Newsline 7January 2005

Newsline 14 January 2005

Newsline 21January 2005

Newsline 28January 2005

Incitement of Religious Hatred Speech to Lords by Keith Porteous Wood

Incitement of Religious Hatred Speech to Lords by Rowan Atkinson

Religious Incitement Statutes PDF

Home Page NSS

Further updates will become available soon.

The National Secular Society apologises for the interruption in our service.

Home Page Atheism Central

In this week's issue:

World still turning after broadcast of Jerry Springer

Quotes/essays of the week

Religious incitement law - selling free speech for votes

Alarming precedent set in religious employment law

Gay marriage free-for-all in Canada is unpredictable

Vatican rushes through concordats in readiness for Article 52

Massaging the figures upwards

Religious opportunists exploit tsunami tragedy

Want to be on radio?

It's a hard life, so have a cuppa tea, love

NSS speaks out

Letters to Newsline

For your diary



WORLD STILL TURNING AFTER BROADCAST OF JERRY SPRINGER

Somehow, Britain is still functioning after the broadcast of Jerry Springer, the Opera on the BBC last Saturday. The way it was being described by Stephen Green, and his Christian Voice organisation, you'd think that God would have felt a personal duty to come down and raze Television Centre to the ground, sending all the blasphemers directly to hell.

Having now met Mr Green, I realise that the country has been taken for a ride by a bigot who wouldn't know the truth if it poked him the eye. From claims that there were 8,000 profanities in the show to the burning of television licences (actually photocopies) to his empty threats to bring a blasphemy prosecution, Mr Green has a flair for catching the media's attention, but not for retaining it very long.

On his website he claims that "the Lord" enabled him to stop a reading of a "blasphemous" poem (first published in Gay News in the 70s and prosecuted at the time by Mary Whitehouse). The reading, organised as a protest by the NSS and other secular groups, took place on the steps of St Martins in the Field in Trafalgar Square. Those of us who were there remember it quite differently, of course. Mr Green did indeed, arrive with his storm troopers and their bull horns and powerful amplifiers, but the reading went ahead as planned, even though we weren't permitted to use amplification. The police, on that occasion, declined Mr Green's request to arrest us for blasphemy because he felt offended by what we were doing.

Already attempts to get to the bottom of his activities have begun (see here, here and here)

and it is clear that much of the fuss over the weekend was entirely orchestrated. There was no grassroots uprising about the broadcast of Jerry Springer the Opera in this country, it was entirely a construct of the burgeoning religious right and their skilful use of email technology.

There wasn't even agreement among Christians that JTSO was blasphemous or worthless artistically. See here for a surprising Christian view of the show.

As for the threats to bring a blasphemy case, we can but point Mr Green to what was said in the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences last year: "No blasphemy case has been prosecuted in England and Wales since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 (incorporating elements of the European Convention on Human Rights), but it is a reasonable speculation that as a consequence of that legislation any prosecution for blasphemy today-even one which met all the known criteria-would be likely to fail or, if a conviction were secured, would probably be overturned on appeal (if not by the House of Lords then by the European Court of Human Rights) on grounds either of discrimination, of denial of the right to freedom of expression, or of the absence of certainty. Such an outcome would, in effect, constitute the demise of the law of blasphemy."

This opinion was supported by media lawyers. Maddie Mogford, a media law partner with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, told the Financial Times: "Because there's so little case law on it, nobody really knows how the blasphemy laws work in practice. In the current climate there's a risk it would fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights."

Giles Crown, a partner with Lewis Silkin, added: "Juries may not look at it solely in dry legal terms but also in a social context. I think that's the main issue, coupled with the fact that public prosecutors show no inclination for bringing prosecutions."

Then there was this opinion from the Daily Telegraph: "Blasphemy is a common law offence with an unlimited penalty. It is seemingly precise yet almost impossible to interpret. The legal notion of blasphemy dates back centuries to when faith was the root of society's political and moral behaviour.

"In our secular times, the law is more concerned with preserving the fabric of society than upholding the deity or protecting the tenets of the Church of England. In the 20th century, there were only four reported judgments, and there have been none since the Human Rights Act 1998.

