Some responses to the latest “atheism in RE” story are unintentionally hilarious. Chris Theobald has a laugh.

The Sun's big shiny headline on an old story

The news that Humanism will be included in the new RE syllabus in a local authority in Lancashire from September has elicited a number of reactions in the media this week.

The Daily Express warns us of ‘Lessons in Atheism’ for young children. The move is  opposed by Councillor Salim Mulla, chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, who is concerned not to ‘confuse’ children. Only religious people have values so it’s better to force chidlren to adopt whatever belief their parents first give them, apparently:

I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay. The non-faith beliefs send a wrong message to the children and confuse them. Values are very, very important. I don’t think the non-God aspect should be introduced into the curriculum.

However, those campaigning for inclusive RE lessons find an unlikely ally in Rev Kevin Logan of the Christian People’s Alliance quoted in the Daily Mail:

It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.

I am certainly not worried about Christianity. It can stand against any belief and come out in a good light.

But perhaps our favourite perspective comes in the Sun from a Catholic priest from the Blackburn area, Father Michael Lavin, who stated with no apparent sense of irony:

I think that four years old is too young to be learning about atheism, at that age they hardly know what Christianity is.

It is difficult to get youngsters to understand theology and spiritual concepts. Children tend to struggle when you are making the first Holy Communion.

Father Lavin and others seem to fail to understand that for many parents and indeed current pupils, this news story will appear wholly curious. The study of Humanism has been a feature of school RE for at least four decades and first appeared in a local syllabus in the early 1970s. The Sun refers this week to “Double Atheism”, as if Atheism was going to be studied as a full, timetabled subject in and of itself, like Geography or Physics. In reality of course, it’s just about including secular views as some minimal balance against an overwhelming religious RE. Today, most of the 152 local syllabuses in this country include the study of the humanist view of life. True, that doesn’t always mean it’s taught, or taught well. But far from being an anomaly, consensus is building that any RE which fails to teach about non-religious perspectives, is missing something pretty big.

A recent poll carried out by the British Humanist Association found that when asked the leading question: ‘what is your religion’, a question designed to measure weak cultural affiliation, 38% of people in England and Wales say they have ‘no religion’. According to 2004 DfES Research Report 564, some 65% of 12-19 year olds do not describe themselves as belonging to a religion.

Learning about the non-religious answers to big philosophical questions alongside religious ones contributes to the development of pupils’ own views and educates them about the beliefs of millions of their fellow citizens. It ensures that students that are from non-religious families or who are not religious themselves are able to feel fully included in discussions around ethics and morality.

Chris Theobald is a campaigns volunteer for the British Humanist Association.

The British Humanist Association supports local SACRE representatives, for example in local authority areas where non-religious views are still excluded from religion or belief education.

For some years now the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) has brought a steady trickle of supposed discrimination cases on behalf of a handful of Christians who, in most cases, have lost a job, or in some way been prevented from manifesting belief.  And the courts have determined time and again that the action taken in the first place was lawful because the Christians in question were trying to discriminate against others. And by “others” we pretty much mean gay people.

The cases have been magnified by inflationary press releases and a sometimes eager conservative media into a tale of uniform persecution of Christians by rabidly secular judges. But the obvious truth – that it is not Christians per se being in any way singled out by the courts, but only a tiny handful using Christianity as a means to discriminate against others (gay people) – is sinking in. Witness Deborah Orr in the Guardian today. She misses that the string of cases she lists basically all get backed by the CLC, but the nausea caused by their repetition is evident:

Goodness, they keep on coming – an adoption agency, a registrar, a couple running a bed and breakfast, and now a couple wishing to be respite carers. Is there no end to the supply of out and proud, actively homophobic Christians? Eunice and Owen Johns earlier this week became the latest in a long line of people seeking to establish that their religious beliefs should trump the law of the land. They, like so many others before them, want the legal right to advertise their belief that homosexuality is wrong, and to make their disapproval an open and formal part of their professional dealings with others. They keep being told that it’s not on. But they simply won’t accept that empty prejudices are empty prejudices, whether sanctioned by religious belief or not.

