Newsline 13 November 2015

Newsline 13 November 2015

This week has seen another case of de facto censorship, after a screening of a film about Mohammed's early life was cancelled by a Glasgow cinema. We are busy every week raising awareness about these cases and campaigning against the prevailing atmosphere of self-censorship and adherence to Islamist blasphemy laws. You can help too, by joining the NSS today, or seeing how else you can get involved in our work and campaigns. More encouragingly, a new report published by academics this week echoed what we've been saying for decades; that laws requiring worship in schools need urgent review.

News, Blogs & Opinion

Review law on collective worship in schools, say academics

News | Fri, 13th Nov 2015

Senior academics have warned of "significant concerns" about the imposition of collective worship in non-religious schools – arguing that it may violate the right to freedom of religion and belief.

In a report on religious observance in the education system, the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have called on all educational authorities to 'clarify' pupils' right "to withdraw from acts of collective worship/religious observance" and to ensure that "all schools" provide the option to withdraw for all of their students.

The report calls on each of the four countries in the UK to establish a working group to consider whether a rationale exists for collective worship in schools. If no rationale can be found for the practice, the AHRC say, "the current duties should be abolished."

The report has been welcomed by the National Secular Society, which has for many years campaigned for the requirement on schools to provide worship to be abolished, and for enhanced rights for older students to be able to withdraw themselves.

Keith Porteous Wood, NSS executive director, said: "The requirement for schools to hold worship is hopelessly outdated and completely inappropriate where most young people are not religious and those who are come from a multiplicity of faiths.

"Laws that mandate worship are an obvious affront to children's and young people's religious freedom, usurp parental rights and go well beyond the legitimate function of the state.

"The right to withdraw from school worship is neither a practical nor an acceptable compromise. It inconveniences schools and leaves pupils ostracised, so parents wishing to withdraw their children are left in an impossible position.

"Many schools flout the law because teachers know how inappropriate and unworkable it is, so in those cases abolition would simply formalise the arrangement that already exists, and it would give this common-sense approach a legal basis. A law that is unenforceable is a bad law, and in this case a bad example to pupils."

The Research Council has said that "standardised guidelines" should be issued on the right to withdraw from collective worship under current law, and for the specific procedures used to accommodate those wanting to exercise their right to withdraw.

It also recommended that schools should be proactive in making both parents and pupils "aware of the right to withdraw from acts of collective worship" and have "clear procedures" to make this right accessible.

There are particular concerns in Scotland, where "no independent right of withdrawal is available to pupils." In June hundreds of pupils at a Scottish High School signed a petition against compulsory Christian assemblies, blasting the practice as "outdated" and calling for "no religious interference" in schools. The National Secular Society is regularly contacted by parents concerned about the imposition of worship and the practical difficulties in withdrawing children from religious activities.

The AHRC has recommended that the term "Religious Observance" be replaced in Scotland with "Time for Reflection", to be "more inclusive" of the non-religious and of non-Christians.

Where pupils are not given a legal right to withdraw from collective worship in schools, the Research Council recommend that "there should be clear procedures for assessing the maturity of the pupil" to establish their competency to withdraw themselves without parental permission.

The body also set out its concerns about schools' use of external speakers in collective worship, and said that "Schools should have a clear set of guidelines on the use of external speakers, and should explicitly notify parents in advance of any such speakers coming to the school to participate in acts of collective worship and religious observance."

This echoes recommendations made in the National Secular Society's Evangelism in Schools report which highlighted the problem of schools being targeted by evangelical groups as part of their missionary work.

The AHRC report restricts the majority of its recommendations to schools without a religious character, saying "separate and distinct consideration" should be given to faith schools.

Earlier this year a report co-authored by former education secretary Charles Clarke also recommended the abolition of the legal obligation on schools to provide a daily act of collective worship. This followed an earlier call in 2014 from the National Governors' Association for the religious element of schools assemblies to be scrapped.

You can read the Arts and Humanities Research Council report in full here (PDF).

NSS urges cinema to reconsider after protests force cancellation of Mohammed biopic screening

News | Mon, 9th Nov 2015

The National Secular Society has written to a Glasgow cinema urging it to reconsider its decision to cancel the planned screening of a biopic about Mohammed, after a small petition of Muslims from the UK, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria said it was "unacceptable".

The screening of "The Message" had been planned by the Islamic Society of Britain for 15 November at the Grosvenor cinema in Glasgow, but a petition was launched criticising plans to show the film, which is about the early history of Islam and Mohammed's life, because of non-Muslim actors playing the parts of some of Mohammed's contemporaries.

