The National Secular Society needs and values the support of members who share our aim of creating a fair and equal secular Britain, free from religious privilege. Join Britain's only organisation working exclusively towards a secular society.
Prefer to read Newsline in full? download the PDF version here.
News, Blogs & Opinion
NSS welcomes vote to outlaw caste discriminationNews | Tue, 5th Mar 2013 The National Secular Society has welcomed a vote by Peers in the House of Lords in favour of an amendment to bring caste discrimination within the scope of equality legislation. The vote was a heavy defeat for the Government, losing by 103 votes, with 256 peers supporting the amendment and 153 voting against. The amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (ERR) Bill was moved by members of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Dalits – the Lib Dem Peer and NSS honorary Associate Lord Avebury (pictured right), the Conservative Lord Deben, Crossbench Peer Lord Harries and Labour's Lady Thornton – and received crossbench support. Prior to the vote the National Secular Society briefed Peers and Ministers with a legal opinion obtained by the NSS, which concluded that the UK is obliged in international human rights law to legislate for caste discrimination and further obliged to provide victims of such discrimination with an effective remedy. The opinion stated that the Government's failure to do so is a violation of Article 2 (1) and 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Last year the UN Human Rights Council also called on the UK Government to "develop a national strategy to eliminate caste discrimination, including the immediate adoption of the clause in the Equality Act … in accordance with its international human rights obligations". Secular and anti-discrimination campaigners persuaded the previous Labour Government to amend the Equality Bill, to include an enabling power to make caste a protected characteristic as a result of which discrimination and harassment on the grounds of caste would be outlawed. The current Government has however resisted triggering the power despite a report into the prevalence of caste prejudice and discrimination in the UK, undertaken by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR), which found significant evidence of caste discrimination, harassment and bullying in employment, education and the provision of services, including care. Defending the Government's position during Monday's debate, Baroness Stowell of Beeston described new legislation as "a big step" and said the Government was taking clear action to tackle caste prejudice and discrimination through a programme of education. She explained that the education initiative – a joint initiative between the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Government Equalities Office – had already appointed a body called 'Talk for a Change' to take the work forward. Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said: "The Government set a poor example by refusing to follow the UN's recommendation last year to the UK to make caste discrimination unlawful – as it was obliged to do so by its international obligations. Instead, all the Government offered those suffering from caste discrimination was conciliation where there is conflict. The peers, however, were determined to aid the vulnerable more effectively by providing legal protection on caste. Their view prevailed, leaving the Government embarrassed." The amendment will now need the support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons before it can become law. Read Monday's debate in full at Hansard Read the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) Conway Hall Declaration on Untouchability (signed in 2009) | |
Charity regulator upholds decision against Catholic adoption agencyNews | Wed, 6th Mar 2013 The National Secular Society has welcomed the decision by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR) to uphold its original ruling over the charitable status of a Catholic adoption agency. Following a complaint about the charity from the National Secular Society in 2012, OSCR ruled in January 2013 that St Margaret's Children and Family Care Society failed the charity test because it did not act in the children's best interests by restricting the pool of prospective parents by excluding same-sex couples, and also breached equality legislation on grounds of sexual orientation and religion & belief. OCSR issued a Direction to St Margaret's instructing it to amend its procedures and assessment criteria to bring them into line – or face its possible removal from the charity register. In an updated report, published yesterday, the OSCR confirmed its original view that St Margaret's failed the charity test because it discriminated unlawfully on grounds of religion or belief and sexual orientation, and was in breach of the Equality Act 2010. The report states:
