http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/jan/29/david-attenborough-desert-island-discs

I don’t think an understanding and an acceptance of the 4 billion-year-long history of life is any way inconsistent with a belief in a supreme being,” the 85-year-old broadcaster and writer will tell presenter Kirsty Young. “And I am not so confident as to say that I am an atheist.

The Daily Mail reports that nearly 100 clergy have joined a rebellion over a Church of England ban on civil partnership ceremonies.

The letter the clergy signed reads:

 We, the undersigned, believe that on the issue of holding civil partnership ceremonies in Church of England churches incumbents / priests in charge should be accorded the same rights as they enjoy at present in the matter of officiating at the marriage of divorced couples in church. Namely, that this should be a matter for the individual conscience of the incumbent / priest in charge.

We would respectfully request that our views in this regard are fully represented in Synod.

More detailed coverage from Ruth Gledhill http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3306363.ece

The BBC reports that:

Primrose Hill offers one of the most beautiful views in London but some residents are concerned it could be ruined by plans for a temporary statue of Jesus.

The statue marks the end of the London 2012 Games and the handover to 2016 host city Rio de Janeiro.

Read the ASA Adjudication on Healing on the Streets-Bath and HOTS Bath response here. HOTS Bath states:

We are disappointed with the ASA’s decision, and will appeal against it because it seems very odd to us that the ASA wants to prevent us from stating on our website the basic Christian belief that God can heal illness.

The ASA has even demanded that we sign a document agreeing not to say this, which is unacceptable to us – as it no doubt would be for anyone ordered not to make certain statements about their conventional religious or philosophical beliefs.

Sometimes it can be hard finding the right card to show your feelings. HumanistLife in the lead up to Valentine’s Day thought it might be the right time to point you towards a old blog-post on Ironic San with some suggestions for scientist valentine’s cards featuring Darwin, Sagan, Newton, Curie, and Einstein.

Providence Journal reports that Jessica Ahlquist, the 16-year-old student who fought to remove a prayer banner at Cranston High School West, will get a dozen roses Thursday, but they won’t come from a Cranston florist. Three refused to deliver the flowers, said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group based in Madison, Wis.

Apparently, abortion is a bigger problem than joblessness, says Catholic Church, and a Bishop has warned of UNESCO’s plan to “make half the world population homosexual”

A Wisconsin man arrested for allegedly punching his wife — who claims a ghost is responsible for the domestic abuse – will have a hard time scaring up paranormal researchers to back his claim.

bOINGbOING.net has posted about the Christian Nightmares video performance, which features a song with the uplifting lyrics about being left behind after the Rapture.  I learned it is a popular song called “I Wish We’d All Been Ready,” and it has been covered by a bunch of bands.

Last week a talk organised by the Queen Mary Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society on ‘Sharia Law and Human Rights’ had to be cancelled after threats of violence.

A report from the Independent states:

Students attending a debate about sharia law were told they would be “hunted down and killed” by a man who burst into their lecture theatre and filmed them on his phone.

The BHA reports that police were contacted about the incident and the Society is waiting to hear how their investigation will proceed.

The Ri Channel has uploaded the classic lecture series exploring the Solar System by Professor Carl Sagan.

You can watch the series here.

The Ri Channel forms part of the Royal Institution’s mission to “connect people to the world of science”.

The BBC writes:

The president of a London university atheist society has resigned over a row about an image of the Prophet Muhammad.

The society at University College London (UCL) published an image on its Facebook page showing “Jesus and Mo” having a drink at a bar.

The atheist group was asked by the UCL union to remove it, but refused and started a petition defending its freedom of expression.

A student Muslim group began a counter-petition asking for its removal.

UCL’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist society said its president Robbie Yellon was stepping down to be replaced by former vice president Michael Thor.

The BBC reports:

Civil servant Alexander Aan, 31, is now in protective police custody after he was attacked by an angry mob earlier this week. He may also lose his job over his posting on the social networking site.

Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law under the founding principles of the country. Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim nation – recognises the right to practice five other religions aside from Islam, says the BBC’s Karishma Vaswani in Jakarta. Local media said a mob attacked Mr Aan when he arrived for work at a government office on Wednesday. Police said that according to Indonesian criminal law, anyone who tried to stop others believing in a faith could face up to five years in prison.

