Letters to Newsline - National Secular Society

Newsline
www.secularism.org.uk
20 December 2013
The staff and council of the National Secular Society wish all our members and supporters a happy
festive season. The next issue of Newsline will be on 17 January 2014, at which time membership
renewal time will be upon us again. Why not renew now?
Quotes of the Week
“I’m with [...] US comedian Sarah Silverman when it comes to Scientology. In her forthcoming standup
show on Sky, We Are Miracles, she points out that the faith that L Ron built is no less a construct
than any other religion: it just feels nuttier because it’s newer and ‘because we all know guys called
Ron’.”
(Nick Curtis, London Evening Standard)
“The public realm is shared space and if we are to rub along, there must be rules about what
happens there. No one group owns the public realm.”
(Hugh Muir, on the Islamists who tried to declare East London a “Muslim-area”, The
Guardian)
Essays of the Week:
Segregation: Our secular values have to be protected
(Editorial, Observer)
‘Religious Freedom’ cannot be allowed to trump equality
(Matthew d’Ancona, Daily Telegraph)
British Catholics’ Quandary
(Kenan Malik, New York Times)
Victory for free expression as LSE apologises over Jesus & Mo controversy
The London School of Economics (LSE) has apologised to two students who were forced to cover
up t-shirts featuring pictures from the satirical comic strip Jesus and Mo.
Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis were running the Atheist Secularist and Humanist Society stall
on 3 October when they were told they would be physically removed from the annual Freshers' Fair
unless they covered up the 'offensive' t-shirts.
The incident sparked a national debate over free expression, and the extent to which universities
are pandering to the sensibilities of Islamic extremists on campus.
After instructing solicitors, the two students lodged an official complaint to LSE on 12 November.
Director of the School, Professor Craig Calhoun, has now written to the students acknowledging
that, with hindsight, the wearing of the t-shirts on this occasion did not amount to harassment or
contravene the law or LSE policies.
1

A statement issued on the LSE website, said: "LSE takes its duty to promote free speech very
seriously, and as such, will discuss and learn from the issues raised by recent events."
The apology has been welcomed by the National Secular Society, which has been supporting the
students with their appeal.
Terry Sanderson, NSS president, said:
"We congratulate students for their fearless defence of freedom of expression. This is a welcome
apology from the LSE, and it should be congratulated for making it publicly, whether or not the
threat of legal action played any role.
"I hope that we will now see a more sensible approach to free expression that does not rest on
protecting the sensibilities of any one particular group.
"We all have to learn that being offended is an inevitable part of life, having ones fondest beliefs
challenged is part of a free society. Let's hope that lessons have been learned and we don't have
any repeat of this. Then we can move on to a more mature and open debate about all kinds of
things – including religion."
However, Mr Sanderson added that LSE's letter to the students needed further clarification.
Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis also welcomed what they described as the "half-apology" from
the LSE.
"We welcome the LSE's admission that its staff misjudged the situation, and their acknowledgement
that we were well within our rights to wear 'Jesus & Mo' t-shirts on campus and that this neither
amounted to harassment nor contravened the law or LSE policies.
"Even though it caused us great distress to be publicly harassed and humiliated by LSE and LSE
Students' Union (LSESU) staff, LSE's response vindicates our decision to stand up for our rights.
In a joint statement, Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis added:
"Even as we welcome Professor Calhoun's apology, we are disappointed that it took the threat of
legal action to elicit an acknowledgement of our grievances, and that no apology has been
forthcoming from the LSESU, whose grave misconduct began this chain of harassment. We also
believe that several other lingering concerns must be put on record."
Read the full statement from Chris Moos and Abhishek Phadnis
Educate Together to open first UK school
The Irish-based educational charity Educate Together has announced it is to set up an Academy
Trust to run a new primary school to be opened in Bristol in September 2014. Schools under the
Educate Together banner guarantee equality of access and esteem to children irrespective of their
social, cultural or religious background.
The Academy Trust has been set up as a partnership between UK-based educationalists and
Educate Together and will operate as a not-for-profit charity regulated by the Department for
Education (DfE). It will be bound by the same human rights and equality principles as the Irish
organisation.
The Irish charity has its roots in the Dalkey School Project founded in 1975, which was set up to
challenge the divisive denominational nature of the Irish school system by educationalists and
2