For Orr the line between being freely able to worship as one sees fit – good thing – and on the other unlawfully frustrating the normal lives of others (gay people) based on a weak metaphysical argument – bad thing – is quite clear:

I’m not religious. But I strongly believe that people should be free to worship as they please (within the law). These endless petty cases, in which people attempt to justify their desire to vilify others who do them no harm as “Christian”, make me wonder why I bother.

The fact that the CLC’s cases sometimes seem to revolve almost entirely around trying to establish a right to discriminate against gay people by citing religious grounds is beginning to look like a blunder even to supporters of the overall aim. Witness the Evangelical Alliance:

The Evangelical Alliance expresses doubt about the wisdom in bringing such cases to the High Court in the first place. While there is no doubt that equality laws appear increasingly controversial in the way they seem to disproportionately impact against Christians, there is a clear need for a more cautious and strategic approach when deciding to take matters to court.

Dr Don Horrocks, Head of Public Affairs at the Alliance, said: “We all need to be more clued-up in deciding if and when to fight legal battles. Of course there are occasions when defending religious liberty in the courts is entirely appropriate and if there is evidence of fundamental unfairness in the interpretation of equalities legislation then this needs to be addressed by government.

“However, it is counterproductive to provoke the courts into unnecessary and unhelpful rulings – especially when a case is weak and evidence is lacking. There may also be risks that Christians will be viewed as deliberately engineering conflicts with the courts or pleading privileged treatment.”

Deliberately engineering conflicts with the courts or pleading privileged treatment?! Gosh, who could have thought such a thing was going on.

A court found on Monday that a Christian couple who said they would expose children to anti-gay beliefs could be lawfully prevented by Derby City Council from fostering. The British Humanist Association commented on the decision, saying it shows that “prejudices and preferences come second to the needs and rights of vulnerable children”.

Not everyone was so welcoming of the decision, however. No one’s been burned at the stake yet but both the Telegraph and the Spectator labelled the ruling part of an  ”Inquisition”.

The Spectator misrepresents the ruling by pulling the usual switcheroo. The Johns, the High Court decided, would be liable to push an anti-gay view on children, but the Spectator interprets: “Their crime is simply to believe it is wrong to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child”. As if promoting homosexuality to children is what Derby City Council want! No, it’s that the Johns said they would actively tell children that expressing homosexuality (whether “lifestyle” or indeed intrinsic characteristic) was morally wrong, in their eyes, and in the eyes of God. Pish and posh, says the Spectator, They’re just good Christians who believe that “sex outside marriage is wrong”. Critics of the ruling do tend to fall back on that line: it’s sex outside marriage the Johns object to, and – the commentators want to add – morally conservative Christians don’t object to homosexuality per se… but they can’t quite say that because that’s obviously not the case and if actual gay marriage was fully legal the so-called “moral objections” (whatever they’re meant to be) would obviously become objections to gay sex inside marriage, or to gay marriage itself. Obviously. Really, really obviously.

Ironically, in one article the Telegraph headlines the quote “Our Christianity is our lifestyle”. Again the implication is that all evangelising anti-gay parents would be doing is influencing the lifestyle of the children, just as all parents do, so why does their Christian lifestyle fall foul of children’s possible future “lifestyle choices”. That the actual lifestyle choices of the religious parents are in conflict with what the law regards as potentially innate characteristics of children, no more changeable than race or sex, is beyond the critics’ ken.

Forgetting to imagine what it might be like as a child to have your nascent sexuality besmirched by your parents isn’t as bad as it gets, though. In an extraordinary feat of experimental narrative art, Cristina Odone manages to pen an entire eight paragraph long opinion piece about the case – in which she finds time to complain that Christianity itself is being “eradicated”, that laws are “taking apart” tradition (the tradition of homophobia?) and that secularists want to “scrub Christianity from public life” – without once even mentioning the crucial anti-gay views on which the case actually turned.

Just as humanists are once again prompted by legislative possibilities to push the call for equality in marriage law (both on differential privilege for religious services and for full equality for same-sex couples), along comes an excellent piece of evidence of the demand for humanist ceremonies offering a good, value-laden, non-religious approach.

