@atheismfuckyeah / atheismfuckyeah.tumblr.com
Plans to convert a Suffolk community school to a Church of England voluntary aided school have been blocked by Suffolk County Council after a consultation process failed to demonstrate sufficient demand for a school with a religious character.
GOOD.
Jesus christ, the UK does NOT need more fucking religious schools.
A large delegation of Government Ministers is to visit the Vatican next week to consult about British Government policy with the Pope. Among the six ministers going to Rome are Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport; Alan Duncan, the Minister for International Development; and Greg Barker, the Energy and Climate Change Minister.
The delegation will be led by Baroness Warsi who will lecture at the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy on the subject of the place of religion in modern political discourse.
The British delegation will reportedly discuss climate change, arms proliferation, religious tolerance, interfaith dialogue and the crisis in Somalia and the Horn of Africa with the Pope and Vatican officials.
The Daily Telegraph reports a "Vatican observer" as saying:
"It's a very strong delegation and it's a way of showing that the relationship with the Holy See didn't end in a blaze of fireworks when the Pope's visit finished. It's one of the most comprehensive British visits ever in terms of the range of interests represented."
The politicians will be accompanied by the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols.
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "What on earth is a delegation of senior British politicians doing consulting the last theocracy in Europe on our Government policy? We are a democratic nation and we didn't vote for the Pope – so why are we involving him in policy-making? Polls show that very few people in this country agree with his teachings – and that includes Catholics.
"This is an extremely undesirable development. The Government should be challenging the Vatican's assumed and suspect power, not indulging it."
What the bloody fuck?
Why the hell is my Government talking to the bloody Vatican about such important fucking issues? No, seriously, WHY?
Ugh.
~Mooglets
The signs have been there for some considerable time – religion around the world is reviving, and it is not the benign, let's-be-good-to-each-other kind of religion that the propagandists would have us believe.
It is the old-time, ambitious, politicised, militant and controlling religion. The kind that wants to dictate what you are doing at every minute of every day.
In Britain, the statistics seem to show that interest in organised religion is in continuing decline. This, by those who hold the reins of power, appears to be a signal to help spark its revival.
And so we have politicians telling us that we must return to religious values, bring religion more into the public arena and involve the churches and mosques more and more in our everyday lives.
Mr Cameron's recent speech has paved the way for a new confidence, particularly among Christians, who are now assuming that they can return to their glory days when the whole of society was under their control. Let us not forget that it is only a few generations ago that the Anglican Church held this country in an iron grip. If you were not an Anglican, many doors were closed to you. You could not become a member of Parliament, you could not go to university and, at one period, if you did not go to church on Sunday you could be fined.
Now the Church of England, a fatally declining institution by any measure, has set its sights on taking over even more of the education system, perhaps even all of it eventually. We are receiving almost daily complaints from parents whose children have been subjected to heavy-duty religious proselytising in their school (most of which are community schools). A whole array of evangelistic groups are worming their way into schools, without parental knowledge or consent, to foist all kinds of absurd ideas onto children, who are, of course, a captive audience.
Over Christmas and New Year, we have seen the establishment assuring us that they are still firmly in charge. TheQueen's Christmas message was one of the most overtly religious yet, with her talk of 'Jesus as the saviour' and the 'messages of the angels'. The Archbishop of Canterbury tried to latch on to the summer riots as a means of assuring us that society is disintegrating and unless we listen to God we're all on our way to hell in a handcart.
The riots that happened last year have provided much fodder for the religious opportunists. The disturbances wereused as evidence by many who think we need a "spiritual" dimension to prop up their otherwise unconvincing message.
Inconveniently for such arguments, Government papers released in from 1982 showed that similar riots had happened then, in the midst of the reign of Margaret Thatcher, and described as the most serious civil disturbances ever seen in peacetime Britain. Even then they had despaired of finding a solution and no doubt the Archbishop at the time was on hand to tell us that unless we went back to church we'd all be dog meat within a generation.
