Newsline 8 November 2013

Not a member? If you share our commitment to a secular state, please join today and help us build real pressure for change.

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

News, Blogs & Opinion

	New paper calls for secular ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph News \| Tue, 5th Nov 2013 A new academic paper examining the origins of the Cenotaph and the ceremonies surrounding it has questioned the role of the Church of England at the annual ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph, and calls for the event to be made more inclusive. The paper, by Professor Norman Bonney, emeritus professor at Edinburgh Napier University, and a director of the National Secular Society, argues that in a religiously diverse nation where large sectors of the population do not hold or practise religious beliefs, it is no longer appropriate for the Church to lead the nation in remembrance. The Remembrance event has changed little since it was first introduced in 1921. Christian rituals are prominent, hymns are sung, a bishop leads a religious procession, and cross is born in front of the procession and the bishop invokes the 'Lord Jesus Christ' in a prayer. The paper reveals that the Cenotaph monument was deliberately designed and approved by the Cabinet to be a secular monument without Christian or other religious inscriptions or features because of the diversity in the beliefs of the allied and Empire dead of the First World War. The paper demonstrates the initial hostility of the Church of England to the monument and outlines its attempts to replace the ceremony with one in Westminster Abbey at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier – a second monument to the dead of the First World War that was devised to become an alternative focus for national remembrance. This attempt failed because of strong public preference for a ceremony at the Cenotaph. The paper's author, Norman Bonney, said; "Changes in religious belief, emphasised in recent census findings, demonstrate that Christianity in general, and the Church of England in particular, can no longer be fully inclusive of the whole community, particularly when over a quarter of the population have no religion. It is therefore right to question the appropriateness of the Church being so closely associated with a national ceremony of remembrance which should be equally inclusive of all citizens, regardless of religion and belief." A summary of the paper, The Cenotaph: A consensual and contested monument of remembrance, can be found here. Read the paper in full.
	Churches in Northern Ireland unite to oppose Girl Guides’ secular promise News \| Thu, 7th Nov 2013 Churches in Northern Ireland have banded together to oppose the new secular Girl Guide Promise – with some suggesting that Guide troops will not be welcome in their premises if they do not revert to the previous religious oath. The Church of Ireland, Methodist and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland have said they are "deeply concerned" and "distressed" about the "divisive and hurtful" new Promise and claim that Guides themselves want to retain the oath to God. They want the Guides to go down the same route as the Scouts and keep a religious oath while offering a non-religious Promise to those who want it. Andrew Brannigan, who leads the youth department at the Church of Ireland, has started a petition which asks to "reinstate the old Promise and include an alternative Promise for those that don't want to make a promise to God". The Girl Guides introduced the new Promise in September of this year, replacing "to love my God" with "to be true to myself and develop my beliefs". Mr Brannigan said: "Unless churches act now, this new Promise and all the threat that it is to our partnership with Guides, will be here to stay." The former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said that those groups that wish to use the original Promise should continue doing so despite the decision made by the Girl Guides national ruling body after extensive consultation. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "I think the churches should accept the decision of an autonomous organisation and not try to impose their own rules on it. Imagine if the Church made a decision about its internal policies that the Girl Guides didn't like. I don't think they'd take very kindly to the Girl Guides trying to bully them into changing it." Meanwhile, the fundamentalist vicar of Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle, Revd David Holloway, claimed that the new Promise goes against the charitable object of Girlguiding which includes a commitment to help girls develop spiritually. He also said that Church of England law forbids "vain" or "rash" promise making, and so for his church to endorse this pledge could be illegal. He said the Girl Guide troop that is "sponsored" by his church will continue to use the old Promise.
