Newsline 6 March 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

	“Be Careful With Mohammed”: Muslim Action Forum launches “legal strategy” to stop publication of insults to Mohammed News \| Tue, 3rd Mar 2015 The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which staged a protest outside Downing Street against Charlie Hebdo in February, has launched a "legal strategy" to stop insults against Mohammed. The organisation is also asking supporters to "lobby your MP" to make "Islamophobia" a criminal offence. They state that they intend "to launch a series of legal challenges in the English Court system" because "depictions of our Holy Prophet peace be upon Him is the worst kind of 'Hate Crime' that can be perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide." The group says that they have "devised a legal strategy to prevent the continuous insulting and derogatory publications depicting and abusing the personality of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him." In a press release published shortly after the demonstration in February 2015, the MAF set out details of their plan to outlaw depicting Mohammed in the UK, through "amendment of some existing legislation and the presentation of a Private Members Bill that promotes the idea of Global Civility." They describe "Global Civility" as a "new direction" and argue that the "desecration" of "collective human dignity", through "insult, denigration or humiliation is morally and ethically wrong". Their website rails against "reckless and malicious expressions". They urge the 100,000 Muslims who they claim signed their petition to lobby their MPs and all candidates standing in the General Election. The MAF makes a number of suggestions including three specific questions which they ask supporters to direct to their MPs. The MAF suggests that petitioners ask their MPs if they think the "the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended to include under 'hate crime' any malicious depiction of images and use of malevolent language against revered personalities of all religions?" They also suggest asking if "Islamophobia should be a culpable offence?" The suggestions include a point inquiring if MPs would support a "Bill of Rights" that promotes "Global Civility", a concept which would prevent insulting religion. The appeal says that if the MP answers no to any of the points above, their answer "will clarify to the local Muslim community where their political representatives stand on the single most important issue to every Muslim in this country and worldwide." Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "We trust all prospective MPs will appreciate that there is no homogeneous 'Muslim community' and reject such unreasonable demands to undermine everybody's fundamental rights and freedoms. Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society – and integral to combating the spectre of Islamism. Now more than ever we need to preserve and strengthen freedom of expression, not capitulate to extremist demands." The Muslim Action Forum (MAF) explain that their campaign against satirical depictions of Mohammed, and what they call "uncivilised expressionists", took its "first historical step by presenting a petition supported by over 100,000 signatures of Muslims promoting the concept of Global Civility and condemning the continuous publication of these insulting cartoons in France and other parts of the world." The MAF website has a section devoted to the concept of "uncivilised expressionists", and they cite examples including the Satanic Verses, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the burning of the Quran. They define uncivilised expressions as a "a psychological disposition of the human mind which insults and maligns others without care or consideration of consequences." They call this "behaviour against Muslims". The full press release on the Muslim Action Forum's legal strategy can be found here.
	Council prayers bill branded a "recipe for divisiveness" News \| Sat, 28th Feb 2015 A Government backed Bill to give local councils the power to include prayers in their meetings has been branded a 'recipe for divisiveness' during a House of Lords debate. Raising concerns during the Bill's Second reading debate, Crossbench peer Nicholas Trench, The Earl of Clancarty, said he wished to draw attention to matters of principle as well as practicalities "which we ignore at our peril". The Earl warned that if the Bill passes, "we will have a recipe for divisiveness and storing up potential problems in the long term". He said the wisest course for councils was to be "scrupulously impartial with respect to the beliefs and non-beliefs held by the residents of a local area". The Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill is an attempt to reverse a High Court ruling that local councils had no statutory powers to summons councillors to prayers following a legal challenge by the National Secular Society and a former Bideford Town councillor. In defending prayers as a formal part of council meetings, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has insisted that Britain is a "a Christian country". However, the Earl of Clancarty said this was "only partly true". "We are today a multi-cultural, multi-faith country, which contains a diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs", he argued, citing a Huffington Post UK poll conducted in October last year found that more than 60% of those polled in Britain were "not religious at all". The crossbench peer said "Institutionalising a particular religion within the formal business of a council meeting or identifying the council with a belief, or even a range of beliefs, must in the modern age be insensitive and crosses what many people would think is today's acceptable line." The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the Christian back bench MP Jake Berry, but was drafted with assistance from the Department of Communities and Local Government, led by Eric Pickles. It is being carried through he House of Lords by Lord Cormack, a committed Christian and former rector's warden at Parliament's St Margaret's parish church. Introducing the Bill he said he was "particularly glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle" in the Chamber, who he complimented on leading parliamentary prayers "with a particular grace and dignity". He also said it was "splendidly symbolic" that in the near empty Chamber there was a "Minister who is a Muslim and a government Whip and Minister who is a Hindu". Lord Cormack insisted that the Bill "imposes no obligations upon anyone" despite the fact that it would enable prayers to held during the formal business of council meetings to which all councillors are summoned to attend. No peers spoke in support of the Bill other than the Government and Labour front bench spokespeople, Lord Ahmad and Lord Kennedy, who both wished the Bill "speedy progress into law". As in the House of Commons, the Bill progressed without a vote and will next be debated in Committee. The debate can be read in full at Hansard