parents who recognised the need to have children of Catholic, Protestant and other parents
educated together. Educate Together schools promote "a philosophy of education in which no child
is considered an outsider."
In place of traditional religion education, Educate Together schools teach the Learn Together ethical
education curriculum. The curriculum focuses on questions of equality, justice, sustainability and
active citizenship. The subject aims to "develop in children a critical knowledge, understanding and
awareness of the teachings of religious and non-theistic belief systems and how these systems
relate to our shared human experience." Its teaching emphases "the infinite variety and richness of
humankind through nurturing a respect for a person's right to hold and practice individual belief
systems and through creating spaces where values can be articulated and critically examined."
Educate Together schools have proved very popular amongst parents in Ireland where the charity
has become the lead provider of new schools, opening 41 new primaries in the past ten years. Its
model is seen to be particularly appropriate to rapidly growing urban areas with high levels of social,
cultural or religious diversity.
Among the supporters of the Educate Together Academy Trust are Zenna Atkins, former
Chairperson of Ofsted and Mary O'Rourke, ex-Tanaiste and Minister of Education in Ireland.
Speaking about the announcement, Paul Rowe, CEO of Educate Together said:
"We are delighted to work with our partners within Educate Together Academy Trust in the
development of this school. The intention is to start this school as an outstanding learning
environment from its outset. The school will incorporate our Learn Together ethical education
curriculum and our child-centred ethos."
"Our colleagues in England are confident that this is the start of a network of popular Educate
Together schools that will develop in the UK over the coming years."
Stephen Evans, National Secular Society campaigns manager, welcomed the prospect of Educate
Together's influence in the UK, commenting: "The inclusiveness embodied in Educate Together's
mission and values would make an ideal blueprint for all state funded schools in the UK. It offers a
far more positive vision for education than the increasingly faith-based and sectarian model being
advocated by all main political parties through their support for 'faith schools'. Religious
organisations too often see schools as a way to produce the next generation of believers, and there
is nothing child-centred about that."
Universities UK withdraws its guidance on gender segregation
Universities UK (UUK) has withdrawn its controversial guidance that gender segregation could be
permitted at UK universities.
This comes shortly after Downing Street weighed in on the debate; the prime minister's official
spokesperson said Mr Cameron "doesn't believe guest speakers should be allowed to address
segregated audiences," and that he felt "very strongly about this".
Chief Executive of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, responded saying: "Universities UK agrees entirely with
the prime minister that universities should not enforce gender segregation on audiences at the
request of guest speakers. However, where the gender segregation is voluntary, the law is unclear".
She stated that UUK is now working with lawyers and the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC) to clarify the position, but that, in the meantime, it has withdrawn the case study in the
guidance which triggered the debate.
The EHRC had said that it thought the gender segregation aspect of the guidance was potentially
unlawful. Its chief executive, Mark Hammond, argued that gender segregation was "not permissible"
under equalities laws, adding that UUK's guidance required clarification.
3

David Cameron's intervention followed comments by the education secretary, Michael Gove, who
had been amongst those calling for a withdrawal of the original guidance, which he described as
"wrong and harmful". He rejected the notion that segregation could be defended on the grounds of
free expression, commenting, "we should not pander to extremism. Speakers who insist on
segregating audiences should not be indulged by educators".
On Thursday, Chukka Umunna, shadow business secretary, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme
that he was "horrified" by UUK's position.
Earlier this week, a large protest against the guidance was held outside the UUK's office on Human
Rights day, drawing national coverage from Channel 4.
UUK had originally advised that segregation by gender in talks from external speakers is fine, as
long as men and women are sitting on a "side by side basis" and one party is not at a disadvantage.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, commented, "We welcome this
development, having always maintained that a commitment to free speech does not extend to a
speaker determining that an audience be segregated on gender grounds".
He cautioned however, that the guidelines should not be simply "adjusted" so that a way round can
be found so as to make gender segregation pass a legal test. He said, "Such segregation is
wrong in principle and should be stopped in universities entirely. Even voluntary segregation
symbolises a mind-set that puts women in a different — and inferior — category."
Blog: Double-talk and betrayal put massive obstacles in the way of women’s
rights
Using the language of freedom, Islamists are turning back the clock on women's human
rights. Segregation in universities is just another example, argues Anne Marie Waters.
There has been condemnation from both the left and right following revelations that gender
segregation is taking place in British universities. Last Tuesday (on Human Rights Day) I spoke at a
protest — which I attended on behalf of the National Secular Society — against Universities UK
(UUK), the so-called "voice of the UK's universities", which issued guidance recently stating that it
was A-OK to segregate men and women at public debates if some Islamist misogynist requires it be
so.
The guidance of UUK stated that universities must consider freedom of speech alongside
discrimination and equality considerations if faced with a request, from a speaker, that an audience
be segregated along gender lines. The Chief Executive of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, told the
Guardian that as long as participants were happy with arrangements, and neither sex was
disadvantaged, segregation should be permitted. It appears she is concerned that said Islamist
misogynist may have his freedom of speech infringed if his demands for segregated audiences are
not adhered to – in which case the Islamist misogynist may not wish to speak.
I am pretty much speechless.
First of all, how on earth does a person choosing not to speak because they don't have their
backward medievalism pandered to, have his right to free speech impeded? He doesn't, he chooses
not to speak. He will not be physically incapable of opening his mouth at the sight of women and
men sitting together.
Secondly, "voluntary segregation" is simply not possible, or plausible. Take this example; if a room
is "segregated" and I go in there and decide to sit with the men, will I be moved? If yes, then it is
enforced. If I will not be asked to move, then the room is not segregated.
4