The OSCR said that St Margaret's must amend its guidance and procedures by 22 April or face removal from the Scottish charity register. Alistair McBay, NSS Spokesman for Scotland, welcomed the OSCR's decision to uphold its original finding. "The original decision was the only one the Regulator could have made in the circumstances, to require St Margaret's to follow well-established equality law and charity law – opening up the pool of prospective parents to gay couples being in the best interests of children awaiting adoption." "We hope St Margaret's will now put the best interests of children first, as many other Catholic adoption agencies have done, and comply with the law by widening the pool of prospective parents to include same-sex couples," he said. "We hope that St Margaret's will look to St Andrews Children's Society in Edinburgh, which did change its criteria to comply with the law. Following Cardinal O'Brien stepping down as President, that society wisely decided to follow the law and is now flourishing, still accepting Catholic parents as prospective adopters but also accepting same sex parents, and valuing the contribution that they make. "We call on the Scottish Government to reassess its position of support for St Margaret's in its attempts to circumvent the law. Such an approach only undermines the independent statutory regulator in its attempt to enforce the rule of law. We know that the Scottish Government has been supporting St Margaret's, with one former Cabinet Minister recorded as stating she was 'comfortable' with St Margaret's redirecting same-sex couples to other adoption agencies. "At the same time, the Government declares that it wishes St Margaret's would comply with the law, but following numerous appeals in England on this UK law, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the law does not permit same-sex couples to be excluded. St Margaret's is determined to exclude same-sex couples, but we advise it against being so encouraged by the Scottish Government's unstatesman-like "disappointment" with the Regulator's ruling that it embarks on a potentially ruinous legal action. Almost inevitably, this would result in the Regulator's ruling being upheld by the court, because it so clearly reflects the law." A spokesman for St Margaret's told Third Sector magazine: "We are disappointed at the decision. We will consult our lawyers before considering what course of action to pursue. In the meantime, St Margaret's remains open for business." The charity has the right to appeal the decision to the Scottish Charity Appeals Panel. | |
NSS calls on Environment Minister to consider labelling of meat from religious slaughterNews | Wed, 6th Mar 2013 The National Secular Society has called on the Government to consider mandatory labelling of meat from religious slaughter as part of its response to the horse meat scandal. Environment Secretary Owen Paterson MP recently called on the European Commission to 'accelerate' its recommendations on labelling the origin of all processed meat, stressing consumers should have confidence in what they're buying. Animal welfare legislation requires animals to be stunned before slaughter in order to minimise suffering. The only exemption is for religious communities to meet Jewish and Muslim religious requirements. At present, meat from non-stun religious slaughter methods routinely enter the general food chain. The National Secular Society has argued that this is both ethically unacceptable and potentially unlawful. NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans has written to both the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP, seeking assurances that the rights of consumers who wish to avoid meat from animals killed under the religious exemption are also properly considered when considering labelling of meat products. Stephen Evans said: "Current legislation supposedly restricts meat from religious slaughter to the food of religious communities, but this targeting of supply is simply not enforced, leaving consumers hoodwinked into subsidising the religious slaughter business – whether they like it or not. "It therefore seems appropriate and reasonable to consider the impact on consumers in this regard, a significant number of whom would be alarmed to find that simply not buying or eating labelled halal and kosher meat does not mean that they have avoided meat from non-stun slaughter. 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. | |
The Catholic Church must change or dieOpinion | Thu, 7th Mar 2013 By Terry Sanderson The Catholic Church is in crisis, and not a moment before time. The level of arrogant politicisation to which it aspired under the papacy of Joseph Ratzinger was appalling. Not that such interference in secular politics has stopped. Only this week we read that the Catholic bishops in Northern Ireland are rushing to support new restrictions on abortion in the province, where the law is already severe by most European standards. And in thePhilippines a huge tarpaulin has been erected over the front of a cathedral naming politicians who didn't vote in the way the Church wanted them to, and advising worshippers in turn not to vote for them in elections. Now Cardinal Keith O'Brien,Britain's most senior Catholic cleric and one of the most prominent opponents of same-sex marriage, has been brought low over "inappropriate behaviour". His own cruel and overblown rhetoric is now catching up with him and intensifying his humiliation. The hatred that he heaped on the gay community because it dared to aspire to equality turns out to have been just a cover for his own, unresisted, sexual impulses. So what will the Catholic Church do now? Will the new pope see sense and accept that the world has moved on and that his Church must move on too, if it is to retain any relevance. Will he accept that many of its teachings are impractical, unheeded and despised? Or will he be another traditionalist who insists on "eternal, unchangeable truths" that originated some time in the 13th century? The Catholic magazine The Tablet