There were more humanist weddings than Roman Catholic weddings in Scotland last year, according to new figures.

The Registrar General for Scotland’s provisional data on marriages by denomination showed humanist weddings were the third most popular ceremony.

There were 1,706 humanist weddings, between January and September 2010, an increase of 35% on 2009, while Catholic weddings remained static at 1,506.

There were 11,430 civil marriages and 5,013 Church of Scotland weddings.

Humanist weddings were granted legal status in 2005.

The Humanist Society of Scotland (HSS) said it expected to see the number of humanist weddings “overtake those of the Church of Scotland in 2015″.

Continues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12517893

Last night’s Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4, examines the B&B gay rights case and asks:

Is the application of the Human Rights Act being turned in to a political ideology and being used to persecute a group – the religious – that is now a minority in our society? Should religious beliefs have any privileged status in a democratic society? How do we define the boundaries of liberty? Is the state, through the legal system, defending minorities or encroaching in to the very core of our personal freedoms and telling us what to believe?

Michael Buerk chairs with Michael Portillo, Claire Fox, Matthew Taylor and Clifford Longley on the panel. The guests include Richard Norman, Emeritus Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Kent, Vice-President of the British Humanist Association, and a member of the BHA’s Humanist Philosophers group.

Listen again: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00xw1t9

Indoctrinating children in faith schools, even when you tell them not to.

An irate father who withdrew his young son from school after discovering that he was reciting prayers is considering further action against the school for “not sticking to its agreement”.

Martijn Leenheer said he was “shocked” to accidentally discover five-year-old Finn had been reciting prayers several times a day at Drumlease Primary School in Dromahair, Co Leitrim, despite the fact that his parents had opted out of Catholic religious instruction for their child.

Finn now attends the Educate Together school in Sligo. But his father, who has outlined his case to the Irish Human Rights Commission, is considering taking his complaint to the Equality Authority or the Ombudsman for Children.

“I feel the school didn’t respond to my concerns and they are still not responding to me.

“My belief is that the school should be responsible for supervising children if they want to opt out because the way it stands at the moment, they ask me if I want to opt out, I say, ‘yes’ and basically nothing happens,” he told the Irish Independent.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/father-removes-son-from-school-over-prayers-15065286.html#ixzz1CEmcQsAc

Ben Summerskill of Stonewall responds to the Christian “B&B” case ruling.

If the Bulls [the hoteliers] had a sense of humour, something they don’t seem God-blessed with, they might have spotted the irony of spending the Christmas season fighting for the entitlement to turn guests away from their inn.

During passage of the 2006 Equality Act, Stonewall fought hard to secure pioneering “goods and services” protections for lesbian and gay people, protecting them for the first time against discrimination in the delivery of public and commercial services. The preceding legal entitlement to deny gay people a service was every bit as offensive as the notorious signs outside guesthouses that once said: “No blacks. No Irish.” And people certainly took advantage of it, as lesbians denied smear tests and gay men refused holiday bookings were well aware.

…

If you allow businesses or public services to turn away gay people at will on trumped-up grounds of principle, as the Bulls would wish, then our public services will soon have to deal with the Jewish registrar with an ethical objection to marrying out, or a Muslim nurse who doesn’t wish to care for an unmarried mother. So the really important message from Bristol county court is simply that the appropriate “balance of rights” for modern Britain is one that keeps private prejudice out of the public space.

The Bulls’ shadowy supporter, the Christian Legal Centre, suggests it may turn to the law again. If so, it might reflect that, for the estimated £30,000 this court case has cost it, Oxfam or Save the Children could have vaccinated 100,000 people against meningitis in sub-Saharan Africa. Now that would have been a genuinely Christian way to spend its money.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jan/18/christian-hoteliers-gay-couple-equality

Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled yesterday that a Christian couple running a B&B who refused a double bed for gay guests has drawn a limited response, mainly from the more morally ‘conservative’ end of the spectrum, viewing the case as a loss of religious rights… though the law seems abundantly clear that it’s only when you start discriminating against others that legislation may rightly come into play.