The Facebook page where he made his comments remains up and supporters have condemned police action against Mr An, calling for him to be released.

By Marilyn Mason

A recent meeting with the nice people at Anti-Slavery International set cogs moving in my brain – hadn’t I read somewhere that on the famous voyage of the Beagle Charles Darwin had encountered and been horrified by slavery? A Google search reminded me of the source of this vague memory: reviews of Darwin’s Sacred Cause by Adrian Desmond and James Moore (Allen Lane, 2009), such as the one in New Scientist with the headline “Hatred of slavery drove Darwin to emancipate all life“. Arguments justifying slavery were often based on the pseudo-scientific notion that the different races of humans were different species;Darwin’s liberal-minded empathy with his fellow human beings and his belief in a common human nature, contradicted that, and was a precursor of his later theories and writings about evolution and human origins.

Further Googling turned up the relevant extract from Darwin’s The Voyage of the Beagle (1839):

“I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernamabuco, I heard the most pitiful moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was a case in another instance. NearRio de JaneiroI lived opposite an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass that was not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye…

It is claimed that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters… It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves to our poorer countrymen: If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin…

Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter; – what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope for change! Picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children – those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own – being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray His will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendents, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any other nation to expiate our sin.”

The final sentence refers to the British outlawing of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1807, the British navy’s efforts to intercept and capture slave-runners, and the abolition of slavery in theBritish Empirein 1833. However, asDarwinfound on his travels, slavery was legal in other parts of the world, and remained so until 1981 whenMauritaniabecame the last country to abolish it. But as Anti-Slavery International points out, slavery, or practices horribly similar to it, continues today in many countries: in child labour, forced labour, bonded labour and people-trafficking, people are sold like objects, forced to work for little or no pay, and are at the complete mercy of their “employers”.

Both the British Humanist Association and Humanists for a Better World have had friendly contacts with Anti-Slavery International, as slavery is very alien to the humanist ideal, shared with Darwin, of our common humanity, as well as to our support for universal human rights, and so anti-slavery would seem a cause that most humanists could champion. If you’d like to avoid buying the products of modern-day slave labour, please see http://www.productsofslavery.org, and for other ways to help see  http://www.antislavery.org/english/what_you_can_do/default.aspx.

Marilyn Mason, Co-ordinator, Humanists for a Better World 

By Dinesh V.K.

Violence in our lives

Violence can be an act or in thought. It could be demonstrated individually or collectively. This form of aggression may have many reasons or causes, but ultimately does more harm or yields negative results than good. Man is a social being living in communities and violence, although it manifests in many ways, cannot be an accepted part of civilised society. It has to be dealt with firmly or contained, if not totally neutralised. Therefore we as a society have formed organisations to organise and run our lives, individually or collectively, protected from serious violence. Here we will discuss broadly about how the state, the government and public sector play their roles to meet this challenge.

Here we analyse the corrective role of the public sector or state. It is present in the form of police, medical systems, judicial systems; educational systems and administration are for our internal needs of protection. Where as, the armed forces, military organisations and international bodies are for our greater needs of protection. As the violent behaviour and heinous acts increases, the role of public or state increases correspondingly. They need to evolve or transform according to the challenges envisaged.

Violence and Terror

Violence has taken a new manifestation in terrorism. Terrorism is a dastardly planned act of violence. Criminal elements have become involved in abetting such violence. Drugs, arms and explosives are part of this criminality. To deal with it, society now has gone to the extent of using resources of the military forces. So the demarcations and boundaries have thinned to a grey area. The state has to arm its police department with guns, rubber bullets, batons, helmets, tear-gas and more of such things to counter violence. Elite or Special Forces have been raised. And when things go worse the paramilitary are brought in, if available in the state. Counter insurgency, rearing up in many parts of the world has contributed to bring violence and terror into the lives of hapless people. More efforts, methods and resources are being put in to handle these challenges. The State and its organisations have a changing role to play. In this discussion we will be referring to the UK riots in some contexts.

Response

In the UK, new acts have been passed and put into force owing to these challenges. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has passed the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005 (c.15) (SOCPA), which has significantly simplified the powers of arrest of a constable. The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 has mostly come into force on 1st October 2006. Members of the agency- SOCA can be designated the powers of a constable, customs officer or immigration officer or any combination of these three powers.