"The best modern definition, produced by Professor D J Feldman for the Select Committee on Religious Offences in 2003, says that blasphemy is committed by anyone "who makes public words, pictures or conduct whereby the doctrines, beliefs, institutions or sacred objects and rituals of the Church of England are denied or scurrilously vilified - or there is objectively contumelious, violent or ribald conduct or abuse directed towards the sacred object in question, likely to shock and outrage the feelings of the general body of Church of England believers." The definition has evolved to meet political rather than religious perceptions of the need for the law to protect the State and its institutions. This is what angers Evangelical witnesses and organisations such as Christian Voice. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in 'decent and temperate language'.

"According to the 1981 Law Commission, the main criticism of the blasphemy law is its uncertainty, 'given the vagueness of deciding what constitutes the Christian religion'. Even among Christian communities, there is disagreement about what is blasphemous. The Commission also says that any prosecution for blasphemy is likely to fail on grounds either of discrimination or denial of the right to freedom of expression. If this analysis is correct, we should keep our fingers crossed that Mr Green succeeds in his efforts to bring a case against the BBC. He might be able to achieve for us one of our longest-standing objectives - the final destruction of the blasphemy law. After all, Mr Green is excellent at scoring own goals. Last week, he had the sympathy of the right-wing newspapers until he decided to publish the home addresses and telephone numbers of BBC executives. After they'd had to be put under armed guard because of the threats and menaces they'd received, Mr Green said he was sorry - but it wasn't his dupes who had done it. "After all," he had the cheek to say, "not only Christians look at our website."

In the meantime, DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson has tabled an early day motion criticising the BBC for showing the programme. The EDM also "condemns the serious decline in general of the moral and spiritual content of programmes aired by the BBC; and calls on the Government to publicly rebuke the Corporation for its attack on the religion adhered to by over 70 per cent. of the UK population and for its lowest common denominator approach to ethics in its attempts to chase ratings". (see whole EDM here)

See also: BBC producer quits over Springer here.

Sikh author of Bezhti defends her play here.

Website of Christian Voice here.

CALL TO REPEAL BLASPHEMY LAW

NSS Honorary Associate Dr Evan Harris MP has tabled an Early Day Motion calling for the repeal of the blasphemy law. Read it here.

Why not ask your MP to support it?

QUOTES/ESSAYS OF THE WEEK

Quotes of the week:

"On Saturday the Daily Telegraph, or some other sane and rational paper, reported triumphantly that the corporation had received 50,000 complaints over the broadcasting of a musical with salt on its tongue. In a country with a population of roughly 59 million, that's 0.0848% of all available righteous indignation."
(Ian Bell, The Herald)

"We in Europe were once a stifled, theocratic, feudal, crusading society that not only burned books but people too, and it was blasphemy that set us free. The term "blasphemer" has been ennobled by the likes of Socrates, Galileo, Kazantzakis and Joyce. We should remember the great debt that society and democracy owe to heresy and blasphemy and implore our MPs to rid us at last from this long-outmoded blasphemy law."
(Gillian Sathanandan, Independent)

Essays of the week:

In praise of blasphemy
Are we seeing the death of free speech?
(Timothy Garton Ash, Guardian here)

Religious activists deserve our respect.
Argument with so many holes it could qualify as a Swiss cheese.
(Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph here)

The giant wave was the work of a benevolent God
The rise of nutty fundamentalism gathers speed - this article is further evidence.
(Paul Johnson, Spectator here)

RELIGIOUS INCITEMENT LAW - SELLING FREE SPEECH FOR VOTES

The Government has now come clean about it - it is introducing a raft of dangerous and unnecessary measures to try to win back the Muslim voters lost after the war in Iraq. In a jaw-dropping article in The Muslim Weekly (see here), Mike O'Brien, the Minister for Energy and the DTI says that the Government has given "Muslim Leaders" everything that they've asked for so far, and are going to give them a whole lot more, including more "faith schools", religious discrimination measures, incitement to religious hatred and who knows what else (we'll have to wait for the Labour Party manifesto to see the real extent of this folly).

Mr O'Brien names NSS Honorary Associate Evan Harris as an example of a Liberal Democrat who doesn't support the new legislation.

Responding in his usual robust fashion in The Sun, Richard Littlejohn wrote: "One of the greatest dangers in Europe today is not the over-hyped 'Islamophobia' but the sinister return of anti-Semitism. All over the Continent, synagogues, graveyards and other Jewish targets have been attacked. Britain is not immune. But we don't expect this anti-Jewish sentiment to be stoked by Government ministers. So what are we to make of the latest outburst from Mike O'Brien? Writing in the Muslim Weekly, O'Brien says: 'What will Michael Howard do for British Muslims? Will his foreign policy help Palestine? Will he stand up for the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab? Remember the last thing we want is to vote in anger and repent at leisure as Michael Howard, with a big smile on his face, walks through the door of No 10'.