The Telegraph, short-sightedly, represents all the personal angst felt by the couple who were discriminated against as merely being “offended”. In the eyes of their editorial view, it’s as if the judge has censured someone over a passing comment, rather than what it actually as: a keenly felt, holiday-ruining denial of service by a business, based on the intrinsic characteristics of their would-be guests.

The right to hold religious beliefs, and to act in keeping with one’s faith, is being set against the right not to be offended – and is losing. This is a dispiriting trend in a free society. The views of the Bulls will seem to many to be old-fashioned, even distasteful – but they have every right to hold them.

Again, missing another point: the B&B owners weren’t just “holding a view”, they were running a public business and treating some people differently in a way which made them feel small and rejected for no good reason.

Andrew Brown is more analytical, though he  emphasises what appears to be his own view, that the case represents a “clash of genuine rights” in his Guardian blog:

Judge Andrew Rutherford’s ruling against the Cornish Christian couple who refused to offer a double bed to a gay couple treads a narrow line in deciding what counts as discrimination. It will no doubt delight the evangelical Christians who can use it to strengthen their own sense of being a persecuted minority, but the real point is a more subtle one, about the equivalence of civil partnerships with marriage. That may well increase the rage of conservative evangelicals, but it is unlikely to win them many converts.

… The important point about Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the couple who owned the Cornish hotel in question, was that they really believed that their policy did not discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation. Their line was that no unmarried couples, whether straight or gay, could share a double-bedded room, and evidence was presented to show that they had previously been in trouble with heterosexual couples who had been turned away for this reason, as far back as 1996. … So it really does appear that the Bulls were attempting to run a policy that did not discriminate against gay unmarried couples any more than it did against straight ones. The judge is quite clear that this is a clash of genuine rights and sincere principles on both sides. His job is to balance them, or rather to discover how the law balances the two rights – to the free exercise of religious belief; and to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The crucial factor turned out to be the fact that the gay couple, Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, had entered into a civil partnership. The law says that civil partners are to be treated as married ones and in that sense the Bulls’ policy was direct discrimination, since there was no possibility of marriage, still less Christian marriage for any gay couple. That is why they won their case.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2011/jan/18/cornish-hotel-ruling-conservative-christians

And the Daily Mail embarrass themselves.

The British Humanist Association campaigns for full equality in marriage law for same-sex partners.

A homophobic crank possibly vaguely familiar on US religious TV programming blames mass bird die-offs and other disasters on, you guessed it, equalities legislation for gay people, in serious and concerned tones that chime completely hollow.

Cindy Jacobs, a “respected prophet,” says birds and fish may be dying off en masse because of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In other words: buttsecks kills.

“From Pokemon cards and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, to Marilyn Manson and psychic hotlines, this nation is under siege,” she warns in her new book.

Via http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/10/whats-causing-the-my.html

Christian prayers held at council meetings could be “under threat” in Gloucestershire, as the local press puts it.

Gloucestershire County Council has promised to research how other authorities “present” their religious overtones following an inquiry by a councillor.

Councillor Sarah Lunnon (G, Stroud East) prompted the investigation by questioning whether the council’s Protestant prayer was appropriate for all beliefs.

She said: “I would like to know what is the correct procedure for members of the public, officers and councillors who have faith or beliefs which are either not met or contradicted by council prayers.”

Shire Hall, like the vast majority of local authorities across the country, includes a short prayer at the beginning of official council meetings.

… Councillor Gordon Shurmer, chairman of the council, defended the current practice, but promised to look into the alternatives.

Full article: http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Council-s-prayers-meetings-examined/article-2939696-detail/article.html

If the same small cabal of Christian lawyers who keep putting their weight behind these scarce but media-friendly cases are doing so in the dire hope of one day setting a precedent in their favour, perhaps statements like “the continuation of these proceedings was plainly misconceived… they were doomed to fail” will soon have the opposite effect and prevent such ludicrous complaints (‘They’re discriminating against my discrimination!’) from reaching a judge in the first place.

A Christian adoption adviser dismissed for refusing to recommend same-sex couples as suitable parents has lost her claim for religious discrimination.

Dr Sheila Matthews, 50, from Kettering in Northamptonshire, lost her job with the county council when she asked to abstain from voting in same-sex cases.

