The National Secular Society reports that 99 people were convicted in Malta of ‘public blasphemy’ in 2012, down from 119 in 2011.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/04/ninety-nine-people-convicted-of-blasphemy-in-malta-last-year

Once again there have been further stories of Christians being the victims of apparent discrimination. First, a councillor has vowed to fight on for his claim  that he was unduly discriminated because of his viewpoints on homosexuality.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Gay-row-counsellor-fight-appeal/story-18787713-detail/story.html#axzz2RNCyjSr7

Meanwhile, a nurse is to appeal a discrimination ruling which prevents her from wearing a crucifix at work.

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/Crucifix-nurse-appeal-discrimination-ruling/story-18779674-detail/story.html#axzz2RNDNff5o

According to Catherine Pepinster, A.C. Grayling’s new book The God Argument is a “stern, unrelenting and unforgiving” attack on faith, a “vilification of theists” written in the style of “an angry Old Testament prophet”. Grayling, we are told, is guilty of “railing at religionists” such as the theist philosopherAlvin Plantinga, whose version of the ontological argument for the existence of God causes Grayling “to see red”.

At this point, those of us familiar with Grayling’s work might begin to smell a rat. Typically so measured in his tone and tolerant in his outlook, what could have happened to transform him into this pugnacious, fire-breathing polemicist?

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/andrew-doyle/god-argument-ac-grayling_b_2985912.html

By Ian Horsewell

As I type this, the YAH4schools campaign is past 30% but not yet a third of the way to our target of £32000. Maybe by the time you read it, we will be; and if so, it will be because of people like you.

Unlike Michael Gove, none of the people involved know any rich political donors who can help out. Instead, the entire project – dreamed up by me after reading Alom’s fantastic book, to get a copy into every secondary school – relies on the kindness of many strangers.  I know why I thought the book was worth sharing with a wider audience. I know why the publishers chose to help by heavily discounting a print edition. I know why the British Humanist Association chose to support the campaign with organisation and resources. But surely what’s more relevant is why, over the past four months, just short of 500 donors have contributed too? I didn’t want to write about the project again myself, or even about the book, but fortunately I don’t have to. Instead I can use more ‘copy and paste’ than a Year Ten student’s homework, because people are adding their own comments and words of inspiration as they donate their money.

Some donors have shared thoughts of their own school days.

“I wish I had such book when I started to have doubts about religion (I was 13).” Samuele

Others have looked to the future as well as the past.

“Let’s have a free, kinder world.” Leslie

“The battle to liberate young minds is the key to the future.” Michael

“The world would be a better place if every school child could be encouraged to read this book.” Stella

“We should wish an enquiring mind of every young adult, and small steps such as this will one day make all the difference.” Georgia

“I hope lots of young people get the chance to read this book.” Frank

Many want young people to be able to make a more informed choice, and to discover that choosing a non-religious path does not have to be negative.

“Open the book; opens the mind.” Stanley

“Kids must have the option and the information to choose for themselves.” Brian

“This is so important. There is no such thing as a Catholic child, a Muslim child or any other religious label. Let them decide for themselves.” Gavin

“Hoping this project will improve understanding that atheism can be a legitimate, positive philosophy.” Joanne

“A few pounds to allow children to educate themselves and come to their own decisions. Well worth it.” Neil

Some simply want to share a book they have greatly enjoyed.

“This book has more love than any religious text or sermon I’ve heard. I had religious stuff forced on me at school; this is a breath of fresh air.” Alice

“I love this book and would be happy to see it in school libraries everywhere.” Jackie

“Loved the book. A great opportunity for kids to read this.” Andy

I should point out that of course I’ve only been able to include a fraction of the comments added. Many have chosen to remain anonymous anyway. If you’d like to read the words of our generous donors in full, you’ll have to check out the list at the Just Giving page; perhaps you could add your own money and words at the same time. What will your reasons be? What matters most to you?

I’ll leave the last words to Fawzia, who I think speaks for every donor, large or small, signed or anonymous – and we thank you all.

“Count me in.”

The New Statesman cover story ‘After God: What can atheists learn from believers?’ is now online:
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2013/03/after-god-what-can-atheists-learn-believers

By Les Collins

You can make one of at least five responses to religion (perhaps you can think of more):

You can accept it wholeheartedly
You can grudgingly accept it half-heartedly
You can reject it completely
You can deny other people the right to practise religion; you can actively campaign against it and seek to destroy it
You can acknowledge other people’s right to believe, and give them the freedom to do so.

If you accept religion wholeheartedly you might say you have been converted, born again or saved.  You might say you believe in that religion, and accept it on a personal level.  If you have a half-hearted response to religion you might accept it, shall we say, at a “corporate” level: you feel yourself to be part of that religion, although you have not made an all-out commitment to it.  You might feel that you “belong” to the Church of England, for instance, and you might put down on official forms that your religion is “C of E”.  You might even consider yourself to be an agnostic, yet still feel a nostalgic attachment to the church.  You might feel the need to keep your options open, in case there really is a last judgement and eternal hell.

On the other hand, if you reject religion completely, you might do so because you consider yourself to be an atheist.  This may be because you were not brought up in a religious family, and have never really thought about belonging to a religion, or it might be that you have thought carefully over a long period about the existence of a deity, and you have come to a rational conclusion that there is no god, and that you can live a good moral life without religion.

If you feel so strongly about the absence of god that you actively oppose religion, and you believe that people who follow a religion are deluded, then you might well campaign against religion and seek ways of destroying it.