The petition says it is "totally unacceptable" for non-Muslims to play the role of Mohammed's companions, and write that "just as we would not like to see images/cartoons/movies" made of Mohammed, "we also expect the honour and dignity" of Mohammed's companions "to be upheld".

Mohammed does not appear in the film, but the petitioners complain that "it is still inappropriate and disrespectful", and that the Grosvenor cinema should therefore not host it.

While the depiction of Mohammed's companions by non-Muslim actions is their "main point of concern" they also say that the film cannot be shown because it "contains other inappropriate material such as music and dancing".

In its letter to the cinema the National Secular Society say that by refusing to show the film the cinema will be "contributing to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists".

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans said: "It's a sad sign of the times that such a small petition has forced the venue to cancel. We hope the cinema will change its position and not allow the weapon of offense to be used to restrict its freedom as a cinema to screen films and the freedom of audiences to watch them".

There are just 94 signatories to the petition, with comments supporting it posted from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Nigeria and Mauritius.

One petitioner said "the film has to be stopped". Many others said the content of the film was "not acceptable" and "inappropriate".

Another signatory said he was "insulted by the movie". One said he had signed "so that money hungry things don't use Islam as a means of becoming filthy rich".

The cancellation of the screening has also prompted condemnation from the Islamic Society of Britain, which expressed their "regret" at the decision which say had been taken "in the face of a small number of objections".

The Society added, "As Scottish Muslims we believe in the principles of freedom of speech and have worked for decades to promote the rights of people to make Islam relevant to British society. Everyone must have the right to live by their beliefs and we must learn to tolerate differences of scholarly opinion.

"These protestors demonstrate the worst elements of our community as they are imposing their beliefs on others. We will not be bullied by these people and challenge them to make themselves known. We are also appealing for the Grosvenor to stick to the original agreement and show the film."

Operation Christmas Child: Christian fundamentalism, gift-wrapped

Opinion | Thu, 12th Nov 2015

The Operation Christmas Child 'shoebox' appeal is a front for a project to convert children in predominantly Muslim countries to literalist Christianity. Parents should give it a wide berth, argues Stephen Evans.

My heart sank this week when picking my daughter up from Rainbows I found the group leader cajoling kids into going out and buying cheap plastic trinkets to stuff into shoeboxes as part of the Operation Christmas Child 'shoebox' appeal.

The project is run by Samaritan's Purse, an evangelical international relief and development organisation that combines delivering aid with "sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ".

The scheme involves thousands of churches, schools and youth groups sending shoeboxes stuffed with toys (with gender-segregated labels) to children all over the world (primarily targeting countries with large Muslim populations) for Christmas – all in the name of Jesus.

The gift wrapped shoeboxes are then used for proselytise a particularly unpleasant brand of biblical literalism. Toys are accompanied by promotional, conversion focused literature to invite the children receiving it to follow up Bible studies. But those promoting the scheme, including schools, often aren't at all upfront about this – meaning children and parents up and down the country are unwittingly being used as foot soldiers for a fundamentalist child evangelism project.

Other aid-based development charities have criticised the shoebox scheme as a poor way to give aid. However well-meaning supporters of such schemes are, the scheme's inefficient way of making charitable donations, doesn't meet local needs, help solve local problems, and can in fact disrupt and harm the livelihood of local vendors.

Brendan Paddy of Save the Children, when referring to OCC, said "it is dangerous when charities mix humanitarian work with the promotion of a particular religious or political agenda". He said it was particularly important for aid agencies to preserve neutrality. Christians too have spoken out against the scheme's toxic agenda.

But despite not being either an ethical or efficient way of providing overseas aid, the scheme is popular with those working with children because on the face it looks like such warm and fluffy feel-good thing to do. So much so that it feels churlish to criticise. But parents and educators should be aware of this organisation's dark underbelly.

The President of Samaritan's Purse is Franklin Graham, the controversial American missionary and a hard-line Christian fundamentalist. Graham recently praised Vladimir Putin's support for harsh and discriminatory anti-gay laws and claimed that homosexuals "take people's children". Graham has called on Christians to convert Muslims to Christianity and recently suggested "all Muslims should be barred from immigrating to America and treated like the Japanese and Germans during World War II".

Armed with this this knowledge I hope churches, schools and organisations such as Girlguides and the Scouts will give Samaritan's Purse a suitably wide berth.

