Newsline 23 January 2015

Not a member? The most tangible way of supporting our work is by becoming a member and contributing funds to enable us to campaign effectively; the more we have, the more we can do. If you believe, as we do, that a secular Britain is our best chance to achieve true equality for all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs, then please join us and become part of what is possibly the most important debate of the 21st century. Together we can create a fairer and more equal society.

News, Blogs & Opinion

	BBC Trust upholds NSS complaint over conflation of race and religion News \| Tue, 20th Jan 2015 The National Secular Society has welcomed a ruling from the BBC Trust upholding its complaint over the way in which the BBC framed a story concerning the allocation of places at a Sikh faith school as a 'race issue', rather than as an issue of religious freedom. A news package aired by BBC Asian Network on 23 April 2014 focused on children of non-Sikh parents being allocated places at a Sikh faith school against their parents' wishes. In the piece, which featured NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans, several non-Sikh parents expressed their unhappiness about their children being allocated places at Khalsa Secondary Academy, a Sikh ethos free school in South Buckinghamshire. The NSS had no complaint with the news package itself, but was concerned about the way in which the story was trailed on social media, and in broadcast introductions, with BBC Asian Network repeatedly referring to the non-Sikh parents as "white parents." In a formal complaint to the BBC, the NSS argued that the repeated reference to "white parents" left the clear insinuation that those parents had racial grounds for objecting to their children attending the school, when in fact the issue was one of religious freedom in education. An initial complaint from the NSS was rejected by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit after BBC Asian Network's Head of News, Kevin Silverton, argued that the word "white" was used to make it clear the parents involved were "not Asian." He said an alternative such as "non-Sikh" would have been inappropriate because that would usually be taken by the audience to refer to Hindus and Muslims. On appeal, the director of the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit said he was "persuaded by Mr Silverton's reasoning." However, after an appeal to the Editorial Standards Committee to review the ECU's decision, the BBC Trust has upheld the complaint, agreeing that the story was about religious freedom in education and not about race, or racial prejudice. Communicating its findings to the NSS, the BBC Trust said; "The impression was given that white (rather than simply non-Sikh) parents objected to their children being sent to Sikh schools. This did not present an impartial account of the reasons for the parents' position. The Committee concluded that there had been a lack of due impartiality (albeit unwittingly and accidentally) in that it was implied that the parents' objections to faith education were on the grounds of race." The Trust therefore upheld the NSS complaint on grounds of impartiality and accuracy. The Committee did not uphold a complaint "in relation to Fairness, Contributors and Consent", but the central premise of the NSS criticism has now been recognised by the BBC. Responding to the finding, Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said; "The conflation of race with religion is highly problematic in that it seeks to stifle reasonable debate by equating criticism of religious ideas with racism and xenophobia. "The repeated references to non-Sikh parents as 'white parents' inaccurately framed the story as a 'race issue' and unfairly insinuated that the parents had racial – possibly even racist – reasons for their objections to their children attending this school. "The current shortage of school places, coupled with the spread of religious free schools, means more and more children can expect to be allocated schools with a faith ethos against their parents' wishes. It's vital that parents can raise legitimate objections to their children being allocated places at minority faith schools without being portrayed as 'racist'. "Desiring a secular education for your child has nothing to do with your ethnicity. I am pleased that the BBC has now recognised this." The BBC Trust editorial appeals finding can be read here.
	New Charlie Hebdo editor speaks out to defend secularism News \| Mon, 19th Jan 2015 Gérard Biard, editor of Charlie Hebdo, has spoken out on the virtues of a free press and on the importance of satirising religion. Biard was asked about comments made by Pope Francis after the Paris attacks, when the pontiff said: "To kill in the name of God is an aberration… We have the obligation to say openly, to have this liberty, but without giving offence, because it is true, one cannot react violently. "But if … a good friend, says a bad word against my mother, then a punch awaits him. But it's normal, it's normal. Once cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith." Mr Biard said: "Every time that we draw a cartoon of Mohammed, every time that we draw a cartoon of the prophets, every time that we draw a cartoon of God, we defend the freedom of religion. "We declare that God must not be political or public figure, he must be a private figure. We defend the freedom of religion, yes it is also the freedom of speech, but it is the freedom of religion. "Religion should not be a political argument. If faith, if religious arguments, step into the political arena, it becomes a totalitarian argument. Secularism protects us against this. Secularism guarantees democracy and guarantees peace. Secularism allows all believers and non-believers to live in peace and that is what we defend." The Pope's comments after the attack on Charlie Hebdo were widely criticised. Prime Minister David Cameron said: "in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion. I'm a Christian, if someone said something about Jesus I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don't have a right to … wreak my vengeance on them. "We have to accept that newspapers, magazines, can publish things that are offensive to some, as long as it's within the law. "That's what we should defend … my job is not to tell a newspaper what to publish or what not to publish, my job is to uphold the law." Meanwhile, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is planning legal action against Charlie Hebdo. The head of the OIC said that the new edition of Charlie Hebdo, which features a cartoon of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, was "an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures." According to the Independent, "OIC is studying Europe[an] and French laws and other available procedures to be able to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo. "If French law allows us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine." French blasphemy laws have previously been used to prosecute critics of Islam. Charlie Hebdo was itself prosecuted last year, by the League of Judicial Defence of Muslims, after the magazine printed a front cover with the slogan "the Koran is crap, it doesn't stop bullets."
	Christian doctor performed exorcism on patient, tribunal told News \| Wed, 21st Jan 2015 A Christian GP took a mentally ill patient to his church to perform an exorcism, and told her she would be cursed if she reported him, a medical tribunal has heard. The patient in question, known only as Patient A, was initially suffering from severe pain after colostomy surgery, and met Dr Thomas O'Brien in August 2012. During their initial contact, Dr O'Brien is said to have asked Patient A if she was religious, and claimed that he and his wife could heal her without medicine. During subsequent conversations, Dr O'Brien is alleged to have told Patient A that "God is her surgeon and God will heal her." Patient A, who also suffered from depression and was reportedly suicidal, claims that Dr O'Brien told her to stop taking her anti-depressants for "religious reasons" and said that psychiatrists "do the devil's work." Dr O'Brien is then said to have performed an exorcism on Patient A, during a four-hour "testimony" at his church. Patient A became convinced that her medical problems were the result of demonic possession. The patient claims that the doctor gave her religious pamphlets, including a book called "An Occult Checklist", written by Dr O'Brien, and which included a "prayer of repentance" that Patient A felt pressured to sign by the doctor and his wife. The patient said that Dr O'Brien quoted the Bible at her, repeatedly prayed with her at home and programmed her television to show The Gospel Channel. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "It is reassuring that a person such as this is no longer working as a doctor. Let's hope there aren't many others in the NHS who share his rather extreme view of what religion can achieve in a medical setting." Dr O'Brien allegedly told Patient A that "she would be cursed" if she told the General Medical Council about his conduct or about the content of their meetings. Eventually however, Patient A did report the doctor's behaviour to her psychiatrist, who in turn reported Dr O'Brien to the General Medical Council (GMC). At this point, Dr O'Brien complained to the GMC about the psychiatrists' conduct in reporting him, in a case that was quickly thrown out. Dr O'Brien is now facing misconduct charges but says he has resigned from medicine already. Dr Antony Lempert of the Secular Medical Forum said: "Should the allegations against Dr O'Brien be upheld... they represent a wilful disregard of the trusting relationship between patients and their doctor. It is never acceptable for a doctor, working in a trusted professional capacity, to abuse their professional position by trying to change a patient's own personal beliefs. The distress caused to this patient, suffering from physical and psychological symptoms yet subjected to a campaign of religious intrusion and exorcism by the person supposed to be caring for them is difficult to imagine. "Over recent years, we have seen other Christian doctors, such as Dr Richard Scott and Dr Antonia Johnson, who also considered patients fair game in their mission to evangelise and proselytise to the world. These doctors have no place in a profession dedicated to caring for and supporting patients in the context of evidence-based, compassionate medicine based around patients' own beliefs and requirements... It would have been nice to hear a few words of compassion for the patient from Dr O'Brien rather than the continued laments about his own feelings and beliefs." An earlier report into the case said; "The panel is concerned about Dr O'Brien's apparent lack of insight into the seriousness of the allegations against him. It appears that he may have allowed his professional and private boundaries to become blurred, in particular with a vulnerable patient. The panel is further concerned that Dr O'Brien may have also imposed his religious beliefs with regard to the treatment of another patient." Dr O'Brien said; "'The allegations have been severe enough to break anyone down emotionally and I'm grateful for my faith which sustained me throughout the ordeal." He had previously described the accusations as attacks on his "private Christian faith and life" and said the claims about the exorcism are a "total fabrication." Dr O'Brien said that he has "forgiven" Patient A.