	Church of England anticipates big expansion of its schools nationwide News \| Fri, 8th Nov 2013 The Church Times has reported this week that there is to be a large-scale expansion of Church of England schools across the country to accommodate the rising demand for school places. The paper says the Government expects to provide half a million new places nationally by 2021, with about 100,000 needed over the next year. The head of schools policy at the Church's Board of Education, the Revd Nigel Genders, said: "The Church of England provides around one quarter of all schools nationally and we want to play our part in solving the places crisis". The Church of England claims that because ministers want to concentrate new places in schools already graded as "outstanding" or "good", church schools are likely to be targeted for expansion because most fit this criterion. The Church is also calling for the Government to give them money for expansion directly rather than channelling it through local authorities. Meanwhile, when asked in Parliament about the Church's role in education, the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: "We praise and cherish the role of the Church of England in making sure children have an outstanding education. I welcome the [Chadwick report on church schools of the future] and look forward to working with Bishop John Pritchard to extend the role of the Church in school provision".
	Job applications should not be a matter of faith Opinion \| Fri, 1st Nov 2013 A teacher's perspective on why faith schools should not be able to select staff and students based on their religion. I am about to begin a role at a state-funded faith primary school, having had a successful start in teaching at an independent Catholic primary. And while I am excited about my new position, I've arrived at it by a process of elimination as much as merit. I applied to and visited many state-funded faith schools, the vast majority being Catholic, and they made no secret of their preference for practising Catholics. One head teacher went so far as to warn potential applicants that the first part of the selection process was to indicate that a priest could provide a reference – those without one would be rejected. I was unable to secure such a reference, because I do not attend Mass and have no intention of becoming a hypocrite. I have thankfully been successful in finding a new job. However, I am troubled that my opportunities for employment are narrowed because I do not attend Mass. I cannot think of another public service where the issue of faith would be considered relevant or its consideration tolerated. How might doctors and nurses react if they were asked to secure faith references before they could practise medicine? Similarly, what might the public reaction be if hospitals required patients to have the "right" faith, or at least be willing to convert to gain admission? I had another career before deciding teaching was for me and was under the misapprehension that it would always be my quality as a teacher that would be under scrutiny, not whether I attended church. I had also wrongly assumed that state-sponsored religious discrimination was something that happened in far-flung corners of the globe. Furthermore, the segregation of children on the basis of religion does them a disservice, because it does not reflect, or prepare them for, the multicultural and increasingly globalised world we live in. I enjoy teaching religious education and accept that some parents want schools to have a religious dimension. But I do not think that institutions should be able to select staff and students based on their religion, and I believe that such selection constitutes discrimination. The writer is a teacher from the North of England. This blog originally appeared in the Times Educational Supplement and is reproduced here with kind permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS. The European Commission is currently investigating complaints submitted by the National Secular Society concerning whether UK legislation relating to state funded faith schools breaches European employment laws in relation to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Find out more
	Lancashire church leaders unhappy at proposal to increase parents’ contribution to faith school transport costs News \| Thu, 7th Nov 2013 Lancashire County Council is under fire from church leaders who accuse them of planning to "penalise" parents who send their children to religious schools. The Council is considering ways to reduce the £8.5 million bill spent on school transport – half of which is spent transporting children to religious schools outside their catchment areas. They now plan to hold a consultation on ideas for saving money. One suggestion is that parents should make a larger contribution towards the transport provided to get their children to faith schools and a reduction in the numbers who qualify for free transport. Father Timothy Lipscomb, vicar of Preston, told the Lancashire Evening Post "I think it's a shame that they have to be penalised because they have some faith conviction. I think people should have the choice of whether they go to faith school or not, and it seems a lot to pay." But Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "Parents will still have the choice to send their children to a faith school, but they will have do so without financial assistance from the state – just like everyone else who chooses a school other than their local one. "Removing a subsidised transport privilege from one particular section of the community is not 'penalising' it. If anybody is being penalised it is those who send their children to community schools and get no help at all with transport costs, but still have to pay — through council tax — for those going to a faith school." In 2011 parents were asked to contribute £380 a year towards the costs of the transport, but this still left the taxpayer picking up about 60% of the cost. The Council is now proposing to increase this contribution by 25%, with a year-on-year rise after that, based on the retail price index plus 5%. A Council spokesperson said the council had to save about £300m and none of the authorities services could be spared from cuts. County Councillor Matthew Tomlinson, cabinet member for children, young people and schools, said: "I know that no one wants to either lose free transport or pay more for it, but unfortunately we are in the position of having to consult about these difficult decisions." The consultation can be accessed here.