Two months after the terrorist attacks in New York on 11th September 2001, The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was formally introduced into the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Introduced on 19 November 2001, coming into force on 14th December 2001, it has since been replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.

Battling for Peace?

In the larger international realm, the state and public sector is involved in military situations. Response to organised crime and terrorism has now crossed borders and sovereignty. We now see the involvement of the United Nations, the NATO, the USA and others, in a fight against terror and dictatorial regimes. So we have military operations at the cost of human suffering active in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. The cause of all this is that somewhere there is a conflict of ideology, interests, of perspectives and values. Again we see the role of the state and government becoming important. Only international forums can resolve these issues of such magnitude. But again, it is not the act of violence? Maybe it is justified and sanctified by socio-political objectives and gains, but it boils down to one thing- force.

Society must do introspection

That brings us to the basic question of how can peace be restored individually and collectively. Civil society has to answer this and play its role to redeem the larger society from the imbroglio. The answer lies in the individual, family and the society. The answer lies in anchoring a value system that cannot be commercialised or abducted by selfish or vested interests. The answer lies within the human psyche. Are not human beings becoming desensitised? Society has to re-examine itself. We have to analyse the value system that has evolved over time. It’s definitely not into the healthy model that it needs to be. Who are our young society’s role models? A very diagnostic approach is necessary. A remedy must be sought. We owe it to our future generation.

That brings into the picture the area of state or public organisations and their changing roles. The national health services and education departments have their role to play and can develop a reasonable solution. We will have to explore the areas of social psychology and mental health. Although the education system in UK is a devolved matter, the system can greatly influence the society and the value systems. A lot of rethinking may be necessary, but a beginning has to be made to examine both the personal and cultural value systems that exist today.

The society, individual and mental health

Albert Bandura

The work and contribution of social psychologist Albert Bandura will be relevant to our discussion here. He has been studying social modelling, observational learning, aggression and self-regulation since the 1970s. From his theories, role models can influence behaviour of people and particularly children are significant today. Children exposed to violent behaviour at school, at home or on media may believe anger is acceptable behaviour. This will reflect in their behaviour and it could have a multiplying effect socially. The work of Professor Albert Bandura of Stanford University focuses on self-directing and self-efficacy. The research helps us to address and redress the values of growing children.

There is surely some correlation between abuse, hate crimes and violent behaviour, which we find universally on the rise.  Violence is a social and health problem of a unique kind that has to be addressed. Perpetrators and the affected should get proper treatment at a clinic or hospital.  As the crisis warrants, a family doctor or school counsellor or member of the religious community should be involved for counselling and referrals. Therapists can help people of different ages by managing stress, conflict and anger. For instance, in the UK, the NHS Mental Health Services and Trusts are probably the kind of infrastructure that can work for the betterment of social behaviour and harmony.

Education and values

That brings us to the issue of upbringing and the formative stage of a growing youth. The role of education plays a major part undoubtedly. In most countries education is a state prerogative or at least under supervision and guidelines. Schooling is during the formative stage of a young generation. Parents and teachers have to prepare themselves to play a vital role. It is in this context that we should perceive the Bailey Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood as an important insight. Are we not observing a value system that’s going twisted? We have to make corrections. Authorities responsible for implementing public sector benefits and educational benefits should start to rethink. The solution is not a simple one but perseverance will pay. The National Curriculum of England was developed and finally introduced in 1992. Except for independent schools, Free Schools, and the new academies, all schools in England are required to follow it. Northern Ireland and Wales too largely follow the National Curriculum. Scotland has its own distinctive and flexible framework placing responsibility on local authorities and schools. The state and public sector can make a difference under wise counsel to work to protect us from violence and change our living style for the better. We can all work together for a healthy and humane society.

Non-Violence

Aung San Suu Ki

For the good and betterment of the individual, society and state, we have to draw from the concept of non-violence. Non violence can be a philosophy of abstention from violence. It can be a socio-political tool for change. It can also refer to the pacifist approach of an individual on moral, ethical, religious or spiritual grounds. Nevertheless non-violence is often associated with the intention to achieve social and political change. Mention must be made of the decades of non-violent struggle by Mahatma Gandhi against the British rule in India. Martin Luther King adapted Mahatma Gandhi’s methods in his movement to win civil rights for fellow African Americans. We have seen the “Velvet Revolution” in Czechoslovakia that brought an end to the communist regime. We have seen the likes of Nelson Mendela of South Africa and Aung San Suu Ki of Myammar becoming spearheads of peaceful resistance against oppression. We have seen the non-violent movement of Leymah Gbowee with the women of Liberia. They were able to bring peace after 14 years of civil war in 2003. Forms of non-violence actually are based on strong religious, spiritual beliefs and political analysis. The society and state organisations can draw inspiration from this pragmatic if not ancient philosophy of non-violence.