On the other hand, although you have lost your faith, if you ever had one, you still accept the right of other people to believe: you “tolerate” the existence of their religion, and you only “passively oppose” it.

Surely, as humanists, this last approach is the one we should be following.  It is true that we may feel that religion has done a great deal of harm over the centuries, and indeed still does.  It is true that the Christian church has sought to evangelise the whole world, to take the “gospel” on missionary expeditions to all the colonies of the empires that its European countries conquered.  It is true that the Church has dealt very cruelly with dissenters down the ages, has branded them as heretics, tortured them and burnt them at the stake.  But the Church has been somewhat “tamed” since those days, and every priest now realises that he lives in a society where not everyone believes, and that he can no longer force people to go to church or mouth their assent to the church’s doctrines and dogmas.

However, many humanists do feel that the church, in some shape or form, is still a danger to society.  We look with dismay at the power that bishops still have in Parliament, and at the way various sects are trying to win over young hearts and minds by setting up “Free Schools/Faith Schools”, and indoctrinating children with their dubious beliefs, just as the Jesuits used to.

But I urge moderation and tolerance.  Gradual, gentle persuasion has to be the way, surely, not head-on confrontation.  We humanists would not believe religion if we were forced into it: why should we expect to change other people’s beliefs overnight?  On the whole, Christianity is not the threat that it used to be.  We do have choices: we are no longer obliged to go to church every Sunday, and we can make up our own minds what we believe.  Our turn has come: we can now express our non-belief in religion without persecution.  Christianity, after many long centuries of intolerance, is at last calming its terrible, tyrannical temper.  If we were to persecute the church, we would be doing just what the church itself used to do.  Maybe religion will eventually get there.  Maybe enlightenment will come to those who try to seek a god through the medium of religion.  We just have to wait and be patient.  One of the reasons that religion was set up in the first place was to try to find an understanding of, and an explanation for, the problems of life.  For some, it works: if people are happy in their religion, and it does not upset others, fine.  Maybe people of all faiths will eventually come to accept that there is one golden rule that we all need to live our lives by: “Treat others as you would have them treat you”.  It is the conclusion that most philosophers and prophets have come to, be they Isocrates, Confucius, or Jesus.  We all have in common more than we think we do, and we must be tolerant of those who have not yet reached the point that we have.  Cooperation is better than conflict or confrontation.  The human race will only come of age when we have tolerance towards those who are seen to be different.

Author bio: Les Collins is now retired and is a member of the BHA.

Cambrige Union Society: Religion Debate | Dawkins, Copson, Ahmed vs Williams, Ramadan, Murray

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2013/03/cambridge-union-society-richard-dawkins-religion-debate.html

By Robert Breeze

Humanism is a hard concept to define. A few months ago Andrew Brown wrote an article stating that Humanism is an impossible dream. In it, he took the British Humanist Association’s proclamation that it is “the national charity representing and supporting the non-religious and campaigning for an end to religious privilege and discrimination based on religion or belief” far too literally. In considering that “the BHA exists to support and represent people who seek to live good and responsible lives without religious or superstitious beliefs” he concluded that “the concept as defined by the BHA cannot exist even in atheist societies, as it then becomes a religion in itself”.

His comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to what Humanism is and served to highlight many common misconceptions surrounding the philosophy. He states that the BHA ‘definition’ of Humanism seeks to eliminate religion when this simply forms no part of any definition. He also states that “atheism can itself become a myth by which society constitutes and understands itself” and that “there are no societies without ritual and myth”. Though ritual and myth are undoubtedly part of human behaviour there is no necessary connection to Religion. He also doesn’t seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Humanism isn’t the absence of religion in the same way peace isn’t the absence of war or love the absence of hate.

Andrew Brown’s article spawned over a thousand comments, most from humanists who rightly disagreed with his sentiments. My opinion is that the BHA leaves themselves open to attack in using the terms ‘good and responsible lives’ in its mission statements. The words are so ambiguous and hard to define that the second anyone seeks to define them it would leave the philosophy open to accusations of being a religion. That’s the one thing Humanism must avoid, and to that end I also don’t think humanist ceremonies are a necessary or positive development.

In short, it’s easy to attack any proposed definition but the whole debate is one that should be deemed futile when viewed with an owl-like eye. Rather than getting sidetracked by the literal definition of Humanism the vision and aims should be considered. It’s about promoting a world where everyone lives cooperatively on the basis of shared human values, respect for human rights, and concern for future generations. A world where non-religious people are confident in living ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. These are undoubtedly positive attitudes the whole world should seek to adopt, and such notions are why I’m proud to call myself a humanist.

About the Author

Robert Breeze is the author of ‘2082’, the 1^st book in The Chronicles Of Hope series, now being promoted by Amazon, eBook 99p for limited time only!

Frank Noon is also a proud humanist, if a frustrated idealist. The Chronicles of Hope is a series of books based in the late 21st century, the first book seeing Frank reluctantly leading an intergalactic government project provoked by overpopulation. He provides a political alternative in that he’s a visionary, honest, open and trustworthy politician, and one who is stoically atheist. As the series of books develops it hints at a revolution and a new society underpinned by an open atheism. He believes strongly in pushing Humanism as a way to mould and shape a society, one of his quotes in the first book being ‘that if religious people chose to love humanity and one another rather than an imaginary god, and it was all about living good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs, then it’d be such a step forward in human civilisation’.

Alas such developments currently remain an ongoing battle, and until the excellent work of the BHA yields more far reaching results, you can at least immerse yourselves into a world of humour and hope that shows a wiser way.

@robertbreeze

By Tony French.