	Bill submitted to Scottish Parliament that would abolish religious representatives on education committees News \| Wed, 6th Nov 2013 An independent Member of the Scottish Parliament, John Finnie, has given his support to a campaign to remove the legal right of religious groups to vote on education matters on local council committees. Mr Finnie has submitted a Private Member's Bill proposal that seeks to remove the mandatory involvement of religious representatives on these committees. Mr Finnie, who represents the Highlands and Islands and resigned from the SNP last year, says his Bill would make local government more accountable and transparent. The move follows a petition organised by the Edinburgh Secular Society calling for repeal of the law that requires three religious representatives to be appointed to each committee. Research by the ESS indicated that the Church holds the balance of power in almost two-thirds of the committees. Mr Finnie's Bill must get the support of 18 MSPs in order to be brought before parliament. Mr Finnie told the Scotsman newspaper: "In 21st century Scotland, when the single largest group of people identify as having 'no religion', obliging councils to appoint unelected religious representatives to their education committees is an archaic arrangement. "This is about our democratic process, this is not an attack on our churches. Churches are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. However, they have no democratic right to speak for the general populous." Gary McLelland, chairman of the Edinburgh Secular Society, told the paper: "The Bill affords an opportunity for the mainstream churches and our elected politicians to reflect and act on the changing demographics within Scotland. They can show vision and leadership by actively supporting the bill and the democratic principles that lie behind it. We sincerely hope they do so." Church leaders were furious at this development, with the Church of Scotland reminding people that it had started the Scottish education system and therefore had a right to its representatives on the committees – even though all the other members were elected. The Catholic Church spokesman said church representatives offer "an invaluable service" by "promoting discussion" among elected representatives. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "There seems to be a lot of special pleading by the churches who are understandably not pleased that society has changed and moved away from their control. "They may, indeed, have been at the forefront of providing schools during the 19^th century, but the state has now taken over that function — at least financially — and the churches should now step back and accept that we live in a much more diverse, democratic and freethinking society. There is no excuse for this privileged input that is denied to any other interest group."
	Ireland considers replacing blasphemy law with “religious hatred” legislation News \| Mon, 4th Nov 2013 The Convention set up by the Irish Government to bring the country's constitution up-to-date has recommended that the offence of blasphemy should be removed from the constitution in its current form and replaced with a general provision that would include incitement to religious hatred. But Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society warned that such a move could make things even worse. "When the blasphemy law in England was scrapped there was a similar call for a replacement. It came as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. In its original form this was much more restrictive than the blasphemy law – which had become obsolete and unusable anyway. "It was only after vigorous campaigning by the National Secular Society and others that the legislation was amended to protect free speech. The Irish legislators should learn from that and not create a law that gives religious groups an open door to suppress criticism and claim 'religious hatred' whenever someone says something that they don't like. Unless it is carefully framed, such a law has all the potential to be another form of blasphemy law, but one that has teeth." Mr Sanderson said no-one had been prosecuted under the present blasphemy provisions, but a more catch-all law could open the floodgates to all kinds of accusations of 'religious hatred' that could significantly impinge on free expression. He said that there were religious groups that were anxious to have legal methods of silencing critics or mockers of their faith. They should not be handed that tool by the Irish Government. Dr Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland said blasphemy law should be retained, arguing that freedom of expression should not be "unrestrained" and must be used responsibly. Separately, the Order of the Knights of St Columbanus had argued that the blasphemy law served to safeguard the right