Author Bio:

Dinesh V.K., a blogger, who pens on latest consumer electronics, gadgets, shopping offers, free samples, market trends, politics, public services, health services and other informative articles.

The Guardian has reported that:

A plan by the education secretary, Michael Gove, to send a copy of the King James Bible to every school in the country – each including a personal inscription from him – has run into trouble after government sources reported he has been told to find private funding for the project.

For more information about the Bible, you many want to read some of the customer reviews on Amazon.

Life.com has published some excellent photos from Chicago’s Anti-Superstition Society, 1940.  It states:

On December 13, 1940 — a Friday, no less — LIFE magazine attended a gathering spread across 13 tables in Room 13 of the Merchants & Manufacturers Club of Chicago. (Yes, each table sat 13 people). The result? The odd and endearing article, “Life Goes to a Friday-the-13th Party,” published a few weeks later in the
magazine. Now, in light of January 2012′s very own Friday the 13th, LIFE.com resurrects that feature, and celebrates some old-school businessmen unafraid to step on a crack. 

 

by Josh Kutchinsky

David Cameron, the  British prime-minister,  said last month:

“We are a Christian Country”

His speech was fairly  vague in line with what he said of his commitment to the  Church of England, the established Church, “I am a committed – but I have to say vaguely practicing – Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith…”

So where does this leave me, a UK citizen, born in England

My parents were Jewish. After they were married they set up home in Antwerp, Belgium. World War Two began less than a year later. My mother, a pessimist, feared for their safety. My father, an optimist, thought the Germans would not repeat the mistakes of World War One and invade again. As we know my father was wrong. Fortunately and with only moments to spare they escaped and crossed the Channel to England, the land of my father’s birth.

I was born a few years later. The older I get the more I realise that certain events, just before my birth, have had an enormous influence. I think of these events as historical black holes. They are so massive in their significance that they distort the very fabric of all our  lives, whether we realise it or not. In astronomy black holes are events that distort space and time and anything that gets close to them cannot escape. Even light is pulled into the vortex of a black hole. It is as if the black hole were the enemy of light. Mechanised warfare and the industrialised concentration death camps extinguished many millions of lives and blighted countless millions of  families and friends. Some of those people considered themselves Jewish, some as assimilated, Christian or non-religious, some were too young to have religious or belief convictions, others were political enemies, or belonged to one of the other target groups; homosexuals, gypsies, people with physical or learning disabilities or mental illness or simply those who resisted or were unlucky. They were chosen for extermination and for elimination from the family of humanity. The seeds for this were developed within a civilised continent, within a country of culture, of democracy, of the rule of law. All qualities possessed by this country.

The realisation of the horror of these events provided the impetus, even before the end of the war, for the creation of the United Nations and for discussions about the necessity for a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By the way next year will be the 65th anniversary of that Declaration. In my opinion every home should have a copy somewhere, particularly homes with young children. The Holocaust and other genocides are open wounds in the body of humanity. This Declaration and the Covenants and Conventions that followed are part of an ongoing attempt to resist infection and where it occurs to treat it and prevent its spread.
Who can know exactly why my life in this country, and those of so many others of my generation, have been so charmed, so fortunate.
We have never been required to hold a gun.
That is a remarkable fact

This narrow window of comparative tranquility is an unnatural state of affairs. Many of the factors which have contributed to this peace and stability are now taken for granted. I am disturbed by the complacency of so many; their lack of interest or even outright hostility to internationally agreed principles of human rights; their disillusionment with politics. Cynicism may have some excuse when we see these agreed principles of international law ignored or over-ruled by states and individuals. But this is all the more reason to demand that they be taken seriously. Human rights are not set in stone. They are a part of a developing code of conduct based on many sources of values and principles. We must both improve them and defend them. We need to talk. We need to talk about our future. We need to take our responsibilities seriously.