In fact, the riots in Tottenham and elsewhere last year are not unique. They are part of a long British tradition.
No, Armageddon has not arrived, whatever the Pope or the bishops try to tell us.
Such expressions of frustration break out at regular intervals – and have done for centuries. (See here and here for example) and quite often in the past the churches have had a hand in the perpetuating the iniquities that were being protested about.
Mr Cameron's speech about bringing "Christian values" back to the centre of British life was eagerly embraced by those who long once more for control. In an article in the Daily Telegraph, the right-wing former bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, wrote "Much of what Mr Cameron said is music to my ears." Well, it would be. (Read the whole article). Nazir Ali, like so many other conservatives, longs to drag us back to some ghastly, non-existent "Golden Age" when Christianity ruled the world.
As is usual over Christmas, the newspapers were full of religious propaganda. All balance is tossed out of the window by the editors and commentators. From the Daily Mail and Telegraph we expect it, but even the Guardianstarts a constant bark of religious apology. In its Christmas editorial, the paper said: "In the new century's age of uncertainty, the Christian tradition must not be allowed to become the preserve either of fundamentalists or of the right. But that requires progressives who are also atheists to turn down the volume and acknowledge the contribution of Christian thinking. Peace on earth, goodwill to all."
The Guardian often publishes these kinds of articles that seek to make a case for the value of Christianity and the case danger of non-belief. (See here and here and here.) But they do not sit well with the readers. When comments are invited, the below the line sections are full of angry rebuttals. Why does the Guardian continue to run these features when they so obviously infuriate so many of its readers?
The upshot of all this may be nothing more than an outburst of right-wing press crowing about the renewed power its hateful philosophy has attained. Or it might be a significant sign that authoritarianism and a reduction of civil liberties will shortly follow.
On the anniversary of the Pope’s visit to Britain, the Catholic Church has been trying to spin it as having been a grand success that brought Catholics flocking back to church and had a profound effect on the religious attitudes of the population at large. In short, we’re a better and more moral country because of the pope’s little outing.
In fact, 29% of those who were questioned said they couldn’t remember hearing or seeing anything about the visit. 6% of those who say they did recall that the visit happened say they can’t remember a thing about it.
Except that, according to an opinion poll commissioned by the Catholic Church itself, hardly anyone remembers that it actually happened. And 91% said it made no difference to their moral outlook at all. Strangely, the Church doesn’t seem anxious to draw attention to the results of this poll, which was carried out by Opinion Research Business among 2,049 adults.
Of the individual events — meeting the Queen, speaking in Parliament, meeting the Prime Minister — typically only 1% — or less — of those who had any memory of the visit recalled them. (A few were up to 5%.)
The biggest proportion of those who recalled anything about the visit (albeit only 11%) remembered the NSS’s campaign about the enormous cost of the jamboree to the taxpayer.
And as for the impact it had – 91% of respondents said the pope’s visit made no difference whatsoever to their personal or spiritual values.
Asked for their opinion of the pope, 41% said that it was “unfavourable” or “very unfavourable”; only 25% said it was “favourable” or “very favourable”.
Other questions asked:
Favourable/very favourable 21%
Unfavourable/very unfavourable 59%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 24%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 58%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 21%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 45%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 70%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 15%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 32%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 43%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 32%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 37%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 51%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 30%
Christian 53%; None 36%; Muslim 2%; Hindu 1%; Jew 1%; Sikh 1%; Buddhist 1%
Strongly Agree/Agree: 62%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 16%
[NSS comment: no definition of ‘aggressive secularism’ was given]
Strongly Agree/Agree 58%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree 25%
[NSS comment: by throwing “virtue” into the mix, they got the answer they wanted. Who would say that there was no room for virtue in public life?]
Strongly Agree/Agree: 67%
Strongly Disagree/Disagree: 18%
[NSS comment: throwing the ill-defined bogeyman of ‘political correctness’ into the question renders the answer meaningless]
Find more results here
Thoroughly interesting. Nice to see they bias the questions, to get their intended result, as well.
