Trouble reading this email? View newsletter online.

Newsline 4 April 2014

Newsline is a weekly round-up of news and opinion from the NSS website. If you're not already a member, becoming one is the most tangible way of supporting our work. Our campaigning is wholly supported by our members, people like you who share our belief that secularism is an essential element in promoting equality between all citizens. Please join today.

Secularist of the Year awarded to Turkish MP, Safak Pavey

Secularist of the Year awarded to Turkish MP, Safak Pavey

News | Sat, 29 Mar 2014

Turkish MP and human rights campaigner, Safak Pavey, has been named Secularist of the Year at an award ceremony hosted by the National Secular Society.

Secular values, not religion, make us a tolerant society

Secular values, not religion, make us a tolerant society

Opinion | Sat, 29 Mar 2014

When trying to reach reasoned and compassionate judgments, religion is frequently a source of confusion rather than light, argues Oliver Kamm.

The secular mind is better equipped than religion to reach reasoned and compassionate judgments. That was the argument of Ian McEwan at the Oxford Literary Festival this week. It should not be controversial. Religious belief resolves no moral problem and yields no knowledge. On the contrary, much suffering is caused by people who believe they know the will of God and have a duty to enforce it.

Of course, not all religions are like that. The Unitarians are different from the Church of Scientology. Liberal Judaism is not the creed of the messianic settlers on the West Bank. The ideas of Spinoza and Bertrand Russell appeal to me, but I'd settle for the victory of moderate forms of religion, which accept science and pluralism, over absolutist ones.

Despite their outward differences, however, religions typically have a lethal assumption in common: that faith is a virtue. How often have you heard someone described as a person of deep religious convictions and for this to be meant as a criticism?

It ought to be, and McEwan does public debate a service in suggesting it. Religious affiliation is less divisive in Western societies than it was 300 years ago. That's not because believers have lately had a divine revelation about the need to live in peace with others and respect their human rights. It's because liberal, secular values have tamed religion as a source of conflict. It isn't the Bible or the Koran that has made Western societies democratic and tolerant. It's the idea, encapsulated in Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, that what people believe is irrelevant to public office. As the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: "All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in their political cause by investing it with religious sanctity. This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion than of light in the political realm."

The decline of religious observance in modern democratic societies is an important civilising influence. Even moderate forms of religion don't regard criticism as a way of social and personal betterment. Instead, they try to accommodate traditional (and often ancient) religious doctrines to new discoveries. And that's religion at its most benign. The more potent form of faith seeks to justify doctrines and practices that defy rationality and compassion. Not all inhumanity is due to religion but religious obscurantism, even by mainstream churches, coexists with inhumane conclusions. Refuse abortion, even in the case of rape, incest or severe foetal abnormality? Tell devoted homosexual couples that their selfless love and care for each other is sinful? It takes religious dogma to do that.

In the Book of Judges, Jephthah vows to sacrifice "whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house" on his return if God will grant him victory over the Ammonites. He, at least, has the decency to tear his clothes when this turns out to be his daughter. In Byron's telling, she urges Jephthah to "forget not I smiled as I died". That imperishable image of fanaticism is the fruit of faith. Civilisation depends on overcoming it.

Oliver Kamm is a leader writer and columnist for The Times. This article was originally published in The Times and is reproduced here with kind permission. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.

Being called a ‘fundamentalist secularist’ is an insult I would welcome

Being called a ‘fundamentalist secularist’ is an insult I would welcome

Opinion | Thu, 03 Apr 2014

George Gillett defends the fundamentals of secularism against the persistent attempts by some politicians and media commentators to misrepresent the term. The debate on how to create a society that protects and is fair to people of all faiths and none can only begin once politicians stop misrepresenting secularism as a slur to protect their own religious agendas in government.

This article originally appeared in George's blog Against the grain

Last week, Baroness Warsi, Minister for State and Communities, described Richard Dawkins as a 'secular fundamentalist'. This is just the most recent of attacks on what has been described as 'militant secularists' and 'secularist propaganda' in the media, levelled at campaigners concerned with the relationship between religious organisation and the state. Yet although Warsi so readily treats secularism as an insult, she fails to explain what exactly makes it so radical.

Dawkins perhaps was an easy target; he seems to have suffered a decline in support over the past few years, including condemnation from previous supporters within the atheist community. It has become fashionable for journalists to criticise his lack of 'relevance' and maturity, his 'crudity', and it was gleefully reported when he'd dropped out of a Prospect magazine list of the world's best thinkers last month. Writing about the decision, the editor of Prospect magazine commented that 'it's hard to imagine that many people have been actually persuaded out of their faith by [Dawkins'] anti-religious writings'.

These criticisms, targeted at atheists and secularists almost indiscriminately, represent a grave misunderstanding. Contrary to popular misconception, secularism and atheism are separate entities, each able to exist without the other. Baroness Warsi, alongside much of the right-wing press, seems to have misunderstood this.

Dawkins himself isn't an atheist (he's agnostic), and his work goes far beyond trying to convince people that their religious convictions are wrong. Rather, he highlights the injustice in society caused by the special treatment that particular religious views are granted, and the prejudice that non-believers are faced with. Secularism isn't a radical movement trying to destroy all religion, it only aims to stop state preference for a single religion, in order to grant all beliefs equality under the law. Similarly, it aims to protect religious organisations from state interference.