	BBC Panorama, “the battle for British Islam” and the nonsense of “peaceful” or “violent” Muslims Opinion \| Thu, 22nd Jan 2015 NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones argues that the problem of Islamism is obscured by politicians and others simplistically categorising Muslims as either 'peaceful' or 'violent'. On 12 January, BBC Panorama featured British Muslims campaigning for a secularised, liberal or non-literalist interpretation of the Islamic faith. John Ware reported the view of reformers that radicalisation is the product of "an extreme but nonviolent ideology" that helps "push Muslims into the arms of violent extremists." The non-violent majority of Muslims are lazily and meaninglessly described as 'peaceful.' Politicians should instead be adopting Maajid Nawaz's much more relevant criteria of 'liberal' and 'secular.' Doing so will aid the fight against extremism. As BBC Panorama chillingly showed, whilst most British Muslims are peaceful, many are simultaneously anti-secular, and opposed to liberal/British/secular values (including the freedom to change or leave religion and freedom of expression, particularly relating to the Prophet Mohammed). The unenlightened view that the law should intervene to prevent certain acts of blasphemy is extremely widespread among British Muslims; as polling after the Danish cartoon riots showed; 78% of British Muslims at that time said that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed should be prosecuted. Describing Muslims who hold this view as 'peaceful' does not really tell us anything meaningful about their ideology or their politics, and it obscures a deep malaise in society. The 'peaceful' description allows a complacent evasion of the underlying problem. How often is this done by politicians out of unwillingness to confront the problem, out of fear and for political expediency? Without acknowledging a problem, it cannot be solved, and this lazy and spineless evasion robs the reformers within Islam of the tools and support they need. A great many within British and Western Muslim communities do feel that the Prophet Mohammed should be protected from criticism, satire, ridicule or even simple depiction. Alarmingly, for many, polls show their strength of feeling on this matter extends beyond a social prohibition on depicting Mohammed, (akin to politeness); though clearly it does not extend as far as support for the undertaking of actual violence. There is a broad continuum of belief on this matter; which ranges from the secular view that no-one has the right to not be offended, then that the cartoons are offensive but should not be prohibited by law, through the dangerous view that the law (in the interests of social cohesion and/or decency) should ban depictions of the Prophet, ending finally with the extremist commandment that those who make images of the Prophet should be killed, either under the power of the law or at the hands of terrorists. There are those within and outside Islam who fit on this spectrum. Some non-Muslims favour the 'social cohesion' or 'good manners' argument, exemplified by Pope Francis in comments for which he has received unprecedented criticism. Some even go to the next rung on the apologist ladder. George Galloway, speaking at an event billed as a 'free speech' rally, told his audience that "for the sake of social peace, for the sake of unity in our society we have to demand from our government the protection of the prophets from obscene and pornographic provocation and in parliament I intend to fight for that." This is an explicitly anti-secular ideology, and one which secularists (by which I include anyone who doesn't want to see the laws and diktats of any religion imposed upon all of society) must grapple with unless we wish to see the clock turned back hundreds of years on the progressive triumphs on the expansion of free speech and the right to blaspheme. This rampant anti-secularism is widespread; and blithely repeating that 'most British Muslims are peaceful' will not help us deal with, or win, the ideological conflict. It also sets a very low bar. Is 'peace' alone really enough to foster a strong, functioning society? Or must there in fact be a deeper foundation of shared values, (regardless of whether we call them universal, British, secular, liberal, or democratic values). There is a large block of anti-secular thought, from which terrorism emanates, and which poses serious problems to those who campaign for an enlightened, secular, free society. We need to find out what proportion of British Muslims are opposed to core, secular values, most noticeably free speech where religion is concerned, and the freedom to apostatize. The overwhelming majority may not ever act upon this view, much less act violently, but it is clear that a campaign for 'hearts and minds' needs to begin at home. More polling on the opinions of British Muslims would help ascertain the scope of this ideological gulf. Anyone who wants to use the force of the state to protect their feelings is a part of the problem; a problem we mask when we limit our discussion with an arbitrary and meaningless delineation of 'violent' and 'peaceful' Muslims. There is a trenchant strand of anti-secularism amongst 'peaceful Muslims', and we must raise the bar higher than the mere absence of violence. We are facing our own, unique version of a culture war, and we should get our terminology straight now- so that the secular Islam proposed by reformers like Sara Khan or Maajid Nawaz is strengthened and nourished (both from within the faith and from outside). BBC Panorama "The Battle for British Islam" can be viewed here. It first aired on 12 January 2015.