So,  “who owns Britain?”

Well what do I mean by ownership?

I would like to consider three qualities of ownership; access, entitlement and responsibility.

Ownership allows enjoyment of the thing owned. However, if you are like me then for example many of the features of your mobile phone and other gadgetry are mysteries indeed. To have the full benefits of ownership we may have to spend some time exploring their features, possibly with an instruction booklet, or preferably with a young expert.

You need also for the enjoyment of your property confidence that it won’t be taken away from you. This is critical. So a system has been developed over many years whereby ownership is established and the rights of ownership and the entitlements that flow from it are acknowledged and if necessary defended. In this country we take this system of legal entitlement for granted.

However, often the enjoyment and usefulness of private goods requires more than just public acceptance of this right. It also usually depends on the use of shared property to realise the private pleasure. The person sitting in a car has nowhere to go without public roads. We all depend to some considerable extent on shared public amenities and services in order to enjoy our private possessions. Roads, or rights of way, can, I believe, provide some further valuable insights into the qualities of ownership. Where roads go is determined by many different factors. The reasons why they go straight to one place and avoid another may be lost in the mists of time, but there will have been reasons.

For a moment let’s imagine a time before established tracks and rights of way, many thousands of years ago. We find ourselves surrounded by trees. There are rivers, valleys, mountains and there are other animals. So how much of this territory can we call our own? Well, in the imagination, we can own it all, but in practice where can we actually go? How much does it cost us in terms of time and risk and effort?

These questions were probably answered not by sitting and thinking, but by acting in response to need and circumstance. Once we have established access to important places – safe places to eat and sleep, we may have spare time to explore. Again theoretically we can go anywhere in the land; we can climb some trees, we can visit some caves, but we are best served by carefully extending our access; venturing from the known to the unknown with considerable caution. These explorations will inevitably influence our children and future generations in their travels; for the opening up of roads and other means of transportation enable certain paths to be travelled more easily and with greater safety. Some will become well chosen paths.

There are more than just physical pathways there are also mental ones. These mental routes, these neural pathways, must also have been explored for many thousands of years and for most of this time these ways of thinking, were communicated to the following generations through stories and deeds. The stories made the deeds possible and gave confidence to action. How else could one learn which animals to hunt, which fruits to eat, which paths to travel, which people to trust and so on.

In one sense we all own all these paths. They are the legacy left to us by our ancestors. This mental geography is handed down through the generations in stories, in songs, in pictures, in poems, in dramas, in artefacts, in rites and rituals. More recently, in the last few hundred years, they have been stored in a new way;  the printed word.

The knowledge contained in all the books, and all the artefacts in all the great libraries, museums and universities of the world are also part of our shared inheritance. We are also owners of these treasures. The stories from Egyptian, Greek and Roman times, the writings of philosophers, the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, the Bhagavagita, the works of the Enlightenment, the discoveries and theories of science, the formulas for technology, for potions and lotions, the writings of Confucius, of Lao Tse, of the Buddha and all the rest from Shakespeare to the living writers and artists of our time. They belong to us all.

And there is too much, and we need to select and we need help, we need more than just instruction booklets. We need education. For without knowledge a citizen, or someone with a right of residence or even a tourist who only has a temporary entitlement to stay in this country, may, in theory, have an entitlement to its many treasures, but how will they access them if they don’t know where they are? How will they choose the journeys to make? Keys are of no value if you don’t know which locks they fit. So in principle you may have equal entitlement but do you have equal access?

Entitlement to access  must depend on some qualities of identity. You may acquire one form of ownership, that is to say citizenship, by accident of birth, which in this country  makes you also a citizen of the European Union. You may also acquire citizenship by meeting certain other conditions. If access with entitlement is part, as I suggest, of a definition of ownership, then there are those whose main qualification is that they are wealthy. Sufficient wealth will provide you with considerable access and entitlement, more access, in fact, than the majority of citizens possess, although it is still true that you may have your entitlement and therefore your access refused or restricted depending on other factors, nationality, criminal record and so on.

So access isn’t equal.

Ownership presupposes an entitlement, and with that entitlement comes access, and with access, use and with use comes interest and responsibility; an interest in conservation, in upkeep, in  development. And also an interest in the agreements that protect and provide the rights of access; and an interest in who else has access.