of believers "not to suffer unwarranted offence arising from the gratuitous impugning of sacred matter". At present, the Irish Constitution explicitly states that blasphemy — speaking sacrilegiously about God — should be a crime. Article 40.6.1.i states: "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law." Blasphemy became a criminal offence in 2009 under defamation laws introduced by then-Minister Dermot Ahern, who argued that the Constitution requires that blasphemy be regarded as a criminal offence. But Dr Neville Cox of Trinity College Dublin said the relevant part of the 2009 Defamation Act, which sets a maximum fine of €25,000 for those found guilty of publishing or uttering blasphemous material, was too tightly drawn to be applied in practice. He said the law's requirement that a publisher must be proven to have intended to cause outrage among a substantial number of a religion's adherents meant it "will be very difficult successfully to prosecute the offence". Dr Cox also pointed to a decision by the Supreme Court in Corway v Independent Newspapers, a 1999 case in which the court said it couldn't define blasphemy and therefore couldn't apply the constitutional prohibition. "What this did was render the crime of blasphemy a dead letter," he said. Sinn Féin Senator Kathryn Reilly pointed to a UN report which said that blasphemy laws are not compatible with human rights. "Blasphemy is not a valid offence in public law and should not be a criminal offence in a democratic society that respects diversity," she said. Separately, the Irish Council of Churches said that the current reference to blasphemy is 'largely obsolete' and could be seen as part of a range of measures used to 'justify violence and oppression against minorities in other parts of the world'.
	US Supreme Court to hear council prayers case News \| Tue, 5th Nov 2013 Tomorrow (6 November) the United States Supreme Court will consider whether opening council meetings with prayers is legal. A previous ruling of the Supreme Court thirty years ago, in a case called Marsh vs. Chambers, said that clergy can deliver non-sectarian prayers before state legislative meetings – but they must not teach religious dogma or be "denominational". This new case revolves around the council in Greece, a suburb of Rochester, NY. Traditionally the council there had started its meetings with a moment of silence, but in 1999 the Town Supervisor John Auberger began inviting exclusively Christian clergy to open the meeting with specifically Christian prayers. The prayers were far from non-denominational and included such discussions as "the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross". The public that had come to the meetings either as onlookers or as invitees were expected to stand and bow their heads during these prayers. People who had simply come to request planning permission or speak on some other local issue were expected to participate in specifically Christian prayers – even if they weren't Christian. The two complainants in the case, a Jewish man and an atheist, managed to get the council to invite some non-Christians to give the prayers, but that didn't last long and soon the Christian monopoly resumed. The council was deaf to further protest so the case was taken to court and eventually a federal appeals court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional as it affiliated the town too closely with Christianity. It said that those giving the prayers were prone to "convey their views of religious truth". The Obama administration has briefed the Supreme Court and has argued in favour of the council's right to offer prayers at its meetings, but says they should be limited to an appeal for 'divine guidance' and not be about proselytising for a particular religion. Some have argued that because prayers are banned in schools they should also be banned in public meetings – both are emanations of the state and coercing a particular religion in either setting must be seen as a step towards establishment, which is forbidden by the Constitution. Courts have responded by saying that children are forced to be in school and have no option but to listen if a prayer is recited in their presence but adults are not forced to be in a council chamber. The lower court mulled the question of whether the prayers in Greece used "generically theistic terms" or referred to a deity as male. The lower court found most of the prayers to be too Christian and thus imposed one faith on the citizenry. However, it is likely the Supreme Court will disregard this argument, even though what the council is doing appears to be a clear breach of the constitution, and instead consider whether it is any court's business to analyse prayers to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Legal experts predict that the Supreme Court will rule in the council's favour, saying justice is better served if courts are silent about the nature of prayer. But one lawyer points the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who shortly before she stepped down from the Supreme Court wrote in a decision: "At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate... Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Find out more about the case of Greece v Galloway from Americans United. Read the National Secular Society's briefing on council prayers. See also: Praying for true religious freedom at the Supreme Court Prayer at public meetings? Be reasonable!