	Rendering unto Caesar Opinion \| Mon, 19th Jan 2015 The established Church throws stones from inside its Government-subsidised glass cathedral, argues Alistair McBay. The Church of England was in the news again last week as it tried to prove its relevance to 21^st century Britain. After the embarrassing PR fiasco over its investments in payday lender Wonga, the Church has led with its chin again (to maintain the current popular theme of Christian pugilism). It has published a series of essays under the title 'On Rock or Sand?' Which on the one hand attacks the Westminster Government (the current one that claims it 'does God') for its record on tackling inequality and poverty, and on the other condemns modern Britain's selfish focus on consumerism and individualism. Initial reaction was less than positive, to put it mildly. Writing in the Times, Sky political editor Adam Boulton referred to last year's YouGov and Lancaster University research into the church's shepherds and their flock. According to Linda Woodhead, the professor in charge, they found a "gulf between recent church statements on welfare and the attitudes of a majority of churchgoers in the C of E". The study found that almost three quarters (74%) of Anglicans believed that the benefits system created a culture of dependency but less than a third of their vicars agreed with them. There was a mixed bag of reaction on the Thinking Anglicans website, with one contributor stating the Archbishops' statements were "biased, unfair and totally political." Another commented: "the legislation requiring compulsory Christian prayers before all local government meetings will certainly be good at driving out non-Christians, but it's a bit difficult to see how it fits with the professed desire to fight for equality." It only took 24 hours for the claim to the moral high ground to unravel. The launch of the campaign took place on Monday 13^th January, and on the 14^th the BBC carried the story of a vicar's daughter chaining herself to the railings of a church building close to Westminster Abbey, in the latest protest at the Church Commissioners' plans to build a retail park in Leighton Buzzard. The doughty Ms Victoria Harvey, a Friends of the Earth supporter, was unforgiving in her criticism, saying "It is disgraceful the Church Commissioners are breaking their ethical policy for a quick buck at the expense of our local community." Her father, the Reverend Dr Anthony Harvey, added to the chorus of disapproval as he felt "bound to protest" at the Church Commissioners abandoning their mission to be a "model of a mutually dependent and caring community". This was the second protest about the Church Commissioners' plans, after the first in May 2014 outside Westminster Abbey. The Commissioners said then that the proposed development would: "provide a much-needed facility for the town, attract new inward investment and create a large number of jobs for local people". But the locals were convinced it would kill the town centre by taking a minimum of £2m in trade from it. Responding to this week's protest, the Church Commissioners' head of strategic land investment, said: "Our guiding principle from the outset has been to offer real retail choice in Leighton Buzzard, which complements the town centre offer." These words and this proposed development of 5 shops and a restaurant might come as a surprise to those lectured the day before by Archbishops Welby and Sentamu on the evils of the consumer society. That a religious institution needs a "head of strategic land investment" may raise one eyebrow, but when the same institution condemns retail consumerism one day and its own clergy condemns its retail development plans the next, then both eyebrows should be raised. It's a bit like Alcoholics Anonymous condemning the evils of alcohol while building pubs. But the Church cashing in on the very consumerism it condemns is nothing new. The Church Commissioner's most recent report shows it still invests in the Gateshead Metro centre, the construction of which it originally financed. The Metro Centre comprises over 300 shops and 1.9million square feet of retail space. In October 1995, it was sold for £364m, although the Church Commissioners continue to receive 10% of the net rents. It also had a hand in developing Cheshire Oaks in Ellesmere Port, the first and largest Designer Outlet retail centre. In the middle of the recession, another of the Church Commissioners' reports boasted that its Hyde Park Connaught Village development was to focus "on boutique fashion, specialist retailers, galleries and high quality restaurants" and announced "a number of exciting new retailers" to be added. The Church also increased its investment in retail warehousing, which it saw as a growth opportunity. And so it has proved. By the end of 2010 the Church of England's assets had increased from £4.8bn to £5.3bn and now stand in excess of £6bn. Over the past 20 years its investment fund has achieved an average return of RPI +6.7% per annum, and in 2013 it grew by 15.9%. That's not bad going for any business in very poor trading conditions, far less one primarily (we think, anyway) in the religion business. One reason for this success, aside from its massive ongoing investment in 'evil' consumerism, is the Church Commissioners' investment in private equity. As then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was criticising fellow Christian PM Gordon Brown for maintaining a society "driven by unsustainable greed", the Church Commissioners were switching huge sums to this asset class. Before the banks became our whipping boys of choice, the amoral asset-stripping city spivs were the private equity companies, condemned by the TUC for using huge levels of debt and excessive management incentives to achieve their goals. However, this didn't deter the Church raising its investment in 2008 by £61.5m, no doubt due to its private equity funds portfolio generating a whopping 34% return in 2007, against a total return for the entire portfolio of 9.4%. For 2013 it returned 13.4%. Its latest available report states: "Over the long term our private equity portfolio has significantly outperformed quoted equity markets and we plan to expand the allocation to the asset class significantly over the next few years." Rowan Williams said Brown's plan to spend his way out of a recession was akin to an addict returning to a drug. Clearly the Church's drug of choice is private equity. The Church has also been criticised for having a stock lending programme, a practice used for short-selling, and has also traded in debts, with the Commissioners selling a £135m mortgage portfolio in 2007. In 2009, it had an investment of over £60m in Tesco and Unilever, who have shared last place in the ethical ranking of Britain's top 100 companies. At the end of 2013 it still had both in its top 20 equity holdings. It also continued to have £39m invested in HSBC, a bank whose contribution to banking scandals we commented on here, and £18m in Lloyds Banking Group which was fined a record £28m by the Financial Conduct Authority last year. This was for creating a "culture of mis-selling among its branch staff – a culture so focused on the sale at any cost that it drove some to sell products to themselves to meet targets and spare them the axe or a salary cut." The Commissioners state in their latest report that they were part of the successful consortium bidding for a branch network of RBS. "We see this as both an exciting investment opportunity and also the chance to create a 'good' bank," they said, while omitting to point out that for the time being at least they will also remain invested in 'bad' ones. The Church's much-vaunted ethical investment policy has been consistently exposed in other areas. To cite just one example, Ekklesia reported that it failed to prevent investing in Caterpillar, the US company that makes the bulldozers which are exported to Israel and have been used in the illegal mass demolition of Palestinian homes. When the Church finally did sell its shares after pressure from, among others, its own General Synod, it stressed that it did so for financial and not ethical reasons "thus revealing that it sees finance and ethics in two categories. That is dangerous and un-theological dualism". As Ekklesia further opined, "this all makes the Church's ongoing criticism of city bank robbers, greed, unregulated capitalism, debt and short-selling, ring rather hollow. It also sadly undermines any proposals the Church may come up with for substantial change in a system in which it is itself deeply immersed." Another system in which this £6bn business is deeply immersed is Government hand-outs, in the form of what might be called tax amelioration rather than tax avoidance. When the Government announced it would end the zero-rated VAT concession on church repairs, the resulting outcry led to the Chancellor setting aside £30m per annum to continue to subsidise the practice, on top of £12m already provided to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. Which among other things provides funding for auto-winding turret clocks, pipe organs, bells and bell ropes. These are clearly items that a £6bn business empire can't really afford to buy for itself. In December, a further £15m was set aside for cathedral repairs, which the Church "wholeheartedly welcomed". That's £57m in Government subsidy for Christianity, to an established Church with assets exceeding £6,000,000,000. Don't forget this is the same Church that denounced the likes of Starbucks, Amazon and Google for tax avoidance. Perhaps the final irony can be found in the Church's aforesaid new book, "On Rock or Sand?" – available from Amazon priced £6.99, for all you evil consumers out there. Our established Church's latest report on inequality and poverty advocates a new redistribution of wealth, quoting the slogan popularised by Karl Marx: "From each, according to his resources, to each, according to his need." Does practise what you preach come into it, anywhere? Or perhaps Matthew 6:21 is more appropriate – "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Alistair McBay is a member of the NSS Council. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS. Image: "Render unto Caesar" by Peter Paul Rubens
	Study finds women are far more likely to be religious than men News \| Wed, 21st Jan 2015 A UCL Institute of Education study of 9,000 Britons in their forties has found that women are far more likely than men to be religious believers, whilst more than half of the men surveyed described themselves as atheists or agnostics. The survey found that women are "much more likely to be definite" in their belief than men, whilst "among non-believers, men are much more likely to be definite than women." The study concluded that men are twice as likely as women to say that God does not exist, and significantly less likely to believe in life after death. 63 per cent of male atheists did not believe in life after death, compared with 36 per cent of female atheists. Nearly half of those involved in the survey did not identify with any religion, whilst the remainder said they had a "Christian background." Smaller numbers identified as Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist. The survey called upon members of the 1970 British Cohort Study, a longitudinal study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, in which participants have been asked about their religious affiliation, health, physical, educational and social development and economic circumstances over the course of their lives. The survey also pointed to very high levels of religiosity amongst British Muslims. Though there was only a small sample size of 82 British Muslims in the study, 88 per cent said they "knew God really exists and had no doubts about it." Meanwhile, absolute belief in God's existence varied significantly among different Christian denominations. 71 per cent of those who called themselves "evangelical" had no doubts about the existence of God. Just 33 per cent of Roman Catholics had no doubts, whilst just 16 per cent of those affiliated with the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and United Reformed churches said they had "no doubts" that God exists. The results were described by Professor Voas, of the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex, as "characteristic of Europeans generally" in levels of belief or disbelief. Professor Voas, who analysed the survey responses, said; "A substantial proportion of teenagers who reported that religion was an important part of their lives at age 16 became relatively unreligious adults. There is some movement in the opposite direction, but not nearly enough to compensate for the losses to religion."