So what is the agreed entitlement? Is there one? Being British is one identity from which flows a sense of ownership, but do we agree on what that means?

My father was British. He thought of himself as British but was not totally confident about it. After all he had been quite prepared to live, married to a Belgian, in Belgium until the Germans invaded. After the war he recognised the need for a Jewish Homeland, a place to which he could take his family, if this place also became unsafe. But he thought of himself as British.

He was a successful businessman in a business started by his father. We had a comfortable middle class life. How much did he think he owned of this country? Well churches had some uncomfortable connotations for him. The freedoms that he exercised, the protection of the rule of law that he enjoyed, the ability to belong to a community of other people who were Jewish, had in other places not only, not been defended by organised churches but these same churches had been key players in fomenting some of the pogroms which, a generation earlier,  had caused his father to flee for his life from Poland. My father wasn’t comfortable in churches.

I mean no offence to good people who might be Christian, might be members of the Church of England might even  be only ‘vaguely practising’. I just want you to know that my father, an Englishman by birth, did not feel  comfortable in churches. The Established Church belonged to others. He didn’t think for a moment that his right to travel the streets of the country depended on the Church of England’s largesse. He thought he was entitled to that by reason of his place of birth but he knew enough, having been taught English history, to know that the Church was a key player in the division of power that is at the core of Britain’s unwritten constitution. He knew that where the roads led to in this country had been determined by others and that there was not open and equal access for all.

He appreciated and valued the innate conservatism of such a long lived series of accommodations and adjustments. Like many other English people he was wary of strident socialism,  nationalism and of idealism and the revolutions that they sometimes encouraged. For they often seemed to challenge the rights of the individual to live as they please, within the law and with a minimum of state interference.

So, who do I think does own Britain?

Well, my answer is simple: we all do, everyone who is legally entitled to be in this country. More importantly it is only we as individuals who own this country. We the people may have invested governments, churches, companies and corporations, communities and other bodies (some of which are religious and many of which are not) with the status of a quasi-individual but their entitlement is second hand. It derives from us as individuals. It is because we give them, actively or passively, our assent.

So if we are the owners then what further questions do I think we need to consider?

Firstly, but not I think necessarily in order of importance, can non-Anglicans and particularly non-Christians and non-theists have full entitlement when there is an Establish Church?
Can an established Church of England avoid creating a host and guest relationship? The host with full rights of ownership and the guest with somewhat restricted ones.It may be that there are ways of solving the problem without necessarily engaging in full disestablishment. This needs to be explored. However I am not convinced that this is the most urgent of questions.

Article 1 of the UN Declaration states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” – but, as George Orwell noted, some are more equal than others. Equal in entitlement but not in the exercise of that entitlement. If there were to be considered a new British Bill of Rights, as some are calling for, how would all citizens of all religions and beliefs be guaranteed their rights?
If it began with a preamble along the lines of “We the people” who is it that would be included in that ‘we’?

There has been considerable discussion in the last few years about British Values and the underlying meaning beyond the legal status of British identity. These are I suggest irrelevant issues to the question of ownership. Our rights as citizens, residents and visitors are determined simply by our legal status and I think it is worth pointing out that citizenship is a human right guaranteed within the UN Declaration.

Words matter. They are, as I have already argued, the creators of mental pathways.

Does a woman, a British Citizen herself, and grandmother of someone born in this country have less of an entitlement because her command of the English language is poor or non existent?

No. Her entitlement is the same but quite possibly her ability to access her entitlement is severely reduced. All rights automatically imply duties and responsibilities. If you have a right to life then I have a duty not to kill you. But more than this the right to life is not just to any sort of life, but to the opportunity, and I stress, the opportunity, to live a full and fulfilled life. For those in power to ensure that you can live, but have only the means to do so, unemployed or on poverty wages,  in poor substandard housing without proper access to medical or other services is not to honour the duty to your right to life.

Meeting these and all the other obligations as individuals and through governments, state agencies, churches and the myriad other organisations requires a balance of rights against rights, and duties against duties, and it is often  complicated. We need to talk about these issues.

So here we arrive at some possibly even more challenging questions.