Read this week's Newsline in full (PDF)

NSS Speaks Out

Terry Sanderson was on BBC Radio Ulster talking about the Church leaders objections to the new Girl Guide Promise.

Quotes of the Week

"Define people as members of a racial or religious minority and, sooner or later, you start treating them differently before the law. Europe shouldn't want to go down that road again."
(Daniel Hannan, Daily Telegraph)

"My feeling on religion is: practice it in and around your own house, or in your house of worship, and in your heart. The more you try to push your religion on somebody else, the less effective it is. And the more insecure you must be in your religion."
(Gary Stein, Sun-Sentinel)

"Religious fanatics fear mockery more than anything else."
(John McHugo, Financial Times)

Feminism and secularism conference Newsline banner

Essays of the Week

How the religious right won: birth of fundamentalists was in our modern times
(Molly Worthen, Salon)

Why can't we admit we're afraid of Islamism?
(Nick Cohen, Spectator)

	New paper calls for secular ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph News \| Tue, 5th Nov 2013 A new academic paper examining the origins of the Cenotaph and the ceremonies surrounding it has questioned the role of the Church of England at the annual ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph, and calls for the event to be made more inclusive. The paper, by Professor Norman Bonney, emeritus professor at Edinburgh Napier University, and a director of the National Secular Society, argues that in a religiously diverse nation where large sectors of the population do not hold or practise religious beliefs, it is no longer appropriate for the Church to lead the nation in remembrance. The Remembrance event has changed little since it was first introduced in 1921. Christian rituals are prominent, hymns are sung, a bishop leads a religious procession, and cross is born in front of the procession and the bishop invokes the 'Lord Jesus Christ' in a prayer. The paper reveals that the Cenotaph monument was deliberately designed and approved by the Cabinet to be a secular monument without Christian or other religious inscriptions or features because of the diversity in the beliefs of the allied and Empire dead of the First World War. The paper demonstrates the initial hostility of the Church of England to the monument and outlines its attempts to replace the ceremony with one in Westminster Abbey at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier – a second monument to the dead of the First World War that was devised to become an alternative focus for national remembrance. This attempt failed because of strong public preference for a ceremony at the Cenotaph. The paper's author, Norman Bonney, said; "Changes in religious belief, emphasised in recent census findings, demonstrate that Christianity in general, and the Church of England in particular, can no longer be fully inclusive of the whole community, particularly when over a quarter of the population have no religion. It is therefore right to question the appropriateness of the Church being so closely associated with a national ceremony of remembrance which should be equally inclusive of all citizens, regardless of religion and belief." A summary of the paper, The Cenotaph: A consensual and contested monument of remembrance, can be found here. Read the paper in full.
	Churches in Northern Ireland unite to oppose Girl Guides’ secular promise News \| Thu, 7th Nov 2013 Churches in Northern Ireland have banded together to oppose the new secular Girl Guide Promise – with some suggesting that Guide troops will not be welcome in their premises if they do not revert to the previous religious oath. The Church of Ireland, Methodist and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland have said they are "deeply concerned" and "distressed" about the "divisive and hurtful" new Promise and claim that Guides themselves want to retain the oath to God. They want the Guides to go down the same route as the Scouts and keep a religious oath while offering a non-religious Promise to those who want it. Andrew Brannigan, who leads the youth department at the Church of Ireland, has started a petition which asks to "reinstate the old Promise and include an alternative Promise for those that don't want to make a promise to God". The Girl Guides introduced the new Promise in September of this year, replacing "to love my God" with "to be true to myself and develop my beliefs". Mr Brannigan said: "Unless churches act now, this new Promise and all the threat that it is to our partnership with Guides, will be here to stay." The former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, said that those groups that wish to use the original Promise should continue doing so despite the decision made by the Girl Guides national ruling body after extensive consultation. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "I think the churches should accept the decision of an autonomous organisation and not try to impose their own rules on it. Imagine if the Church made a decision about its internal policies that the Girl Guides didn't like. I don't think they'd take very kindly to the Girl Guides trying to bully them into changing it." Meanwhile, the fundamentalist vicar of Jesmond Parish Church in Newcastle, Revd David Holloway, claimed that the new Promise goes against the charitable object of Girlguiding which includes a commitment to help girls develop spiritually. He also said that Church of England law forbids "vain" or "rash" promise making, and so for his church to endorse this pledge could be illegal. He said the Girl Guide troop that is "sponsored" by his church will continue to use the old Promise.