	Bill to allow prayers in council meetings clears Commons News \| Fri, 16th Jan 2015 A private members' bill to allow local authorities to summon councillors to prayer has successfully completed its passage through the House of Commons and will now go to the Lords for further scrutiny. Jake Berry's Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill seeks to make provision for the inclusion of prayers or "other religious observance" or "observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief" at local authority meetings. In an almost empty chamber, the Bill was opposed solely by Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, who acknowledged that the Bill would not force people to pray, but said it would allow a majority of local councillors to include a practice in the formal business of meetings that might be "embarrassing and possibly even anathema to other councillors". Thanking the National Secular Society for bringing the issue to his attention, Mr Arbuthnot said the NSS has a point when it argued that an absence of prayers from the formal business of local authority meetings doesn't, as some argue, impede the religious freedoms of believers or deny anybody the right to pray. Mr Arbuthnot said: "If local authorities want to hold a moment of reflection at the beginning of a meeting, they can do so. If councillors wish to meet for prayers before the meeting, they can do so, and no change in the law is needed to achieve it. So it is the principle of the Bill that is of concern to me". Making reference to prayers in Parliament, he said the practice seemed "out of touch with the majority of the people we represent, because only a tiny proportion of our constituents go to church." Mr Arbuthnot used the debate to come out publicly as an atheist, saying it had taken him 28 years "and the knowledge that I will not be standing at the next election" to make the announcement. Mr Arbuthnot said he was "not in the least religious" and was "perfectly comfortable with that". However, he said for Conservative politicians in particular, the pressure to keep quiet about not being religious was very similar to the pressure that there has been to keep quiet about being gay. The National Secular Society praised Mr Arbuthnot for "standing up for secular principles and challenging religious privilege". Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said: "It's a sad reflection of British politics that Mr Arbuthnot felt unable to publicly declare his atheism for so long. The 'Christian Country' narrative being peddled by the prime minister and secretary of state for communities only serves to marginalise non-Christians, when what we should be doing is promoting a secular, pluralistic society in which people of all faiths and none are given equal respect and standing". An amendment tabled by Conservative MP Philip Davies that would have made prayers compulsory at the start of local authority meetings received no support from fellow MPs. Mr Davies insisted he was not "some sort of fundamental Christian", but argued that people serving the public should start their meetings with prayers as reminder of their duty to the people they are elected to serve. Moving an amendment to require councils to keep in mind the "pre-eminence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition", Sir Edward Leigh said he wished to "reaffirm our connection to the past through the actions of the present." He warned of a "grave danger" of people in Britain "lacking an understanding of our history and becoming severed from our roots" which would make people "much easier to manipulate, whether by a Hitler, a Stalin, or some other modern-day tyrant whose dominion we fear." Labour's shadow communities minister and passionate supporter of the Bill, Lyn Brown, said the Bill "seeks to protect a freedom of choice, and indeed a freedom of local choice". She said whether to include prayers or not was a matter for the local authority alone. Describing the legislation as "gentle", communities and local government minister, Penny Mordaunt, insisted the Bill was about "freedom rather than compulsion: the freedom to pray or not to pray; the freedom for a local authority collectively to make a decision to hold prayers as part of official business, or not; and the freedom of individual councillors to attend the meeting during that item of business, or not". With just a handful of MPs present, if any of the tabled amendments had been put to a vote, the Bill would have been unlikely to proceed, as a minimum of 40 MPs must be present to make Parliamentary decisions valid. NSS campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said: "It very concerning that legislation which allows local authorities to impose acts of religious worship on public servants should get such an easy passage through the House of Commons. We trust the Lords will give it more serious scrutiny. "This Bill really needs to be exposed for what it is, an attempt by a small number of enthusiastic Christians to push their religion further into the public sphere." See also: our briefing paper on the Bill.
	Malta to reform blasphemy law News \| Mon, 19th Jan 2015 The Republic of Malta is to reform its long-standing blasphemy law, according to a report in the Sunday Times of Malta. Malta's Criminal Code prohibits blasphemy under a section on the "Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion", and the Code has not been updated since 1933. Breaching the blasphemy law as it stands now can result in a six month jail sentence. However, whilst insulting Catholicism can carry the maximum six month sentence, as the Criminal Code recognises the Roman Catholic Church as "the religion of Malta," insulting other faiths can only result in a three month maximum sentence. In 2009 the NSS reported on the case of six young people who narrowly escape a prison sentence after they had dressed up as nuns at a carnival. Initially the Magistrate had ruled that the blasphemy law did not apply because the costumes were not a "sacred garment" and because the six in question were not wearing crosses. The Malta Attorney General appealed this decision and the case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which ruled that "the mere fact of dressing up as nun, even if for carnival, but without wearing any religious symbol, cannot reasonably be considered as amounting to public vilification of the Roman Catholic Religion." However, the judge also noted that "if the wearing of such a habit were accompanied with such circumstances of fact, words or gestures which objectively amount to vilification, then there would be an offence." In 2012, 99 people were convicted for "public blasphemy", down from 119 cases in 2011. A possible reform of the Criminal Code was mooted by a former Parliamentary Secretary for Culture, Dr José Herrera in 2013. He said that "people have a right to express themselves however they like in a modern world. Our policies are liberal, moderate, but liberal. We want to give space, especially in the arts world, so that people won't feel restrained by taboos." The Maltese government had pledged to review the blasphemy law during the last election, and recently expressed condemnation of the attacks in France on the office of Charlie Hebdo and solidarity with the satirical magazine, known for its blasphemous satirical cartoons, and itself the subject of prosecutions under the French blasphemy law.

Quotes of the Week

"Europe mustn't go back to the era before the Enlightenment. Yet that will be the case if the right to blaspheme or to go against anything deemed sacred by some is rejected."