	NSS rebukes Eric Pickles for claims about “aggressive secularists” News \| Fri, 27th Feb 2015 The National Secular Society has strongly criticised Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, for warning of "violent extremists" and "aggressive secularists" in a speech at Temple Church in London. The Secretary of State said: "We live in an age of confusion and fear about religion. Violence and conflicts are erupting around the world driven by men who claim to have a monopoly on faith and on piety. Many people are concluding religion is a problem, a relic of a past, [that] it would be much better if it didn't exist." Mr Pickles also said that "Faith should no longer be treated as a personal hobby which should be for the few." But Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, pointed out that affiliation to religion has been dropping in Britain for generations. He said that only a minority are affiliated to a religion and that many view their religion as a personal matter which should be separated from politics. Mr Sanderson rejected the implication that religion should be for the many, and called it "wholly inappropriate" for a Secretary of State to be proselytising in this way. Mr Sanderson also criticised the Secretary of State's equating "violent extremism" with "aggressive secularism". Mr Sanderson said: "Secularism supports religious freedom, respecting people's rights to practise their faith, or change, renounce it, or to have no faith. Secularism protects freedom of conscience. So, Mr Pickles dismissal of 'violent extremists' and 'aggressive secularists' as if they were in any way equivalent demonstrates either a worrying misunderstanding for a Minister of State for matters at the heart of his portfolio or, more likely, a calculated and baseless slur on those who do not share his enthusiasm for the Government's promotion of religion." Mr Sanderson added: "When Eric Pickles says 'faith should no longer be treated as a personal hobby which should be for the few' he sounds like a proto-theocrat, determined to impose his own views and values, even on to those who don't share them. He is abusing his position in government by pushing his religious enthusiasm into policy-making when research quite clearly shows that the majority of the country don't want it." Calling for more "religious literacy", Mr Pickles also said a "proper understanding" of religious faith was the best way to stand up to bigotry. Mr Sanderson said that "coming from Mr Pickles, the call for 'religious literacy' sounds more like code for presenting a biased and entirely deferential view of religion." In keeping with the Government's 'Big Society' agenda, the Communities Secretary described faith groups as a "tremendous force for good" and lauded their role in "serving and supporting the downtrodden, the marginalised in society, and bringing our different communities together." Mr Sanderson responded: "Mr Pickles seems to be suggesting that the Government should sponsor religion, as indeed his Department is doing with a £400,000 giveaway to 'strengthen faith institutions'. He seems to be hankering for a return to Victorian times where the poor were entirely reliant on religious organisations for basic welfare." A parliamentary bill, backed by Eric Pickles, to give a wide variety of local government bodies powers to include prayers or "other religious observance" in their official meeting is currently being considered by the House of Lords. Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has hit out against what he calls "vociferous secularism" in an interview with Premier Christian Radio on Tuesday 3 March 2015. Appearing to confuse atheism and secularism, he said he had a "complex attitude towards faith" and added that he was "always a bit sceptical of anyone who acts with raging certainty about anything." Read more here.
	The Christian Legal Centre makes another attempt to gain privileges for Christians in the workplace Opinion \| Mon, 2nd Mar 2015 The Christian Legal Centre's latest 'discrimination' claim follows a familiar pattern – but its use of dissembling tactics shouldn't be permitted to manipulate a change in equality laws, argues Terry Sanderson. So, here we go again. Another evangelical Christian is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed from her job just because she talked about her religious beliefs at work. Her employer, Newpark Childcare in Highbury, north London, says she was guilty of "gross misconduct." The case will now be heard by the Watford Employment Tribunal. The routine is exactly the same as in so many of the other cases. The Christian Legal Centre is backing Sarah Mbuyi and has put out a completely one-sided account of the case in which Ms Mbuyi is portrayed as a poor Christian, hounded and persecuted because of her religion. The Daily Telegraph then reports the matter entirely from the account provided by the Christian Legal Centre's ace propagandist Andrea Minichiello Williams. There is not a word from the employer or the woman who supposedly complained about Ms Mbuyi's behaviour at work and no attempt whatever to put the other side of the case. In this way, even before a word has been spoken at the tribunal, Ms Mbuyi has been enrolled into the gallery of victims of "Christianophobia" that Andrea Williams has almost single-handedly created. But let's not forget – none of the many cases that the Christian Legal Centre has brought to court has succeeded. Nadia Eweida, the BA clerk won a small technical victory at the European Court of Human Rights, but nothing to fundamentally change the equality laws. And why this