	Church of England anticipates big expansion of its schools nationwide News \| Fri, 8th Nov 2013 The Church Times has reported this week that there is to be a large-scale expansion of Church of England schools across the country to accommodate the rising demand for school places. The paper says the Government expects to provide half a million new places nationally by 2021, with about 100,000 needed over the next year. The head of schools policy at the Church's Board of Education, the Revd Nigel Genders, said: "The Church of England provides around one quarter of all schools nationally and we want to play our part in solving the places crisis". The Church of England claims that because ministers want to concentrate new places in schools already graded as "outstanding" or "good", church schools are likely to be targeted for expansion because most fit this criterion. The Church is also calling for the Government to give them money for expansion directly rather than channelling it through local authorities. Meanwhile, when asked in Parliament about the Church's role in education, the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, said: "We praise and cherish the role of the Church of England in making sure children have an outstanding education. I welcome the [Chadwick report on church schools of the future] and look forward to working with Bishop John Pritchard to extend the role of the Church in school provision".
	Job applications should not be a matter of faith Opinion \| Fri, 1st Nov 2013 A teacher's perspective on why faith schools should not be able to select staff and students based on their religion. I am about to begin a role at a state-funded faith primary school, having had a successful start in teaching at an independent Catholic primary. And while I am excited about my new position, I've arrived at it by a process of elimination as much as merit. I applied to and visited many state-funded faith schools, the vast majority being Catholic, and they made no secret of their preference for practising Catholics. One head teacher went so far as to warn potential applicants that the first part of the selection process was to indicate that a priest could provide a reference – those without one would be rejected. I was unable to secure such a reference, because I do not attend Mass and have no intention of becoming a hypocrite. I have thankfully been successful in finding a new job. However, I am troubled that my opportunities for employment are narrowed because I do not attend Mass. I cannot think of another public service where the issue of faith would be considered relevant or its consideration tolerated. How might doctors and nurses react if they were asked to secure faith references before they could practise medicine? Similarly, what might the public reaction be if hospitals required patients to have the "right" faith, or at least be willing to convert to gain admission? I had another career before deciding teaching was for me and was under the misapprehension that it would always be my quality as a teacher that would be under scrutiny, not whether I attended church. I had also wrongly assumed that state-sponsored religious discrimination was something that happened in far-flung corners of the globe. Furthermore, the segregation of children on the basis of religion does them a disservice, because it does not reflect, or prepare them for, the multicultural and increasingly globalised world we live in. I enjoy teaching religious education and accept that some parents want schools to have a religious dimension. But I do not think that institutions should be able to select staff and students based on their religion, and I believe that such selection constitutes discrimination. The writer is a teacher from the North of England. This blog originally appeared in the Times Educational Supplement and is reproduced here with kind permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS. The European Commission is currently investigating complaints submitted by the National Secular Society concerning whether UK legislation relating to state funded faith schools breaches European employment laws in relation to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Find out more
	Lancashire church leaders unhappy at proposal to increase parents’ contribution to faith school transport costs News \| Thu, 7th Nov 2013 Lancashire County Council is under fire from church leaders who accuse them of planning to "penalise" parents who send their children to religious schools. The Council is considering ways to reduce the £8.5 million bill spent on school transport – half of which is spent transporting children to religious schools outside their catchment areas. They now plan to hold a consultation on ideas for saving money. One suggestion is that parents should make a larger contribution towards the transport provided to get their children to faith schools and a reduction in the numbers who qualify for free transport. Father Timothy Lipscomb, vicar of Preston, told the Lancashire Evening Post "I think it's a shame that they have to be penalised because they have some faith conviction. I think people should have the choice of whether they go to faith school or not, and it seems a lot to pay." But Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "Parents will still have the choice to send their children to a faith school, but they will have do so without financial assistance from the state – just like everyone else who chooses a school other than their local one. "Removing a subsidised transport privilege from one particular section of the community is not 'penalising' it. If anybody is being penalised it is those who send their children to community schools and get no help at all with transport costs, but still have to pay — through council tax — for those going to a faith school." In 2011 parents were asked to contribute £380 a year towards the costs of the transport, but this still left the taxpayer picking up about 60% of the cost. The Council is now proposing to increase this contribution by 25%, with a year-on-year rise after that, based on the retail price index plus 5%. A Council spokesperson said the council had to save about £300m and none of the authorities services could be spared from cuts. County Councillor Matthew Tomlinson, cabinet member for children, young people and schools, said: "I know that no one wants to either lose free transport or pay more for it, but unfortunately we are in the position of having to consult about these difficult decisions." The consultation can be accessed here.