Natalie Nougayrède, Guardian

Essays of the Week

Tory MP Calls for Prayers at Council Meetings
Chris Rooney, Huffington Post

Islamic history is full of free thinkers - but recent attempts to suppress critical thought are verging on the absurd
Ziauddin Sardar, Independent

	BBC Trust upholds NSS complaint over conflation of race and religion News \| Tue, 20th Jan 2015 The National Secular Society has welcomed a ruling from the BBC Trust upholding its complaint over the way in which the BBC framed a story concerning the allocation of places at a Sikh faith school as a 'race issue', rather than as an issue of religious freedom. A news package aired by BBC Asian Network on 23 April 2014 focused on children of non-Sikh parents being allocated places at a Sikh faith school against their parents' wishes. In the piece, which featured NSS campaigns manager Stephen Evans, several non-Sikh parents expressed their unhappiness about their children being allocated places at Khalsa Secondary Academy, a Sikh ethos free school in South Buckinghamshire. The NSS had no complaint with the news package itself, but was concerned about the way in which the story was trailed on social media, and in broadcast introductions, with BBC Asian Network repeatedly referring to the non-Sikh parents as "white parents." In a formal complaint to the BBC, the NSS argued that the repeated reference to "white parents" left the clear insinuation that those parents had racial grounds for objecting to their children attending the school, when in fact the issue was one of religious freedom in education. An initial complaint from the NSS was rejected by the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit after BBC Asian Network's Head of News, Kevin Silverton, argued that the word "white" was used to make it clear the parents involved were "not Asian." He said an alternative such as "non-Sikh" would have been inappropriate because that would usually be taken by the audience to refer to Hindus and Muslims. On appeal, the director of the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit said he was "persuaded by Mr Silverton's reasoning." However, after an appeal to the Editorial Standards Committee to review the ECU's decision, the BBC Trust has upheld the complaint, agreeing that the story was about religious freedom in education and not about race, or racial prejudice. Communicating its findings to the NSS, the BBC Trust said; "The impression was given that white (rather than simply non-Sikh) parents objected to their children being sent to Sikh schools. This did not present an impartial account of the reasons for the parents' position. The Committee concluded that there had been a lack of due impartiality (albeit unwittingly and accidentally) in that it was implied that the parents' objections to faith education were on the grounds of race." The Trust therefore upheld the NSS complaint on grounds of impartiality and accuracy. The Committee did not uphold a complaint "in relation to Fairness, Contributors and Consent", but the central premise of the NSS criticism has now been recognised by the BBC. Responding to the finding, Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said; "The conflation of race with religion is highly problematic in that it seeks to stifle reasonable debate by equating criticism of religious ideas with racism and xenophobia. "The repeated references to non-Sikh parents as 'white parents' inaccurately framed the story as a 'race issue' and unfairly insinuated that the parents had racial – possibly even racist – reasons for their objections to their children attending this school. "The current shortage of school places, coupled with the spread of religious free schools, means more and more children can expect to be allocated schools with a faith ethos against their parents' wishes. It's vital that parents can raise legitimate objections to their children being allocated places at minority faith schools without being portrayed as 'racist'. "Desiring a secular education for your child has nothing to do with your ethnicity. I am pleased that the BBC has now recognised this." The BBC Trust editorial appeals finding can be read here.
	New Charlie Hebdo editor speaks out to defend secularism News \| Mon, 19th Jan 2015 Gérard Biard, editor of Charlie Hebdo, has spoken out on the virtues of a free press and on the importance of satirising religion. Biard was asked about comments made by Pope Francis after the Paris attacks, when the pontiff said: "To kill in the name of God is an aberration… We have the obligation to say openly, to have this liberty, but without giving offence, because it is true, one cannot react violently. "But if … a good friend, says a bad word against my mother, then a punch awaits him. But it's normal, it's normal. Once cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith." Mr Biard said: "Every time that we draw a cartoon of Mohammed, every time that we draw a cartoon of the prophets, every time that we draw a cartoon of God, we defend the freedom of religion. "We declare that God must not be political or public figure, he must be a private figure. We defend the freedom of religion, yes it is also the freedom of speech, but it is the freedom of religion. "Religion should not be a political argument. If faith, if religious arguments, step into the political arena, it becomes a totalitarian argument. Secularism protects us against this. Secularism guarantees democracy and guarantees peace. Secularism allows all believers and non-believers to live in peace and that is what we defend." The Pope's comments after the attack on Charlie Hebdo were widely criticised. Prime Minister David Cameron said: "in a free society, there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion. I'm a Christian, if someone said something about Jesus I might find that offensive, but in a free society I don't have a right to … wreak my vengeance on them. "We have to accept that newspapers, magazines, can publish things that are offensive to some, as long as it's within the law. "That's what we should defend … my job is not to tell a newspaper what to publish or what not to publish, my job is to uphold the law." Meanwhile, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is planning legal action against Charlie Hebdo. The head of the OIC said that the new edition of Charlie Hebdo, which features a cartoon of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, was "an idiotic step that requires necessary legal measures." According to the Independent, "OIC is studying Europe[an] and French laws and other available procedures to be able to take legal action against Charlie Hebdo. "If French law allows us to take legal procedures against Charlie Hebdo, OIC will not hesitate to prosecute the French magazine." French blasphemy laws have previously been used to prosecute critics of Islam. Charlie Hebdo was itself prosecuted last year, by the League of Judicial Defence of Muslims, after the magazine printed a front cover with the slogan "the Koran is crap, it doesn't stop bullets."
	Christian doctor performed exorcism on patient, tribunal told News \| Wed, 21st Jan 2015 A Christian GP took a mentally ill patient to his church to perform an exorcism, and told her she would be cursed if she reported him, a medical tribunal has heard. The patient in question, known only as Patient A, was initially suffering from severe pain after colostomy surgery, and met Dr Thomas O'Brien in August 2012. During their initial contact, Dr O'Brien is said to have asked Patient A if she was religious, and claimed that he and his wife could heal her without medicine. During subsequent conversations, Dr O'Brien is alleged to have told Patient A that "God is her surgeon and God will heal her." Patient A, who also suffered from depression and was reportedly suicidal, claims that Dr O'Brien told her to stop taking her anti-depressants for "religious reasons" and said that psychiatrists "do the devil's work." Dr O'Brien is then said to have performed an exorcism on Patient A, during a four-hour "testimony" at his church. Patient A became convinced that her medical problems were the result of demonic possession. The patient claims that the doctor gave her religious pamphlets, including a book called "An Occult Checklist", written by Dr O'Brien, and which included a "prayer of repentance" that Patient A felt pressured to sign by the doctor and his wife. The patient said that Dr O'Brien quoted the Bible at her, repeatedly prayed with her at home and programmed her television to show The Gospel Channel. Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "It is reassuring that a person such as this is no longer working as a doctor. Let's hope there aren't many others in the NHS who share his rather extreme view of what religion can achieve in a medical setting." Dr O'Brien allegedly told Patient A that "she would be cursed" if she told the General Medical Council about his conduct or about the content of their meetings. Eventually however, Patient A did report the doctor's behaviour to her psychiatrist, who in turn reported Dr O'Brien to the General Medical Council (GMC). At this point, Dr O'Brien complained to the GMC about the psychiatrists' conduct in reporting him, in a case that was quickly thrown out. Dr O'Brien is now facing misconduct charges but says he has resigned from medicine already. Dr Antony Lempert of the Secular Medical Forum said: "Should the allegations against Dr O'Brien be upheld... they represent a wilful disregard of the trusting relationship between patients and their doctor. It is never acceptable for a doctor, working in a trusted professional capacity, to abuse their professional position by trying to change a patient's own personal beliefs. The distress caused to this patient, suffering from physical and psychological symptoms yet subjected to a campaign of religious intrusion and exorcism by the person supposed to be caring for them is difficult to imagine. "Over recent years, we have seen other Christian doctors, such as Dr Richard Scott and Dr Antonia Johnson, who also considered patients fair game in their mission to evangelise and proselytise to the world. These doctors have no place in a profession dedicated to caring for and supporting patients in the context of evidence-based, compassionate medicine based around patients' own beliefs and requirements... It would have been nice to hear a few words of compassion for the patient from Dr O'Brien rather than the continued laments about his own feelings and beliefs." An earlier report into the case said; "The panel is concerned about Dr O'Brien's apparent lack of insight into the seriousness of the allegations against him. It appears that he may have allowed his professional and private boundaries to become blurred, in particular with a vulnerable patient. The panel is further concerned that Dr O'Brien may have also imposed his religious beliefs with regard to the treatment of another patient." Dr O'Brien said; "'The allegations have been severe enough to break anyone down emotionally and I'm grateful for my faith which sustained me throughout the ordeal." He had previously described the accusations as attacks on his "private Christian faith and life" and said the claims about the exorcism are a "total fabrication." Dr O'Brien said that he has "forgiven" Patient A.