~Mooglets
A Catholic priest in the Netherlands has refused to allow a funeral in his church for a parishioner who opted to die by assisted suicide.
As much as I agree that this was an extremely dick move on the priest's behalf? I also find myself thinking 'I'm in no way surprised'.
I mean, come on, one of the beliefs of Catholicism is that suicide is akin to murder and thus sinful and thus no one who was a suicide is allowed a Catholic burial. I mean, it's been that way for centuries - why are this family surprised?
Also, since when has Catholicism been so progressive as to give people the assumption that a Catholic priest would even say 'yeah, sure, it was suicide, but I'll still do the burial and say mass'.
Seriously.
~Mooglets
The National Secular Society has warned a Surrey council that it is breaking the law by allowing churchgoers to park free while charging everyone else.
A Freedom of Information request to Woking Borough Council has revealed that preferential parking concessions for people going to church saved the worshippers £55,864 between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2011.
According to the council, church congregations are able to take advantage of the parking subsidy if they are parking in Victoria Way and Brewery Road car parks. The churchgoers insert tickets in a ‘validating device’ held at the place of worship. This encodes the ticket that can then be inserted into the exit barrier allowing them to leave without payment.
The figures amount to £39,221 at Coign Church, £11,137 at Christ Church and £5,504 at Trinity Methodist Church, adding up to a total of £55,864 in the two-and-a-half year period.
According to the council, the decision to introduce the system was agreed by the executive in response to the town’s pay-on-foot car parks.
Sue Waddington, a youth worker and member at Trinity Methodist Church said it would be unfair to make people pay for parking who go to church. She said: “We are very limited in parking so it does help. It is given to people who want to worship, not go shopping. A lot of people who go to the church don’t go shopping on a Sunday.”
Geoff McManus, the council’s neighbourhood services manager, said: “The council has always been sympathetic towards car parking arrangements for town centre faith groups. Since the phased introduction from 2003 of pay-on-foot systems into council-owned car parks, arrangements have been made with three town centre churches to enable worshipers to attend morning services free of charge.
“The arrangements in place at this time are a result of direct representations to the council from the churches concerned. If we receive representations from other faith groups, the council would consider these in line with current policy.”
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “This arrangement is almost certainly illegal under equality legislation and the NSS has written to Woking Council to advise them of this.”
Mr Sanderson said that it was likely that many councils throughout the country are operating similar systems. He said: “I encourage our members to check the websites of their local authority to see if there are other concessionary parking arrangements for ‘faith groups’. If Woking’s exemptions were to be replicated throughout the country, the subsidy would amount to tens of millions of pounds.
“We have advised the council that under the Equality Act these arrangements almost certainly amount to illegal discrimination. We await their response with interest.”
WTF.
~Mooglets
The tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York approaches, and the city prepares to commemorate the event in secular fashion. This has brought the usual protests from religious figures who assume that such events should be dominated by their personal take on religion.
But Evelyn Erskine, a spokeswoman for New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, explained: “The ceremony was designed in coordination with 9/11 families with a mixture of readings that are spiritual, historical and personal in nature. It has been widely supported for the past 10 years and rather than have disagreements over which religious leaders participate we would like to keep the focus of our commemoration ceremony on the family members of those who died.”
Instead of spoken prayers, there would be moments of silence that would permit each individual to remember and reflect in their own way, with silent prayers if they want to.
Fernado Cabrera, a New York City councilman and the pastor of New Life Outreach International church in the Bronx, said he was, “Utterly disappointed and surprised,” over the decision not to include any clergy in the ceremony.
“There’s certain things that government cannot do, and answering questions of meaning of ‘Why are we going through this?’ and ‘Where am I going to get strength from?’ – those are existential questions that can only be answered from a spiritual aspect,” Cabrera said.
