Newsline 15 November 2013

Baroness Warsi and her self-serving anti-secular agenda

Opinion | Wed, 13th Nov 2013

Baroness Warsi, the Coalition's "Minister for Faith" is no friend of the National Secular Society. Why should she be? Her role is the very antithesis of secularism.

For a Government Minister whose brief is to promote religion in politics, she does not seem to understand much about secularism. Or if she does, then she is actively misrepresenting it. She tries to give the impression that secularists in some way seek to deny the right of religious people to express their faith and that there is some kind of repressive agenda in secularism. There is not.

Does she not know that the American constitution is secular? Is the US Government repressing religion? Or has secularism protected America from the sectarian warfare and bloodshed that has plagued Europe for millennia?

In her anxiety to promote the idea that religion and government belong together, Warsi makes statements without factual basis, distorts statistics and edits out inconvenient truths.

Her latest masterwork was a speech full of divisive rhetoric that she delivered to a "Faith in Politics" conference at the University of Cambridge Churchill Archives. You can read the whole thing here.

Let's have a look at some of what she says:

"You only have to look around this building to see the evidence. Winston Churchill's letters, speeches and papers make repeated references to faith."

This is true, but they were not always complimentary. Take this from his book The River War:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Lady Warsi brushes this inconvenient truth aside by saying:

"Churchill may have had some interesting things to say about Islam. But I will leave it to Warren Dockter to address that issue specifically, and I am interested to read his new book on the subject. Personally, I think Churchill's own removal of his passage on Islam from 'The River War' shows that he revised and contextualised some of these views. After all, this was a man who argued for 'a spirit of religious toleration'."

Of course, Churchill wrote in other books about the evils of "Mohamedanism" which he didn't retract. Some of the things he wrote would, these days, get him locked up. That Baroness Warsi can put Churchill up as an exemplar of religious tolerance is a measure of her delusion. Or maybe her dishonesty.

Churchill was convinced that Christianity was the true "religion of peace" and, as he wrote in The Story of the Malakand Field Force:

"In each case civilisation is confronted with militant Mahommedanism. The forces of progress clash with those of reaction. The religion of blood and war is face to face with that of peace. Luckily the religion of peace is usually the better armed."

Later in the speech Baroness Warsi claims that 78% of this country "profess a religion", and that during the previous Labour governments "faith was being sidelined, even dismissed".

This claim is based on the oft-quoted comment by Alistair Campbell that Tony Blair's government didn't "do God". But to claim that Tony Blair or Gordon Brown were 'anti-religious' is manifestly untrue. Campbell was saying that the Government was secular not anti-religious – which is what Warsi would have you believe.

She now says that the Coalition is:

"Giving religion a voice at the top table. Not a privileged position, but an equal informer of the debate. This is further proof, as one commentator put it, that the Coalition is the most pro-faith government in the West."

We don't mind the Government being "pro-faith" (but not one particular faith) but we care very much that religion is an "equal informer" at the top table. We know what that leads to.

Baroness Warsi, however, seems able to edit from her memory the sour and bloody history of this country during periods when religion and government were as one.

She makes the bland claim that "people who do religion, do good".

Sometimes they do. But, as Andy McSmith points out in the Independent there are plenty that don't:

"Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and the perpetrators of the 11 September atrocities all claimed in their different ways to be doing God's work. When Bloody Mary had Protestants burned alive, or Oliver Cromwell drowned Ireland in Catholic blood, they, too, were 'doing God'."

The religious privilege on which Baroness Warsi is so keen, undermines British democracy. Even though no-one ever elected her, Lady Warsi claims to speak for the nation when she says we need more religion in schools and more public services handed over to religious groups to run.

Perhaps if she wants to keep her seat in Government she should stand at the ballot box and ask the electorate what it wants for the country, rather than relying on God to tell her what it wants on their behalf.

NSS tells EU presidents that secularism should be “at the heart of the European project”

News | Thu, 14th Nov 2013

The National Secular Society was represented again at the annual luncheon designed to consult "non-confessional" organisations given by the three presidents of the EU .

Hosting the event were president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso; European Council President Herman Van Rompuy; and President of the EU Parliament Martin Schulz (represented this year by his deputy Laszslo Surján).

The meeting is the counterpart to the annual meeting with religious leaders and is part of its mission to promote dialogue with philosophical and non-confessional organisations.