Walking home from Rainbows this week I was left having to explain to my 5 year-old daughter why we won't be filling a shoebox. After discussing the issue with the guide leader, she agreed to reconsider their support for the scheme and undertook to explain to the guides that different people give in different ways – and so instead of filling a shoebox with toys we'll be donating a goat to a family in Africa.

Yes, I know I've fallen into the trap of feeling the need to 'out-good' the do-gooders, but my daughter had to be placated and at least a goat is more useful that cheap plastic trinkets and a 12-week Bible-based 'discipleship programme'.

UPDATE: Since writing the blog Girlguiding UK has send me the following statement:

"As an organisation our official stance is that Girlguiding does not support the Samaritan's Purse Operation Christmas Child initiative and is not encouraging groups to support this or any other any specific charitable initiatives during the festive period. Girlguiding groups around the UK often fundraise and support local or national charities that are important to the girls. There is an expectation that all the activities of Girlguiding groups are rooted in our charity values, which are: inclusive, fun, caring, empowering, challenging and inspiring."

NSS calls for “fundamental reform” of religious education, as humanists and Muslims mount separate complaints

News | Mon, 9th Nov 2015

The National Secular Society has reiterated calls for a fundamental reform of religious education in schools, as three families mount a legal challenge over the Government's exclusion of humanism from the GCSE RS syllabus.

One parent explained, "What I object to is the lack of parity between religious beliefs and non-religious worldviews in the school curriculum, which in the eyes of children may well lead to the belief that religion, in whatever form, has a monopoly on truth and on morality.

"This is not accurate, it reflects neither the views of the population nor the traditions of the country, and we shouldn't be encouraging our children to believe it."

The parents are taking the Government to the High Court under the European Convention on Human Rights, with support from the British Humanist Association.

The curriculum was criticised by the National Secular Society when the plans were first announced for its exclusion of non-religious perspectives. The NSS warned the Government against a subject content that contained "no systematic study of secular ethics or non-religious worldviews".

In addition to the legal challenge about the exclusion of non-religious perspectives, a second controversy over the new GCSE subject content erupted after the Catholic Education Service (CES) announced that Judaism would be the second religion studied in Catholic faith schools, rather than Islam. Many Catholic schools have an overwhelming majority of Muslim pupils, (sometimes up to 90% of children), and the former secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain said it was "very disappointing" that they would not have the chance to study Islam as part of the GCSE syllabus.

When the Department for Education consulted on the plans in December 2014, the NSS warned that the narrow focus on just two religions would not deliver a "well-rounded education" as the DfE claimed, and that schools (including faith schools) would still be able to offer GCSE and A Level options "dominated by a single religious tradition".

The NSS said that plans to restrict the subject content to two religions, with philosophy and ethics relegated, would make the GCSE less educationally valid, less relevant and risked "inflicting long-term damage on an already contested and much maligned subject area".

In response to the DfE consultation the NSS called for a complete reform of the way religious and belief is taught in schools.

Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, commented: "The concept of 'religious education' has for too long allowed religious ideas to be ring-fenced for privileged treatment in schools. The subject is clearly regarded by both parents and religion and belief communities as an opportunity to reinforce and enhance their own influence throughout the education system. This needs to change.

"Students and wider society would be better served if religious education was replaced with a new National Curriculum subject for all pupils that covers a broader spectrum of human ideas and thought. This could encompass both religious and non-religious worldviews."

Call to help defend the Freedom of Information Act

News | Wed, 11th Nov 2015

The National Secular Society is urging its members and supporters to back a campaign defending Freedom of Information (FoI).

A petition has been launched by Press Gazette as part of the Society of Editors' "Hands Off FoI" campaign, amid fears that the Government plan a crackdown on FoI requests. The Government has created a commission to review the working of Freedom of Information, which is due to report by the end of November 2015.

Chris Grayling, Leader of the House of Commons, said that the Freedom of Information Act should only be used by those "who want to understand why and how government is taking decisions" and not as a "research tool" for the media.

NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans commented: "Grayling's comments don't make sense. Of course FoI is going to be used as a research tool – that is a key part of scrutinising government – and one he himself used whilst in opposition to generate press stories.

"Some of our most important recent campaign work has relied upon Freedom of Information.

"We used FoI requests to uncover and expose the faith schools that were censoring students' science exam questions on reproduction and evolution – and that an education minister was condoning it on grounds of religious sensitivity.

"The cost of religious chaplaincy to NHS Trusts was only revealed after an FOI request, and we use this vital transparency mechanism to monitor inappropriate religious interference with the state.