"Why so shy Mike? Why not 'with a big JEWISH smile on his face?' That's what you mean. Howard is the most prominent Jewish politician in Britain. Why else would you have singled out the Lib Dem's Dr Evan Harris, who is also Jewish, other than to curry favour with the Muslim voters? Blair should sack O'Brien for this despicable article. But I don't imagine he will. It's bound to have been officially sanctioned.

"There's enough trouble in the world without Labour ministers lining up shamelessly alongside Jew-hating Nazis and Islamofascists in the hope that it might swing a few marginal seats."

Someone who agrees with Richard Littlejohn, at least about the "over-hyping" of Islamophobia, is Kenan Malik, who produced a refreshingly honest programme on Channel 4 last Saturday called "Are Muslims Hated?" in which he tried to track down whether there was any significant amount of this much-trumpeted "widespread Islamophobia". He found that there wasn't. What he did find was evidence of blatant political manipulation by Muslim "leaders" such as Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, who wanted to maintain the idea of persecuted Muslims to force legal protection for Islam. You can read a summary of the programme by Malik in the Guardian here and response here.

Then English PEN, an organisation that seeks to protect writers from censorship and oppression, wrote an open letter to the Home Secretary, signed by a veritable array of literary figures, calling for him to scrap the law. "As writers of many faiths and none, we must emphasise that if religious leaders had their way, we would have little literature, less art and no humour. The religious can be quick to take offence. The Papal Index makes salutary reading: it has banned every great offender from Voltaire to Flaubert to James Joyce. On their side, some Jews have objected to Philip Roth and to Joseph Heller; while some Muslim clerics have been so severely offended by the fictions of Salman Rushdie and the Egyptian writer, Naguib Mahfouz, as to issue fatwas against them - much to the distress of other Muslims. Now British Sikhs have succeeded in censoring the play Behzti and forcing Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti into hiding.

"The new legislation encourages rather than combats intolerance. We do not need it. What we need is a signal from government that it wishes to defend true democracy and its many virtues, including those of dissent and the freedom of expression." (full text of letter and signatories here)

Writing in the London Evening Standard, NSS Honorary Associate Nick Cohen said: "There is a final reason why the religious hatred law shouldn't and maybe couldn't work: it's not a crime to hate other people. If it were, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair would be in prison. It's for this reason that prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred are so rare. Not many judges can be persuaded it's illegal to incite others to behave illegally. Incitement to violence is another matter. Violence is illegal. I hope that if a hair on the heads of the BBC managers or their children is harmed, the organisers of Christian Voice will be put in the dock. But I doubt it. New Labour wants the votes of Christian fundamentalists as cravenly as it wants the votes of all other fundamentalists."

Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail wrote: "There is now a very dangerous climate in which giving offence is considered worse than violence or threatening behaviour. But religion almost inevitably causes offence. The Jerry Springer and Bezhti rows - and the Salman Rushdie book burnings before them - show us what's likely to happen as a result of this new law, as every religious or ethnic group realises it can now go to war against everyone else on the battleground of insult." (MCB replies here)

Libby Purves in the Times wrote: "Christians are enjoined to be strong, confident and forgiving of ignorant insult, and must lead the way in tolerance. Muslims, Sikhs and others must follow. Otherwise religion mutates into aggressive tribalism and an excuse for deliberate opportunistic taking of offence. This process, all through history, leads to death and misery. While we're at it, the discredited David Blunkett's discreditable law on 'religious hatred' can go in the bin. And let every Christian say, as every Christian should,: 'I know that my redeemer liveth, and nothing you can say changes that. So, peace be with you, brother'."

Meanwhile, the British Humanist Association has said that it "recognises the case for a law against inciting hatred" but only if it is clearer that hatred must be directed at people rather than their beliefs before prosecutions can take place. They also want the definition of "religion or belief" in the Bill to be changed so that it clearer that humanism is a positive belief rather than just lack of belief. In a briefing to MPs, the BHA says: "The answer is to use the term 'religious group' and define it as 'a group defined by reference to religion or belief or the absence of any, or any particular, religion or belief'" They also want the Attorney General - whose permission is required to bring a prosecution - to report to parliament each year his thinking on any cases that have been permitted to proceed. "The Attorney General should be required, in considering whether to not to authorise a prosecution, to balance the rights to freedom of religion under Article 9 with those of freedom of speech under Article 10 of the ECHR."