She told her employers Northamptonshire County Council she felt children “did best” with heterosexual parents.

The employment tribunal, sitting in Leicester, dismissed the claim.

Concluding a two-day hearing, regional employment judge John MacMillan said she had no case against the council.

He said: “The complaints of religious discrimination fail and are dismissed.

“This case fails fairly and squarely on its facts.”

He added: “In our judgment, at least from the time of the pre-hearing review, the continuation of these proceedings was plainly misconceived… they were doomed to fail.

“There is simply no factual basis for the claims.”

Continues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-11769358

Meanwhile, a retired Catholic bishop speaks of being persecuted by the “ideology of homosexuality”. All he wants to do is say that some people’s intrinsic characteristics are wrong in the eyes of The Universe and that their happiness and love should be outlawed and socially condemned – and for this they persecute him. Poor archbishop.

Freedom of thought and expression is under threat from the gay rights movement, said Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the retired archbishop of Bologna, in memoirs that are published on Thursday. And the result is that those people who disagreed with the homosexual agenda are being ostracised by society, he said.

“The ideology of homosexuality” – as often happens to ideologies when they become aggressive and end up being politically triumphant [the Telegraph helpfully inserts] “becomes a threat to our legitimate autonomy of thought: those who do not share it risk condemnation to a kind of cultural and social marginalisation,” said Cardinal Biffi.

Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8140303/Italian-cardinal-warns-gay-activists-are-persecuting-Christians.html

Jonathan Chaplin is relatively positive about Evan Harri’s secularist manifesto, calling it a “measured contribution” to recent debate. But he does have some minor quibbles… which amount to a fundamental disagreement about the nature of secularism.

First, it proposes a restrictive interpretation of the right to conscientious objection within the public sector, which would be limited to “rare and specific” exemptions agreed by parliament. His stance is in accord with the trend of recent employment tribunal and court decisions but it departs from the generous British tradition accommodating conscientious objection wherever possible.

Why, for example, must a marriage registrar be legally compelled to perform a same-sex civil partnership ceremony against her religious conscience when other colleagues are readily available to do so? Protecting conscience would not imply a “blanket religious exemption based on subjective feelings” but rather a better balancing of objective legal rights.

Second, it fails to recognise that an effective right to “manifest” belief is not only individual but organisational. For many religious believers, manifestation is a corporate not a solitary enterprise, coming to expression in a wide range of faith-based educational, welfare, charitable, publishing or campaigning associations. Some operate outside the public sector while others come within its purview either through historical incorporation by the state (eg church schools, religious hospitals) or through having entered into contracts with the state to pursue specific public purposes (eg faith-based social service agencies).

But Harris wants to impose severe legal restrictions on the ability of such religious organisations to act according to their distinctive religious beliefs the moment they enter the public sector, thereby frustrating the very reason for them existing as distinct bodies rather than mere replicas of secular agencies. For example, it could have the effect of coercing church schools into hiring staff who might repudiate the very religious beliefs or moral practices defining the school’s distinct identity, or of preventing such schools from teaching RE from their own perspective.

Third, it elides the distinction between a separation of church and state and a separation of religion and state.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/24/response-evan-harris-secularist-manifesto

Homosexual couples should be allowed to get married, the Liberal Democrats said today.

Equality minister Lynne Featherstone pledged to bring forward plans “relatively soon”, adding that she was looking at how “how far do you unravel” the 200-year-old marriage laws.

A motion passed by party activists said same-sex and mixed-sex couples should be allowed to choose whether they wish to have a marriage or civil partnership and would allow homosexual couples to marry in church.

Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Gilbert acknowledged the motion was controversial, telling the conference in Liverpool: “Of course, there will be opponents.

“When it comes to equality, you and I all know that there are opponents. This motion doesn’t compel religious groups to offer gay marriage or compel gay people to get married. It simply extends an equal choice to one and all.”

The conference called on the Government to open both marriage and civil partnerships to both same-sex and mixed-sex couples.

It would also allow approved religious and humanist groups to celebrate marriage or civil partnerships in “any authorised place”.

Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/8016642/Liberal-Democrat-Conference-party-backs-same-sex-marriage.html

Note: The British Humanist Association supports a Humanist Ceremonies network and campaigns for full equality in marriage law including giving legal status to humanist weddings.

The independence of the judiciary is axiomatic; it goes to the very core of the constitution of this country. Could Lord Carey’s request for specific judicial panels to hear religious cases, or asking for specific judges to be excluded, amount to an assertion of a “superior right” for the Church of England? Let’s not forget that the religion or belief regulations are themselves derived from framework directive 2000/78/EC which set a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation with a view to putting into effect in the member states the principle of equal treatment.

If Lord Carey, or indeed anyone else, is concerned about judicial bias they are able to complain to the Office for Judicial Complaints (with evidence of their concerns) or lobby for further parliamentary consultation, or lobby for legislative change in Europe.

I fear that publicly asking specific senior judges to excuse themselves could create a dangerous ground for future conflict.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/19/lord-carey-christian-judges

Michael Black and John Morgan from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were turned away from a B&B in Berkshire recently. This is of course illegal and they reported the matter to the police. The B&B owner, Susanne Wilkinson, explains her “moral reasoning”.

“I don’t see why I should change my mind and my beliefs I’ve held for years just because the government should force it on me.

“The property is not a hotel. It operates as a guest house and private home.”

Mr Wilkinson disputed the couple’s claim that they had not been given a friendly welcome.

“We are Christians and we believe our rights don’t have to be subordinated. We have religious freedom and we are not judging that but we are not prepared to have that sort of activity under our roof,” he said. “These people are very organised and we have already been inundated with abusive calls and emails. It is really sad that people act like that.” Thames Valley police said: “We are aware of the incident … The call has been logged as a homophobic incident. As the people live outside of the force area, we have asked Cambridgeshire constabulary to speak to the individuals concerned.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/gay-couple-refused-hotel-room

Lord Harrison will hold a debate on two reports by the British Humanist Association (BHA) calling for a secular approach to public service and legislation.

The reports call for an inclusive approach to public services, provided in a secular way, and say all citizens should have equal rights to access and receive public services.

The BHA regards religious privilege as a form of discrimination; it is the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for a secular state.

In 2009, the BHA launched a billboard campaign urging parents not to label their children with their own religious faith. The campaign – which features in capital cities across the country – is designed to challenge state-funded faith schools.

Continues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_lords/newsid_8572000/8572391.stm

The Equality Minister will decide with Cabinet colleagues whether to allow the controversial amendment to her flagship anti-discrimination bill to stand when it reaches the Commons next week.

If the move to allow civil partnerships to take place on religious premises becomes law, having been agreed to by peers, it will raise “a number of problems” for faith groups, priests, registrars and civil marriages for men and women.

A Whitehall source said: “It hasn’t been decided yet – it’s possible that the Government will try to remove the amendment in the Commons.”

However, with the general election just weeks away, ministers fear that the entire Equality Bill could fall if peers and MPs argue over the contentious clause.

It is possible that Miss Harman and the Domestic Affairs (Communities & Equalities) Cabinet committee will allow the amendment to be voted through in the Commons and then begin consulting on a series of subsequent changes to regulations on civil partnerships and civil marriages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7368545/Harriet-Harman-could-kill-off-gay-marriages-in-church-plan.html

Exeter Cathedral

In this first year of the tens, why does anyone still cares what bishops say? Keith Denby contests the authority of the “Lords Spiritual”.

Once these powerful men commanded the attention of the kingdom; peoples lives and the prosperity of their families could depend on the will of the local Bishop. In 1278 the Bishop of Exeter was able to “ordain that every Dean, at his creation, shall swear to observe this our statute and ordinance, together with the other ancient and approved ones of the church of Exon.”

The current Bishop of Exeter gave a profile interview in the Western Morning News just before Christmas. Michael Langrish said that “‘Everyone has a right to their view … if they respect mine”. His Grace the Bishop still seems to be living in 1278. Nowadays respect has to be earned, it does not come with the job – as prime ministers, ministers and MPs have found to their cost. Substitute Robert Mugabe or Katie Price for the Bishop and the absurdity of his statement becomes sharply apparent. What has Michael Langrish actually done to earn our respect?