continual failure? Because when the facts from both sides are heard, it turns out that it wasn't quite the way Andrea Williams had described it. By that time, of course, the Mail and the Telegraph will have lost interest and Ms Mbuyi — whatever the truth of the case — will be forever remembered – and continually referred to as yet another martyr on the altar of anti-Christian prejudice. In these initial accounts that Andrea Williams releases to the press – and which the Telegraph and the Daily Mail gobble up without question – there are always omissions, exaggerations and a total lack of input from the other side. Of course, she knows that the employer is unable to rebut what has been said until the matter reaches court because of privacy considerations. There is another angle to this present case. The Christian Legal Centre is going to try to strengthen its hand by citing a non-binding resolution (pdf) that was passed by the Council of Europe recently calling on member states to challenge discrimination on grounds of religion – particularly against Christians. The CLC thinks that this will persuade a judge to at last find in their favour and confirm their claims that Christians are being disadvantaged in the workplace. You'd never guess it from the Telegraph's version, but the resolution says that member states should "uphold freedom of conscience in the workplace while ensuring that access to services provided by law is maintained and the right of others to be free from discrimination is protected." That does not read to me like a wholehearted plea to give Christians carte blanche at work to promote their religion or give a hard time to colleagues whose lifestyle they disapprove of. Indeed, it specifically states that "services provided by law" must be maintained. That means that the courts were right to throw out the case of Lillian Ladele, the registrar who was sacked for refusing to carry out civil partnership registrations. The resolution also says that others have a right to be free from discrimination – so refusing services to or harassing homosexuals is also out as far as the Council of Europe is concerned. Nowhere in the resolution does it recommend "conscience" opt-outs or that the law be changed to give Christians the freedom to make other people's lives a misery. But this, ultimately, is what the CLC is trying to do. It is trying to create a climate that will persuade politicians that the Equality Act needs to be changed to give them the right to refuse goods and services to people they believe don't live by biblical standards. They want the right not just to hold their beliefs, but to promote them in the workplace, to impose them on customers and service users and to have special privileges that are denied to everyone else. The Council of Europe says that member states should "enable Christians to fully participate in public life". I don't know which member states they are thinking of when they say this, but it surely can't be Britain. Christians don't only participate in public life in this country, many of them are running it. The Prime Minister claims to be Christian and recommends that Christians get evangelical about their beliefs. The Queen as head of state is an enthusiastic Christian who uses her Christmas message to the nation to proselytise her faith. Most of the government is Christian; we have an established church that is Christian; Christians are protected in law from discrimination; we have Christian bishops sitting in our legislature as of right; Christian run more than a third of the education system – what more participation in public life do they want? Actually, what they ideally want is to participate in private life – everybody's private life. They want to make life difficult for "sinners" like homosexuals, co-habiting straight couples, divorcees and anybody else who doesn't lead the upright Christian life they claim for themselves. I anticipate that this case will go the same way as all the others when the true facts are aired. But if that happens, don't expect the Daily Mail and the Telegraph to report it objectively. They will either ignore the outcome or they will present it as another assault on religious belief by fundamentalist secularists. If I'm wrong and the CLC score a breakthrough, then we all need to be worried about where this might lead. You can be sure that one small concession will not satisfy these zealots. The CLC is relentless and has friends in high places. But it must not be permitted to manipulate a change in the equality laws by the use of these dissembling tactics.
	Police and Crime Commissioner criticised for awarding tens of thousands of pounds to Christian groups News \| Wed, 4th Mar 2015 The National Secular Society has raised concerns about a scheme to "nurture, equip and enable" religious organisations to help reduce crime in Northamptonshire. Northamptonshire Police and Crime Commission Adam Simmonds, described as a "committed Christian", set up the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) in 2014, promising that "the Office will not favour any particular organisation on the grounds of faith." However, all religious organisations awarded funding to-date have been Christian. The director of the OFBCI, Helen Boardman, who is paid between £35,000 and £42,000, described herself as an "active Christian" with a "real passion for people who are broken and lost". The National Secular Society (NSS) has expressed concern that funding is being awarded without any measure of how effective the initiatives are. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "public funding should be dependent on objective assessments of whether the initiatives are genuinely effective and represent value for money. An active Christian with a 'real passion for people who are broken and lost' may not be best placed to objectively assess the merits of spending public money on church based outreach programmes." Of the £63,410 given out by the OFBCI since its launch in January 2014, £50,000 has been awarded to Christian groups, with the rest going to non-faith based community initiatives. £16,000 was awarded Crime2Christ to establish school chaplains in three secondary schools to "support young people after school "and have a "visible presence on routes to and from school, on bus routes, around the local community and local shops." Other funded projects include a 12-step Recovery Support Program run by the Full Gospel Church; Developing Street Pastors run by Corby Street Pastors to provide "a reassuring presence during the night time in Corby"; a family intervention programme run by Crime2Christ; and a crime prevention scheme run by the New Ark Foundation, which promotes "health, education and general social welfare of individuals and families… through culturally competent and faith sensitive services". Stephen Evans argued that there was a danger that such faith initiatives were being used to "paper over cracks in public service provision", but also raised concerns about the appropriateness of funding groups with a specific religious focus. "Many Christians have long been concerned about their diminishing relevance and influence in modern society and churches are increasingly using social action to give themselves a purpose. But there is an evangelical agenda behind much of this 'outreach' work and everybody needs to be clear about that. Assisting churches to deliver the gospel of Jesus to the unchurched isn't a proper use of public money – so police forces should think twice before actively supporting or funding churches' missionary work. "Community initiatives, secular and religious, can provide real benefits to local communities, but faith-based projects should be self-funded and supplementary to secular public services, because in a multi faith and increasingly non-religious society, public services should be equally appropriate and accessible to all – and there's a big question mark over how inclusive groups with specific religious ethos can be." The lack of funding provided to non-Christian faith groups has been criticised by local religious leaders. The Reverend David Wiseman, of Northampton Inter Faith Forum, told the BBC that he was "disappointed" only Christian religious groups had received money. Krishna Thakrar, of Wellingborough's Hindu Temple, said he felt "excluded." A number of non-Christian religious leaders the BBC contacted said they had never heard of the scheme. Mr Thakrar said: "If those administrating it cannot contact certain groups they shouldn't be running it." Stephen Evans commented: "Another good reason to keep religion out of policing is its potential for divisiveness and the inevitable competing demands of religious groups who feel excluded." In an interview with the Jesus Army website last year, Mr Simmonds said he would "robustly" challenge the notion that Britain's future belonged to secular humanism. "I passionately believe that religion can be – and is – a huge force for good in our society, and that faith drives many people to do amazing things." He has not yet commented on the controversy surrounding the project.
	A very special Secularist of the Year event in the offing- get your tickets now News \| Thu, 5th Mar 2015 This year's Secularist of the Year lunch is shaping up to be one of the most exciting events in the secularists' social calendar – with attendees including Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling and last year's fantastic winner, Turkish opposition MP Safak Pavey. The prizes will be presented by famed cartoonist Martin Rowson. With a record number of nominations from all over the world, the winner has now been chosen and we can promise, as usual, a roster of courage, determination and heroism. There is no other event quite like it. We hope you'll join us to share in the inspiration and excitement. As well as honouring the heroes of the cause, Secularist of the Year presents attendees with an opportunity to meet other secularists from around the country and, indeed, all over the world. Held in a prestigious central London venue, it's a friendly event that includes a three course lunch with tea or coffee and a welcoming cocktail (or non-alcoholic equivalent) on arrival. Time is running out to get tickets, so get yours now for £50 (£40 for NSS members). Buy securely online here or send a cheque to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL remembering to include your full details and any special dietary requirements you might have.
	Beef ban prompts fears over state of Indian secularism News \| Wed, 4th Mar 2015 The Indian state of Maharashtra has banned the sale or possession of beef, leading to fears that secularism in India is being eroded. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said "our dream of ban on cow slaughter becomes a reality now". 80% of India's population is Hindu, and there are already many restrictions on cattle products in place. However, the ban in Maharashtra is particularly stringent, and carries a potential fine of 10,000 Rupees, or a prison term of up to five years. The Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill, which received assent from President Pranab Mukherjee on Monday 2 March 2015, bans the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, which had previously been permitted provided there was a "fit-for-slaughter" certificate. There is a range of existing laws in India relating to beef and products derived from cattle, with a patchwork of laws that allow beef to be imported in some states where the slaughter of cows is illegal, and laws in other states which prohibit the sale of beef completely. The new ban has prompted widespread debate on social media, and polarized opinion among Indians. Much of the debate mocked the Indian government for taking action over the slaughter of cows and not prioritising the safety and rights of women. The new law comes against a background of religious tension in India, which has seen violence against churches and forced conversions of religious minorities by Hindu nationalists. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has strongly condemned the violence, and stated that Indians have an "undeniable right to retain or adopt" any religion. He added that his government would give "equal respect to all religions". The Prime Minister also said that "the principles of equal respect for all faiths and secularism have been fundamental component parts of the Indian ethos. It is integral to the constitution of India." Despite this, the ban on beef has led to fears that the religious sensitivities of some Hindus are encroaching on Indian secularism, and many have complained about the huge economic cost the beef ban will carry.