The BHA says in its briefing: "We now seek as a minimum condition of supporting the Bill the changes (use and definition of the term 'religious group', duties of the Attorney-General, abolition of blasphemy law) noted overleaf and the replacement of sn.18(b) with words on the lines of:(b) having regard to all the circumstances he recklessly risks that hatred against a racial or religious group will thereby be stirred up."

The BHA put their point of view in a meeting in parliament on Thursday entitled "The Need to Protect Faith Communities from Incitement to Hatred" which also involved the Muslim Council of Britain, Justice and the Commission for Racial Equality.

Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, who spoke for the Muslim Council, was named the tenth most powerful man in Britain by the men's magazine CQ. Presumably this is because of his privileged access to government policy makers.

NSS Honorary Associate Dr Evan Harris challenged Iqbal Sacranie at the meeting to disassociate himself from press reports that he had represented the incitement law as giving protection against insults to Islam. Mr Sacranie claimed his comments had been about a possible vilification law. Evan then asked him whether he would join the other speakers in supporting the abolition of blasphemy law. Dr Harris did not feel he received a clear answer to this.

Keith Porteous Wood, who was also in the audience, accused the speakers of seriously exaggerating the requirement to prove intent in the new incitement law. Just two of the reasons why the law was unnecessary were that, since 2001, religiously aggravated insulting behaviour attracted a maximum tariff of 7 years in prison and that on practically every occasion when the new law would be used, prosecutions could be made under other existing laws.

The NSS remains completely opposed to the measure, seeing it as unnecessary and dangerous. NSS Executive Director, Keith Porteous Wood, said: "At the meeting Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality called for the Labour party to make repeal of the blasphemy law a part of its manifesto. But it is now clear that in the light of the Human Rights Act, the blasphemy law is, in effect, a dead duck. Its abolition will be used as a propaganda tool by the government to push this repressive incitement law through. Abolishing the blasphemy law is not a good trade off if it means the introduction of something ten times worse."

Meanwhile, the Bill containing the incitement to religious hatred measures is, at present, being examined by a House of Commons committee before its third reading later this month

Read the Government's own Q&A about the Incitement to Religious Hatred Law here.

ALARMING PRECEDENT SET IN RELIGIOUS EMPLOYMENT LAW

In an alarming decision by an industrial tribunal yesterday, a Muslim worker who was fired after going on a six-week trip to Mecca has been awarded £20,000 compensation for discrimination on the grounds of religion.

Lawyers say the case involving Mohammed Khan, 43, from Bradford, could open the floodgates for similar actions.

Mr Khan, who cleaned buses in Bradford, was sacked for gross misconduct from his £8,000-a-year job after he used his 25-day holiday entitlement and another week's unpaid leave, to visit Mecca. He claimed it was authorised. Leeds-based NIC Hygiene claimed his Hajj pilgrimage was unauthorised.

Yesterday an industrial tribunal ruled he had been unfairly dismissed and suffered discrimination against the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) regulations. He won compensation of more than £20,000, but will probably receive less as NIC Hygiene is now in administration.

His representative Anna Power, of Leeds-based Morrish & Co, said the case should serve as a warning. But she added: "Due to the relatively short time the regulations have been in force, there are also a number of other issues which will need to be clarified. At the moment it appears that workers do not have to provide evidence of their belief. Nor is it clear to what extent the religion must be followed. If a Christian wanted to attend church on Christmas Day, and his employer wanted him to work, there is the potential that the employer's demand could be indirectly discriminatory, as it would place practising Christians at a disadvantage. Alternatively, it is becoming more common for companies to close over Christmas. This may indirectly discriminate against, for example, Muslims, who want to save their holiday leave in order to celebrate their own religious festivals."

At first in June 2003 Mr Khan did not receive a response about his trip and the TGWU advised him to put in a written request. The company failed to respond and his manager said if he heard nothing he could assume it was all right.

Mr Khan said: "I had a wonderful experience. I was not expecting to be dismissed."

This story broke just as Newsline was being finalised. Further details and interpretations of the judgment will be closely studied.