	Bill submitted to Scottish Parliament that would abolish religious representatives on education committees News \| Wed, 6th Nov 2013 An independent Member of the Scottish Parliament, John Finnie, has given his support to a campaign to remove the legal right of religious groups to vote on education matters on local council committees. Mr Finnie has submitted a Private Member's Bill proposal that seeks to remove the mandatory involvement of religious representatives on these committees. Mr Finnie, who represents the Highlands and Islands and resigned from the SNP last year, says his Bill would make local government more accountable and transparent. The move follows a petition organised by the Edinburgh Secular Society calling for repeal of the law that requires three religious representatives to be appointed to each committee. Research by the ESS indicated that the Church holds the balance of power in almost two-thirds of the committees. Mr Finnie's Bill must get the support of 18 MSPs in order to be brought before parliament. Mr Finnie told the Scotsman newspaper: "In 21st century Scotland, when the single largest group of people identify as having 'no religion', obliging councils to appoint unelected religious representatives to their education committees is an archaic arrangement. "This is about our democratic process, this is not an attack on our churches. Churches are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. However, they have no democratic right to speak for the general populous." Gary McLelland, chairman of the Edinburgh Secular Society, told the paper: "The Bill affords an opportunity for the mainstream churches and our elected politicians to reflect and act on the changing demographics within Scotland. They can show vision and leadership by actively supporting the bill and the democratic principles that lie behind it. We sincerely hope they do so." Church leaders were furious at this development, with the Church of Scotland reminding people that it had started the Scottish education system and therefore had a right to its representatives on the committees – even though all the other members were elected. The Catholic Church spokesman said church representatives offer "an invaluable service" by "promoting discussion" among elected representatives. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "There seems to be a lot of special pleading by the churches who are understandably not pleased that society has changed and moved away from their control. "They may, indeed, have been at the forefront of providing schools during the 19^th century, but the state has now taken over that function — at least financially — and the churches should now step back and accept that we live in a much more diverse, democratic and freethinking society. There is no excuse for this privileged input that is denied to any other interest group."
	Ireland considers replacing blasphemy law with “religious hatred” legislation News \| Mon, 4th Nov 2013 The Convention set up by the Irish Government to bring the country's constitution up-to-date has recommended that the offence of blasphemy should be removed from the constitution in its current form and replaced with a general provision that would include incitement to religious hatred. But Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society warned that such a move could make things even worse. "When the blasphemy law in England was scrapped there was a similar call for a replacement. It came as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. In its original form this was much more restrictive than the blasphemy law – which had become obsolete and unusable anyway. "It was only after vigorous campaigning by the National Secular Society and others that the legislation was amended to protect free speech. The Irish legislators should learn from that and not create a law that gives religious groups an open door to suppress criticism and claim 'religious hatred' whenever someone says something that they don't like. Unless it is carefully framed, such a law has all the potential to be another form of blasphemy law, but one that has teeth." Mr Sanderson said no-one had been prosecuted under the present blasphemy provisions, but a more catch-all law could open the floodgates to all kinds of accusations of 'religious hatred' that could significantly impinge on free expression. He said that there were religious groups that were anxious to have legal methods of silencing critics or mockers of their faith. They should not be handed that tool by the Irish Government. Dr Ali Selim of the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland said blasphemy law should be retained, arguing that freedom of expression should not be "unrestrained" and must be used responsibly. Separately, the Order of the Knights of St Columbanus had argued that the blasphemy law served to safeguard the right of believers "not to suffer unwarranted offence arising from the gratuitous impugning of sacred matter". At present, the Irish Constitution explicitly states that blasphemy — speaking sacrilegiously about God — should be a crime. Article 40.6.1.i states: "The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law." Blasphemy became a criminal offence in 2009 under defamation laws introduced by then-Minister Dermot Ahern, who argued that the Constitution requires that blasphemy be regarded as a criminal offence. But Dr Neville Cox of Trinity College Dublin said the relevant part of the 2009 