is generally thought to be on the liberal end of the spectrum and therefore comes in for almost as much stick as the church's more forthright secular critics. In its current edition is an editorial suggesting that it is time for the Church to end the increasingly futile war with homosexuals. "There is no more mileage in this issue for the Catholic Church, and the sensible course would be to put it on the backburner with the heat turned low – to make peace with the gay world and move on." This sounds like good advice. The Church is on a hiding to nothing with this policy. In the United States, the president has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that same-sex marriage is a human right that must not be denied. The Catholic bishops have lost their battle to derail this plan, but they won't shut up. Not only will the Church not win this war, it will create the perception of a cruel, inhumane institution that will not see what most other people have seen long ago. It might also consider toning down its other foolish teachings. Clerical celibacy not only creates agony for the people who embrace it, it also creates problems for those who fall victim when priests are unable to damp down sexual impulses which become twisted and dangerous. In its intractable opposition to abortion (or "massacres" on a par with the holocaust or Dunblane, as the good Cardinal would have it), the Church has created a monstrous industry that forces rape victims to bear the children of their violators and it denies abortion to women whose own lives are at risk from dangerous pregnancies. But even more than this, it ensures that women who live in unimaginable poverty must endlessly produce more children than they are capable of feeding. In any case, women should be the arbiters of their own fertility. They should be the ones who decide whether their pregnancy should continue. Not a priest, nor a pope. The Church opposes scientific progress in stem cell research (or "Nazi-style experiments" as Cardinal O'Brien labelled it), research that could relieve unendurable suffering and save lives. It opposes assisted suicide, even though society has long since realised that prolonging the incurable suffering of loved ones for no good reason is cruel and pointless. Sex education for children is regarded as "state-sponsored sex abuse". If the Catholic Church stopped its agitation on these social issues (which should be settled by democratic means, anyway, and not by holy writ) it could divert its considerable energies and resources into the real social problems that dog society. The treatment of the elderly, the relief of poverty, the eradication of disease. The Catholic Church would argue that it is already prominent in all these areas, which is true. There are Catholic relief agencies around the world doing excellent work, but sometimes they are hamstrung by the Vatican's obdurate restrictions on condoms or abortion. And sometimes, when there is no restraint, the Catholic approach to "welfare" becomes brutish and cruel as with the Magdalene Laundries and numerous children's homes now being exposed as dens of abuse. The good work that the Church does fades in the public mind as it sees the attempts to avoid compensating victims of abusive priests, and still covering up vile crimes despite promises to be "transparent". It seems almost every day a new scandal arises somewhere in the world in which the institution of the Church has been caught trying to conceal misdemeanours – some of which beggar the imagination in their depravity. Regrettably, we don't hold out much hope for change in the short term. But the continuing decline of support in the pews may bring the Church to its senses. It is a pragmatic institution that does what it needs to do to survive, as we have seen over the past two thousand years. And if it sees a threat to its power or its finances, it will take whatever action is necessary to preserve them. | |
Children in Scotland awaiting adoption - who puts their best interests first?Opinion | Thu, 28th Feb 2013 Imagine for a moment a secular public service, let's say an adoption charity, refusing to consider applications from prospective adopters who are Catholic purely on the grounds of their religion (equality law notwithstanding) and deliberately restricting the pool of prospective parents by excluding Catholics, (the public benefit charity test notwithstanding). What do you think the reaction of the Scottish Government would be? Would it seriously suggest this wasn't a problem because Catholics could use other adoption agencies? Remember that in 2006, Alex Salmond, now Scotland's First Minister, demanded of Tony Blair in the House of Commons the repeal of the Act of Settlement, saying: "It represents clear institutional discrimination against millions of our fellow citizens." Given how exercised he is over just one Catholic being discriminated against in acceding to the throne, would his reaction be anything other than outrage if all Catholics in Scotland were being discriminated against by secular adoption agencies? And more importantly, what is in the best interests of children awaiting adoption? It surely can't be to deliberately reduce the pool of prospective parents looking to give children a loving home, and all in the name of preserving an unlawful prejudice? With this in mind, please read on. The story of the St Margaret's Family Care and Adoption Society case is contained here and here. St Margaret's has been trying to amend its