In another case, a Muslim man has lost his case brought under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations. Mohsin Mohmed claimed he was sacked from his job with Virgin Trains at Euston Station, London, for refusing to trim his beard. Mr Mohmed said he was repeatedly asked by Virgin Trains managers to trim his beard and told not to wear a religious skullcap. He said this would be "against his Islamic faith".

An employment tribunal dismissed his claims of racial and religious discrimination and unfair dismissal. The tribunal sat for three days in October to hear the case and published its decision on Tuesday. Virgin Trains said it welcomed the "landmark decision" to dismiss the complaints, which were made last July.

Mr Mohmed, who was a customer service assistant, told the tribunal he could not trim his beard shorter than one fist's length - about four inches - because of his faith. Virgin Trains said Mr Mohmed was dismissed for his "general lack of enthusiasm" and that the length of his beard was never an issue.

GAY MARRIAGE FREE-FOR-ALL IN CANADA IS UNPREDICTABLE



From Ellen Ramsay:

Since my column announcing that the Supreme Court of Canada had decided the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did permit the changing of the marriage law to permit the definition of a couple to include same-sex couples (Newsline Dec. 17, 2004), the usual political pundits and evangelical Christians have been mobilising to try and prevent the passage of a same-sex marriage bill coming before parliament this year.

The opposition includes two key politicians. There is Russell Harper, leader of the Conservative Party and Ralph Klein, Premier of the Province of Alberta. Both are against the bill with the latter is vociferously opposed. Premier Klein has come out with religious quotations to support his anti-position and both have the backing of the Christian right. The Christian opponents of the bill include the Christian Coalition, the Canada Family Action Coalition, Focus on the Family and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, to name a few. (Globe and Mail, Dec. 10, 2004)

The opponents of the same-sex marriage bill have advanced four tactics. The first tactic, which has been used all along by opponents (including members of the ruling Liberal Party) is to water down the definition of marriage to civil union. The second tactic is to insist on a national referendum before the bill is tabled. The third tactic is to call for a free vote. And the fourth tactic, the most troubling, is the invocation of the "notwithstanding" clause in the constitution. Section 33 of the Canadian Constitution allows exemptions from the fundamental rights to free expression, assembly and association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is also section 15 which allows the exemptions for equality rights. Since the Charter was adopted in 1982, section 33 has been applied at least 15 times most frequently around the language laws in Quebec, but also in back-to-work legislation during major strikes, around pensions, some agricultural matters and now, possibly, same-sex marriage. (http://www.law.ualberta.ca)

Apart from a few openly gay members of parliament who are supporting the bill, the whole affair in Canada has been a sham. A bill has been delayed by the ruling Liberal Part for years. The party sent the proposed changes in the definition of marriage to the Supreme Court, needlessly, as a diversionary measure to outwait the 2004 federal election. The Government is clearly feeling pressured to introduce the change by the gay community and its supporters, but is split over the matter. Prime Minister Paul Martin has said he has 38 members of cabinet who must vote in favour of the bill, but the gay and lesbian community is not banking on it.

Bill Siksay, an openly gay NDP MP said, "I think it is outrageous that Paul Martin should be accusing anybody of cowardice on the issue of same-sex marriage. After all he is the one who set up the pattern of never coming out with his own position on it for over ten years, of delaying the issue, of going to the Supreme Court to get it off the agenda so he didn't have to face it during the election campaign." (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 17, 2004) Even within the Liberal Party there are strong opponents to the bill who want the government to overturn the provincial court rulings that have allowed same sex marriage.

The Liberal Justice Minister, Irwin Cotler who will be responsible for drafting and tabling the bill is allowing public employees to opt out of performing same-sex marriage if it is against their conscience. Two provinces in Canada with NDP government, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, strongly oppose this exemption and have issued their own directives to tell public officials to quit their jobs if they can't fulfill their new job descriptions. Cotler has countered them by asking these governments to grant allowances to these marriage commissioners. As it stands, religious officiants are exempt from performing gay marriage in their churches if they choose to, but the Canadian Human Rights Commission says this does not extend to public officials. (The Vancouver Sun, Dec. 18, 2004).

See also: Bishops should attack homosexuals more fiercely, says Catholic group here.

VATICAN RUSHES THROUGH CONCORDATS IN READINESS FOR ARTICLE 52

The Vatican has rushed through as many new concordats with various countries and cities as it could manage in the past year so as to have them in place when the new European Constitution comes into effect. We fear that Article 52 of the constitution potentially guarantees that these concordats - that give financial and political privileges to the Catholic Church - cannot be dismantled without the agreement of all 25 states of the Union.