	BBC Panorama, “the battle for British Islam” and the nonsense of “peaceful” or “violent” Muslims Opinion \| Thu, 22nd Jan 2015 NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones argues that the problem of Islamism is obscured by politicians and others simplistically categorising Muslims as either 'peaceful' or 'violent'. On 12 January, BBC Panorama featured British Muslims campaigning for a secularised, liberal or non-literalist interpretation of the Islamic faith. John Ware reported the view of reformers that radicalisation is the product of "an extreme but nonviolent ideology" that helps "push Muslims into the arms of violent extremists." The non-violent majority of Muslims are lazily and meaninglessly described as 'peaceful.' Politicians should instead be adopting Maajid Nawaz's much more relevant criteria of 'liberal' and 'secular.' Doing so will aid the fight against extremism. As BBC Panorama chillingly showed, whilst most British Muslims are peaceful, many are simultaneously anti-secular, and opposed to liberal/British/secular values (including the freedom to change or leave religion and freedom of expression, particularly relating to the Prophet Mohammed). The unenlightened view that the law should intervene to prevent certain acts of blasphemy is extremely widespread among British Muslims; as polling after the Danish cartoon riots showed; 78% of British Muslims at that time said that the publishers of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed should be prosecuted. Describing Muslims who hold this view as 'peaceful' does not really tell us anything meaningful about their ideology or their politics, and it obscures a deep malaise in society. The 'peaceful' description allows a complacent evasion of the underlying problem. How often is this done by politicians out of unwillingness to confront the problem, out of fear and for political expediency? Without acknowledging a problem, it cannot be solved, and this lazy and spineless evasion robs the reformers within Islam of the tools and support they need. A great many within British and Western Muslim communities do feel that the Prophet Mohammed should be protected from criticism, satire, ridicule or even simple depiction. Alarmingly, for many, polls show their strength of feeling on this matter extends beyond a social prohibition on depicting Mohammed, (akin to politeness); though clearly it does not extend as far as support for the undertaking of actual violence. There is a broad continuum of belief on this matter; which ranges from the secular view that no-one has the right to not be offended, then that the cartoons are offensive but should not be prohibited by law, through the dangerous view that the law (in the interests of social cohesion and/or decency) should ban depictions of the Prophet, ending finally with the extremist commandment that those who make images of the Prophet should be killed, either under the power of the law or at the hands of terrorists. There are those within and outside Islam who fit on this spectrum. Some non-Muslims favour the 'social cohesion' or 'good manners' argument, exemplified by Pope Francis in comments for which he has received unprecedented criticism. Some even go to the next rung on the apologist ladder. George Galloway, speaking at an event billed as a 'free speech' rally, told his audience that "for the sake of social peace, for the sake of unity in our society we have to demand from our government the protection of the prophets from obscene and pornographic provocation and in parliament I intend to fight for that." This is an explicitly anti-secular ideology, and one which secularists (by which I include anyone who doesn't want to see the laws and diktats of any religion imposed upon all of society) must grapple with unless we wish to see the clock turned back hundreds of years on the progressive triumphs on the expansion of free speech and the right to blaspheme. This rampant anti-secularism is widespread; and blithely repeating that 'most British Muslims are peaceful' will not help us deal with, or win, the ideological conflict. It also sets a very low bar. Is 'peace' alone really enough to foster a strong, functioning society? Or must there in fact be a deeper foundation of shared values, (regardless of whether we call them universal, British, secular, liberal, or democratic values). There is a large block of anti-secular thought, from which terrorism emanates, and which poses serious problems to those who campaign for an enlightened, secular, free society. We need to find out what proportion of British Muslims are opposed to core, secular values, most noticeably free speech where religion is concerned, and the freedom to apostatize. The overwhelming majority may not ever act upon this view, much less act violently, but it is clear that a campaign for 'hearts and minds' needs to begin at home. More polling on the opinions of British Muslims would help ascertain the scope of this ideological gulf. Anyone who wants to use the force of the state to protect their feelings is a part of the problem; a problem we mask when we limit our discussion with an arbitrary and meaningless delineation of 'violent' and 'peaceful' Muslims. There is a trenchant strand of anti-secularism amongst 'peaceful Muslims', and we must raise the bar higher than the mere absence of violence. We are facing our own, unique version of a culture war, and we should get our terminology straight now- so that the secular Islam proposed by reformers like Sara Khan or Maajid Nawaz is strengthened and nourished (both from within the faith and from outside). BBC Panorama "The Battle for British Islam" can be viewed here. It first aired on 12 January 2015.