Spring Bulletin 2015

In the latest Bulletin (sent to members last week) NSS President Terry Sanderson wrote passionately about the need to reconsider our restrictions on free expression. Other lead stories included the Government's latest bid to bring back prayers at local government meetings and our ongoing work advocating for a secular education system.

Quote of the Week

"Fairly regularly a religious leader in the West, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, will speak out about the threat from 'extreme secularism' and atheist intolerance. When an atheist mob, incited by the words of Richard Dawkins, hacks a bishop to death on the streets of a major city, I may begin to take them seriously."
David Aaronovitch, Times.

Essay of the Week

The problem with church schools? They run counter to Christian values
Theo Hobson, New Statesman.

	“Be Careful With Mohammed”: Muslim Action Forum launches “legal strategy” to stop publication of insults to Mohammed News \| Tue, 3rd Mar 2015 The Muslim Action Forum (MAF), which staged a protest outside Downing Street against Charlie Hebdo in February, has launched a "legal strategy" to stop insults against Mohammed. The organisation is also asking supporters to "lobby your MP" to make "Islamophobia" a criminal offence. They state that they intend "to launch a series of legal challenges in the English Court system" because "depictions of our Holy Prophet peace be upon Him is the worst kind of 'Hate Crime' that can be perpetrated on the 3 million Muslims in the UK and 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide." The group says that they have "devised a legal strategy to prevent the continuous insulting and derogatory publications depicting and abusing the personality of our Holy Prophet Muhammad peace be upon Him." In a press release published shortly after the demonstration in February 2015, the MAF set out details of their plan to outlaw depicting Mohammed in the UK, through "amendment of some existing legislation and the presentation of a Private Members Bill that promotes the idea of Global Civility." They describe "Global Civility" as a "new direction" and argue that the "desecration" of "collective human dignity", through "insult, denigration or humiliation is morally and ethically wrong". Their website rails against "reckless and malicious expressions". They urge the 100,000 Muslims who they claim signed their petition to lobby their MPs and all candidates standing in the General Election. The MAF makes a number of suggestions including three specific questions which they ask supporters to direct to their MPs. The MAF suggests that petitioners ask their MPs if they think the "the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended to include under 'hate crime' any malicious depiction of images and use of malevolent language against revered personalities of all religions?" They also suggest asking if "Islamophobia should be a culpable offence?" The suggestions include a point inquiring if MPs would support a "Bill of Rights" that promotes "Global Civility", a concept which would prevent insulting religion. The appeal says that if the MP answers no to any of the points above, their answer "will clarify to the local Muslim community where their political representatives stand on the single most important issue to every Muslim in this country and worldwide." Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, said: "We trust all prospective MPs will appreciate that there is no homogeneous 'Muslim community' and reject such unreasonable demands to undermine everybody's fundamental rights and freedoms. Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society – and integral to combating the spectre of Islamism. Now more than ever we need to preserve and strengthen freedom of expression, not capitulate to extremist demands." The Muslim Action Forum (MAF) explain that their campaign against satirical depictions of Mohammed, and what they call "uncivilised expressionists", took its "first historical step by presenting a petition supported by over 100,000 signatures of Muslims promoting the concept of Global Civility and condemning the continuous publication of these insulting cartoons in France and other parts of the world." The MAF website has a section devoted to the concept of "uncivilised expressionists", and they cite examples including the Satanic Verses, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and the burning of the Quran. They define uncivilised expressions as a "a psychological disposition of the human mind which insults and maligns others without care or consideration of consequences." They call this "behaviour against Muslims". The full press release on the Muslim Action Forum's legal strategy can be found here.
	Council prayers bill branded a "recipe for divisiveness" News \| Sat, 28th Feb 2015 A Government backed Bill to give local councils the power to include prayers in their meetings has been branded a 'recipe for divisiveness' during a House of Lords debate. Raising concerns during the Bill's Second reading debate, Crossbench peer Nicholas Trench, The Earl of Clancarty, said he wished to draw attention to matters of principle as well as practicalities "which we ignore at our peril". The Earl warned that if the Bill passes, "we will have a recipe for divisiveness and storing up potential problems in the long term". He said the wisest course for councils was to be "scrupulously impartial with respect to the beliefs and non-beliefs held by the residents of a local area". The Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill is an attempt to reverse a High Court ruling that local councils had no statutory powers to summons councillors to prayers following a legal challenge by the National Secular Society and a former Bideford Town councillor. In defending prayers as a formal part of council meetings, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has insisted that Britain is a "a Christian country". However, the Earl of Clancarty said this was "only partly true". "We are today a multi-cultural, multi-faith country, which contains a diversity of beliefs and non-beliefs", he argued, citing a Huffington Post UK poll conducted in October last year found that more than 60% of those polled in Britain were "not religious at all". The crossbench peer said "Institutionalising a particular religion within the formal business of a council meeting or identifying the council with a belief, or even a range of beliefs, must in the modern age be insensitive and crosses what many people would think is today's acceptable line." The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by the Christian back bench MP Jake Berry, but was drafted with assistance from the Department of Communities and Local Government, led by Eric Pickles. It is being