Here we go again with this Orwellian nonsense, designed to confuse.
As I said at the protest last Tuesday, language is being manipulated and abused by Islamists and
their enablers to hide the nasty realities of this situation. "Voluntary segregation", "freedom of
speech" and "religious freedom" are being thrown about as justifications for turning the clock back
and pushing women to the edge yet again.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown quite rightly articulated what is going on here, when she appeared on
Channel 4 following Tuesday night's protests. She said that Islamists were using democracy to
destroy democracy and she is absolutely right.
This is not news and has been going on for a very long time. Using the language of rights and
freedoms, Islamists have succeeded in setting up sharia courts in Britain in which women are
treated as sub-human and deserving of violence. It is their "right" to religious freedom to do just that.
Using the language of rights and freedoms, Islamists have set up schools in which young girls are
forced to cover themselves entirely lest they unleash their sinfulness on to the world via the crime of
visibility. This too is the "right" to religious freedom of the schools' Islamist masters.
University segregation is just another example. Time after time, using the language of freedom,
Islamists are turning back the clock. They are testing the waters, and finding out — no doubt to their
glee — that where women are concerned, the religious right to despise us will triumph time after
time.
In human rights law, there are absolute rights and there are qualified rights. Religious freedom is a
qualified right, which thus must be balanced against other competing rights on a case-by-case
basis. As you can imagine, women's autonomy and dignity regularly clash with 7th century ideas of
accursed temptresses.
At the United Nations recently, a resolution aimed at protecting women's rights campaigners
removed the following requirement in order to get Iran, the Vatican, and others to agree. The
request that member states "strongly condemn all forms of violence against women and women
human rights defenders and refrain from invoking any customs, traditions or religious consideration
to avoid their obligations" was wiped away. So the UN (which is proving itself to be increasingly
useless in this area) has effectively agreed that violence against women is fine, provided it is in line
with religious belief (which it quite often is).
The European Union's Parliament just this week rejected a report on Sexual and Reproductive
Rights following intense lobbying by religious groups. MEP Mikael Gustafsson, Chair of the
European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, said: "I remain
ashamed and stunned that so many people still can't see how important sexual and reproductive
health and rights are to achieving gender equality in the EU and beyond."
Mr Gustafsson is wrong about that, people can see how important these rights are in the fight for
the autonomy and basic human rights of women, but they believe that religious beliefs are more
important.
The UN also believes this, as does Universities UK, and the Islamists are lapping it up.
Anne Marie Waters is a council member of the National Secular Society. The views expressed are
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the NSS.
5

of gay men is commonplace. The community lives in constant fear and is unable to access the legal
and justice systems.
"Either Minichiello Williams did not know this, which is culpable ignorance, or she did know it and
endorses it, which is sheer wickedness.
"The Archbishop of Canterbury and the House of Bishops' report on Human Sexuality have recently
called on the Church to repent of its homophobia. And yet here is a Sussex member of the General
Synod advocating the vilest form of homophobia in a most terrible cultural situation. What she has
said and done is contrary both to the Church's Christian teaching and to common human decency.
She has brought disgrace upon the Church of England and its General Synod as well as the
Diocese of Chichester".
The Bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, sought to distance himself from her remarks: "The
comments by Andrea Minichiello Williams about the decriminalisation of same sex intercourse in
Jamaica have no sanction in the Church of England or the diocese of Chichester. Insofar as such
comments incite homophobia, they should be rejected as offensive and unacceptable.
"The Christian Church is widely perceived as homophobic and intolerant of those for whom same
sex attraction is the foundation of their emotional lives. It is urgent, therefore, that Christians find
legitimate ways to affirm and demonstrate the conviction that the glory of God is innate in every
human being, and the mercy of God embraces each of us indiscriminately."
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "It is surprising that Andrea
Minichiello Williams is a member of the Church of England's parliament. On the basis of this
hatemongering she risks bringing the whole body into disrepute. I'm not sure what the procedure is
for getting rid of representatives, but I would suggest to the Diocese of Chichester that they take
urgent steps to make her step down. That would be a clear indication that they mean what they say
about opposing homophobia".
Study finds religious fundamentalism unexpectedly common in Europe
Religious fundamentalism is not a marginal phenomenon in Western Europe, nor is it restricted to
Islam. This conclusion is drawn in a large-scale study published by Ruud Koopmans from the WZB
Berlin Social Science Center.
The author analysed data from a representative survey among immigrants and natives in six
European countries – Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. The Six
Country Immigrant Integration Comparative Survey collected data in more than 9,000 telephone
interviews.
The study is the first that allows analysis on an empirical base of the extent and impact of religious
fundamentalism.
Two thirds of Muslims interviewed said that religious rules are more important to them than the laws
of the country in which they live. Three quarters of the respondents held the opinion that there is
only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.
These numbers are significantly higher than those from local Christians: only 13% of this group
placed religious rules above national law; just under 20% refused to accept differing interpretations
of the Bible.
For Ruud Koopmans, this tendency toward Muslim religious fundamentalism is alarming:
"Fundamentalism is not an innocent form of strict religiosity", the sociologist said. "We find a strong
7