• Do you recognise the duty that you have to ensure the rights of others, others who are not members of your immediate family, of your local community, of your religious or belief community, of your sex , of your age, of your sexual orientation ?
• Do you accept that it is only by owning, by taking ownership of the whole of our human inheritance and then selecting and arguing and persuading as to how to proceed in the best way possible that we can move towards fulfilling our obligations to the human rights of others?
• Do you agree that to leave the decision making to others because you have not been here long, or because you are from a different culture or from a non-Christian religious background, or a religious perspective which is suspicious of engagement with others is to not fulfil your obligations to yourself, your family, your own community or to others?

Of course not everyone is motivated to be politically active but here we come to the difference between, for instance, voting for one party or another, abstaining for whatever reason and simply not bothering to vote. Only you can know whether your abstention from political involvement on any particular occasion is for good reason.

Do you intend to honour the most important, the most sacred of your obligations; the one to your children. And to all the other children of this country?

You can not do the one without doing the other.

To honour this obligation means to enable them to develop into independent individuals and to help them to realise their full potential. I want here to give a somewhat contentious example. If you, for whatever reason, exercise your right, to send your children to schools of a religious character, whether independent or state funded, then you must ensure that, in addition to a wide and varied general curriculum, they learn about other religions and also about non-religious and non-theistic beliefs. I am told that there are quite a few schools of a religious character that have begun to include Humanism in their programs of study. I hope this is the case, for there are many in this country who hold these beliefs. If you are non-religious and your children know nothing about Christian beliefs or the beliefs of other religions and worldviews then they too are being deprived of part of their heritage, being denied part of their entitlement to full development.

Children have a right to education. They have a right, and here I quote a UN convention, to the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice. This right is not unqualified. It is a duty imposed on us adults that we restrict what the child can access or impart if it is in the child’s best interest and this will no doubt vary depending on their stage of development. The analysis of the question of how we ensure the human rights of all the children of Britain is the most important conversation that I feel we should be having.

Prime-ministers  must stand up for something larger than just the values and principles of their own faith but should be among the principle defenders of the rights of all.

by Naomi Phillips, Head of Public Affairs, British Humanist Association

Following a thorough and independent inquiry, the Commission on Assisted Dying’s principal finding is that the law on assisted dying is ‘inadequate and incoherent’ and that ‘there is a strong case for providing the choice of assisted dying for terminally ill people’. The Commission has made a number of recommendations in its report necessary to facilitate a change in the law to legalise assisted dying while at the same time protecting vulnerable people.

Commenting on the report, the British Humanist Association’s (BHA) Chief Executive, Andrew Copson, stated, ‘The law as it stands is not compassionate. It gives no option to those who wish to end their lives without suffering and distress but are unable to do so themselves. The majority of the public support a reform in the law, and we do not believe there are any credible arguments to keep the law as it is. Rational and compassionate people will surely find nothing to disapprove of in the recommendations of the Commission today.’

Certainly, a change in the law is long overdue and urgent to prevent any more unnecessary suffering for those few people who have made a clear and resolute wish to end their lives but are unable to do so themselves – and the Commission’s considered, detailed, sensitive, and academic report makes a strong case for legal reform.

Case for wider reform

However, when we were called to give oral evidence to the inquiry (watch here) and in our written evidencewe made the case for a wider reform of the law. From an ethical perspective, we maintain that there is no strong moral case to limit assistance to terminally ill people alone and ultimately we wish to see reform of the law that would be responsive to the needs of other people who are permanently and incurably suffering. We also think that there are good arguments from compassion and from autonomy to legalise assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia, where the latter would allow someone other than the patient to administer medication needed to end her life, if she were unable to do so herself and had clearly stated that was her wish.

In light of that position, Mr Copson continued, ‘If anything, we would have liked to have seen the Commission go further and recommend a greater change in the law to allow both assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia. There is no rational moral distinction between allowing someone to die and actively assisting them to die in these circumstances: the intention and the outcome (the death of the patient) are the same in both cases. The only difference is that the more active means is probably the more compassionate one.

‘Recommending only a limited reform in the law to allow assisted dying but not voluntary euthanasia, and only to encompass terminally ill people rather than also including people who are unable to end their own lives but who are incurably suffering, permanently incapacitated and have made a clear, informed and resolute decision that they wish to do so, is ethically inconsistent.’

What can be done – and who opposes reform?

However, this is not to downplay the enormous and positive impact that a reform in the law would make for terminally ill people, and for their families who, at the moment, are being faced with the immensely difficult choices of whether, knowing that it is unlawful, to assist a loved one who is begging for help to put an end to their suffering or not to act and hence prolong their suffering.