carried through he House of Lords by Lord Cormack, a committed Christian and former rector's warden at Parliament's St Margaret's parish church. Introducing the Bill he said he was "particularly glad to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle" in the Chamber, who he complimented on leading parliamentary prayers "with a particular grace and dignity". He also said it was "splendidly symbolic" that in the near empty Chamber there was a "Minister who is a Muslim and a government Whip and Minister who is a Hindu". Lord Cormack insisted that the Bill "imposes no obligations upon anyone" despite the fact that it would enable prayers to held during the formal business of council meetings to which all councillors are summoned to attend. No peers spoke in support of the Bill other than the Government and Labour front bench spokespeople, Lord Ahmad and Lord Kennedy, who both wished the Bill "speedy progress into law". As in the House of Commons, the Bill progressed without a vote and will next be debated in Committee. The debate can be read in full at Hansard
	NSS rebukes Eric Pickles for claims about “aggressive secularists” News \| Fri, 27th Feb 2015 The National Secular Society has strongly criticised Communities Secretary Eric Pickles, for warning of "violent extremists" and "aggressive secularists" in a speech at Temple Church in London. The Secretary of State said: "We live in an age of confusion and fear about religion. Violence and conflicts are erupting around the world driven by men who claim to have a monopoly on faith and on piety. Many people are concluding religion is a problem, a relic of a past, [that] it would be much better if it didn't exist." Mr Pickles also said that "Faith should no longer be treated as a personal hobby which should be for the few." But Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, pointed out that affiliation to religion has been dropping in Britain for generations. He said that only a minority are affiliated to a religion and that many view their religion as a personal matter which should be separated from politics. Mr Sanderson rejected the implication that religion should be for the many, and called it "wholly inappropriate" for a Secretary of State to be proselytising in this way. Mr Sanderson also criticised the Secretary of State's equating "violent extremism" with "aggressive secularism". Mr Sanderson said: "Secularism supports religious freedom, respecting people's rights to practise their faith, or change, renounce it, or to have no faith. Secularism protects freedom of conscience. So, Mr Pickles dismissal of 'violent extremists' and 'aggressive secularists' as if they were in any way equivalent demonstrates either a worrying misunderstanding for a Minister of State for matters at the heart of his portfolio or, more likely, a calculated and baseless slur on those who do not share his enthusiasm for the Government's promotion of religion." Mr Sanderson added: "When Eric Pickles says 'faith should no longer be treated as a personal hobby which should be for the few' he sounds like a proto-theocrat, determined to impose his own views and values, even on to those who don't share them. He is abusing his position in government by pushing his religious enthusiasm into policy-making when research quite clearly shows that the majority of the country don't want it." Calling for more "religious literacy", Mr Pickles also said a "proper understanding" of religious faith was the best way to stand up to bigotry. Mr Sanderson said that "coming from Mr Pickles, the call for 'religious literacy' sounds more like code for presenting a biased and entirely deferential view of religion." In keeping with the Government's 'Big Society' agenda, the Communities Secretary described faith groups as a "tremendous force for good" and lauded their role in "serving and supporting the downtrodden, the marginalised in society, and bringing our different communities together." Mr Sanderson responded: "Mr Pickles seems to be suggesting that the Government should sponsor religion, as indeed his Department is doing with a £400,000 giveaway to 'strengthen faith institutions'. He seems to be hankering for a return to Victorian times where the poor were entirely reliant on religious organisations for basic welfare." A parliamentary bill, backed by Eric Pickles, to give a wide variety of local government bodies powers to include prayers or "other religious observance" in their official meeting is currently being considered by the House of Lords. Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has hit out against what he calls "vociferous secularism" in an interview with Premier Christian Radio on Tuesday 3 March 2015. Appearing to confuse atheism and secularism, he said he had a "complex attitude towards faith" and added that he was "always a bit sceptical of anyone who acts with raging certainty about anything." Read more here.
	The Christian Legal Centre makes another attempt to gain privileges for Christians in the workplace Opinion \| Mon, 2nd Mar 2015 The Christian Legal Centre's latest 'discrimination' claim follows a familiar pattern – but its use of dissembling tactics shouldn't be permitted to manipulate a change in equality laws, argues Terry Sanderson. So, here we go again. Another evangelical Christian is claiming that she was unfairly dismissed from her job just because she talked about her religious beliefs at work. Her employer, Newpark Childcare in Highbury, north London, says she was guilty of "gross misconduct." The case will now be heard by the Watford Employment Tribunal. The routine is exactly the same as in so many of the other cases. The Christian Legal Centre is backing Sarah Mbuyi and has put out a completely one-sided account of the case in which Ms Mbuyi is portrayed as a poor Christian, hounded and persecuted because of her religion. The Daily Telegraph then reports the matter entirely from the account provided by the Christian Legal Centre's ace propagandist Andrea Minichiello Williams. There is not a word from the employer or the woman who supposedly complained about Ms Mbuyi's behaviour at work and no attempt whatever to put the other side of the case. In this way, even before a word has been spoken at the tribunal, Ms Mbuyi has been enrolled into the gallery of victims of "Christianophobia" that Andrea Williams has almost single-handedly created. But let's not forget – none of the many cases that the Christian Legal Centre has brought to court has succeeded. Nadia Eweida, the BA clerk won a small technical victory at the European Court of Human Rights, but nothing to fundamentally change the equality laws. And why this continual failure? Because when the facts from both sides are heard, it turns out that it wasn't quite the way Andrea Williams had described it. By that time, of course, the