correlation between religious fundamentalism — actually among both Christians and Muslims —
and hostility toward out-groups like homosexuals or Jews."
Almost 60% of the Muslim respondents rejected homosexuals as friends; 45% thought that Jews
cannot be trusted; and an equally large group believed that the West is out to destroy Islam. The
Christians' answers for comparison: As many as 9% were openly anti-Semitic; 13% did not want to
have homosexuals as friends; and 23% thought that Muslims aim to destroy Western culture.
A critical analysis of the findings by Cas Mudde, assistant professor in the School for Public and
International Affairs at the University of Georgia appeared in the Washington Post.
She notes that the Koopman's report finds that young Muslims — most of whom are not immigrants,
but were born in Western Europe — are as fundamentalist as older Muslims. Ms Mudde said: "This
finding goes against the received wisdom that 'immigrants' have assimilated by the third generation;
a process that used to hold up for most of the 20 th century, but seems to have changed in the
current interconnected world. That said, recent research on French immigrants showed that the
fourth generation (which they call '2.5 generation') is much more integrated than the third."
Fundamentalism and out-group hostility – Muslim immigrants and Christian natives in Western
Europe by Ruud Koopmans can be read in full here (PDF).
Council of Europe under pressure to reconsider its resolution condemning
male circumcision
According to a report in the Times of Israel, the Council of Europe is to revisit last October's
resolution which stated that the ritual circumcision of young boys violates their basic human rights.
The decision comes after an Israeli delegation met members of the Council in Paris to argue the
case against banning religious circumcision. The matter is scheduled to be debated at a full meeting
of the Council in January 2014.
The announcement came after an Israeli delegation led by MK Reuven Rivlin met with members of
the council in Paris to argue the case against banning religious circumcision, Israel Radio reported
on Tuesday. The matter is scheduled to be debated at a full council meeting next month.
Leader of the delegation, MK Rivlin, speculated that he thought the Council would "change its
position".
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution that called male ritual
circumcision a "violation of the physical integrity of children" by a vote of 78 to 13, with 15
abstentions in October. The decision was based on a report from the Committee on Social Affairs,
Health and Sustainable Development led by German rapporteur Marlene Rupprecht.
The resolution also urged member states to "initiate a public debate, including intercultural and
inter-religious dialogue, aimed at reaching a large consensus on the rights of children to protection
against violations of their physical integrity according to human rights standards" and to "adopt
specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before
a child is old enough to be consulted."
Practices covered by the resolution included female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young
boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children,
corporal punishment, and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic
surgery.
In November, Israel's Deputy Minister of Religious Services Eli Ben Dahan (Jewish Home party)
met with the secretary general of the Council of Europe to urge protection of "religious freedoms",
and prevent restrictions on ritual circumcision and animal slaughter.
8

Slaughter without prior stunning was made illegal in Poland as of January, following a ruling in
November by the constitutional court on a petition by animal rights activists. In July, lawmakers
voted down a draft amendment to the law on animal protection that would have allowed for the
slaughter of animals without prior stunning, as required by Jewish and Muslim law, if carried out so
as to follow religious customs.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "Given the large majority in favour
of this resolution, I certainly hope that the Council of Europe will not give in to pressure from
religious sources and compromise it. It is clearly a breach of a child's human rights to have
unnecessary surgical procedures at an age when the individual concerned cannot consent. Europe
must stand firm."
Ex-Muslim group forms in Scotland
A new group of Ex-Muslims has been formed in Scotland, its manifesto reads:
“We are non-believers, atheists and ex-Muslims of Scotland, were born as Muslims and being
Muslim was decided for us even before our birth. As free human beings with power of intelligence
and decision, we have decided to leave Islam.
As Islam does not permit us to leave it and Islamic law recognises apostasy as a crime punishable
by death, we, ex-Muslims living In Scotland aim to celebrate our right of freedom of speech and
conscience and announce our apostasy as a public challenge. We also strive to represent
numerous ex-Muslims who live in countries under Islamic law and are not able to announce their
apostasy because doing so may mean execution and imprisonment.
In countries under Islamic law every matter of citizen’s life is regulated by religion. In countries like
Iran, women are severely restricted by Islamic law and compulsory hijab, Children are legally
abused, Education is mixed with religious teachings; academics are controlled by religious bodies,
humans are being executed in the name of God, citizens can not criticise the governing body as
doing so is considered as act against God and Islam, atheists and converts are punished with the
death penalty, sexual behaviours marked as un-Islamic like adultery and homosexuality are
punished by stoning and hanging.
Therefore, we ex-Muslims of Scotland, an affiliation of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain demand:
Universal rights and equal citizenship for all. We are opposed to cultural relativism and the
tolerance of inhuman beliefs, discrimination and abuse in the name of respecting religion or
culture.
Freedom to criticise religion. Prohibition of restrictions on unconditional freedom of criticism
and expression using so-called religious ‘sanctities’.
Freedom of religion and atheism.
Separation of religion from the state and legal and educational system.
Prohibition of religious customs, rules, ceremonies or activities that are incompatible with or
infringe people’s rights and freedoms.
Abolition of all restrictive and repressive cultural and religious customs which hinder and
contradict woman’s independence, free will and equality. Prohibition of segregation of sexes.
Prohibition of interference by any authority, family members or relatives, or official authorities
in the private lives of women and men and their personal, emotional and sexual relationships
and sexuality.
Protection of children from manipulation and abuse by religion and religious institutions.
Prohibition of any kind of financial, material or moral support by the state or state institutions
to religion and religious activities and institutions.
Prohibition of all forms of religious intimidation and threats.
9