Tony is 57 years old and retired after 32 years experience in criminal law and procedure. He was brought up in what could be called a Christian environment. He was christened, went through the Confirmation process and was a boy chorister in his local Parish Church. As he grew older and began to experience life, human nature and a vastly improved factual knowledge of our world, it became obvious that things weren’t what they were made out to him to be.

Our predecessors thousands of years ago asked themselves the same questions as we do now. Here, in the 21st century, the only difference between them and us is that they didn’t know what the answers to those questions were. As a result, they naturally made up the answers to fit the situation they were confronted with at the time, in the same way as “the Earth must be flat” or that “the planet Vulcan must exist,”  hence the notion of an all knowing, controlling and creating entity which they couldn’t detect but must exist. These made up answers soon became obsolete when they were discredited by the advancement of human factual knowledge.

We now have 21st century factual knowledge about our world, life on our world and how it came to exist. We now know the factual answers to those very same questions. We now know the causation factors for everything that happens to us in our day to day lives. We now know as a fact, the Bible is not true. We now don’t need to make up the answers by creating a supernatural entity and we certainly don’t need to bow down and worship it or its supernatural children.

When experiencing bereavement or sudden personal trauma, we have skilled and specialist counselling available. It seems to be only by tradition and the many generations of religious influence, that we automatically turn to the church in such circumstances. If there were an alternative non religious and widely available equivalent it would be used.

What sets the boundary within which we all live out our day to day lives in this country? The answer is simple; it is the rule of law. Whether we like it or not, each and every individual in this country is obliged to comply with the rule of law. If we choose to live outside that boundary, we know there is a good chance that we will still be subject to it. It is the rule of law and the way in which it is administered through the policies of the Prime Minister and the government of the day, which determines that boundary. It is not determined by the freely chosen supernatural belief of an individual or the belief of a group of like-minded people.  Every individual in this country is democratically governed, or so we are told. The reality is slightly different.

Religion and freely chosen personal religious belief also set their own boundaries, but those boundaries have to remain inside the one set by the rule of law. When Religion sets its own boundaries without acknowledgement of the overriding control of the rule of law, Religion becomes the cause of divisive conflict and discrimination in an ever increasing non-religious and diverse society.

Here, in the 21st century, the rule of law is now made on the simple principle of human rights of the individual. This was never the case and has only undertaken such a dramatic and far reaching change in very recent times; in fact, this has only taken place in our current lifetime. The Church of England as a Religion and as an organisation seems totally unprepared for this sudden change, as if to be in denial.

In the past, the rule of law was principled on the Church of England Christian belief and thankfully this is no longer the case. For example, we now know that a person can be born homosexual or heterosexual, it is in our natural make up. It is not a freely chosen life choice, as some would have us believe. Under the law made on the principle of the Church of England Christian belief, an individual born homosexual was criminalised, imprisoned and denied their basic human rights for no other reason than a natural chance of their birth. This homophobic discrimination is, even today in the 21^st century, still at the centre of the Church of England.  Consider the blasphemy laws and the denial of an individual’s freedom of speech, or the horrendous, insulting way in which unmarried mothers and their children were treated. All of these and much more, carried out in the name of the rule of law through the principle Church of England Christian belief.

The rule of law is now principled on the fact that each individual person in this country has the same rights, freedoms and entitlements as any other. No one person has more rights, freedoms or entitlements. Just as important, no-one can deny another person their rights, freedoms or entitlements. Only the law, through due judicial process, can do that.

Every individual has the freedom to choose to believe in whatever religious belief they wish, if, in fact, they choose to make that decision in the first instance. These rights are enshrined in and protected by, the rule of law.  They are recognised as being so precious that countless numbers of people of this country have given their lives to protect these freedoms and are still doing so.

For some inexplicable reason, when a person does exercise their right, freedom and entitlement to choose to believe in the Church of England Christian belief, they also presume to attain more rights, freedoms and entitlements than another. Not being satisfied to merely express their freely chosen personal belief, but also believing that they can impose that belief on others, to the point when those others’ rights, freedoms and entitlements are being denied to them. Do they suddenly become different? If a member of the senior Church of England clergy undergoes a state of the art medical scan, do the results show that they have some extra physical attribute that no-one else has? Do they have Extra Sensory Perception? Do they have an extra sixth human sense? Of course not.

It is the difference between expression of personal belief and the imposition of that belief where the law “draws its line in the sand”. We have seen clear examples of this in very recent cases before the courts. When challenged using the law, those that impose their personal belief on others thereby denying those others their rights, freedoms or entitlements, will always lose. This, quite simply, is because the principle of “human rights of the individual” is the very principle on which the law is made.

The question of two people standing side by side when one is treated differently to the other for no other reason than one is a woman and the other a man, has been debated, discussed and  concluded many years ago. The population of this country, through our democratically elected representatives in parliament have determined it to be illegal in accordance with the principle on which the rule of law is made. Yet, the Church of England as an organisation, still genuinely believes that the issue is still open for debate, claiming exemption from human rights laws which, of course, apply to everyone else whether they may like it or not!

Is this due to the dictatorial, controlling influence  the Church of England has enjoyed over the whole population of this country? Having exercised their freedom to choose to believe in the Church of England Christian belief, there seems to be a feeling of empowerment, being special, different or being somehow exempt and immune. The fact that we still have Church of England bishops having a dictatorial, controlling influence over the law-making process by their presence in the House of Lords, cannot be a co-incidence. They are not democratically elected nor even selected by those that have been and that’s rather “thin”.  The very principle of having Church of England bishops in the House of Lords does not represent the democratic governance of the whole population of this country; rather, it represents a dictatorship.