	Rendering unto Caesar Opinion \| Mon, 19th Jan 2015 The established Church throws stones from inside its Government-subsidised glass cathedral, argues Alistair McBay. The Church of England was in the news again last week as it tried to prove its relevance to 21^st century Britain. After the embarrassing PR fiasco over its investments in payday lender Wonga, the Church has led with its chin again (to maintain the current popular theme of Christian pugilism). It has published a series of essays under the title 'On Rock or Sand?' Which on the one hand attacks the Westminster Government (the current one that claims it 'does God') for its record on tackling inequality and poverty, and on the other condemns modern Britain's selfish focus on consumerism and individualism. Initial reaction was less than positive, to put it mildly. Writing in the Times, Sky political editor Adam Boulton referred to last year's YouGov and Lancaster University research into the church's shepherds and their flock. According to Linda Woodhead, the professor in charge, they found a "gulf between recent church statements on welfare and the attitudes of a majority of churchgoers in the C of E". The study found that almost three quarters (74%) of Anglicans believed that the benefits system created a culture of dependency but less than a third of their vicars agreed with them. There was a mixed bag of reaction on the Thinking Anglicans website, with one contributor stating the Archbishops' statements were "biased, unfair and totally political." Another commented: "the legislation requiring compulsory Christian prayers before all local government meetings will certainly be good at driving out non-Christians, but it's a bit difficult to see how it fits with the professed desire to fight for equality." It only took 24 hours for the claim to the moral high ground to unravel. The launch of the campaign took place on Monday 13^th January, and on the 14^th the BBC carried the story of a vicar's daughter chaining herself to the railings of a church building close to Westminster Abbey, in the latest protest at the Church Commissioners' plans to build a retail park in Leighton Buzzard. The doughty Ms Victoria Harvey, a Friends of the Earth supporter, was unforgiving in her criticism, saying "It is disgraceful the Church Commissioners are breaking their ethical policy for a quick buck at the expense of our local community." Her father, the Reverend Dr Anthony Harvey, added to the chorus of disapproval as he felt "bound to protest" at the Church Commissioners abandoning their mission to be a "model of a mutually dependent and caring community". This was the second protest about the Church Commissioners' plans, after the first in May 2014 outside Westminster Abbey. The Commissioners said then that the proposed development would: "provide a much-needed facility for the town, attract new inward investment and create a large number of jobs for local people". But the locals were convinced it would kill the town centre by taking a minimum of £2m in trade from it. Responding to this week's protest, the Church Commissioners' head of strategic land investment, said: "Our guiding principle from the outset has been to offer real retail choice in Leighton Buzzard, which complements the town centre offer." These words and this proposed development of 5 shops and a restaurant might come as a surprise to those lectured the day before by Archbishops Welby and Sentamu on the evils of the consumer society. That a religious institution needs a "head of strategic land investment" may raise one eyebrow, but when the same institution condemns retail consumerism one day and its own clergy condemns its retail development plans the next, then both eyebrows should be raised. It's a bit like Alcoholics Anonymous condemning the evils of alcohol while building pubs. But the Church cashing in on the very consumerism it condemns is nothing new. The Church Commissioner's most recent report shows it still invests in the Gateshead Metro centre, the construction of which it originally financed. The Metro Centre comprises over 300 shops and 1.9million square feet of retail space. In October 1995, it was sold for £364m, although the Church Commissioners continue to receive 10% of the net rents. It also had a hand in developing Cheshire Oaks in Ellesmere Port, the first and largest Designer Outlet retail centre. In the middle of the recession, another of the Church Commissioners' reports boasted that its Hyde Park Connaught Village development was to focus "on boutique fashion, specialist retailers, galleries and high quality restaurants" and announced "a number of exciting new retailers" to be added. The Church also increased its investment in retail warehousing, which it saw as a growth opportunity. And so it has proved. By the end of 2010 the Church of England's assets had increased from £4.8bn to £5.3bn and now stand in excess of £6bn. Over the past 20 years its investment fund has achieved an average return of RPI +6.7% per annum, and in 2013 it grew by 15.9%. That's not bad going for any business in very poor trading conditions, far less one primarily (we think, anyway) in the religion business. One reason for this success, aside from its massive ongoing investment in 'evil' consumerism, is the Church Commissioners' investment in private equity. As then Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams was criticising fellow Christian PM Gordon Brown for maintaining a society "driven by unsustainable greed", the Church Commissioners were switching huge sums to this asset class. Before the banks became our whipping boys of choice, the amoral asset-stripping city spivs were the private equity companies, condemned by the TUC for using huge levels of debt and excessive management incentives to achieve their goals. However, this didn't deter the Church raising its investment in 2008 by £61.5m, no doubt due to its private equity funds portfolio generating a whopping 34% return in 2007, against a total return for the entire portfolio of 9.4%. For 2013 it returned 13.4%. Its latest available report states: "Over the long term our private equity portfolio has significantly outperformed quoted equity markets and we plan to expand the allocation to the asset class significantly over the next few years." Rowan Williams said Brown's plan to spend his way out of a recession was akin to an addict returning to a drug. Clearly the Church's drug of choice is private equity. The Church has also been criticised for having a stock lending programme, a practice used for short-selling, and has also traded in debts, with the Commissioners selling a £135m mortgage portfolio in 2007. In 2009, it had an investment of over £60m in Tesco and Unilever, who have shared last place in the ethical ranking of Britain's top 100 companies. At the end of 2013 it still had both in its top 20 equity holdings. It also continued to have £39m invested in HSBC, a bank whose contribution to banking scandals we commented on here, and £18m in Lloyds Banking Group which was fined a record £28m by the Financial Conduct Authority last year. This was for creating a "culture of mis-selling among its branch staff – a culture so focused on the sale at any cost that it drove some to sell products to themselves to meet targets and spare them the axe or a salary cut." The Commissioners state in their latest report that they were part of the successful consortium bidding for a branch network of RBS. "We see this as both an exciting investment opportunity and also the chance to create a 'good' bank," they said, while omitting to point out that for the time being at least they will also remain invested in 'bad' ones. The Church's much-vaunted ethical investment policy has been consistently exposed in other areas. To cite just one example, Ekklesia reported that it failed to prevent investing in Caterpillar, the US company that makes the bulldozers which are exported to Israel and have been used in the illegal mass demolition of Palestinian homes. When the Church finally did sell its shares after pressure from, among others, its own General Synod, it stressed that it did so for financial and not ethical reasons "thus revealing that it sees finance and ethics in two categories. That is dangerous and un-theological dualism". As Ekklesia further opined, "this all makes the Church's ongoing criticism of city bank robbers, greed, unregulated capitalism, debt and short-selling, ring rather hollow. It also sadly undermines any proposals the Church may come up with for substantial change in a system in which it is itself deeply immersed." Another system in which this £6bn business is deeply immersed is Government hand-outs, in the form of what might be called tax amelioration rather than tax avoidance. When the Government announced it would end the zero-rated VAT concession on church repairs, the resulting outcry led to the Chancellor setting aside £30m per annum to continue to subsidise the practice, on top of £12m already provided to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme. Which among other things provides funding for auto-winding turret clocks, pipe organs, bells and bell ropes. These are clearly items that a £6bn business empire can't really afford to buy for itself. In December, a further £15m was set aside for cathedral repairs, which the Church "wholeheartedly welcomed". That's £57m in Government subsidy for Christianity, to an established Church with assets exceeding £6,000,000,000. Don't forget this is the same Church that denounced the likes of Starbucks, Amazon and Google for tax avoidance. Perhaps the final irony can be found in the Church's aforesaid new book, "On Rock or Sand?" – available from Amazon priced £6.99, for all you evil consumers out there. Our established Church's latest report on inequality and poverty advocates a new redistribution of wealth, quoting the slogan popularised by Karl Marx: "From each, according to his resources, to each, according to his need." Does practise what you preach come into it, anywhere? Or perhaps Matthew 6:21 is more appropriate – "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Alistair McBay is a member of the NSS Council. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the NSS. Image: "Render unto Caesar" by Peter Paul Rubens
	Study finds women are far more likely to be religious than men News \| Wed, 21st Jan 2015 A UCL Institute of Education study of 9,000 Britons in their forties has found that women are far more likely than men to be religious believers, whilst more than half of the men surveyed described themselves as atheists or agnostics. The survey found that women are "much more likely to be definite" in their belief than men, whilst "among non-believers, men are much more likely to be definite than women." The study concluded that men are twice as likely as women to say that God does not exist, and significantly less likely to believe in life after death. 63 per cent of male atheists did not believe in life after death, compared with 36 per cent of female atheists. Nearly half of those involved in the survey did not identify with any religion, whilst the remainder said they had a "Christian background." Smaller numbers identified as Muslims, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist. The survey called upon members of the 1970 British Cohort Study, a longitudinal study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, in which participants have been asked about their religious affiliation, health, physical, educational and social development and economic circumstances over the course of their lives. The survey also pointed to very high levels of religiosity amongst British Muslims. Though there was only a small sample size of 82 British Muslims in the study, 88 per cent said they "knew God really exists and had no doubts about it." Meanwhile, absolute belief in God's existence varied significantly among different Christian denominations. 71 per cent of those who called themselves "evangelical" had no doubts about the existence of God. Just 33 per cent of Roman Catholics had no doubts, whilst just 16 per cent of those affiliated with the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian and United Reformed churches said they had "no doubts" that God exists. The results were described by Professor Voas, of the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex, as "characteristic of Europeans generally" in levels of belief or disbelief. Professor Voas, who analysed the survey responses, said; "A substantial proportion of teenagers who reported that religion was an important part of their lives at age 16 became relatively unreligious adults. There is some movement in the opposite direction, but not nearly enough to compensate for the losses to religion."