In 2004, the "Holy See" signed a Catholic education agreement with Slovakia (May 13) and a new concordat with Portugal (May 18), it also established agreements with the city of Bremen (May 13), with Brandenburg (May 25), with Slovenia (May 28) and, although not relevant to article 52, with Paraguay (Oct. 18).

MASSAGING THE FIGURES UPWARDS

The Church of England has massaged its method of counting the numbers of church goers several times recently, rendering it impossible to make a valid year on year comparison, and now it has found the formula that shows a slight increase in churchgoers. But not everyone is convinced. Quoted in this week's Church of England Newspaper, the Bishop of Lichfield is quoted as saying: "I wasn't unduly depressed last year when they said the figures were 11 per cent down, and I'm not over the moon about these figures that say a sudden rise."

He pointed out that Western Europe was an anomaly in sociological terms with its constant decline compared with worldwide growth. "But even here, the challenge of having communities of immigrants who are devoted to their own faiths has made people sit up and take notice and think whether all the secularist propaganda we have all swallowed that religion is disappearing is true?"

The "secularist propaganda" he refers to is, actually, based on the CofE's own figures. The old method of counting church attendees - on an average Sunday - this year shows a fall of two per cent to 901,000.

RELIGIOUS OPPORTUNISTS EXPLOIT TSUNAMI TRAGEDY

Muslim and Christian Evangelists are rushing to make new converts in the wake of the the Asian earthquake tragedy. Read story here.

Evangelicals tell victims to get "life perspective" here.

WANT TO BE ON RADIO?

A researcher, Nicola Humphries, from Radio 4 has sent us this appeal: Losing My Religion: A one off documentary for BBC Radio 4 to be broadcast later this year. We would like to hear from people of all previous religious backgrounds and experiences who would like to share their experiences of leaving their faith. Was it liberating? Was it frightening? Does it offer freedom? Does it leave you isolated? What prompted you to lose faith in the first place?

If you would feel that you would like to be involved or would like more information please email : Nicola.humphries@bbc.co.uk or call direct on 0121 567 6737. All calls are confidential.

IT'S A HARD LIFE, SO HAVE A CUPPA TEA, LOVE

Yes, all this vexation - it's enough to get you down, love, isn't it? I was saying to my Fred the other day, I said: what with one thing and another, it makes you think. He says to me: well it would, wouldn't it, with all this carrying on. I said: go and make us a cuppa tea, Fred, love. He says: do you want it in your Charles Darwin or your Richard Dawkins. I says: I think I'll plump for the David Hume today. I'm feeling a bit philosophical.

Fred and Alice are, of course, in possession of a full set of our delightful Heroes of Atheism mugs, given to them as a thoughtful solstice gift by their son Arthur. And when the world gets too much for them (which it does about every fifteen minutes), they sit down and enjoy a nice calming cup of tea (cocoa after nine in the evening) in one of their selection of inspirational mugs. And with six to choose from there's one for every mood. Why not follow their example and find life a lot more relaxing by sipping tea from one of our much-coveted receptacles? And don't forget to get a matching tea towel to dry them with. You can buy a set today here.

NSS SPEAKS OUT

Terry Sanderson was principal spokesperson on the controversy surrounding Jerry Springer the Opera and was widely quoted throughout the media. For examples see here, here, here and here.

He did interviews on Radio London, Talk Radio, Six O'Clock News, Virgin Radio, BBC Online, Radio 4 PM programme. He also did an interview (which was simultaneously translated into Spanish) with a radio station in Columbia South America. He appeared on Radio Five Live's Up all Night show as well as on BBC local stations in Wiltshire, Shropshire and Oxford as well as an extended interview on Sky News.

The Press Association picked up another of our stories, and this resulted in quotes in newspapers around the worldeverywhere from the New York Times and Times of India to the Liverpool Echo, The Times and from The Sun to The Mirror.

Keith Porteous Wood gave interviews on the same topic on Granada Television and on Sky Television and Greater Manchester Radio and will be on BBC Radio Jersey on Sunday morning at 7.35am . Council member Malcolm Trahearn was interviewed on BBC Radio WM.