Factual human knowledge has now overtaken the Bible and is progressing away from it by the day. It can very easily be said that human knowledge has now replaced the Bible.  The distance between the Bible and human knowledge is now so vast that the Bible, as an account of factual reality, is ridiculous. The whole credibility, validity and justification, not only for the continuance of bishops in the House of Lords, but for the very role, position and relevance of the Church of England and its over-weighted influence in society has to be debated. In saying that though, there seems no reason for the position of the Church of England as the established church in this country to be threatened by any such debate.

It seems that for many years the Archbishop of Canterbury has been, to coin a phrase, “moving the goalposts” of the Church of England Christian belief in a vain attempt to try and constantly play catch-up with factual knowledge. The problem now, is that he has had to move them so far, they are completely “off the pitch” and has created a whole new “ball-game” but, he has refused to acknowledge this. According to him now, the Bible is merely used to “interpret” rather than being factual truth.

This represents a complete change, actually contradicting the reason for its very existence in the first instance and therefore negating the justification for its privileged position in the law-making process. The Church of England belief only began and has existed in its current place in our society because the Bible is true. Now knowing it isn’t, the belief has been manipulated in an attempt to continue to justify the privileges and controlling influence senior clergy enjoy over the whole population. There is a hypocritical air about this and is not in keeping with the high pedestal that the senior clergy have placed themselves upon. It contradicts the reputation and image which they have made for themselves and directly contradicts democracy. Has their presence in the House of Lords ever actually been democratically tested?

It is not only sad but embarrassing for people to be dragged through the courts as a means of opening their eyes to the reality of the rapid and on-going change which has taken place to the principles on which the rule of law is now made, particularly, to the change in attitudes and the vastly increasing factual knowledge of the whole population of this country. Also, to the ever increasing proportion of the population who do not consider it necessary to exercise their freedom to choose to believe in any religious belief. This proportion could now easily be moving towards the one third mark.

There will be another census in eight years time, if current trends continue and there’s nothing to suggest they won’t, the figure will be much higher! Why are we under an obligation to exercise our personal freedom to have to choose not to believe in something, which we now know as a fact, doesn’t exist?

In saying that,”Does God exist? Yes, in the mind of an individual who has exercised their personal freedom to choose to believe that God exists.

What percentage of the whole population does there have to be, who have not exercised their personal freedom to choose to believe in the Church of England Christian  belief, before the bishops live up to the high pedestal they have placed themselves upon and voluntarily remove themselves from the House of Lords?  Logic and democracy dictates the number must exist. Will the majority of the population of this country still stand by and continue to allow the bishops their dictatorial controlling influence over the law-making process when only less than, say, one percent of the population hold the Church of England Christian belief? This figure is of course, an exaggeration, but not unrealistic given current trends. The bishops, like it or not, have got to overcome their arrogance and confront this reality now.

The change in the principle on which the rule of law is made, the ever increasing deep, thorough factual knowledge we have of life on our planet and the ever increasing percentage of the population who do not find it necessary to believe in any religious belief are the reasons why Religion, here in the 21st century is now merely a personal issue. Despite what the bishops and many politicians may believe, it is no longer a national one.

I have a very clear memory of sitting at a desk in a school classroom with one of my friends sitting at the desk next to mine. My friend raised his hand and said to the teacher “Sir, how old is the world?” A natural question for an inquisitive young mind to ask. The teacher cupped his chin in his hand and after a few seconds said “Between four and six thousand years old”.

Later that day we were in another classroom where the teacher told us to examine the piece of rock each of us had in front of us on our desks. My friend put his hand up and said “How old is this piece of rock, sir” The teacher replied “Ah! Now that has been radio carbon dated to between 2 or 3 (I don’t remember the exact number)…… million years old”. I looked at my friend who looked at me, shrugging our shoulders in complete and utter confusion. The first lesson was “R.K.” or Religious Knowledge as it was called and the second was geography. They both cannot be true!  The Religious Knowledge teacher was a Christian.

All teachers hold a precious place in society, have potentially the highest level of responsibility and are in a position of absolute trust. The pupil wants to learn and be educated, looks up to the teacher and above all trusts the teacher to teach the truth. This is a fundamental entitlement. Also, of course, parents and guardians of children expect the same. The “R.K”. teacher failed himself, his profession and us the pupils. He represented as fact, his own personal, freely chosen belief.

Being children, not in a position to make our own decisions as to the truth, we were, in effect, being brainwashed. He did what present day Christians still do, that is, to impose their freely chosen personal belief on others, thereby denying those others their rights, entitlements and freedoms. Can we confidently say that this is not happening in schools, now?

This then begs the questions “What is fact and what is fiction?” “What exists and what doesn’t?” So what test is used to determine the truth?  In legal terms, for civil cases it is “On the balance of probabilities” in criminal proceedings it is “Beyond reasonable doubt”. A skilled and experienced investigator will need to know the answer to seven questions to obtain the truth i.e. Who? What? Where? Why? When? Which? and How?  In religious terms is it “My belief tells me this is true?” If this is the case, is this sufficient justification in the 21st century, for the undemocratic privilege that Religion and the Church of England specifically, have over the whole population? Bearing in mind the wide diversity of beliefs and the ever increasing substantial proportion of non belief which now exists?

What test does science use to determine the truth? We have five human senses. If one or more of our human senses detects something, then it is fact and exists. If not it doesn’t and is fiction or, it may become a scientific theory. The theory is then continuously tested until it actually passes the “test” and is proven as the truth.  It is vital to remember that scientific theory is not to be confused or compared with freely chosen personal belief! One is based on evidence, the other on mere personal choice. Can Religion be likened to an addiction where there is always the choice to say “No” but the collective influences are so great it becomes impossible to do so?