For more information, contact Ramin Forghani. Email: ramin.forghani@icloud.com; Twitter:
@ExMuslimsScot; Alternatively; you can write to Ex-Muslims of Scotland, IAA, 272 Bath Street,
Glasgow G2 4JR.
French Government denies it plans to lift veil bans
A new report by a French Government committee has created controversy after it called for an end
to the ban on Muslim headscarves in schools and emphasised the "Arab-Oriental" dimension to
French identity.
The report is part of a Government review into how one of Europe's largest Muslim populations can
be integrated into a strictly secular country. It was commissioned by the Socialist Prime Minister
Jean-Marc Ayrault who plans to overhaul policy next year.
Among the proposals in the report — which was prepared by senior civil servant Thierry Tuot and a
group of experts — was to forbid authorities and the media from referring to people's nationality,
religion or ethnicity, and the creation of a new offence of "racial harassment".
It has recommended promoting the teaching of Arabic and African languages in schools. It also
suggests that children should learn more about slavery and colonisation and that a Museum of
Colonisation be created.
The report brought an immediate reaction from the leading opposition party, the UMP. One of its
leaders, Jean-François Copé, said: "It will no longer be up to immigrants to adopt French culture but
up to France to abandon its culture, its values, its history to adapt to the culture of others.
"I cannot accept that we abandon the idea of secularism to let religions dictate their law in the
republic's schools, that our language, French, be taught on the same level as the languages of the
entire world... that our common history be erased for the benefit of an impersonal and multiple
history that champions all histories except the history of France."
He claimed that the report reversed the idea of secularism and "republican assimilation" – which
required immigrants to speak French and virtually forget about their origins.
Wearing hijabs in schools was banned in 2004, and in 2011 face coverings were banned in public
places.
The report said these restrictions were "discriminatory" and served to justify other restrictions that
had been introduced by private companies.
Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault responded to the outcry by denying that he was considering
dropping the ban on the hijab in schools or the burqa in the streets.
"Just because I receive a report doesn't make it government policy," Ayrault said after the daily Le
Figaro newspaper drew attention to the document, which was posted on the prime minister's official
website last month.
A recent IFOP poll found that almost half of French see Muslims as a threat to their national identity.
Human rights groups have criticised the French approach to its immigrant population.
10

Blog: The President’s Broadcasting Year – behind the scenes
After a busy year as President of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson reveals
some of his behind-the-scenes moments.
Being President of the National Secular Society is nothing if not unpredictable. And this year has
been no exception.
Although we are engaged in a very serious debate about an increasingly frightening problem, there
are moments of hilarity and fun.
These are what I want to tell you about here. After all, it is party season and the time when people
relax and let their hair down.
One of the things I have to do as spokesperson for the NSS is take part in broadcast interviews.
These are usually live, and whatever you might have said to the researcher who originally asked
you to take part, you can be sure that when you get on air, the presenter will ask you something
completely different. If you aren’t quick-witted (and I’m not) this can completely throw you.
And often you have to become an instant expert on topics that are completely unfamiliar to you. I
was asked once to take part in a debate on embryo research and its moral implications. I would be
up against a religious spokesperson who was implacably opposed to it, said the researcher.
It only occurred to me after I’d said yes to the interview that I knew nothing about the subject.
The programme was to be broadcast the next day and so I spent the night frantically searching
online to educate myself about the topic and the arguments for and against.
I could imagine my opponent being someone from the Catholic Church who was terribly au fait with
it all, maybe even being a scientist or medical specialist.
When the programme started it rapidly became clear that my opponent was an elderly Hindu
gentleman who knew even less about the subject than I did. By the time it was over I felt like a
positive expert! Still, I expect Mr Singh slept easier than I did the night before.
There are other times when you have those “you’ve been framed” moments. It’s inevitable
occasionally when it’s going out live.
I was on a radio programme a couple of months ago commenting on the case of Celestina Mba.
You will recall she is the Christian lady who didn’t want to work on Sunday. The presenter asked
me: “What’s the problem with her taking Sundays off?”
I replied: “Well, it isn’t very fair on her colleagues, is it, having to work while she is at home having it
off.”
I could have bitten my tongue, and imagined that even before the interview was over, someone
would have it up on Youtube.
Indeed, another of my broadcasting gaffes did get on Youtube (and no, I will not give a link – it’s
embarrassing enough having to remember it). It was that Sunday morning ethics programme where
people contribute down the line through their Skype connection. I was all set up and ready and the
studio had me on hold, but the debate went on and on and I thought that they would run out of time
before they got to me.
But suddenly Susanna Reid was saying: “And what do you think about that, Terry Sanderson?”
11