President Barroso had asked guests this year to focus on the necessity for European and national institutions to intensify their dialogue with citizens and societal organisations in order to rebuild trust. Prior to the luncheon hosts and the guests spent the two hours in the Commission's Cabinet Room discussing this topic.

Several contributions focused on youth and education, particularly Sonja Eggerickx of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Sonja wanted the European ideal and Europe's role in our intellectual and cultural history to be taught in schools throughout the EU. Others focused on the dangerous and growing alienation of disaffected and unemployed youths. A French contribution was on the need for minimum wages throughout the EU.

NSS Executive Director Keith Porteous Wood said he believes Europe's human rights are the envy of the world, but they are becoming increasingly threatened, mainly from the orthodox religious.

He reminded the presidents about the recent opening in Brussels of an office by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and to the OIC's record over the last decade seeking to inhibit freedom of expression internationally by repeatedly tabling defamation of religion resolutions in United Nations fora.

Was the opening of the office, which of course the OIC has every right to do, the first stage in opening up a new front against freedom of expression in Europe?

The Human rights theme was also taken up by the President of the European Humanist Federation (EHF), Pierre Galand: "We are deeply concerned by the growing far-right extremism in Europe. In many European Member States, populist groups have reinforced nationalism and strengthened racism, xenophobia and sometimes homophobia, during the last decade. These groups are harmful to the health of European democracies."

Keith Porteous Wood's intervention can be read here.

Atheist wins £1000 compensation from council after religion-in-school dispute

News | Thu, 14th Nov 2013

A Scottish man has been awarded £1000 in compensation from his local authority after he complained about the approach to religion in his son's primary school.

David Michael — who defines himself as an atheist — accepted the payment from Western Isles Council after a protracted legal wrangle. He claimed he was victimised on the grounds of religion at the school on the island of Great Bernera off the west coast of the Isle of Lewis.

The council, however, say that Mr Michael was "unreasonable" and because the case has not reached a legal conclusion in court, that nothing has changed.

The dispute started in 2008 when Mr Michael became alarmed at how lessons about Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela became infused with religion. He wasn't happy about a trip to a Bible exhibition, either.

When he complained to the school, he was told by the head teacher, Kirsteen Maclean, that if he removed his 8-year old son from religious education, the child would also be excluded from school assemblies and Christmas activities.

After a prolonged correspondence with the local authority and legal action about the way his complaints had been handled, the council paid Mr Michael the £1000 and costs of £1400. Because the case was settled out of court, no ruling has been made and no liability accepted by the local authority. Mr Michael intends to donate his compensation money to the school.

He said that he had become concerned about the religious overtones of the lessons his son was receiving and thought they were inappropriate, given his own opinions.

Lawyers who acted in the case — with the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland — said it was an important case, the first time a religion and belief case had been brought to court in relation to a child's education. No conclusion had been reached, though, so its significance is questionable.

The council, however, was unrepentant. A spokesman told the Herald newspaper: "The school was flexible with how it dealt with this issue throughout, but what we were adamant we would not do was change the curriculum on the basis of one parent's views. The parent did not want to have his child removed from religious education. He wanted to change the curriculum specifically in relation to the importance of faith to public figures such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, and we argue that was unreasonable."

The council said it had settled with Mr Michael purely to avoid spending any further money on the case.

Greek Supreme Court places sharia law above civil law

News | Tue, 12th Nov 2013

The last will and testament of a Muslim man, which was prepared according to Greek civil law, has been annulled in the Greek Supreme Court because it is not compliant with sharia law.

Demeter Simeonidou, who was Muslim and lived in Thrace, wanted to leave all his assets to his wife. He prepared his will with this in mind under Greek law. But the will was challenged by Mr Simoenidou's sister who claimed that under Islamic law of succession, a Muslim does not have the right to make a public will and his assets must be distributed in accordance with sharia.

The Supreme Court's decision overturns the rights of Greek minority Muslims in Thrace to prepare wills under Greek civil law, a right which they have enjoyed since 1946.

It is thought the decision will affect thousands of Muslims who have drawn up wills under the civil law, all of which may be invalid under the Supreme Court's ruling.

Previously only family law fell under the jurisdiction of Islamic muftis in Greece, but that was changed after sharia courts were condemned by the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights as being discriminatory against women.