made no headway. Very few major political issues have been influenced by faith groups (although they have, almost without notice, taken control of around a third of our publicly-funded schools). Very few voters take guidance or direction from faith leaders. We need to keep things that way. They make it easier for our democracy to handle contentious issues, because our political divisions do not become articles of religion. The coalition government has already threatened this precious legacy by appointing the first-ever Minister for Faith, Baroness Warsi. Its motives were murky but it established Faith is an organ of government. Her official job description includes the promotion of faith and she has a budget (tiny but specified) for activities by people of faith. She told the House of Lords on 17 January that her specific role "is to ensure that the voice of people of faith is heard [in the formulation and implementation of policy], which has not always been the case." The Labour party has not challenged this position or its declared purposes, and now its leader wants to see more involvement of religion in British politics. His invitation to the Archbishop must logically extend to leaders of all other faith groups. If they accept it he will have an invidious task for which he is neither paid nor qualified: deciding what constitutes a religion (as opposed to a sect or a cult) and deciding whether any particular leader is truly representative of the community in question. Even churches with defined hierarchies regularly defy their leaders, particularly when they speak contentious social and political issues, and it is never profitable in any country for secular politicians to become embroiled in arguments within faith groups. Ed Miliband's invitation to the new Archbishop was peculiar since he remarked, in the very same interview on 23 March, that religion is "an incredibly vexed political issue" in the United States. Indeed. Organized American religious groups believe that they have a special right to influence the law and public policy at state and Federal level, and thereby to force non-believers to comply with religious values they reject. They seek public subsidies or tax concessions for their views and practices. They try to punish politicians who oppose them. The American elections last year suggested that the influence of organized religion is waning: voters, particularly younger ones, did not take their church's agenda to the ballot box and they did not vote with a secondhand conscience. Just when America is breaking free of the thrall of religious politics, our political parties seem determined to bring it to Britain. Ed Miliband should (politely) withdraw his invitation to the Archbishop and the implied one to other religious leaders. He should announce that his party will not solicit votes, members or money on religious grounds, nor give religious groups any special access to policy making. In government, he should commit Labour to protect all religious beliefs but promote none, while also making clear that religious belief will always yield to the law and to basic human rights, particularly those of women and children and the right of expression. It would be "the right thing to do" and politically profitable. This article was first published in the Yorkshire Post and is reproduced with the permission of the author
	After Lord Carey’s attack, Prime Minister assures us that he is a good Christian Opinion \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 Still wincing from Lord Carey's attack, the Prime Minister David Cameron put out his own Easter message, assuring religious organisations that "As long as I am Prime Minister, they will have the support of this government." Downing Street, which rejected Lord Carey's criticisms, insisted Mr Cameron's message had been written before the attack and was not a response. The Prime Minister said he was "particularly proud" of his government's decision to protect overseas aid spending to meet an international development commitment. Quoting the Bible, he said: "St Peter reminds us of the hope that comes from new birth through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Christians, it also reminds us of Jesus's legacy of generosity, tolerance, mercy, and forgiveness. "That legacy lives on in so many Christian charities and churches both at home and abroad. Whether they are meeting the needs of the poor, helping people in trouble, or providing spiritual guidance and support to those in need, faith institutions perform an incredible role to the benefit of our society. "As long as I am Prime Minister, they will have the support of this government. With that in mind, I am particularly proud to lead a government that has kept its promise to invest 0.7% of our gross national income on helping the world's poorest, and I am grateful that we have been able to partner with both Christian and non-Christian charities to relieve suffering overseas." It had been "an extraordinary few days for Christians" with the enthronement of Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury and the election of a new pope, he said. Writing in the Daily Mail, Lord Carey said he believed Mr Cameron was "sincere" in his desire to make Britain a place "where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully".
	Where there is state religion, there is less freedom Opinion \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 In a recent paper, "State Religion and Freedom: A Comparative Analysis", published by the Religion and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association, Professor Steven Kettell discusses the findings of his comparative analysis on the relationship between state religion and individual freedom. Although he notes that his findings should be viewed with some caution - given that his research requires more detailed analysis – provisionally, his study reveals some very interesting findings and his overall thesis is a compelling one. Kettell's study highlights two significant findings. The first is that state religions are shown to be disproportionately clustered in those countries classed as "less free". The second finding is that in those countries with a state religion, there are significantly lower levels of political and civil freedom (i.e. in terms of political rights, civil liberties, and religious persecution) and a notably higher degree of government and social regulation of religion, as well as higher levels of favouritism toward religion. The study found, according to one index, that nearly half of those countries classed as 'not free' possess a state religion, compared to just 12% of those countries classed as free. In other words, the further down a country was on the freedom scale, the more likely it was to have a state religion. Interestingly, the research also noted that the form that the state religion took had an impact on freedom. Whilst according to one index used, just one of those countries with an Islamic state religion was considered free, according to another there was no free country with Islam as its state religion. By contrast, the vast majority of free countries with a state religion were Christian (i.e. Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox). Political systems also played a significant role however; perhaps unsurprisingly none of the countries classed as 'not free' and all those considered free were liberal democracies, regardless of whether or not they possessed a state religion. Nevertheless, the pattern observed in terms of the relevance of a state religion's form when it comes to levels of freedom in a country, was consistent for liberal democracies also. In response to these findings, the question that then might be asked is: Why do we see this negative impact of state religion on freedom in a country? Kettell dismisses the often-pointed to factors of human development, religiosity or religious diversity as central to a lack of freedom in those societies with state religions. Instead, he contends, the reasons behind this phenomenon are likely to be based on the institutional dynamics of state religion. Kettell argues that since the very purpose of a state religion is to promote and support one particular religious perspective over any other, and to do so by extending political, legal and financial support for an institutional representation of that perspective, it is not overly surprising that such an arrangement should lead to limitations in political and religious freedoms. What recognising one religion as a state religion does, Kettell argues, is to ground the authority and legitimacy of the state on sectarian criteria, and to imbue within the notion of national identity one particular religious affiliation. This inevitably institutionalises a ranking of citizenship. Thus, not only does this kind of institutional favouritism and biased conception of religious legitimacy undermine notions of civic equality, fairness, and individual freedom, it inevitably generates social divisions and tensions around religious issues, fosters intolerance of those not subscribing to the state religion, and corrodes the very democratic legitimacy and accountability which helps guarantee freedom in the first place. Significantly, the paper concludes that the only way to avoid this negative correlation between state religion and freedom, and to best ensure the protection and promotion of human rights and freedom is to maintain a secular state; a state that is free from the institutional imperative to legitimise and officially recognise any one particular set of beliefs, a state that treats all citizens equally regardless of what they choose to believe. The paper can be seen by subscribers here
	Costa Ricans move towards secularism News \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 The Catholic Church may be losing its grip on the Central American country of Costa Rica. At present, Costa Rica is one of the few Western countries to have an official state religion. But a poll conducted by Unimer, for the newspaper La Nacion, showed that 47% of the Costa Rican population would rather live in a secular state – up from 41% two years ago. 30% of those questioned said they didn't mind if Costa Rica has an official religion or is secular, while 23% supported having the Catholic Church as an official religion (down from 27% in 2011).
	Majority oppose ritual slaughter of animals News \| Thu, 4th Apr 2013 A new Yougov poll for the Jewish Chronicle shows a majority back a ban on religious slaughter. 45% of respondents supported a ban, 27% were against and 28% said they didn't know. The same poll found an almost even split among the population as to whether male circumcision on religious grounds should be outlawed, with 38% supporting a ban, 35% against and 27% undecided. Dayan Yisroel Lichtenstein, head of the Federation Beth Din, said: "It's worrying and it shows we need to do a lot more public relations to put our case." 41% of 18-24 year-olds would ban both shechita and circumcision. The most striking difference emerges in the political inclinations of those polled. As many as 71% of people who say they would vote UKIP back a ban on religious slaughter, and 51% support a ban on male circumcision — the only political allegiance where more than half back bans in either case. Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, senior rabbi of the Masorti movement, was also not surprised by the figures because "there has been a lot of discussion acrossEurope". He said there had not been proven to be "a kinder method" to kill animals than shechita. "The real issue is the frequent cruelty within the meat industry generally and the question of how animals live their lives, not only how they die." The National Secular Society has long campaigned for stricter legislation to ban religious slaughter. Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: "The prevailing scientific consensus is that slaughter without pre-stunning causes unnecessary and avoidable pain and distress to animals. We therefore support an end to the exemption from animal welfare legislation that permits religious communities to slaughter without prior stunning. "For as long as such exemptions are granted, meat from religious slaughter without pre-stunning should at least be accurately labelled, which would enable consumers to make an informed choice about the food they purchase. It is disturbing that at present, this isn't the case, and consumers are being hoodwinked into subsidising the religious slaughter business, often against their will." A consultation on new domestic legislation, The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (to be brought into force later this year), closed in September 2012. Read the NSS's response to this consultation.