At that very moment my lap top screen went into sleep mode and all was black. I imagined that I
had become disconnected: “Christ, it’s broken down,” I shouted. Unfortunately, the camera and
microphone were still live and my panic-stricken expletive was broadcast to the nation.
Such are the vagaries of live broadcasting, but most of the time it goes smoothly and the secularist
message gets out without a hitch. The NSS’s various spokespeople have completed more than one
hundred radio and TV interviews this year, so we’re beginning to know how it works.
One of the interesting aspects of broadcasting is that it brings you into touch with people you might
not otherwise meet. Broadcasters often pitch me – and other NSS spokespeople – against bishops
and vicars and priests and imams in the hope that they will get a fireworks display of discord.
Sometimes they do, but often when I explain what secularism is about, we get agreement. The
presenter always seems crestfallen when the bishop says: “I tend to agree with Terry Sanderson on
this.”
There are some Christians, however, who are not amenable to sense. Stephen Green of Christian
Voice is one – I will no longer debate with him, such is his irrational and boorish silliness. Another is
Andrea Minichiello Williams – the woman behind the Christian Legal Centre and all those
‘persecuted Christian’ court cases that rarely get anywhere. Her technique is to get the first word
and then keep on talking until she’s used up all the time, effectively denying her opponents a say. I
now warn presenters of this if I know she’s going to be on.
During the Jerry Springer – the Opera controversy a few years ago, I was invited – along with
Christian critics – to go to the offices of the Daily Telegraph and watch a preview version of what the
BBC planned to broadcast and then comment on it. I found myself sitting next to erstwhile vicar’s
wife Anne Atkins, she of the Thought for the Day infamy.
As the Jerry Springer show was played, its notorious bad language was in much evidence. At one
point one of the characters sings (very loudly) “F--- You! F--- You!” (He sang it without the dashes).
Anne Atkins turned out to be slightly deaf and was having trouble following the dialogue. She turned
to me and asked: “What did he say?” I replied “F--- You, Anne. He said F--- You.”
It was something I’d been longing to say to her for many years.
On a debate about faith schools, I was up against a Muslim convert who I chatted to in the Green
Room beforehand. “Why did you convert?” I asked. “Oh, I didn’t convert,” he said, “Everybody’s a
Muslim. It’s just that some people don’t know it yet.”
I felt a bit of a chill run through me.
Another incident occurred at Sky News in an interview about the burqa where I was to debate the
issue with a veiled woman. She, however, refused to take part in the debate when she discovered it
was to be conducted by a male presenter.
The Sky team hurriedly arranged for her to be seated in an adjoining studio and seen on a monitor.
She was happy just so long as she wasn’t in the company of men.
It seems that the NSS has a message that is increasingly relevant, which is why we are invited to so
many debates and broadcasts. The issue of secularism is rising on the political agenda, and it won’t
be long before politicians – who assiduously avoid it at present – will have to face it square on.
That’s when the NSS will show its value. On the thorny question of how religions can live together in
a multicultural society, secularism has an excellent and democratic answer.
12

To make politicians listen, we must keep up the pressure. We need your support to do this.
Contributing to message boards is not enough. We need you to make the commitment to
membership. January is renewal time for many of our members – why not renew your membership
now? You can do it quickly, easily and securely online here.
In the meantime, from the council, staff and volunteers at the NSS, we wish you a very happy
festive season and a prosperous New Year (as a proud member of the NSS).
Terry Sanderson was re-elected President of the NSS at last Saturday’s AGM
Secularist of the Year 2014 – tickets now on sale
Our Secularist of the Year event will be held on Saturday 29 March next year in a central London
venue. Tickets are on sale now for this annual award to the person who is adjudged to have made a
significant contribution to secularism.
Tickets are now on sale at £45 each and will include a welcome cocktail, a three course lunch with
tea or coffee and all the entertainment.
Get your tickets here. There is still time to nominate someone you think should get the prize.
Find out about other upcoming events here on the NSS website
NSS Speaks Out:
Keith Porteous Wood was on BBC Local Radio Network talking about the place of religion in
society.
Letters to Newsline
Please send your letters for publication to letters@secularism.org.uk. We want to publish as many letters as possible,
so please keep them brief – no more than 250 words. We reserve the right to edit. Opinions expressed in letters are not
necessarily those of the NSS. You can also join in live debates on our Facebook page.
IS SCIENTOLOGY A RELIGION?
Now that Scientology has been confirmed by a court as a religion it may wish to benefit from the tax
breaks enjoyed by charities. It may also insist, as a religion, on another privilege which is resolutely
barred to atheists. Free religious propaganda provided by the BBC on Thought for the Day may also
be available. TfTD allows daily access to the BBC airwaves by holders of various incredible beliefs.
Why should our new religion not also join the licence fee funded party? But why stop there?
Perhaps Scientologists might also participate in the avalanche of religion that is inflicted on us on
Sundays.
The German Government considers Scientology "an organization pursuing commercial interests"
and says that its "pseudo-scientific courses can seriously jeopardise individuals' mental and
physical health, and that it exploits its members." That need be no disadvantage in the UK. The
same comments could be made about religions happily enjoying both the BBC airwaves and
munificent tax advantages.
Denis Watkins
13