In the interview he accuses secular humanists of having a “hidden agenda” to claim the entire public forum for themselves and of not wanting a space for people of any faith. Yet Bishop Langrish merely makes a passing comment about his own privileged access to the very public forum of the House of Lords. Twenty six bishops of the Church of England comprise the “Lords Spiritual” and have full voting rights on any bill brought before the house. Beyond the political party in power, no other interest group has such extensive privileges of access to the public forum.

The Church of England has become sensitive to the steadily increasing criticism of this privilege and has taken to providing links to the Hansard text of the bishops’ contributions to Lords debates. Unfortunately this has only highlighted the self serving nature of most of these speeches. In November 2009, after graciously adding his condolences to the family of the policeman drowned in the Cumbria floods, the Bishop of Exeter gets down to the real business of asking the Chancellor to continue the listed places of worship grant scheme which has so far given around £81 million to the Church of England.

He was back with the collection plate on 21st Jan this year with an appeal for a VAT reduction for charities. Whilst this would benefit many worthy causes with no religious affiliation, it is also true that all the Parochial Church Councils that administer parish church finances are themselves charities.

The Lords Spiritual have a long and unpleasant history of blocking progress, mostly for the intended benefit of the Church of England. In 1831 the country was on the verge of revolution as demands for ‘one man one vote’ reached a crescendo. Britain needed to reform the voting system to bring ordinary men into the process of selecting the Government. The Second Reform Bill of 1831 was defeated in the Lords by 41 votes and the Lords Spiritual all voted against the bill. The country was outraged and there was a riot in Bristol that resulted in the burning down of the Bishop’s Palace. The Duke of Wellington, never regarded as a moderniser, had a better understanding of the mood of the country than the bishops and his ministry forced through the Great Reform Act in 1832 against their continuing opposition.

One of those opponents of reform was Henry Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter. Philpotts and his business associates owned 665 slaves in the Caribbean and were compensated for their loss when slavery was abolished. After the 1831 debate he whined that “noble lords had … spoken against them in a tone of sarcasm … as a body actuated by self interest at variance with the public good.”

Bishop Michael Langrish continues this fine tradition. On 25th January this year he spoke during the debate on the Equality Bill to plead that faith communities be allowed to continue to make their own decisions about matters that touch the very heart of religious faith and life.

But, in plain English, he was asking for the churches to be allowed to continue their discrimination against employment of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The Archbishop of York made the astonishing claim that the ability to discriminate against lesbian and gay people was a matter of “religious freedom”. In the vote on an amendment which sought to extend the exemptions permitting religious organisations to discriminate in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation, sex and marital status, the eight bishops present voted against the Government and the amendment was carried. This may lead to the UK being prosecuted in the European Court of Justice.

Such a regressive move by the Lords Spiritual is no longer likely to provoke any burning of bishops’ palaces but what little respect the general public has for ‘What bishops say’ has been even further diminished.

Bishop Langrish is quite wrong in his snide accusation of a hidden secular humanist agenda. The secular humanist agenda is right out in the open – there should be no privileged access to any public forum or legislature by any faith or belief group, all should have equal access and stand or fall by the merits of their argument. Among other things that means turfing out all the bishops from their privileged seats in the House of Lords, and they should be turfed out right now.

Keith Denby is a committee member of Devon Humanists, a BHA Local Development volunteer.

References

• Hansard
  • http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/91123-0008.htm#09112331000025
  • http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100121-0002.htm#10012120000058
  • http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100125-0007.htm#10012533000009
• Reform!: The Fight for the 1832 Reform Act – Edward Pearce (Pimlico 2004)
• British Humanist Association – http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/437

The British Humanist Association campaigns to end the special privilege which sees bishops of the Church of England sitting as of a right in the House of Lords.

Apparently only two out of 26 Lordly bishops were present as the upper house voted yesterday to allow same-sex civil partnerships in churches.

The Church Times carries a cartoon wondering where all the other bishops had got to.