Defamation Act, which sets a maximum fine of €25,000 for those found guilty of publishing or uttering blasphemous material, was too tightly drawn to be applied in practice. He said the law's requirement that a publisher must be proven to have intended to cause outrage among a substantial number of a religion's adherents meant it "will be very difficult successfully to prosecute the offence". Dr Cox also pointed to a decision by the Supreme Court in Corway v Independent Newspapers, a 1999 case in which the court said it couldn't define blasphemy and therefore couldn't apply the constitutional prohibition. "What this did was render the crime of blasphemy a dead letter," he said. Sinn Féin Senator Kathryn Reilly pointed to a UN report which said that blasphemy laws are not compatible with human rights. "Blasphemy is not a valid offence in public law and should not be a criminal offence in a democratic society that respects diversity," she said. Separately, the Irish Council of Churches said that the current reference to blasphemy is 'largely obsolete' and could be seen as part of a range of measures used to 'justify violence and oppression against minorities in other parts of the world'.
	US Supreme Court to hear council prayers case News \| Tue, 5th Nov 2013 Tomorrow (6 November) the United States Supreme Court will consider whether opening council meetings with prayers is legal. A previous ruling of the Supreme Court thirty years ago, in a case called Marsh vs. Chambers, said that clergy can deliver non-sectarian prayers before state legislative meetings – but they must not teach religious dogma or be "denominational". This new case revolves around the council in Greece, a suburb of Rochester, NY. Traditionally the council there had started its meetings with a moment of silence, but in 1999 the Town Supervisor John Auberger began inviting exclusively Christian clergy to open the meeting with specifically Christian prayers. The prayers were far from non-denominational and included such discussions as "the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross". The public that had come to the meetings either as onlookers or as invitees were expected to stand and bow their heads during these prayers. People who had simply come to request planning permission or speak on some other local issue were expected to participate in specifically Christian prayers – even if they weren't Christian. The two complainants in the case, a Jewish man and an atheist, managed to get the council to invite some non-Christians to give the prayers, but that didn't last long and soon the Christian monopoly resumed. The council was deaf to further protest so the case was taken to court and eventually a federal appeals court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional as it affiliated the town too closely with Christianity. It said that those giving the prayers were prone to "convey their views of religious truth". The Obama administration has briefed the Supreme Court and has argued in favour of the council's right to offer prayers at its meetings, but says they should be limited to an appeal for 'divine guidance' and not be about proselytising for a particular religion. Some have argued that because prayers are banned in schools they should also be banned in public meetings – both are emanations of the state and coercing a particular religion in either setting must be seen as a step towards establishment, which is forbidden by the Constitution. Courts have responded by saying that children are forced to be in school and have no option but to listen if a prayer is recited in their presence but adults are not forced to be in a council chamber. The lower court mulled the question of whether the prayers in Greece used "generically theistic terms" or referred to a deity as male. The lower court found most of the prayers to be too Christian and thus imposed one faith on the citizenry. However, it is likely the Supreme Court will disregard this argument, even though what the council is doing appears to be a clear breach of the constitution, and instead consider whether it is any court's business to analyse prayers to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Legal experts predict that the Supreme Court will rule in the council's favour, saying justice is better served if courts are silent about the nature of prayer. But one lawyer points the words of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who shortly before she stepped down from the Supreme Court wrote in a decision: "At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate... Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?" Find out more about the case of Greece v Galloway from Americans United. Read the National Secular Society's briefing on council prayers. See also: Praying for true religious freedom at the Supreme Court Prayer at public meetings? Be reasonable!

Our use of cookies

Newsline 8 November 2013

News, Blogs & Opinion

New paper calls for secular ceremony of remembrance at the Cenotaph

Churches in Northern Ireland unite to oppose Girl Guides’ secular promise

Church of England anticipates big expansion of its schools nationwide

Job applications should not be a matter of faith

Lancashire church leaders unhappy at proposal to increase parents’ contribution to faith school transport costs

Bill submitted to Scottish Parliament that would abolish religious representatives on education committees

Ireland considers replacing blasphemy law with “religious hatred” legislation

US Supreme Court to hear council prayers case

NSS Speaks Out

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Upcoming Events

NSS conference: Secularism and feminism – a common cause

NSS fundraiser: Women laughing

Sunday Lecture: A secular society?

Newsline 8 November 2013

News, Blogs & Opinion

NSS Speaks Out

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Upcoming Events

Sign up for our newsletter