Only last Saturday were we reminded of the importance of secularism, when presented with the UK's first ever same-sex marriages, the result of 22 years of campaigning and an issue that continues to divide opinion. Whilst the LGBTQ community and its allies celebrated, many religious figures were left concerned that the move had 'redefined' the 'religious institution' of marriage. Of course, had a secularist policy existed in the UK, the state would never have adopted a religious definition of a union between spouses, and the Church wouldn't have had to worry about their intervention in law-making being redefined.

It seems ironic then, that Baroness Warsi is eager to criticise secularism, which defends the autonomy of both the state and religious organisations, whilst also raising concerns about the Equal Marriage bill. It seems clear that Warsi, like many others, opposes secularism in an attempt to maintain their religious agenda in government, an act that is clearly undemocratic.

In contrast, secularism is rooted in democracy and equality, principles that are cherished by the UK public, but happily compromised when it comes to religious issues. The consequences of tying religion with the state are clear; in a 2011 poll, only 29 per cent of the British public declared themselves as religious, yet 26 unelected (male) bishops sit in the House of Lords. These unelected bishops are free to preside over law-making as they wish, enforcing their exclusively religious agenda onto new legislation.

Education also suffers from religious prejudices; in faith schools, religious groups benefit from discrimination in admissions policies for students based on their parents' religion. These schools constitute one third of all state schools, receiving vast state funding, yet children as young as four years old are routinely denied places because of their parents' church going habits. Most importantly, the majority of the UK public believe state schools should be secular, yet there is no government policy to represent these views.

Healthcare spending is also dominated by a religious lobby; the NHS, currently facing a funding crisis, spends £29 million each year on chaplaincies to pursue a religious agenda in hospitals. Secularists question this, and suggest that the money should instead be spent on medical treatment with proven clinical benefit.

Likewise, animal rights are infringed because of the special treatment religious belief is given; whilst fox-hunting and cosmetic testing on animals is banned, the brutal and painful killing of animals for Kosher and Halal meat is routine in slaughterhouses across the UK. Although condemned by advisory bodies to both the UK government and the EU, the method still continues. Secularists challenge this extraordinary influence that religious groups have in influencing government policy.

And secularism doesn't only benefit atheists and agnostics. The movement has support from a number of religious figures; Giles Fraser, a Church of England priest, has spoken of how 'society is too diverse to sustain a state religion'. Gandhi too, showed support for the movement, once describing an ideal society;

'The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is everybody's personal concern.'

So, why then, is secularism so readily scorned? The movement aims to protect freedom of religion, alongside democracy and equality; beliefs that are all widely supported among the public. Yet when Baroness Warsi and the right-wing media use the term 'fundamentalist secularist', they use it as a stand-alone jibe.

Here's the thing. I'm proud to say that I'm a secular fundamentalist. In the same way I'm proud to be a fundamentalist on civil rights, universal suffrage and the campaign against homophobia. According to the Oxford English dictionary, 'fundamentalism' is defined as 'the strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline'. When did it become a bad thing to hold some basic principles and adhere to them; when did 'fundamentalism' become a dirty word?

I take a strict adherence against racism, sexism and homophobia. I also take a strict adherence to the idea that nobody should be granted privilege in law-making because of their religious belief, and that state provision shouldn't be targeted at one religious community to the neglect of others.

You can lace up secularism with dirty words such as fundamentalist, radical and militant, in the same way that anti-apartheid, feminist and civil rights campaigns have been described. To use such a term to denigrate someone only highlights a reluctance to engage in debate, and to instead ignore and ridicule their beliefs because they are different to your own.

Those who claim Dawkins will not succeed in eradicating religious belief in society are probably right. But fortunately, that isn't what most atheists want. It certainly isn't what secularism aims to do. Baroness Warsi and sections of the media are pretending otherwise in order to silence secularism and pursue a religious agenda. We cannot allow this to happen; a debate is needed on why a small religious elite are granted such preference and disproportional influence in our society.

It is this debate that secularists, both religious and otherwise, are fighting for. The movement doesn't aim to destroy or dismantle religion, but to create a society where no one group is granted special privilege or power. A society which ensures that all beliefs are protected and welcomed equally. But this debate can only be had once you stop using 'secularism' as a slur.

Photo credit Dave Fayram

George Gillett is a medical student at the University of Oxford, he writes about current affairs for the Huffington Post and Left Foot Forward, as well as regularly contributing to both of Oxford's student newspapers. This article originally appeared on his blog Against the grain. You can follow him on Twitter @george_gillett

NSS Speaks Out

Our campaigns manager Stephen Evans was quoted in The Telegraph and the Times Educational Supplement over faith schools being banned from censoring exam papers following an NSS investigation.

NSS executive director Keith Porteous Wood was quoted in The Times following the Equality and Human Rights Commission's criticism of the St Margaret's Catholic adoption ruling. He also discussed the Law society's guidance on 'shaira compliant wills' on a number of BBC local radio stations.

A letter from NSS President Terry Sanderson calling for reform of religious education was published in the Times Education Supplement.

This email has been sent to you by National Secular Society in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Address: 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL, United Kingdom.
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7404 3126

Please Note: Newsline provides links to external websites for information and in the interests of free exchange. We do not accept any responsibility for the content of those sites, nor does a link indicate approval or imply endorsement of those sites.

Please feel free to use the material in this Newsline with appropriate acknowledgement of source. Neither Newsline nor the NSS is responsible for the content of websites to which it provides links. Nor does the NSS or Newsline necessarily endorse quotes and comments by contributors, they are brought to you in the interests of the free exchange of information and open debate.