	Bill to allow prayers in council meetings clears Commons News \| Fri, 16th Jan 2015 A private members' bill to allow local authorities to summon councillors to prayer has successfully completed its passage through the House of Commons and will now go to the Lords for further scrutiny. Jake Berry's Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill seeks to make provision for the inclusion of prayers or "other religious observance" or "observance connected with a religious or philosophical belief" at local authority meetings. In an almost empty chamber, the Bill was opposed solely by Conservative MP James Arbuthnot, who acknowledged that the Bill would not force people to pray, but said it would allow a majority of local councillors to include a practice in the formal business of meetings that might be "embarrassing and possibly even anathema to other councillors". Thanking the National Secular Society for bringing the issue to his attention, Mr Arbuthnot said the NSS has a point when it argued that an absence of prayers from the formal business of local authority meetings doesn't, as some argue, impede the religious freedoms of believers or deny anybody the right to pray. Mr Arbuthnot said: "If local authorities want to hold a moment of reflection at the beginning of a meeting, they can do so. If councillors wish to meet for prayers before the meeting, they can do so, and no change in the law is needed to achieve it. So it is the principle of the Bill that is of concern to me". Making reference to prayers in Parliament, he said the practice seemed "out of touch with the majority of the people we represent, because only a tiny proportion of our constituents go to church." Mr Arbuthnot used the debate to come out publicly as an atheist, saying it had taken him 28 years "and the knowledge that I will not be standing at the next election" to make the announcement. Mr Arbuthnot said he was "not in the least religious" and was "perfectly comfortable with that". However, he said for Conservative politicians in particular, the pressure to keep quiet about not being religious was very similar to the pressure that there has been to keep quiet about being gay. The National Secular Society praised Mr Arbuthnot for "standing up for secular principles and challenging religious privilege". Stephen Evans, NSS campaigns manager, said: "It's a sad reflection of British politics that Mr Arbuthnot felt unable to publicly declare his atheism for so long. The 'Christian Country' narrative being peddled by the prime minister and secretary of state for communities only serves to marginalise non-Christians, when what we should be doing is promoting a secular, pluralistic society in which people of all faiths and none are given equal respect and standing". An amendment tabled by Conservative MP Philip Davies that would have made prayers compulsory at the start of local authority meetings received no support from fellow MPs. Mr Davies insisted he was not "some sort of fundamental Christian", but argued that people serving the public should start their meetings with prayers as reminder of their duty to the people they are elected to serve. Moving an amendment to require councils to keep in mind the "pre-eminence of the Judaeo-Christian tradition", Sir Edward Leigh said he wished to "reaffirm our connection to the past through the actions of the present." He warned of a "grave danger" of people in Britain "lacking an understanding of our history and becoming severed from our roots" which would make people "much easier to manipulate, whether by a Hitler, a Stalin, or some other modern-day tyrant whose dominion we fear." Labour's shadow communities minister and passionate supporter of the Bill, Lyn Brown, said the Bill "seeks to protect a freedom of choice, and indeed a freedom of local choice". She said whether to include prayers or not was a matter for the local authority alone. Describing the legislation as "gentle", communities and local government minister, Penny Mordaunt, insisted the Bill was about "freedom rather than compulsion: the freedom to pray or not to pray; the freedom for a local authority collectively to make a decision to hold prayers as part of official business, or not; and the freedom of individual councillors to attend the meeting during that item of business, or not". With just a handful of MPs present, if any of the tabled amendments had been put to a vote, the Bill would have been unlikely to proceed, as a minimum of 40 MPs must be present to make Parliamentary decisions valid. NSS campaigns manager, Stephen Evans, said: "It very concerning that legislation which allows local authorities to impose acts of religious worship on public servants should get such an easy passage through the House of Commons. We trust the Lords will give it more serious scrutiny. "This Bill really needs to be exposed for what it is, an attempt by a small number of enthusiastic Christians to push their religion further into the public sphere." See also: our briefing paper on the Bill.
	Malta to reform blasphemy law News \| Mon, 19th Jan 2015 The Republic of Malta is to reform its long-standing blasphemy law, according to a report in the Sunday Times of Malta. Malta's Criminal Code prohibits blasphemy under a section on the "Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion", and the Code has not been updated since 1933. Breaching the blasphemy law as it stands now can result in a six month jail sentence. However, whilst insulting Catholicism can carry the maximum six month sentence, as the Criminal Code recognises the Roman Catholic Church as "the religion of Malta," insulting other faiths can only result in a three month maximum sentence. In 2009 the NSS reported on the case of six young people who narrowly escape a prison sentence after they had dressed up as nuns at a carnival. Initially the Magistrate had ruled that the blasphemy law did not apply because the costumes were not a "sacred garment" and because the six in question were not wearing crosses. The Malta Attorney General appealed this decision and the case went to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which ruled that "the mere fact of dressing up as nun, even if for carnival, but without wearing any religious symbol, cannot reasonably be considered as amounting to public vilification of the Roman Catholic Religion." However, the judge also noted that "if the wearing of such a habit were accompanied with such circumstances of fact, words or gestures which objectively amount to vilification, then there would be an offence." In 2012, 99 people were convicted for "public blasphemy", down from 119 cases in 2011. A possible reform of the Criminal Code was mooted by a former Parliamentary Secretary for Culture, Dr José Herrera in 2013. He said that "people have a right to express themselves however they like in a modern world. Our policies are liberal, moderate, but liberal. We want to give space, especially in the arts world, so that people won't feel restrained by taboos." The Maltese government had pledged to review the blasphemy law during the last election, and recently expressed condemnation of the attacks in France on the office of Charlie Hebdo and solidarity with the satirical magazine, known for its blasphemous satirical cartoons, and itself the subject of prosecutions under the French blasphemy law.

Newsline 23 January 2015

News, Blogs & Opinion

Quotes of the Week

Essays of the Week

Sign up for our newsletter