I’m surprised at Terry Sanderson’s alarm at the decision that Scientology is now a legitimate
religion, can conduct marriages, and can enjoy tax bonanzas. Actually, I might resent the word
‘legitimate’, since I know of no religion that deserves such a description.
What this decision does is to equate the nonsense of Christianity, Mohammedism, Cargo Cults, etc,
with the nonsense of Scientology. They, and the thousands of other religions that humankind is
cursed with, are all now legally daft.
The corollary of the decision is that, for example, a Jedi Knight marriage must now be ‘legitimate’.
To maintain some sort of coherence to the concept, a religious marriage should be an entirely
private affair recognised by only that religion, and only State marriage should be legally recognised,
i.e. will be the only ‘legitimate’ marriage.
The real heresy behind this is that any ‘legitimate’ religious establishment is provided with a
favourable tax status; or indeed any kind of privilege. Isn’t that what the NSS is fighting against?
Mike Nason
I am dismayed to learn that Scientology is now considered a religion. It seems to have squeaked
through a definitional loophole because it doesn't have a God like Buddhism doesn't have a God so
there you go, they must be the same. But, but surely a bit more can be said than that. Scientology's
particular brand of spiritual philosophy is designed to leave you dependant and broke on New Age
hokum. Levitate that ashtray! Play with the E-meter! Expend thousands of pounds to rise to level
OTIII; at this proud level it's revealed humanity's suffering is caused by alien souls dumped here 75
million years ago by the evil Galactic overlord Xenu. And that your Messiah used to write Science
Fiction is coincidence. And you've only got five levels to go...
Oh, and every so often someone turns up dead. What's that word everyone's forgotten? Oh yeah:
CULT.
So what was the Supreme Court thinking?! All to solemnise a marriage in a Scientology Centre?
That didn't have doomed written all over it? Scientology volunteers are typically the ones who've run
out of money for brainwashing courses and are working to get them instead. Plus, Scientology has
a policy of "Disconnecting" you from your family and labelling them "Suppressive Persons". Sound
like a great wedding?
Anyone interested can read up on Scientology's dark side in Marc Headley's "Blown for Good".
Alternatively, you can have your brain turned to mush on L Ron's original "Dianetics". It would seem
the Supreme Court doesn't care, in a recession, if it makes an outright con look respectable.
Someone didn't do their homework.
James Wright
I would have thought the "recognition" of Scientology as a "serious" religion can only be seen as a
good thing from an atheistic point of view. Being associated with the crack pot beliefs of Scientology
can only harm established religion by showing that the beliefs of the Church of England say, are just
a toned down version of those held by L Ron Hubbard made acceptable by the passage time and
because they were made in a less sceptical time.
Actually I was always told that Mr Hubbard invented Scientology after he bet that he couldn't do so
after a dinner party. When he tried to tell every one it was a hoax and collect on his bet no one
would believe him. Any truth in this story?
Edwin Harnell
14

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the validity of a Scientology site for a marriage ceremony raises
serious issues, not so much for the ruling itself, but for the reasons offered.
The location was judged to be designated for the purposes of ‘religious worship’, and therefore valid
for the purpose in question. The proceedings in a Scientology church were judged to be ‘religious’,
given that some very ancient and established religions such as Jainism and some branches of
Buddhism do not have a concept of a ‘supreme being’, on a definition that is summarised by Human
Rights Blog as follows:
“Religion could summarily be described as a belief system going beyond sensory perception or
scientific data, held by a group of adherents, which claims to explain mankind’s place in the
universe and relationship with the infinite, and to teach its adherents how they are to live their lives
in conformity with the spiritual understanding associated with the belief system”.
This definition, combined with, for example, the assumption by the US and our own tax authorities,
that bona fide religions are automatically tax-exempt, or that the propagation of religion is
intrinsically a charitable project, as a current Private Member’s Bill asserts, leads to a conclusion so
bizarre as to appear deranged: that any belief and value system, in order to be privileged in the
public square, must declare itself to be inherently irrational and unsupported by any objectively
verifiable evidence.
Charles Baily
The fact that Scientology is now 'legally' a religion shows how silly this country has become. To
allow the worshipping of clearly fictional idols to have advantageous legal and tax status is insulting
and unfair to the rest of us. And now Scientology has joined them.
David Dredge
And this is what readers of the Guardian thought about the development:
The supreme court decision establishing Scientology as a recognised religion in the UK
(Scientologists win fight to marry in own church, 12 December) reopens questions about the perks
given by the state.
Offering religious organisations special treatment forces the state to determine which groups
receive that benefit, and so to define what constitutes a religion. But the lack of a true religion
means there is no metric to determine this by. Unless we want government to wade in on thorny
theological issues, self-identification is the most reasonable definition.
Say hello to the slippery slope. Should Buckingham Palace be registered for the solemnisation of
marriages for those who believe Prince Philip is a divine being? Should we slash business rates on
facilities used by the Universe People to contact extraterrestrial civilisations? How about the group
dedicated to reversing the effects of past-life trauma patterns, i.e. the Church of Scientology? It isn't
for the state to say which of these are proper religions and which are a bunch of crackpots. Instead,
religions should be treated under the law like any other civic group.
Alex Csicsek
Lord Toulson's description of religion is one that believers and non-believers can surely live with,
and also satisfies the law; local government minister Brandon Lewis worries about what it means if
churches such as Scientology will no longer have to pay business rates. Perhaps now is the time to
consider why the government invites some churches into privileged advisory roles and why it is
unlikely to invite Scientologists to do so. Here's an opportunity for the government to tell us where it
15