But as the report makes clear, this is an issue that parliament needs to legislate on for change to happen. And despite the fact that survey after survey shows that a majority of people – whether religious or non-religious – support a reform in the law to legalise assisted dying (see figures ‘On Assisted Dying’), many MPs and Peers are resistant to speak out or to support change. When there are so many good, ethical reasons to support a reform in the law, why is there such reluctance amongst our elected representatives to act?

From our experience of working for reform in the area of assisted dying for many years, we can attest to the level of misinformation and emotionally charged campaigning conducted by those who oppose reform. It is clear that well-funded, organised, but disproportionate and unrepresentative lobbying and protestations from religious and other oppositional organisations, and the organised and influential opposition to reform by the 26 Church of England Lord Bishops in parliament, have a distorting, negative impact on the debate, severely retarding progress to take the law in a more ethical direction.

Of course it is not only religious people who form the minority opposition to reform on assisted dying (as above, most religious people support legal reform) – but it is the unrepresentative, often socially conservative religious lobby which is most vociferous in opposing a change in the law, just as it is in campaigning against issues such as the right to abortion and stem cell research (both issues that also command wide public support). The majority of members of the Care Not Killing alliance – the group which has been most vocal in opposing the Commission on Assisted Dying – are religious organisations, most are Christian. And most other prominent opponents come from a similar, conservative, religious perspective.

We will continue to campaign hard against the small but vocal lobby who oppose changing the law to allow, with strict safeguards, those who are suffering to die with dignity at a time of their own choosing. It would be a great shame if their largely unshared beliefs continued to have undue influence over our elected representatives, to come above the needs and rights of terminally ill patients, and to stand in the way of real reform. We urgently need a law on assisted dying that is sensible, ethical, humane, forward-thinking and that upholds people’s fundamental human right to die with dignity and in a manner of their choosing.

Contemporary dance was described by AC Grayling as “the cutting-edge art form of our time”.  Hamish MacPherson, the person behind Humanist Heritage, has been performing his own work since 2010 and is set to perform with fellow choreographer Martine Painter at Europe’s largest platform for work by new choreographers.

Hamish and Martine will be performing the premier of their duet, ‘Meeting Place’ on January 10 2012 at The Place, London, as part of Resolution!, a season of dance works by emerging choreographers.

They pair came together through a shared love of numbers and non-stylised movement and the piece plays with visually unfolding an algorithmic formula. As this takes place, an intimate and sometimes comic relationship emerges between the two dancers.

Hamish and Martine’s engagement with maths, science and philosophy reflects their diverse backgrounds: Martine read French studies, was a successful singer and is currently a librarian, and Hamish studied art and philosophy and is a civil servant.

Over the summer they both worked as dance artists with choreographer Eva Recacha for the Choreodrome season at The Place, where they performed in the Touch Wood season. Inspired by this experience they have gone on to make their own  work which was accepted for the biggest European platform for new choreographers: Resolution! at the world-famous contemporary dance venue The Place.

Tickets are available from The Place box office

Trailer can be watched online

The Guardian has a round up of tributes and reactions to the death of atheist and journalist Christopher Hitchens.

And Twitter has testimonials from some of the friends and colleagues of the author of God Is Not Great.

 stephenfry

Goodbye, Christopher Hitchens. You were envied, feared, adored, reviled and loved. Never ignored. Never bested. A great and marvellous man

30 minutes ago 

 ProfBrianCox

Saddened by the loss of the great Christopher Hitchens this morning #GodIsNotGreat

34 minutes ago 

 andrewcopson Andrew Copson

Christopher Hitchens may be gone but his literary legacy gives him a real afterlife. May it inspire as many as he did in life.

Journalist Mona Eltahawy tells about her ordeal at the hands of the Egyptian forces and how her ordeal is just one in amongst hundreds. Mona Eltahawy recognises that she has something at her disposal that ordinary Egyptians do not; as a journalist she can write people’s stories and shed light on what is happening in Egypt.

Read full transcript of the interview and watch the interview here: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/28/as_egypt_holds_vote_journalist_mona

The morning after pill is to be given out free over the phone for the first time, under a scheme to be announced today.

Read full article here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8935425/Morning-after-pill-given-out-free-over-the-phone.html