Technology is advancing alongside human knowledge. Technology is merely a means of enhancing one or more of our human senses. The more the latest technology is used in day to day life, the more we, as individuals and as a population, accept that it tells the truth. How many Christians own a clock, watch television, use the internet, own and use mobile phone technology?   We have seen the Hubble Extreme Deep Field Photograph with all the latest factual discoveries that go with it.  These and many more technological advances are used by us all and are accepted by us all as telling the truth. We now have the latest state of the art technology exploring the surface of Mars, another planet! This development and use of technology has been increasing since our ancestors discovered how to use tools to gather food, make shelter from the weather and make fire to keep warm, this, long before the Church of England Christian belief ever existed.

If “The Big Bang Theory” is fact, the concept of the universe consisting of “nothing” before it, is difficult for the human mind to accept.  Some of us have to overcome our narrow-mindedness, including the need to create convenient supernatural answers to suit the situation.   Like it or not, we now have to confront reality.

Technology has enabled us to factually answer questions. It is the on-going development of technology which has answered the questions “Is the Bible true?” or   ”Where do we come from?” or “Why are we here?”   Christians are now having to “cherry pick” as to what they are able to believe is true. The only significant question left to factually answer is “Does God exist?” As already stated, we know the answer to this question.  Despite what Religion may say, there is no obligation whatsoever to prove that something exists when it factually doesn’t.

If we were to choose to answer that question, the factual answer is quite simple; we now have sufficient technology to enhance our human senses to such an extent for us to be able to say “There’s no God”. Even after the last two thousand years of technological advancement, there is still not a trace of evidence to even suggest that such an entity factually exists. An entity which can read our minds, hear our thoughts and directly control everything we experience and do in our day to day lives. An entity which causes all natural events. An entity which decides whether to kill a person or not!

We now know that what we experience on this planet applies everywhere, for example, the laws of physics and even the actual substances we are all made from. We now know as a fact, that it is possible for the existence of “Earth-like” planets and the potential for life to exist elsewhere. Whether they actually do as a fact, is the question of the 21st century.  We now know that human life is not as individually special as is inferred in the Bible.

These 21st century issues generate serious questions regarding the validity, justification and credibility of the Church of England and the privileged position which it holds in the democratic governance of the whole population of this country. The Church of England’s size is inevitably reducing in direct proportion to the increase in factual human knowledge, as is the increase in those who have no religious belief.

As a note to conclude, I have had a sign on my front garden fence for some time now.  It simply says “There’s No God.” Apart from it being taken a couple of times, probably by the same person, I have had no negative experiences regarding it being on public display. It is merely a statement of fact, in the same way as if I had put 1+1=2. If a person wishes to choose to believe that there is a God or that 1+1=3, their entitlement to do so is protected by the law. They do not, however, have the right, or the personal entitlement to force me to remove the sign!

My grueling interview with the head of the Human Atheists Andrew Copson

As I’m a very broad-minded Christian lady and although I don’t have time to go to church myself, I’m very keen to understand why anyone would choose not to benefit from the love of our saviour.

Read the full interview here: http://mrsmountable.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/my-grueling-interview-with-head-of.html

About Mrs Mountable: I’m a fictional, inspirational and motivational speaker.Voted most popular coffee morning hostess 3 years in a row.

Unlike religion, humanism’s code of conduct isn’t based on a one-size-fits-all philosophy.

AC Grayling writes:

Religions, despite what people think of as their personal consolations, have not served the world well. They create division and conflict, they impose unlivable moralities of denial and limitation, and they demand that we think of the world as our remotest ancestors did, thousands of years ago. The cry raised by defenders of religion is: but what would you put in its place as a view of the world by which we can live? The answer is: something far better, deeper, kinder and warmer – and far more rational – namely: humanism.

Read more here.

by Josh Kutchinsky

In one of his famous lectures for children the musician, polymath and educator, Leonard Bernstein, played an extract from The William Tell overture by Rossini and asked his audience what they thought it was about.  They answered and he responded:

“That’s just what I thought you’d say: cowboys, bandits, horses, the wild west.”
He then told his audience that he hated to disappoint them but that it wasn’t about anything like that, “It’s about notes – E Flats and F sharps. You see, no matter how many times people tell you stories about what music means, forget them. Stories are not what the music means at all. Music is never about anything. Music just is.”

Whilst we may not be able to say what music means we can say what it is that music does? Music is a definer of rhythm and of harmony. It is a unique human exploration of memory, time, and anticipation. Sequences of sound with varying or consistent musical pitches, timbres and intensities excite the brain to expectation and when these are thwarted or gratified, we are teased, lulled or excited. The landscape of sound is changed from the familiar to the exotic, from the safe to the dangerous.

There are other performing arts such as drama and poetry which take place in the present moment and involve the manipulation of expectation but employ the currency of common conversation; words. Maybe language is just one particular sort of music.

Here is a story about the power of music.

Some time ago there was an old man. He was ill and in hospital. He had turned away, with a dumb gesture, the offers of pastoral care from strangers. They were not wanted. Then his granddaughter came to visit. She didn’t know what to say. He stared at her with watery eyes and no one was sure whether there was any recognition. She sat; a small black case beside her chair. Someone suggested she play something.

“What?” she asked

“Anything.”