stands on "mankind's place in the universe and relationship with the infinite". Only then can it tackle
the vexed question of business rate relief.
Colin Challen
If a sect as controversial as Scientology can claim legal parity with mainstream religions, virtually
any organisation can claim to be a religion and therefore eligible for charitable status, tax relief etc.
The only way to avoid this would be to move towards a fully secular state, with the abolition of faith
schools, removal of charitable status from religion etc.
Chris Peeler
CAMP QUEST
Once again I request your assistance in including a little publicity for Camp Quest UK in your e-
publication.
Camp Quest is now in its 6 th year and comprises a residential experience for young people who ask
questions, thinking young people, whose families would prefer them to be able to discuss the
fundamental truths about belief and non-belief in a supported and friendly community. Next year, as
always, we will be having a wonderful time balancing great physical activities with time looking at
science, and at morality and ethics when not driven by a dark threatening figure in the sky. We are
holding two 'camps' next year, one shorter one for 7 - 11 year olds in Kent, and one in the Malvern
Hills for 11-17 year olds. Information can be found here, and applications and further information
can be made via the site. Now the Scouts have decided that members will not be forced to take a
vow to a non-existent deity there may be less need for Camp Quest, but we offer something very
special: a caring community of thinking people.
Dianna Moylan
‘BADVENT’
The introduction (Newsline Dec 13th) by Nottinghamshire police of a daily calendar of wanted
wrongdoers, regardless of any religious associations with the time of year, causes concern for a
different reason. It's reported to show crimes 'apparently' being committed, as caught on CCTV.
That sounds dangerously like a presumption of guilt, for the apparent wrongdoer has not been
allowed due legal process.
With a bail-jumper, it's plainly a different matter. This clearly carries great risk. Someone acquitted
commonly finds it almost impossible to be fully accepted back in society or employment. Joe, and
Jean, Public commonly hold the 'no smoke without fire' viewpoint. An acquitted person, it's often
thought, was just lucky enough to have a clever lawyer (as if all defence counsel ought to be stupid
by definition). That's a real and justified objection to the Badvent (sorry, 'Festive') police initiative,
never mind confusion with a sacred time. If anyone makes a surprise entry to a home at Christmas,
it should be an elderly individual down the chimney, not the boys in blue forcing the door, acting on
perhaps flawed suspicions.
Michael Igoe
16

A SECULAR REMEMBRANCE DAY?
I am largely in agreement with Shaun Joynson about the need for a different kind of Remembrance
Day ceremony, but I feel that it should be as inclusive as possible, which regrettably means
incorporating some religious aspects, albeit within a secular framework. The ceremony at which I
laid a wreath from our local Humanist group a couple of years ago was not only dominated by the
local C of E, but was extremely militaristic, with a very fat RAF sergeant major yelling marching
orders at the top of his voice. I have not repeated the experience. I shall be interested to know how
Shaun Joynson gets on with his ideas.
Anthony Chapman
NSS ARTICLE CHANGES AT THE AGM
At its AGM (14th Dec. 13) the NSS voted, by a bare 75% majority, to delete from its 'Principles' the
following:
“The NSS asserts that there is no rational basis for belief in god(s). It affirms that this life is the only
one of which we have any knowledge and human effort should be directed wholly towards its
improvement.”
Keith P Wood (Executive Director),Terry Sanderson (President), Afonso Reis e Sousa (AGM Chair)
and all but one of their Council (Dan Bye) maintained that in international fora, the NSS's argument
that a state's laws should not be biased by religious influences, would be fatally impaired if it
became known that the above wording was one of the NSS's Principles. Thus, the NSS believed
that in campaigning for a secular state, it needed to be completely free of any taint of being 'not'
religious (let alone anti-religious), which, since last Saturday, it now is.
However, I think the strength of the case for a law, including 'secularist' laws, cannot depend on the
beliefs of those making that case, eg whether they're religious or not, but only on the validity of the
arguments themselves. In this connection, Barack Obama once said that religious groups arguing
for a law must make the case for it on grounds acceptable to the whole electorate, not merely to
their co-religionists on the basis of their religion.
It's a pity, therefore, that the NSS, which can easily make an excellent case for a secular state
acceptable to all reasonable people, felt the need to divest itself of one of its historic motivating
principles.
PS. The BHA, although not campaigning against religion, nevertheless proclaims it stands for "The
one life we have" (ie no after-life), without that hint of atheism apparently spoiling its campaigns.
Norman Bacrac
Terry Sanderson, president of the NSS, replies: Norman omits to mention the remainder of same
motion that was passed on Saturday, (76% in favour and 24% against – hardly a “bare” majority). It
replaced the deleted words with "The National Secular Society asserts that people of different
religions and beliefs and none should be equal before the law, and that a secular state is the best
guarantor of this equality."
Hearty congratulations to the NSS for amending its articles to reflect what the organisation is about
and should be about - advocating and campaigning for a secular state.
It is perfectly fine for atheist/humanist organisations to campaign for secularism, but it is undesirable
for an organisation that's sole purpose is the pursuit of secularism to specifically align itself with
non-belief when secularism itself serves all citizens, regardless of their beliefs.
17

It's only natural that humanists and atheists, like religious groups, like to gather together and
celebrate their righteousness and wisdom. But the NSS is right to steer clear of of being an
exclusive club for atheists if it wants to persuasively advocate the merits of secularism to a wider
audience and not just preach to the converted.
Personally, I don't care whether there's a God or not. I just want to live in a country that treats all
citizens equally, regardless of their personal and privately held beliefs about religion.
We criticise the Church endlessly for using “traditional values” as a reason not to acknowledge that
the world has changed and that it must change, too. I don’t want the NSS to fall into the same trap
and be paralysed by its history into never being able to progress into a more effective mode of
operation. Our new constitution will give us a clearer focus and more achievable aims.
Mike Pool
Please note: The next edition of Newsline will be on Friday 17 January 2014. Keep up to date with
events by checking out our website, with its daily update of news and comment of interest to
secularists.
Newsline provides links to external websites for information and in the interests of free exchange. We do not accept any responsibility
for the content of those sites, nor does a link indicate approval or imply endorsement of those sites.
Please feel free to use the material in this Newsline with appropriate acknowledgement of source. Neither 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, they are brought to you in the interests of the free exchange of information and open debate.
This email has been sent to you by
National Secular Society, 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL, United Kingdom.
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7404 3126
www.secularism.org.uk
18