constitution to allow it to continue discriminating against same-sex couples, who can now legally adopt in Scotland. Found by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, after an NSS complaint, to be breaking both equality law and charity law, St Margaret's has now asked OSCR to review that decision. St Margaret's attitude is in direct contrast to that of Scotland's other (now former) Catholic adoption agency, St Andrew's in Edinburgh, which decided in 2008 to change its Constitution and break with the Catholic Church in order to consider and accept same-sex couples as prospective adopters. Scotland's retiring Catholic leader, Cardinal Keith O'Brien (a man noted for his outspoken hostility towards homosexual lifestyles) resigned as the Society's President in November 2008 to facilitate this. Although St Andrew's says it remains 'the agency of choice' for most Catholics wanting to adopt, it now openly welcomes same-sex couples, and indeed single gay men and women, as prospective adopters. There was no publicity about this significant and welcome change at St Andrew's, no attempt to claim that it was being martyred on the altar of equality legislation, no attempt to exploit the drafting of the equality legislation that might permit it to continue to discriminate against same-sex people, against the spirit of the law. There was an accommodating and welcome attitude from the Catholic Church, even to the extent of it relinquishing any future claim on the Society's assets. The interests of the children came first, according to St Andrew's, and that meant widening the potential pool of adoptive parents to include same-sex couples, as required by law. Perhaps the difference in approach between the two societies has something to do with the Scottish Government. In July 2007, Scottish Government Minister Fiona Hyslop met with Cardinal O'Brien and other senior representatives of the Scottish Catholic Church. It was a very cosy affair, as this e-mail exchange within the Scottish Government reveals. In addition to promised efforts to let Catholic adoption agencies carry on discriminating, the Scottish Government was also intent, appallingly, on doing more to 'celebrate' Scotland's sectarian education system. Another meeting took place in October 2008, as the Scottish Government continued to look for ways within the sexual orientation regulations to let St Margaret's continue to carry out discriminatory church teaching, rather than comply with the spirit of Westminster Government equality legislation. There was a further meeting between Hyslop and Cardinal O'Brien in November 2008, which reinforced how complicit the Scottish Government had become in trying to enable St Margaret's to continue to discriminate against same-sex couples. This minute reveals that the St Margaret's agency was much more intent on upholding Church teaching than St Andrew's, a position that the Scottish Government also supported. It also sees a Scottish Government minister saying this:
When the Herald newspaper asked the Archdiocese of Glasgow what would happen if a same-sex couple applied to St Margaret's, a Diocese spokesman replied: "They would be treated with respect but it would be explained to them that because of the nature of St Margaret's, they would be referred to the council adoption agency." Consider for a moment if that attitude had prevailed in Alabama in 1955 and the days of Rosa Parks. Both the Catholic Church and the Scottish Government are effectively arguing that she would not have suffered racial discrimination (that co-incidentally kick-started the civil rights movement) if she had been redirected to another bus that allowed black people to sit where they wanted. That way, she would not have been breaking the Alabama racial segregation law by sitting in a seat reserved for white folks. It's hard enough to imagine that this 'solution' could be advocated more than 50 years after Rosa Parks to justify withholding a publicly-funded service from gay people in Scotland. It is even harder to imagine that it could be actively supported by a senior Minister in the Scottish Government, who appeared 'comfortable' with allowing such discrimination, even where the law clearly provided for gay people not to be discriminated against. Such an attitude implies that providing some B&B guest houses accept gay couples, it's not a problem if others refuse them accommodation, or that signs saying 'no blacks' or 'no asians' or 'no Irish' are perfectly acceptable as long as there are other establishments that do welcome them. But as the NSS argued in its recent intervention at the ECHR, the harm done by invidious and unfair discrimination goes far beyond the deprivation of a service. An individual's dignity, sense of worth and full membership of the community is significantly affected by acts of discrimination even if he or she can obtain access the relevant service elsewhere. Fiona Hyslop is no longer the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, however. That role is now filled by Mike Russell, who lost no time in expressing his disappointment with the Regulator's decision and in promising to do everything he could to ensure St Margaret's could continue with its vital work. At our recent meeting with the Minister, we were disappointed that he would not be drawn on whether that required them to be open to same-sex couples, despite the wealth of case law concluding it does. We pointed to Scottish Adoption, and the Christian-founded Barnardo's and Coram Foundation