Mail and the Telegraph will have lost interest and Ms Mbuyi — whatever the truth of the case — will be forever remembered – and continually referred to as yet another martyr on the altar of anti-Christian prejudice. In these initial accounts that Andrea Williams releases to the press – and which the Telegraph and the Daily Mail gobble up without question – there are always omissions, exaggerations and a total lack of input from the other side. Of course, she knows that the employer is unable to rebut what has been said until the matter reaches court because of privacy considerations. There is another angle to this present case. The Christian Legal Centre is going to try to strengthen its hand by citing a non-binding resolution (pdf) that was passed by the Council of Europe recently calling on member states to challenge discrimination on grounds of religion – particularly against Christians. The CLC thinks that this will persuade a judge to at last find in their favour and confirm their claims that Christians are being disadvantaged in the workplace. You'd never guess it from the Telegraph's version, but the resolution says that member states should "uphold freedom of conscience in the workplace while ensuring that access to services provided by law is maintained and the right of others to be free from discrimination is protected." That does not read to me like a wholehearted plea to give Christians carte blanche at work to promote their religion or give a hard time to colleagues whose lifestyle they disapprove of. Indeed, it specifically states that "services provided by law" must be maintained. That means that the courts were right to throw out the case of Lillian Ladele, the registrar who was sacked for refusing to carry out civil partnership registrations. The resolution also says that others have a right to be free from discrimination – so refusing services to or harassing homosexuals is also out as far as the Council of Europe is concerned. Nowhere in the resolution does it recommend "conscience" opt-outs or that the law be changed to give Christians the freedom to make other people's lives a misery. But this, ultimately, is what the CLC is trying to do. It is trying to create a climate that will persuade politicians that the Equality Act needs to be changed to give them the right to refuse goods and services to people they believe don't live by biblical standards. They want the right not just to hold their beliefs, but to promote them in the workplace, to impose them on customers and service users and to have special privileges that are denied to everyone else. The Council of Europe says that member states should "enable Christians to fully participate in public life". I don't know which member states they are thinking of when they say this, but it surely can't be Britain. Christians don't only participate in public life in this country, many of them are running it. The Prime Minister claims to be Christian and recommends that Christians get evangelical about their beliefs. The Queen as head of state is an enthusiastic Christian who uses her Christmas message to the nation to proselytise her faith. Most of the government is Christian; we have an established church that is Christian; Christians are protected in law from discrimination; we have Christian bishops sitting in our legislature as of right; Christian run more than a third of the education system – what more participation in public life do they want? Actually, what they ideally want is to participate in private life – everybody's private life. They want to make life difficult for "sinners" like homosexuals, co-habiting straight couples, divorcees and anybody else who doesn't lead the upright Christian life they claim for themselves. I anticipate that this case will go the same way as all the others when the true facts are aired. But if that happens, don't expect the Daily Mail and the Telegraph to report it objectively. They will either ignore the outcome or they will present it as another assault on religious belief by fundamentalist secularists. If I'm wrong and the CLC score a breakthrough, then we all need to be worried about where this might lead. You can be sure that one small concession will not satisfy these zealots. The CLC is relentless and has friends in high places. But it must not be permitted to manipulate a change in the equality laws by the use of these dissembling tactics.
	Police and Crime Commissioner criticised for awarding tens of thousands of pounds to Christian groups News \| Wed, 4th Mar 2015 The National Secular Society has raised concerns about a scheme to "nurture, equip and enable" religious organisations to help reduce crime in Northamptonshire. Northamptonshire Police and Crime Commission Adam Simmonds, described as a "committed Christian", set up the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) in 2014, promising that "the Office will not favour any particular organisation on the grounds of faith." However, all religious organisations awarded funding to-date have been Christian. The director of the OFBCI, Helen Boardman, who is paid between £35,000 and £42,000, described herself as an "active Christian" with a "real passion for people who are broken and lost". The National Secular Society (NSS) has expressed concern that funding is being awarded without any measure of how effective the initiatives are. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "public funding should be dependent on objective assessments of whether the initiatives are genuinely effective and represent value for money. An active Christian with a 'real passion for people who are broken and lost' may not be best placed to objectively assess the merits of spending public money on church based outreach programmes." Of the £63,410 given out by the OFBCI since its launch in January 2014, £50,000 has been awarded to Christian groups, with the rest going to non-faith based community initiatives. £16,000 was awarded Crime2Christ to establish school chaplains in three secondary schools to "support young people after school "and have a "visible presence on routes to and from school, on bus routes, around the local community and local shops." Other funded projects include a 12-step Recovery Support Program run by the Full Gospel Church; Developing Street Pastors run by Corby Street Pastors to provide "a reassuring presence during the night time in Corby"; a family intervention programme run by Crime2Christ; and a crime prevention scheme run by the New Ark Foundation, which promotes "health, education and general social welfare of individuals and families… through culturally competent and faith sensitive services". Stephen Evans argued that there was a danger that such faith initiatives were being used to "paper over cracks in public service provision", but also raised