And so she removed her silvern flute from its compact black case and the bright sound from the metallic tube poured into the room like sunlight through a window on a winter’s day. The grandfather smiled. He recognised the tune. Beyond the slightly open door the sound wafted down the corridor, travelling from the geriatric toward the maternity ward across the way. A mother with a babe in arms drew near and stood by the open door and the door was opened further and she smiled and the old man returned her smile. Music had brokered, in a way that only it can, a human interaction between a long dead composer, a man only a few weeks from death, his granddaughter, an unknown woman and a newborn child of less than a week.

But am I now not doing what I had just said could not be done? Am I not imposing a narrative on the music? Not at all. Stories are often imposed on music. Similarly religious meaning is often imposed on certain stories. Language is never religious. It is just sometimes used by people holding religious beliefs. They can no more rightly claim the language for themselves than can a child capture the sea in a bucket. Music in and of itself is never sacred or secular. It is just music.

Human creativity lies at the heart of Humanism. To attempt fully to apprehend the reality of our existence and thereby imbue it with meaning, music, science and the other humanities all have their part to play (science had always, until quite recently, been included as one of the humanities but under its older name of ‘natural philosophy’).

Music is not only a means of entertainment, distraction and mood enhancement. It is not just a partner to words in opera and musicals, to movement in dance and drama, to TV and films. It is not just a signature tune to momentous events in our lives; our romances, our teenage angst, our formal ceremonies which for many, but not all, help mark life’s moments of transition. It is not just a respite for the world weary. It is also a tool of exploration. Our perceptions of our world our altered by it and it has been compared with pure mathematics in terms of its symbolic power. Music has also been compared to architecture. The structure of music can match for complexity and beauty that of the greatest concert halls and cathedrals.

Music is an amazing human achievement. It requires the orchestration of unnatural sounds, sounds which only humans have manufactured. It calls for skill honed by thousands of hours of practice and endeavour. The evolution of musical instruments themselves is a fascinating story of experimental science, technology and skill. Music is a majestic collaboration often spanning centuries and in a strange way echoes the translation of genetic code into the expression of human existence. Scored music encoded on the page lies dormant, awaiting the moment of performance, of expression. Its awakening takes place against a background of silence and every performance punctuates that stillness with an affirmation of meaning and purpose wrought from a wealth of extraordinary human creativity.

About the author: Josh Kutchinsky is an organiser of  the Central London Humanist Group and founder and co-ordinator of Hummay an international humanist support egroup. He is a BHA representative to IHEU. He was a director in a publishing company and co-editor of Merely a Matter of Colour – The Ugandan Asian Anthology. He was also director of a laser show company and produced the first comprehensive exhibition of lasers and their applications at the Science Museum. He writes prose and poetry as well as about science and technology.

By Adam Knowles, Chair of Galha LGBT Humanists

Myself and several Galha LGBT Humanists members were alongside Peter Tatchell upstairs in a packed Committee Room 9 at the Houses of Commons on Tuesday (5th) evening, as MPs below voted on equal marriage. The result was an overwhelming ‘yes’, 400 to 175 in favour. This is brilliant news, though the number voting against is significant. It’s of great concern to me that here in 2013 there remain one hundred and seventy five elected members of our Parliament that disagree with basic equality for LGBT people. That includes a majority of those that voted from the Conservative party. I don’t accept that Cameron is using this issue as an attempt to eliminate ‘nasty’ from his party’s image. If he is, on the above evidence, he’s failed. No, I prefer to accept he truly believes in the basic justice and fairness of this change. So Cameron has our full support in his determination to push this through.

The debate brought out some fierce, bigoted comments ranging from the misinformed to the crazed. A particular highlight was the claim that this is an unstoppable slippery slope toward incestuous marriage and bestiality. Sir Roger Gale, the MP for North Thanet claimed, “It is not possible to redefine marriage”. Try telling that to the Church of England, brought into existence to do exactly that. “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman – has been historically, remains so”, he said. Historically marriage has often been between a man and several women (source: the bible), and all sorts of other combinations. In South Africa, it was illegal for whites to marry blacks – then it changed. So essentially all you can say is ‘marriage has always been X, until it changed’. Marriage is a social construct, and as such, we have every right to redefine it whenever we like. We should do that based on our conscience, our concept of fairness, our reason – not ancient texts from bygone civilizations. The time for LGBT inclusion is now.

There are some important amendments brought up during the debate, particularly the inclusion of Humanist celebrants being empowered to conduct ceremonies like their religious counterparts. The proposed change has yet to clear the Houses of Lords, with its unelected squad of Church of England Bishops. So some way to go, but we’re confident that with your continued support we can get there.

I know that people have a variety of views on the institution of marriage, many wanting nothing to do with it, seeing it as a disappointing desire to conform. But Galha LGBT Humanists will continue to fight for this law to pass because, for those that are LGBT and want to get married, they have every right to be treated the same as heterosexuals in the eyes of the law.

In the ‘70s our church organist, a sweet, kindly and devout Anglican who’d been faultlessly abandoned by her husband, was flatly refused permission to remarry in church because she was divorced.  The sense of injustice I felt as a Christian teenager at this callous prioritising of doctrine over decency is still palpable. Although I wasn’t aware of it then, this was the beginning of the end my own faith.

Too often the church has resounded with the voice of the naysayer, quixotically railing against modernity and the demise of repressive Victorian sexual prurience and hypocrisy.  On swearing, nudity and sex on TV; the ‘blasphemy’ of Python, The Last Temptation and Springer The Opera; pre-marital sex and cohabitation, and on a thousand other petty prejudices it has railed and lost, and rightly lost.