Terry Sanderson was also on Sky News on Sunday. We were widely quoted after the Springer show had been broadcast (for example here) . Terry was invited to watch a preview of Jerry Springer on Saturday afternoon by the Sunday Telegraph - in the company of Anne Atkins, Stephen Green and Peter Tatchell. Some of the comments are reported here. Terry says: "Anne Atkins was totally bewildered by the whole thing - she didn't even know who Jerry Springer was and kept asking me what was going on. She was obviously struggling to make out the sung words and repeatedly turned to me to ask: 'What did they say?' and I was very happy to oblige by informing her "F-ck you, Anne, they're saying f-ck you". It's something I've been longing to say to her for ages."

Keith Porteous Wood wrote an article for the Women's Institute magazine about the Incitement to Religious Hatred measures.

Terry Sanderson was on Sunrise Radio talking about the re-emergence of the author of Bezhti and her unapologetic defence of an artist's right to criticise religion. (See it here)

LETTERS TO NEWSLINE

Please write to tas@secularism.org.uk here.

From Mohammed S. (full name and address supplied) Manchester:

Three and a half decades ago, I came from Pakistan to further my studies, as most of my brothers were already here. After finishing studies I stayed here. My in-laws are still in Pakistan - my wife's visits require me to accompany her there willing or not.

Pakistan is an extremely religious land. I am extremely secular. It is very difficult to curb your tongue when people speak of illogical beliefs and thoughts there. Five years ago, during my last visit, I decided to speak with the consent of the local college physics department to graduate students about evolution, universe and other modern views. Sensing the local temper, I capitulated at the last minute and cancelled my lecture (some students carry or have access to guns there).

Though my speech would have been carefully weighted and searched, as not to raise any eyebrows or any religious aggravation.

In next ten days I am travelling again for 4 weeks with family. My inner feelings force me to speak, speak out gently - share my knowledge with my country people, but common sense tells me - you have a small family, you are only a few days visitor there, why take such a heavy risk. But again my inner soul says: a soul without expression is no better than a dead one.

I am writing this to you to see your point of view on this. I know the limitations of facts, tempers, moods, environment and other facts available to you, but still, as we say, 'without prejudice' opinion! Thoughts!

I wish to join your group and help.

From Ross Sargent:

With reference to Martin Henderson's request (Newsline Jan 7th) for more scholarly reading on the subject of "Jesus Never Existed" I suggest he take a look at Earl Doherty's excellent website The Jesus Puzzle which can be found here.

A review of Doherty's book The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an historical Jesus by Richard Carrier is available here.

From Margaret Nelson:

Thanks for putting the secular point of view on the BBC website. Their message board is clogged up with rabid religiosity. I wondered what all the fuss was about, so tuned it. So glad I did. It was the best thing I've seen on TV for ages - bloody brilliant! I loved it.

From Alan Rogers:

Barry Thorpe (Newsline 7 Jan) rightly points out the idiocy of attempting to associate various tyrannical regimes with a lack of religious faith in their leaders. We really do not need to discuss if Stalin or Hitler were atheists or not. Atheism is not an alternative religion.

Imagine a sheet of graph paper with a horizontal line drawn through the centre and labelled at the left 'Atheism' and at the right 'Fundamentalist Religion' (meaning fundamentalist Islam or Southern Baptist lunacy or whatever). Another line is drawn vertically through the centre of the horizontal line. This is labelled at the top 'Morally Good' and at the bottom 'Morally Evil'. Now, just for a moment, please accept the outrageous suggestion that people may be represented by a point in this space. I suppose the 'saintly' Mother Theresa would be found in the top right corner. There would be paedophile priests at bottom right. The Marxist commandant of a GULAG camp would probably find himself bottom left. You and I dear reader would, of course, be found at top left.

Atheism is simply an attempt to face the reality of the true nature of the cosmos, of human origins and of the human condition. After that, you still have to construct a personal moral code. I think this is easier when you accept that a lifetime is all you get; that life, so far as we presently know, is confined to this one small planet in a vast, awesome and uncaring universe and that the only way homo sapiens can survive and individuals develop their full potential is by taking great care of our home planet and by helping each other.... because there never has been and never will be any help from a supernatural power

From Barbara Smoker:

I was saddened to read of Antony Flew's theological defection, but at least he was speaking for himself; far worse was the official response to it by the National Secular Society. It is true that nobody yet knows for certain and in detail the way that life originated, but to go on to say "and nobody will ever know" is totally unjustified. It turns it into an insoluble mystery that plays into the hands of religion.

Miller's famous laboratory experiment, in which he "created" amino-acids may well indicate the way that life originated. Before the discovery of DNA in 1953 (when both Flew and I were entering our fourth decade), nobody could explain the mechanism of heredity - but now it is established, and biochemisty is advancing more rapidly. Your use of the word "guess" denigrates well-founded scientific theories. I trust the NSS will tread more carefully in future.

Terry Sanderson responds: I claim full responsibility for the comment, which I agree was rubbish, made on the hoof to a journalist who sprang it on me without warning. I can only apologise. Barbara also wants to make the following point:

Antony Flew's departure from the National Secular Society more than 20 years ago on political grounds, as recounted by Bill McIlroy's letter (Newsline 7 Jan) is imprinted on my memory too. As president of the NSS at the time, I did my best to persuade Flew that it was the business of the Society to oppose superstition, religion and censorship, not to take sides in party politics - but he would not relent. Several other members at that time likewise complained that I, and the Society, were too left-wing, while another faction, headed by Terry Liddle, berated us for being too right-wing!

However, I would take issue with Bill McIlroy in his accepting journalists' comments that Flew 'now believes there may be a God', instead of accepting his own statements as to his revised position. He has said quite clearly that he still rejects the existence of any god - or, at least any personal god; only going so far as to posit some underlying design or purpose in the universe. His reason for this is a misunderstanding of modern science, but it does not justify twisting his words.

From Brian Robinson:

This was written by Gila Svirsky, in an article entitled "A Tale of Two Elections". "Finally, the tragedy in the Indian Ocean, and it takes a religious extremist to have figured it out: A Muslim cleric announced that the Zionists caused the Tsunami. This was practically confirmed by a rabbi in Israel, who announced that God doesn't like non-Jews, and that's why he dropped all this water on them. Jewish-Muslim consensus, at last, helping us understand the mystery of God's ways."

From John Riddell:

A propos "Jerry Springer - the Opera" and other things Christians object to, we ought to remind them of Jesus's supposed words in Matthew Chap 5 Verse 11: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

In other words, those who offend Christians are doing them a favour. Don't expect them to be grateful, though!

From Peter Arnold:

In the discussion on free speech one sometimes hears the old quotation "Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" Doesn't it? I think it does. One is either free or not free, and if free, it provides hearers some insight into the thoughts of the speaker. What a hearer makes of the shout demands freedom of thought. The proposed law seems to be trying to define the limits to freedom rather than making it clear that it is the responsibility of the listener to decide whether to believe the speaker or not. It is the same problem in education. Authorities, religious and secular, seem to want to provide children with ready-made rules rather than effective thinking tools, Leviticus rather than hypothesis, authority without responsibility. Freedom makes demands on ones conscience. Irrational beliefs remove freedom of thought.

From Simon Johnson:

Thanks for another brilliant newsletter. You are doing excellent work. I'll be sending another donation soon.

From David Giddings:

As a US friend wrote to my parents over Xmas: "I was amused to see a bumper sticker 'Lord, save us from Your followers'."

From Ellen Ramsay:

A bumper sticker seen recently: "Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers"

FOR YOUR DIARY

Sea Change - A Fire and Brimstone play to celebrate Darwin Day. Friday 18 February, Conway Hall Library, 7.30pm.

The story of a historic voyage of discovery on HMS Beagle. Charles Darwin makes discoveries that lead him to question and then renounce his religious views. Meanwhile his captain, Robert Fitzroy, becomes ever more strident about his Christian faith. Eventually this conflict leads to tragedy. An epic tale of rationalism versus superstition and the strong feelings they can often evoke. A GALHA and SPES event, admission free.

Darwin - A "Devil's Chaplain"? Darwin Day Lecture by Dr James Moore, Friday February 11th, 6.30 - 8.00 p m. The Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House, LSE, Aldwych, London on Admission £5 from BHA.

To subscribe to Newsline, send a blank email with "Subscribe to Newsline" on the subject line to enquiries@secularism.org.uk

To unsubscribe to Newsline, send a blank email with "Unsubscribe to Newsline" on the subject line to enquries@secularism.org.uk here.

To join the National Secular Society, go to www.secularism.org.uk/join.htm Or write to NSS, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL

Please feel free to use the material in this Newsline with appropriate acknowledgement of source.

Newsline nor the NSS is responsible for the content of websites to which it provides links. Nor does the NSS or Newsline necessarily endorse quotes and comments by contributors.

Editor Terry Sanderson