"I would encourage all of our members and supporters to take a moment to sign the petition and offer their support for this important campaign."

The petition to defend FoI says: "The Freedom of Information Act established the broad principle that public bodies must release information if the public interest in doing so outweighs the public interest in it remaining secret.

"We, the undersigned, urge the Government not to do anything which would detract from that principle."

Dominic Ponsford, editor of the Press Gazette, who set up the petition, writes, "Any charges could dramatically undermine the ability of requesters, including regional press journalists and freelances in particular, to use the Act to hold authorities to account.

"Investigative journalism is time-consuming, expensive and sometimes difficult to justify for news organisations which are under financial pressure. It needs to be nurtured and encouraged, for the benefit of society and democracy, not subject to Freedom of Information charges which would be effectively be a tax on journalism."

Ted Cruz says the President of the United States should be “on his knees” before God “every day”

Opinion | Mon, 9th Nov 2015

Young Americans might be turning away from Christianity, but the American religious right is more audacious than ever – and their rhetoric about 'religious freedom' barely conceals their theocratic aspirations, writes Benjamin Jones.

Ted Cruz, advocate for 'religious freedom', (meaning here the freedom for religious Republicans to do as they please at the taxpayers' expense), has said unequivocally that an atheist cannot serve as President of the United States.

When asked by the visibly deranged evangelical preacher Kevin Swanson, after some awkward banter between the two men, "how important is it for the President of the United States to fear God, and what does that mean to you?" Cruz gave an immensely troubling answer. The sentiment he expressed was unsurprising coming from him, but the phraseology he used was particularly chilling.

"Any president who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be commander-in-chief of this nation," the Senator said.

On his knees.

Coming just a month after Ben Carson's ignorant assertion that no Muslim could serve as President, I wonder pessimistically if Ted Cruz's parallel comments about atheists will generate the same level of outrage.

American voters are still slightly more likely to consider a Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist one, and the rhetoric of a "Christian nation" seems to have fresh purchase in some parts of America, as it does for the British far-right, not for reasons of history or soft culture but to exclude the existential threat of the 21st century: radical Islam.

While we might feel safe to scoff about the dull-eyed parochialism of Sarah Palin and co from an ocean away, it's important to remember that these "Bible-believing" people really mean what they say, and I suspect they say only some of what they really mean – as Frederic Rich's novel 'Christian Nation' so powerfully demonstrated.

Carson's comments were actually comparatively mild, at least after he had 'clarified' them: …"anybody, [it] doesn't matter what their religious background, if they accept American values and principles and are willing to subjugate their religious beliefs to our constitution, I have no problem with them." What he eventually said then was that an Islamist couldn't be president.

I don't imagine he has any such concerns about a Dominionist Christian though.

But for Cruz, the US Constitution, a document he has sworn to "support and defend", doesn't seem to figure at all. Carson wants Muslims to disavow sharia law and "reject the tenets of Islam", though I don't have any reason to believe he has thought particularly deeply about any of this, whereas Cruz wants an entire group of people disbarred from office (as they still are in many states) either by law, or by public opinion at the very least.

'Religious freedom' in Cruz's case is clearly a very thin smokescreen, barely a light mist, for manifesting his theocratic sympathies at every level of the US government, from the county-level where Kim Davis still fights for the right not to do her job, up to the state and federal governments.

The apparently inexorable secularisation of America, as younger generations fall away from religion, and 'mainline' Protestants gain distance from their evangelical brethren on issues like homosexuality, could induce a fatal complacency. And while Islamism rightly draws most attention with a regular beat of atrocities, the political strength of the American religious-right shouldn't be underestimated.

Islam is to Islamism as Christianity is to Dominionism. There are gradualists and revolutionaries, those who work within the political system and those who would sweep it all away. There are 'peaceful' theocrats and violent ones. Islamism is orders of magnitude more dominant within Islam than Dominionist thinking is within American Christianity, and the violent varieties are vastly, exponentially more abundant within Islamism. But it is clear every day of this election cycle (when will it end) that the religious right is as muscular, assertive and as reactionary as ever: Perhaps it just seems louder because it has more to react against.

Though I don't get a vote on the matter, I would much rather a secular Muslim as US President than a Dominionist Christian, and would very much rather a liberal Christian than an Islamist. No candidate, religious or not, should be disbarred from office by law or popular opinion on account of their faith or lack of it; but any candidate who seeks to impose that faith from above should face a fierce fight.