The Bishop of Winchester feels the need to explain that he wasn’t there because of “ubreakable prior commitments” (poker night?). Nonetheless, he’s really annoyed that allowing right-minded congregations to bless same-sex unions will “further fudge the line between civil partnerships and marriage. That is shown by some newspapers which simply speak of gay marriages in church.”

The British Humanist Association campaigns on marriage law and to remove the bishops from the House of Lords.

Minister, Andy Pakula

“We are refusing to marry any couple until the day when we can marry every couple.” Andy Pakula on the church which practices what it preaches on equality.

I was invited to write something for HumanistLife because I am the minister of a congregation that took a very strong stance in support of full equality for same-sex couples. We are refusing to marry any couple until the day when we can marry every couple.

I am a Unitarian. And yet, my beliefs do not differ greatly from those that might be labeled humanist, in the sense that I do not believe in any supernatural entity that intervenes in human existence or dictates our behaviour.

Unitarianism is a faith that grew out of Christianity and became something more diverse and broad. So diverse, in fact, that my own congregation includes quite a few self-defining humanists, agnostics, and atheists in addition to people who would define their perspectives using terms including Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, and many more.

My own life journey tood me deeply into angry atheism. I was raised in a secular Jewish family and then, in my teens, rejected all established religion as a bunch of superstitious nonsense – and dangerous nonsense at that. As many have concluded, I felt that the impact of religion througout history been more a source of divisiveness and hatred than of kindness, love, and compassion. In my thirties, I stumbled upon Unitarianism – expecting to hate it like all other religion. I was shocked to find that this religion not only does not insist on any particular set of beliefs, but actively encourages each person to find their own personal path.

What I had stumbled upon was exactly what I had needed without knowing it: a community where I felt supported and yet free – a community that offered challenges that made me think and acceptance wherever my thinking and searching led.

My path eventually led me to leave a career in biotechnology – leaving behind a Ph.D. in biology, a masters in business, and a good income – to become a Unitarian minister. This is not at all what I expected from my life!

My path most certainly did not lead me to believe in a personal God. I do not believe that there is something or someone out there that controls what happens in our lives, that holds up or crashes planes, that causes or prevents earthquakes, that causes or cures cancer, or anything of the sort.

It did lead me to believe in connection, in love, in compassion, and in the many ways that, working together, we can make life better for humanity and for all of the Earth’s beings.

I recognize that many would say there is no need for religion in order to do these things – that a religion that does not impose beliefs is benign but unnecessary. For anyone who is able to find and strengthen their own sense of purpose, engage in the betterment of the world, enter into deep connection with others, and engage meaningfully with people of different experiences and perspective on their own, I completely agree.

For me, and for many others, doing this on our own is difficult. We are too easily affected by the daily media and advertising onslaught that teaches selfishness, vanity, fierce individualism, and materialism. If we do not want to live that kind of life, we need to find a place that supports us in pursuing the opposite. A Unitarian congregation does that for us. It provides a safe place where we can take our sorrows, joys, needs, longings, struggles, and energies. It provides opportunities to stop and reflect, opportunities to learn how others see the world, opportunities to engage with diverse teachings and philosophies, and most of all, a safe, accepting space where we can increasingly become the best people we can be.

Unitarianism is not perfect, but it is a religion in motion – it is ever-changing and evolving to adapt to the needs and realities of the times. Today, an important justice issue is equality for same-sex couples. We recognize the importance of that struggle and have engaged fully in it. We also understand that any group that calls itself a religion has a special responsibility to help right the wrongs perpetrated by religion in the past.

We also recognize that some of the things any ‘religion’ does – even the most inclusive and radical one – seem increasingly odd as norms and expectations change. A Unitarian service can seem oddly quaint and even naff to a generation raised on music videos, computer games, and the world wide web. Hymns – even with inclusive language – do not speak to everyone! Like all institutions, we experience some inertia and change more slowly than we would like. But, like any institution that will survive, we are changing and evolving to meet the needs and expectations of today’s context. We engage in the struggle to change our practices just as we struggle to grow as people and to do what we can to help make a more just and peaceful world.

Andy Pakula is the minister of the Newington Green and Islington Unitarian in north London. He is the director of UKSpirituality and he blogs at Throw Yourself Like Seed.