The last 300 years have been pretty tough for Christianity, as science has challenged and ultimately collapsed centuries-old certainties.    Perhaps it’s defensiveness, but it seems to me too many of the faithful have clung to bronze-age certitudes in matters of gender and sexual morality, as if mere rigidity could buttress them from secularity. It can’t. Rather, it becomes all too easy to caricature Christians as irrelevant cranks, obsessed by where one should put one’s genitalia: Loud, strident voices spewing pious bigotry, condemning love itself, if it shares the same gender; or promulgating banal misogyny, as if the want of a penis under purple robes could actually offend the Almighty!

Surely women bishops and gay marriages are coming soon, leaving all those shrill, judgemental Christian critics on the wrong side of history once more.  But even as a committed humanist, I take no pleasure in this self-inflicted marginalisation.   The church is at a crossroads. To offer progressive leadership, as it once did over civil-rights and the decriminalisation of homosexuality (yes, that’s really true), over apartheid and the dehumanising effects of 1980’s industrial decline; or to retreat to the security blanket of arcane dogma?  But before it opts for the latter, a word of warning: Our sweet and kindly organist enjoyed a Register Office wedding, and never stepped foot in church again.

By: Steve Miller, The Christian Atheist
Author bio: The Christian Atheist is not only a committed non-believer, secularist and Chair of Cotswold Humanists; but also regularly attends a local High Anglican church and is interested in the Bible, theology and the history of Christianity. He believes that Christianity’s cultural legacy stills has value; more so if it is unencumbered by superstition and belief in the supernatural.

This short article was published in the Gloucestershire Echo on 31st December 2012 under the banner: The Great Debate – Is The Church Still Relevant?

The Historical Association speaks to Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, about the origins and history the British Humanist Association:

Listen to the Podcast here.

In an article for the Guardian, Andrew Brown takes exception to a BHA press release and decries humanism as merely another ‘religion’.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/oct/25/humanism-impossible-dream

The theme at the fringe meeting this year was militant secularism. Speaking at the event, the Chair of the Labour National Policy Forum Angela Eagle stated that there is today a clash between modern society and religion. Also present were Labour MP Kelvin Hopkins,  BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson, Journalist and BHA President Polly  Toynbee and Journalist and Blogger Sunny Hundal. The event was chaired  by Labour Humanists Chair Naomi Phillips.

DeHavilland have a report on the BHA’s No Prayer Breakfast fringe meeting at the Labour conference (login required): http://www.dehavilland.co.uk/Verticals/Monitor/MoStart.aspx?items=18484993&id=18484993&src=alerts&searchtext=%22British%20Humanist%20Association%22

Philosopher of biology Michael Ruse claims that Humanism is acting like a religion:

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists

The BHA have launched a new video, it’s called “An Introduction to Humanism”.

The hope is that this will be shared and viewed through social media, extending the usual reach and creating some extra awareness of Humanism and its causes.

If you haven’t seen it already, please watch it here and if you like it, feel free to share via tweet or otherwise.

Enjoy…

Or why Humanist Weddings are different…

by David Hewitt, July 2012

The BBC ran a headline on its website earlier this year:  ’When did marriage become about love?’  It was at the height of the debate about gay marriage and they were reporting the comments of the Archbishop of Westminster, who said that in all the discussion and deliberation, children had not been mentioned once.  I think this gave the game away!  It seems that Christian marriage (at least the Roman Catholic version of it) is only about the procreation of children.

By contrast, love is at the heart of a humanist wedding.  Sure, humanist weddings tick the same boxes as Christian or civil marriages: they give public recognition to a private relationship and so enable the couple to share their commitment to love and their aspirations for a future life together.  They capture the ritual that (most) couples want and so carry the necessary gravitas, even a degree of solemnity, but, by the way, they are joyous, celebratory occasions too.  Oh and yes, a humanist wedding also provides a loving and stable foundation for any children that might be brought into the family.

But the distinction, the real beauty of a humanist wedding is the romance inherent in a celebration that is entirely unique and personal to the couple, because – and here’s the crucial bit – I will have spent time getting to know them.  In this way, the ceremony will tell their romantic story; how they came to meet and what has lead them into marriage and the lifelong commitment that they will make to each other.

Humanist weddings can be simple or elaborate; they can be relaxed or formal – just as the couple desire.  For instance, the bride in a ceremony I conducted recently is an avid Jane Austen fan.  Austen aficionados will be familiar with the final paragraph of Emma…  ’The wedding was very much like other weddings, where the parties have no taste for finery or parade; and Mrs. Elton, from the particulars detailed by her husband, thought it all extremely shabby, and very inferior to her own: ‘Very little white satin, very few lace veils; a most pitiful business!  Selina would stare when she heard of it.’  But, in spite of these deficiencies, the wishes, the hopes, the confidence, the predictions of the small band of true friends who witnessed the ceremony, were fully answered in the perfect happiness of the union.’

This not only encapsulated what this particular couple wanted for their wedding, and reflected very accurately the style of their venue too, but has been a cipher for most of the weddings I have conducted.   Actually, none of them have been ‘shabby’ but they have all most definitely been relaxed and above all they have been free of any formulaic script or liturgy, any rigid template, any received order or way of doing things.  Instead they have reflected and captured a style and ambiance described and driven by the couple and brought to life as it were by me, as their celebrant.