adoption agencies all advocating opening their doors to same-sex couples as being in the best interests of children. Yet Mr Russell declined to express a view on this. So what exactly is the agenda behind the Scottish Government approach to St Margaret's, when it is abundantly clear that the answer for the agency is to follow the example set by St Andrew's and obey the law? Why does the Scottish Government continue to express solidarity with St Margaret's, rather than simply suggest that the agency looks east to Edinburgh and the exemplary case of St Andrew's? Why is the Scottish Government, which likes to style itself as having a record on equality and diversity that is second to none, willing to support the blatant discrimination at work in St Margaret's? If the same-sex marriage Bill eventually becomes law, what will the Scottish Government do then about adoption agencies which continue to turn away married same-sex couples? And who really has the interests of children awaiting adoption at heart – St Andrew's, St Margaret's, or the Scottish Government? On this evidence, only the first. | |
It’s OK to criticize religious practicesOpinion | Wed, 6th Mar 2013 By Brian D. Earp In 2012, a German court ruled that religious circumcision of male minors constitutes criminal bodily assault. Muslim and Jewish groups responded with outrage, with some commentators pegging the ruling to Islamophobic and anti-Semitic motivations. In doing so, these commentators failed to engage with any of the legal and ethical arguments actually given by the court in its landmark decision. In a new academic paper to be published shortly in The Philosopher's Magazine, I argue that a firm distinction must be drawn between criticisms of religious practices that stem from irrational prejudice and bigoted attitudes and those that are grounded in sound moral reasoning. Given that ritual circumcision is a pre-Enlightenment custom that elevates the inclinations of the community over the rights of the individual, it is hardly surprising that a growing number of post-Enlightenment philosophers and legal scholars are taking an ethical stand against it. As the "circumcision debate" continues, parties on all sides of the issue must remember to reason through the relevant considerations with care and respect. Brian D. Earp is a Research Associate in the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. His paper, It's OK to criticize religious practices, can be read in full at his academic website. | |
Michael Cashman MEP to present this year's Secularist of the Year awardNews | Thu, 7th Mar 2013 Preparations are well in hand for this year's Secularist of the Year and it promises to be a memorable occasion. Heroism is on the agenda, so we hope you will be there to help us celebrate an exceptional winner. We are delighted to announce that this year's Irwin Prize will be presented by relentless campaigner for equality and Human Rights, Michael Cashman MEP. Michael has represented the West Midlands Constituency as a Labour Member of the European Parliament since 1999. He is an honorary associate of the NSS and was one of the co-founders of the lesbian, gay and bisexual rights charity Stonewall. Michael was awarded a CBE in the 2012 New Year Honour's list for his work in fighting for equality. He is however possibly best known for his role as Colin Russell in the BBC´s soap opera EastEnders, a character remembered for being a participant in the first gay kiss in a British Soap Opera. The nominations for this year's award can be viewed here. The date: Saturday 23 March, the time: 12.30 for 1pm start. There will be a welcome cocktail, a three course meal with tea or coffee and the usual warm and friendly buzz of a secular social. The event will be held in a top central London venue and we hope will prove as memorable and congenial as all eight previous occasions. Tickets are £45 and are available from here. We look forward to seeing you there! | |
IHEU reminds UN that Freedom of Expression must be protectedNews | Wed, 6th Mar 2013 The main representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union to the UN in Geneva, Roy Brown (right), spoke this week in reply to the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, reminding the UN Human Rights Council of the need to protect the right to freedom of expression while taking steps to combat "hate speech". He applauded the efforts made by the High Commissioner's office to negotiate a way through this political minefield; an effort that resulted in the "Rabat Plan of Action" which has been widely welcomed by defenders of freedom of expression. Here is the text of Roy's speech:
| |
Sheffield Council to reconsider plan to scrap free bus travel to religious schoolsNews | Mon, 4th Mar 2013 Sheffield City Council is to postpone scrapping free bus travel for pupils attending religious schools after parents threatened legal action over what they consider the inadequacy of the initial consultation. The Council will now set up a new round of consultation. Parents had warned they could have to pay up to £350 a year if their children no longer had the passes, and the council's strategy also resulted in widespread opposition from staff and the local Catholic community. It was criticised as discriminatory, hasty and badly-organised. The Labour council is looking to save £250,000 a year to help meet a £50m budget gap it blames on 'draconian' Government cuts. Jayne Ludlam, executive director of the Children, Young People and Families