concerns about the appropriateness of funding groups with a specific religious focus. "Many Christians have long been concerned about their diminishing relevance and influence in modern society and churches are increasingly using social action to give themselves a purpose. But there is an evangelical agenda behind much of this 'outreach' work and everybody needs to be clear about that. Assisting churches to deliver the gospel of Jesus to the unchurched isn't a proper use of public money – so police forces should think twice before actively supporting or funding churches' missionary work. "Community initiatives, secular and religious, can provide real benefits to local communities, but faith-based projects should be self-funded and supplementary to secular public services, because in a multi faith and increasingly non-religious society, public services should be equally appropriate and accessible to all – and there's a big question mark over how inclusive groups with specific religious ethos can be." The lack of funding provided to non-Christian faith groups has been criticised by local religious leaders. The Reverend David Wiseman, of Northampton Inter Faith Forum, told the BBC that he was "disappointed" only Christian religious groups had received money. Krishna Thakrar, of Wellingborough's Hindu Temple, said he felt "excluded." A number of non-Christian religious leaders the BBC contacted said they had never heard of the scheme. Mr Thakrar said: "If those administrating it cannot contact certain groups they shouldn't be running it." Stephen Evans commented: "Another good reason to keep religion out of policing is its potential for divisiveness and the inevitable competing demands of religious groups who feel excluded." In an interview with the Jesus Army website last year, Mr Simmonds said he would "robustly" challenge the notion that Britain's future belonged to secular humanism. "I passionately believe that religion can be – and is – a huge force for good in our society, and that faith drives many people to do amazing things." He has not yet commented on the controversy surrounding the project.
	A very special Secularist of the Year event in the offing- get your tickets now News \| Thu, 5th Mar 2015 This year's Secularist of the Year lunch is shaping up to be one of the most exciting events in the secularists' social calendar – with attendees including Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling and last year's fantastic winner, Turkish opposition MP Safak Pavey. The prizes will be presented by famed cartoonist Martin Rowson. With a record number of nominations from all over the world, the winner has now been chosen and we can promise, as usual, a roster of courage, determination and heroism. There is no other event quite like it. We hope you'll join us to share in the inspiration and excitement. As well as honouring the heroes of the cause, Secularist of the Year presents attendees with an opportunity to meet other secularists from around the country and, indeed, all over the world. Held in a prestigious central London venue, it's a friendly event that includes a three course lunch with tea or coffee and a welcoming cocktail (or non-alcoholic equivalent) on arrival. Time is running out to get tickets, so get yours now for £50 (£40 for NSS members). Buy securely online here or send a cheque to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL remembering to include your full details and any special dietary requirements you might have.
	Beef ban prompts fears over state of Indian secularism News \| Wed, 4th Mar 2015 The Indian state of Maharashtra has banned the sale or possession of beef, leading to fears that secularism in India is being eroded. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said "our dream of ban on cow slaughter becomes a reality now". 80% of India's population is Hindu, and there are already many restrictions on cattle products in place. However, the ban in Maharashtra is particularly stringent, and carries a potential fine of 10,000 Rupees, or a prison term of up to five years. The Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill, which received assent from President Pranab Mukherjee on Monday 2 March 2015, bans the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, which had previously been permitted provided there was a "fit-for-slaughter" certificate. There is a range of existing laws in India relating to beef and products derived from cattle, with a patchwork of laws that allow beef to be imported in some states where the slaughter of cows is illegal, and laws in other states which prohibit the sale of beef completely. The new ban has prompted widespread debate on social media, and polarized opinion among Indians. Much of the debate mocked the Indian government for taking action over the slaughter of cows and not prioritising the safety and rights of women. The new law comes against a background of religious tension in India, which has seen violence against churches and forced conversions of religious minorities by Hindu nationalists. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has strongly condemned the violence, and stated that Indians have an "undeniable right to retain or adopt" any religion. He added that his government would give "equal respect to all religions". The Prime Minister also said that "the principles of equal respect for all faiths and secularism have been fundamental component parts of the Indian ethos. It is integral to the constitution of India." Despite this, the ban on beef has led to fears that the religious sensitivities of some Hindus are encroaching on Indian secularism, and many have complained about the huge economic cost the beef ban will carry.

Our use of cookies

Newsline 6 March 2015

News, Blogs & Opinion

“Be Careful With Mohammed”: Muslim Action Forum launches “legal strategy” to stop publication of insults to Mohammed

Council prayers bill branded a "recipe for divisiveness"

NSS rebukes Eric Pickles for claims about “aggressive secularists”

The Christian Legal Centre makes another attempt to gain privileges for Christians in the workplace

Police and Crime Commissioner criticised for awarding tens of thousands of pounds to Christian groups

A very special Secularist of the Year event in the offing- get your tickets now

Beef ban prompts fears over state of Indian secularism

Spring Bulletin 2015

Spring Bulletin 2015

Quote of the Week

Essay of the Week

Upcoming Events

Faith and Politics – Where's the conscience of the nation?

'Moral Majority and Moral Minority: The values and beliefs of religious and non-religious people in the UK today'

Secularist of the Year 2015- Sold Out

Newsline 6 March 2015

News, Blogs & Opinion

Spring Bulletin 2015

Quote of the Week

Essay of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter