The rally arranged by One Law for All on Saturday 11th February lasted for 2 hours, was well organized and had a string of speakers including Maryam Namazie, Richard Dawkins, A.C. Grayling and yours truly, Mark Embleton, Atheism UK’s president.

The whole event was recorded and is now available on YouTube:

Playlist for all speakers.

Atheism UK’s bit.

An audio version is currently on the Pod Delusion (my bit for Atheism UK starts at about 90 mins 20 secs.)

Several members of Atheism UK were there and my thanks to them for their support. We had our banner there, which got a lot of attention and was photographed many times (it probably helped that it was the biggest one there!)

The judge, Sir Duncan Ouseley, upheld the NSS’s argument that the Council has no power to conduct prayers. This argument was “put third and very shortly in the order of submissions”, but Ouseley appears to have developed it on his own initiative and his judgment puts it first, at great length and in great detail. For atheists, his most satisfying passage must be:-

It is not for a Court to rule upon the likelihood of divine, and presumptively beneficial, guidance being available or the effectiveness of Christian public prayer in obtaining it.

On the other hand, Ouseley dismisses the NSS’s two primary arguments, the most artificial and weak devices for advancing secularism (let alone atheism):-

• That Bone was being indirectly discriminated against without justification (and thus unlawfully).
• That the Council’s actions breached Bone’s rights under Articles 9 and/or 14 of The European Convention on Human Rights.

While not saying what many must have thought: “Get over it!”, Ouseley says, on the  discrimination argument:-

He is not compelled to participate. The disadvantage he asserts to himself, and to other Councillors whose lack of religious beliefs might lead them to feel compromised by being present during the saying of prayers, is that of either arriving after prayers, or staying in silence, ignoring what goes on around them but perhaps seeming inadvertently disrespectful, or leaving, disturbing their papers and concentration just before the substantial business begins, with a degree of public embarrassment since the press and public are usually present. This seems to me it is of no real significance. I would not regard it as a disadvantage for these purposes.

On the human rights argument, he says:-

I cannot see that his freedom of religion, thought or conscience is infringed by the degree of embarrassment he feels, which is no more than is inherent in the exercise by the others of their freedom to manifest their religious beliefs, and his freedom to stay without participating or to leave. It is their freedom which would be infringed were he right; that limitation is not prescribed by law.

What we have is a masterly judgment based on the proper, and probably an unassailable, argument. In consequence, Local Councils must henceforth exclude prayers from their formal agendas but may, instead, hold them as separate preliminary meetings to which Councillors are invited, not summoned.

Sadly, however, it seems that even this victory will be short-lived. As Eric Pickles has kindly pointed out, Section 1, of the Localism Act 2011, will, when brought into operation (and no date has yet been set), give Councils unrestricted powers, including powers to hold prayers.

The only real solution is to show that there is no God to pray to.

If you are coming to this event please let us know by commenting on this post.

The One Law for All 11 February rally for Free Expression is being held in London from 14:00-16:00 hours at the Old Palace Yard opposite the House of Lords. [Here is a leaflet for download and distribution.]

Confirmed Speakers at London Rally: Hasan Afzal (Stand for Peace), Jenny Bartle (National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies), Roy Brown (International Humanist and Ethical Union), Nick Cohen (Writer), Sue Cox (Survivors Voice Europe), Christopher Crowley-Jenns (Kings College London), Alex Gabriel (Blogger), Mark Embleton (Atheism UK), A C Grayling (Philosopher), Faisal Gazi (Spittoon.org), Jennifer Hardy (Queen Mary Atheism Humanism and Secularism Society), Derek Lennard (Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association), Kenan Malik (Writer), Chris Moos (London School of Economics Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist Society), Rhys Morgan (Student activist), Maryam Namazie (One Law for All and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain), Yasmin Rehman (Campaigner), Pragna Patel (Southall Black Sisters), Gita Sahgal, (Centre for Secular Space), Terry Sanderson/Keith Porteous Wood (National Secular Society), Kate Smurthwaite (Comedian), Bahram Soroush (Labour Rights Activist), Rupert Sutton (Student Rights), Marco Tranchino (Central London Humanist Group), Anne Marie Waters (One Law for All) and Susan Zhuang (University College London Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society). There will be a message from Richard Dawkins and the Jesus and Mo cartoonist.

One Law for All is calling for a rally in defence of free expression and the right to criticise religion on 11 February 2012 in central London from 2-4pm.

We are also calling for simultaneous events and acts in defence of free expression on 11 February in countries world-wide.

The call follows an increased number of attacks on free expression in the UK, including a 17 year old being forced to remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon or face expulsion from his Sixth Form College and demands by the UCL Union that the Atheist society remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page. It also follows threats of violence, police being called, and the cancellation of a meeting at Queen Mary College where One Law for All spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to deliver a speech on Sharia. Saying ‘Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?’, an Islamist website called for the disruption of the meeting. Two days later at the same college, though, the Islamic Society held a meeting on traditional Islam with a speaker who has called for the death of apostates, those who mock Islam, and secularist Muslims.

Whilst none of this is new, recent events reveal an increased confidence of Islamists to censor free expression publicly, particularly given the support received from universities and other bodies in the name of false tolerance, cultural sensitivity and respect.

The right to criticise religion, however, is a fundamental right that is crucial to many, including Muslims.

Clearly, the time has come to take a firm and uncompromising stand for free expression and against all forms of threats and censorship.

11 February is our chance to take that stand.

You need to be there.

Enough is enough.

THIS EVENT IS NOW FULL

Venue: Conway Room, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL [MAP]

Date and time: Saturday 25th February 2012, 14.00 – 15.00.

Please note: Entry is free, but this is a small event and there are only a few places available. Places should be booked in advance by e-mail as the room has a strict limited capacity. Please e-mail us here with your full name.

Organisers: WW Norton (publishers) and Chris Street for Atheism UK, Humanists4Science and HASSNERS.

Professor Alex Rosenberg (wiki) is chair of the Philosophy department at Duke University and co-director of Duke Center for Philosophy of Biology. Alex has written 12 books about the philosophy of biology and economics. He describes himself as a ‘Naturalist’.

Alex Rosenberg is visiting the UK to talk about his new book ‘The Atheist’s Guide to Reality – Enjoying Life without Illusions’, published by WW Norton.

“Takes the sin of scientism as the ultimate virtue. Alex Rosenberg has sheared the nature of things down to the bedrock, and exposed our common vanity.” EO Wilson

“Presents a brave and compelling treatise on why you should accept the universe for what it is, rather than what you would wish it to be. The Atheists Guide to Reality, like the best scholarship and science, removes you from your comfort zone and that is the only way to gain new and better perspectives on our place in the cosmos.” Lawrence Krauss

“Rosenberg’s philosophical temperament is a dead ringer for David Hume’s, and his wit isn’t far behind either.” Rebecca Goldstein

“This eccentric, funny treatise on ‘scientism’,…takes a perverse delight in ‘nice nihilism’. Rosenberg doesn’t believe in free will, morality, or secular humanism …this dismemberment of mainstream worldviews abounds with clever barbs and dry one-liners“. Village Voice.

Boy tortured to death in London for being a ‘witch’

I happened to come across an article on Creationism in the Leicester Mercury by chance as I was doing some Internet research.

By coincidence, I then received an e-mail from the author of the web site:

Centre for Unintelligent Design

…asking if we would help publicize it. Please note, this is not to be confused with the Centre for Intelligent Design, which should be avoided unless you want to wind yourself up by reading a load of creationist garbage masquerading as the appalling pseudo-science of Intelligent Design (ID).

IDists are quick to explain that Creationism and ID are not the same thing, but this is disingenuous to say the very least as ID is little more than the PR face of Creationism to try to gloss over the religious core.

This is a cunning ruse as there are increasing reports of ID advocates infiltrating schools to offer an ‘alternative scientific view to evolution’. This would be laughable as a serious idea, but unfortunately it’s actually happening and it seems that not only are some schools inviting this, but don’t actually see it as an issue.

It is a serious issue because the real purpose of Creationism, whether or not it’s dressed up as ID, is religious proselytizing and recruiting new converts. We have enough problems with faith schools and religious education being a requirement in all schools as it is without the creationists trying to infiltrate any school that will have them.

Here are two petitions against teaching Creationism in schools you might like to consider:

GoPetition

HM Government e-petition

After the 2010 General Election we wrote to all Members of Parliament to ask them what their religious beliefs were, as we are of the view that the public have a right to know what they believe, as those beliefs are likely to inform their decisions.

The response was, not unexpectedly, dismal, with only around 25 replies so far. As MPs are only obliged to respond to their own constituents we are following up the MPs who didn’t respond with personal requests from constituents.

There is now an easy way to check what your MP’s reponse is, if any. Go to Find Your MP and enter your post code and click Find. In addition to details about your MP you will find a link to the specific response, on the page of all responses.

To assist with your own response you can find a sample letter you can use on the MPs Campaign page.

If you would like to see a rather tortuous, and revealing,  interaction I had with my own MP have a look here Adam Afriyie.

Make sure you don’t miss the latest Newsletter or other web site updates by signing up to our RSS feed here.

Welcome to Atheism UK’s January Newsletter – Issue 19.

 Not on Twitter? Sign up here.

Atheist Alliance International: Secular World Magazine

As an affiliate organization of Atheist Alliance International (AAI), we now have access to the quarterly “Secular World” magazine, which we are pleased to make available to our members and supporters. You can read the January- March 2012 lite version of “Secular World” here. Latest versions will be posted as we receive them.

‘Atheism’ is now ‘Atheism UK’

At our recent AGM on 10th December we passed a motion to rename our organization from ‘Atheism’ to ‘Atheism UK’. Originally, ‘Atheism’, with a capital A, was intended to be a does-what it-says-on-the-tin name that was fairly explicit about what sort of organization we were. However, experience has shown that many people refer to us a ‘Atheism UK’ and we more often than not use this name when corresponding with other organizations or groups to clarify our geographic location, especially as we are affiliated to Atheist Alliance International.

The new name also matches our existing URL www.atheismuk.com, which remains unchanged.

Happy New Year from Atheism UK

Happy New Year? I was pondering whether atheists are generally happier than the religious. A complex question, as it depends on many factors, not least the individual themselves. So, let’s treat it as a hypothetical exercise (and a blatant construction to write a short article entitled Happy New Year).

I’ll use myself as an example throughout, rather than generalize to atheists as some sort of homogenous group, which they aren’t. Should I be less happy because I have a more rational grasp on reality rather than seeking refuge, purpose and ultimate salvation in an imaginary sky fairy? Does the cruelty and oppression that many humans wreak upon each other in the name of religion make me less happy than the religious perpetrators who claim divine authority? You get the picture.

Or, should I be happier because I don’t have to: pay tithes to a church; consult a man-made book of fiction before knowing how to behave or what to eat; shun homosexuals because they offend the god who created them (figure that one out!); be constantly reminded that I was born a sinner; live in fear of damnation; prostrate myself to an invisible entity, etc., etc? I could go on, but I know you’re already ahead of me with your own list.

I’m not one for New Year resolutions, but if I was I’d have more time to concentrate on them because of all the time I’d save by not having to: pray; be constantly vigilant of my friends, family, neighbours for any hint of blasphemy, apostasy, adultery or immodesty (especially the female ones); go to confession every time I sinned; plot destruction on other religions and non-believers. With all these things to occupy them, just how do the religious find the time to indoctrinate their children?

Religion can certainly keep one busy; it certainly keeps me busy as president of Atheism UK. I’d like to see it keep more atheists busy, that is, becoming more active rather than passive. By ‘passive’ I mean being an intellectual atheist within your own mindset, but that’s as far as your atheism goes. Of course, if this was the global norm we could all pack up and go home, job done. However, we are far from that situation.

This leads me on to another hypothetical question: what do you think would happen if there were no individual atheists or atheistic organizations prepared to challenge the huge wealth, undeserved privilege and power the various religious institutions have already accrued, and seek to increase?

I doubt anyone who is a member or supporter of Atheism UK needs me to expand on that scenario, where there is no challenge to the irrationality of religious faith and everything that emanates from it as a result. However, there are many on the spectrum of non-belief (sceptics, humanists, brights, agnostics, secularists, atheists) who take an accommodationist, live-and-let-live view of religion. This may seem harmless if you live in a nice country village and your only experience of religion is weddings, funerals, church fetes and tea with the local vicar. Unfortunately, the reality outside of this cosy rural bubble is very different.

Not an exhaustive list: stoning; beating; torture; hanging; execution; genital mutilation (female and male); oppression; persecution; caste system; child abuse (mental and physical); suicide bombings; sectarianism; faith schools; patriarchy; forced marriage; ‘honour’ (aka coward/ignorance) killing; anti-contraception; anti-abortion; anti-stem cell research; anti-end of life choice – all in the name of religion. All happening right now in some part of the world (and no, we’re not free from some of these instances in the UK).

The tide is slowly turning as more and more atheists are prepared to speak out, but there is a lot to do. Get involved and help us.

Happy New Year.

Mark Embleton, president, Atheism UK

Featured article

The Gospel according to St. Paul’s Cathedral (by Richard Green)

It was on 15 October 2011 that 2-3,000 anti-capitalist protesters – having been moved on from the nearby Paternoster Square – gathered outside St Paul’s Cathedral, and some 2-300 of them were still there the following morning. Thus began the Paul’s encampment, which has shaken the Church of England to the crypt, cost the jobs of the cathedral’s Dean and Canon Chancellor and humiliated the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London.

The Jewish-born, public school educated, Mockney-speaking Canon Chancellor, the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser – sometime tequila-swilling, fag-smoking skinhead, member of the Socialist Workers Party and Oxford philosophy don – had told the protesters that he was happy for them to stay on the cathedral grounds, and called off the police who were about to move them on. This was the “original sin” from which the whole affair spiralled out of control.

For Fraser had conveniently overlooked the fact that that the “cathedral grounds” were not the cathedral’s at all. As this map shows, almost the entire encampment is on land owned by the City of London Corporation.

Even if it had been (as a handful of tents are) on the cathedral’s land, however, Fraser did not have the Dean and Chapter’s authority to invite the protesters onto it.

The corporation’s land (unlike Paternoster Square or, indeed, the cathedral grounds) is a public highway, and this offers the protesters considerable scope for assembly. Their rights were summed up by the Lord Chancellor in the landmark “Stonehenge”[1] case:-

The public highway is a public place, which the public may enjoy for any reasonable purpose, provided the activity in question does not amount to a public or private nuisance and does not obstruct the highway by unreasonably impeding the primary right of the public to pass and repass: within these qualifications there is a public right of peaceful assembly on the highway.

But the encampment is an obstruction of the highway and exceeds the protesters’ rights of assembly. On the cathedral grounds, they have no rights of assembly at all.

In his resignation statement, Fraser said:-

I resigned because I believe that the chapter has set on a course of action that could mean there will be violence in the name of the church.

At that stage, the cathedral was joining the corporation in eviction proceedings. Following the resignation of the Dean as well, the rump of the chapter performed a U-turn and backed Fraser’s position. The corporation’s legal action continues, and is set to succeed. And eviction proceedings ultimately entail physical violence.

Now suppose the encampment had been inside the cathedral – a good idea at this time of year given the cold, wind and rain. After all, it has been done before and with a cathedral’s blessing, by the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu,  no less – a fine example of suffering for a cause (pictured left). (You’ll recall that in August 2006 the Archbishop of York moved into a tent in York Minster as part of an act of “public witness” to encourage peace in the Middle East. Incidentally, it didn’t work)

Would the Dean and Chapter have eschewed eviction proceedings then? The inescapable logic, of Fraser’s position of non-violence, is that they should. But, in that case, the cathedral is a public space for anyone to set up camp (or do anything else) in whatever cause.

This is essentially at one with Atheism UK’s position on the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church of England. Its assets, including its cathedrals, should be made available for the use of the public at large.

Back to top

New book by Darrel Ray, distinguished supporter of Atheism UK

“Sex and God: How religion distorts sexuality” (author Darrel W. Ray)

My new book, Sex and God: How religion distorts sexuality, will be out in January 2012. I hope you will take a look at it and let your supporters and members know about it. I would especially appreciate any reviews on Amazon UK since the US reviews are not visible to UK readers. You can see it on Facebook and can preorder it at Amazon or other book distributors. Here is what some of the advanced readers and other authors are saying about it:

“When it comes to hurtful hypocrisy, it appears that religion and sex may well take the cake. How appropriate therefore – and how courageous – that Darrel Ray has written Sex and God, a powerful debunking of one of the deepest yet rarely examined mythic connections of all time. Give Sex and God a try – and then drop one of them (I’ll leave it up to you to decide which!)”

David P. Barash, professor of psychology, University of Washington, and author, most recently, of Homo Mysterious: evolutionary mysteries of human nature.

“The gods seem to have a perverse obsession with the sex lives of mere mortals. In this comprehensive, sharply written survey, Darrel Ray takes us on a tour of the millennia-long religious crusades against guilt-free human sexual expression. I enjoyed this book. It’s a fascinating, informative read.”

Christopher Ryan, Ph.D., co-author of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality.

“Read this book. Whether you are a believer, doubter, or atheist, religion influences your sexuality. Darrel Ray removes our blinkers. Never again will you view religion as benign in its effects. With patience, verve, and overwhelming evidence he makes the case that religion is an STD, a sexually tarnishing disease. Religion undermines our capacities for romance, love, sex, intimacy, and parenting. Sex and God, not the Gideon Bible, needs to be in every hotel room.”

J. Anderson Thomson, Jr., M.D., University of Virginia, psychiatrist, author, Why We Believe In God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith.

“Dr. Ray poignantly applies both the facts and common sense to two of society’s greatest untouchables: sex and religion. Approach this book with an open mind and you will find Sex and God puts sexual power back where it belongs: with you!”

Laci Green, host of Sex+, youtube.com/lacigreen

Thanks and I hope you find the book worth your time,

Darrel Ray

“Sex and God: How religion distorts sexuality” is now available to pre-order in our shop.

Back to top

The BBC’s 6th annual comic hit list, “Most Annoying People”, reached its enthralling climax in the dying minutes of 2011. Once again, the likes of Madonna, Lady Gaga, Jedward, Wayne Rooney and Katie Price vied for the number one spot.

On his appearance and sanctimonious sibilance alone, the Archbishop of Canterbury should have been a front runner, but he was not even an also-ran. Far from it, the BBC gave him air time for his New Year message.

“Most Annoying People” briefly stepped out of its comic genre to name the winners: the rioters of August 2011. The riots were also the theme of the archbishop’s message. He said:-

But it’s crucial to remember that what we saw on the streets in August was just one facet of a bigger and much more heartbreaking problem.

 Enter Jesus of Nazareth to save the day (not to mention our souls)!

But, as always, the archbishop is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The other end is presented in the BBC’s “Viewpoint: Why doesn’t rioting happen more often?” (transcript here). As philosopher Roger Scruton (no friend of atheism) puts it:-

What needs explaining is why they don’t occur, not why they do occur. And they don’t occur in England, on the whole.

If that programme’s analysis is correct, the archbishop’s “bigger and much more heartbreaking problem” is illusory, as is his solution. His impenetrable and meaningless rhetoric falls apart, especially:-

One of the unique things in the Christian faith, one of its great contributions to our moral vision, is the way it has spoken about children and young people. Whether it’s Jesus blessing children, or St Paul encouraging a young church leader, saying, ‘Don’t let people look down on you because you’re young’, or St Benedict in his rule for monks saying that you need to pay attention to the youngest as well as the oldest – Christian faith has underlined the essential importance of giving young people the respect they deserve.

Response key: 1 = Are you? Atheist; Agnostic; Religious (practising); Religious lapsed; Other (specify).
2 = What is your religious background?
3 = What is your current religion?