If humanist weddings are not about the procreation of children but about love instead, you might ask: is there a secular context for love and marriage?  Well firstly, a wedding is a symbol, a poignant and significant symbol but a symbol nonetheless.  It cannot create a relationship that does not already exist and has not already been captured and nurtured in all the quiet commitments that the couple will have made to each other since they first met and recognised their connection to one another.  But as George Eliot put it so well in Adam Bede… ‘What greater thing is there for two human souls than to feel that they are joined together to strengthen each other in all labour, to minister to each other in all sorrow, to share with each other in all gladness, to be one with each other in the silent unspoken memories.’  Edmund O’Neill puts it more succinctly… ‘Marriage is a commitment to life; to the best that two people can find and bring out in each other.’  It’s these words of Simone Weill though that hit the humanist-wedding-‘vibe’ nail on the head for me…  ‘Lovers desire two things.  The one is to love each other so much that they enter into each other and only make one being.  The other is to love each other so much that, having half the globe between them, their union will not be diminished in the slightest degree.’

Let me now contradict myself.  Having said that each humanist wedding is different, they nevertheless share a common ‘spine’.  As well as thoughts on love & marriage from a secular point of view the elements of a ‘typical’ humanist wedding ceremony might include for instance a period of reflection, perhaps to think about absent family or friends, the couple themselves or more generally about the power of love.  They might include rituals such as sand-blending or the lighting of unity candles and almost always contain an exchange of rings.  I lead a ceremony last winter, in which the couples had made their own wedding rings – at a workshop the previous summer.  Not only was the exchange so much more heartfelt because of this, but at the beginning of the ceremony, they threaded the two rings onto long ribbons that wound around all the chairs and asked for the gathering to see the rings, touch them, feel them and ‘bless’ them.  I will come back to ‘blessings’ later.  Incidentally, the circle of the rings, with all their symbolic representation of wholeness, strength, co-operation and peace, was echoed in a circular seating plan.

Or how about hand-fasting, the most ancient of rituals?  It allows a couple to literally tie the knot.  How does it work?  As they speak their vows two (or more) ribbons are alternately and lightly draped over the couple’s joined hands.  Once complete, I take the loose ends, tie a knot and as the couple release the ribbons present them with the fastened braids – a permanent memento; a symbol of the strength and longevity of their love.

However, at the heart of the ceremony are the vows.  In humanist weddings a couple will make promises to each other in exactly the way they choose.  Some couples have simple ‘WE DO’ vows that are the same for both partners; others have long, detailed commitments that are different for each partner, and which they may declare themselves.  I have lead one or two ceremonies where couples have had a kind of hybrid in which the core vows are shared and prepared between the couple ahead of the ceremony, but a final, highly personalised, sentence of commitment is delivered by each partner, with the other hearing it for the first time on the day itself.

Even more personalised than this are what I call ‘love letters’.  Prepared separately and confidentially before the wedding, on the day itself they each say some words that speak to what attracted them in the first place, what attributes brought them together and what foibles, characteristics, behaviour, whatever, will keep them together as they embark on this life’s adventure called marriage.  It is often the most romantic part of the ceremony.

The ceremony might be brought to a close with a ‘blessing’.  Now, blessing can be a difficult word.  Like ‘spiritual’, it creates some angst amongst some celebrants.  However, if we accept that one of the underlying premises of a secular wedding is to share vows and commitments that will be witnessed by family and friends, then it is natural not only to have those promises affirmed – often loudly and enthusiastically – by that gathering but also to round out the ceremony with some heartening words of support and encouragement, advice and inspiration even; in other words, all the ingredients of a secular ‘blessing’.  I haven’t yet found a suitable, alternative word; and in any case in my view it seems an entirely appropriate, indeed a perfect way to conclude the celebration.

Such closing words might be a non-religious rendition of the Celtic blessing… ‘May the road rise to meet you; may the wind be always at your back; may the warm rays of sun fall upon your home; and may the hand of a friend always be near.’  Or they could be drawn from wider cultures, such as this extract from a traditional Apache blessing… ‘May beauty surround you both in the journey ahead and through all the years. Go now to your dwelling place to enter into the days of your togetherness. May happiness be your companion and your days together be good and long upon the earth.’  Whatever words or readings are used, like everything else in the wedding, they will always be chosen and/or ‘approved’ by the couple themselves.

Let’s linger for a moment on the legalities.  The quirks of English matrimonial law preclude me from performing a marriage ceremony that carries any legal significance.  If couples want this, they will need to visit the Register Office perhaps the day before.  Already permitted in Scotland, the BHA is campaigning for a change to the law that would allow the legalising of humanist weddings in England and Wales too.  Lord Harrison has introduced a Private Members’ Bill into the House of Lords that would sanction certain charitable organisations – including the BHA – to solemnise marriages.

Notwithstanding the success of these changes, every cloud has a silver-lining.  By choosing a humanist wedding, couples can hold their ceremony anywhere: in a field; on a boat; at the top of a mountain or on the beach.  They can even hold their humanist wedding in a licensed venue.  I lead a wedding on one occasion that was a combined civil and humanist ceremony.  The couple wanted a humanist celebration for all the reasons I have described, but couldn’t find the right circumstances to hold a separate legal ceremony.  So we held both ceremonies back-to-back; but not without the two registrars pointedly leaving as my part of the day began – even though they could be sure there would be no religious content in my bit!

In summary, a humanist wedding ceremony is focussed not on God, but on the couple and the family and friends they will gather around them to share in and witness their public statement of commitment to each other.  They get a ceremony that is meaningful and dignified, yet warm and romantic and above all personal, reflecting their love for each other and their hopes and aspirations for a stable, lifelong relationship together.

If you want to know more about David’s ceremonies, or you would like to make contact with him, then please visit: http://humanist.org.uk/davidhewitt/