Portfolio, said: "In light of issues raised in a legal challenge regarding the decision to stop funding discretionary denominational transport, and having fully reflected upon the consultation process and the potential impact on some children already in receipt of passes, it has been decided to consult further on the proposal. "On balance it is better to allow a period of time for further consultation to consider the implications of the representations. This also represents an opportunity to manage financial, legal and reputational risks." As part of the consultation process, the authority will review the impact on pupils at All Saints in Granville Road and Notre Dame in Fulwood Road. Labour cabinet member Coun Jackie Drayton said the changes were being considered "with a heavy heart", but there was no choice given the scale of Government cuts. "We have re-opened consultation on discretionary free school transport to give families the opportunity to have their say before the final decision is taken and also to look at how we can support those families who are just above the free school meals criteria and who have two or more children who are in their exam years. "Many other local authorities have already withdrawn this provision, after the Government have targeted spending cuts at northern towns and cities with the highest levels of deprivation. Children who are entitled to free travel through statuary criteria will continue to receive it; this includes children in receipt of free school meals or whose parents are in receipt of their maximum level of Working Tax Credit. "This decision is not we want to make but due to budget cuts we are left with little choice but to cut discretionary spending." Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "The provision of tax-funded subsidies to people on the basis of their religion is grossly discriminatory. No council should be doing it, economic crisis or no economic crisis. "The state provides education for all children in this country. If parents want something other than their local schools, they should pay for the privilege of accessing it. They shouldn't expect other taxpayers to fund their religious choices." | |
Win £250 – just write an uplifting Secular Thought for the DayNews | Thu, 21st Feb 2013 The ongoing irritation at the BBC's exclusion of secular voices from The Thought for the Day slot has spurred one the NSS's previous presidents, David Tribe, to sponsor a prize of £250 for the best secular Thought for the Day. To win the prize, we are looking for a short essay in a similar format to the BBC's religious slot. Thought for the Day is supposed to be an 'uplifting' reflection on a topical issue from a religious point of view. To be in with a chance, your secular Thought should be between 450 - 650 words and be positive in approach and ideally related to a topical matter. We are not looking for a humanist Thought or an atheist Thought, but specifically for a secular Thought. We suggest you look at the NSS's Secular Charter for some ideas. So, let's have some great (secular) Thoughts for the Day and good luck! Send your Secular Thought for the Day to admin@secularism.org.uk or by post to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL. Entries that require a great deal of correction or editing are unlikely to win the prize, so please let us have copy that is clean and finalised to your satisfaction. Please submit entries by Monday 18 March. |
NSS Speaks Out
Alistair McBay was quoted by the BBC, STV, Glasgow Evening Times, Paisley Daily Express, Pink News and Gay Star News on the charity regulator's decision to uphold its ruling against St Margaret's Catholic adoption agency.
Keith Porteous Wood discussed the Girl Guides' review of their "promise" on BBC local radio stations around the country. He was also on the popular Call Kaye programme on BBC Radio Scotland, debating the Cardinal Keith O'Brien scandal. Terry Sanderson was on LBC radio on the same topic.
Stephen Evans discussed the need to reform Religious Education on BBC Radio Kent
The NSS was quoted in this story in the Guardian about the Supreme Court decision that establishes that the Catholic Church has vicarious liability for the abuse carried out by its priests. We were also quoted in the Guardian on the prospect of caste discrimination being outlawed.
Quotes of the Week
"He said I was a very poor Catholic president. I told him 'I am not a Catholic president, I'm president of Ireland."
(Mary McAleese, former president of Ireland, recounting 'a most dreadful encounter' with disgraced American Cardinal, Bernard Law)
"A secular constitution is not, God knows, an atheist's constitution."
(Ian Bell, The Herald)
"There is no more mileage in this issue [same-sex marriage] for the Catholic Church, and the sensible course would be to put it on the backburner with the heat turned low — to make peace with the gay world and move on."
(Editorial, The Tablet)
Essays of the Week
Scotland is losing its religion – it needs a secular constitution
(Ian Bell, The Herald)
A questionable victory for free speech
(Jacob Mchangama, National Review)
Upcoming Events
Talk: Breaking Their Will: Religious Child Maltreatment
Sun, 10th Mar 2013
Talk: The Battle for Secularism by Dan J Bye at Greater Manchester Humanists
Wed, 13th Mar 2013
Talk: How to achieve a Secular Britain at St Andrews Atheist, Humanist and Secular Society
Wed, 13th Mar 2013
SOLD OUT: Play: The Fruits of Philosophy: The trial of Besant and Bradlaugh
Fri, 15th Mar 2013