Bloomberg spoke about the ceremony on his weekly radio show on 29 July. President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush would both be attending and participating, as well as other politicians and elected officials. “This cannot be political,” Bloomberg told the radio audience. “That’s why there’s a poem or a quote or something that each one of the readers will read.” He added there would be “no speeches whatsoever.”
While he was talking about which officials would attend, he noted, “There’s an awful lot of people that would like to participate but you just can’t do that, once you open it up. So the argument here is it’s elected officials and those who were there at the time and had some influence.”
The New York Police Department will be holding its own ceremony that will include prayers at the Lincoln Centre in the days leading up to September 11.
GOOD.
~Mooglets
Seven-year old Maddie Willett is in the Brownies, and she really likes it. But now her membership is threatened because she doesn't want to take a religious oath.
She asked if she could change the words of the promise, but a leader at the 2nd Crawley Down Brownies in Sussex refused her permission.
Her parents, Juliette and Barry, say their daughter now feels like she doesn't fit in, as all her friends have been able to make their promises.
Brownies are asked to pledge: "I promise that I will do my best, to love my God, to serve the Queen and my country, to help other people and to keep the Brownie Guide law."
Juliette cannot understand why the wording could not be tweaked. She told the East Grinstead Courier & Observer: "We don't have a belief in God and our daughter is yet to make a decision. It's a big decision for her to make and it would be offensive for an atheist to say they love God."
Maddie has been with the group for about six months and was due to make her promise on July 19.
"It's a really big thing to take the Brownie Promise and that's what has bothered me the most," Juliette added. "She's incredibly upset at the idea that she can't be a fully fledged Brownie. The biggest thing for her is that she feels excluded."
The couple are keen for their youngest daughter, Mia, 5, to join the Brownies when she turns seven, but admit they may face the same obstacle.
Juliette said: "Maddie wants to stay in the Brownies because a lot of her friends go there, but she feels very upset that she's being forced to say a word that she doesn't want to. We will either let it go or I will take her out of Brownies, because we are going to hit this problem again when she comes to Girl Guides and when Mia joins the Brownies."
A Girlguiding UK spokesperson suggested that Maddie should have been allowed to change the wording. He said: "Girlguiding UK does not require girls or young women to follow any particular faith, and not having a defined faith does not preclude membership. Our volunteer leaders work with girls and young women when they join us to explore the fuller meaning of the promise and decide if they are ready to make that promise. The promise has evolved to explicitly include members with different beliefs and another name can be substituted for God to make the promise more meaningful to each girl or woman. In these cases it is recommended that our volunteer leaders discuss the wording of the promise with the girl and an adult with parental responsibility."
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: "The spokesman for the Girl Guides doesn't seem to be able to think outside the religious box. If a Muslim were asked to swear a specifically religious oath there would be loud protests, but an atheist is expected to simply forget they have a conscience."
Mr Sanderson continued: "The founder of the National Secular Society, Charles Bradlaugh, fought for years for the right to affirm rather than swear religious oaths. But that was in the 19th century. It's time for the Girl Guides and the Scouts to catch up."
National Secular Society e-zine
This is one of the reasons I was never entered into Brownies. I was in Rainbow Guides for a while, but when the whole Brownies/Religion thing came up, I just decided not to go.
~Mooglets
Thousands of schoolgirls in the UK are at the risk of being taken abroad this summer for female genital mutilation (FGM), a campaign by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Metropolitan Police has revealed.
The Foreign Office estimates that about 22,000 girls under the age of 15 will go abroad with their families for "cutting" – in London alone this figure could be over 6,000.
FGM, sometimes referred to as female circumcision, involves girls of all ages, some as young as four. This can range from injury to the clitoris, to complete removal of the labia and clitoris, which is then sewn up leaving only a tiny opening, sometimes only the size of a matchstick head.
The tradition is most common in Muslim areas, from North Africa to the Far East, although Islamic scholars have proclaimed it incompatible with Islam. Engaging or assisting in FGM carries a prison sentence of up to 14 years in the UK.
The teaching resource pack has a film, entitled 'Cut – Some Wounds Never Heal,' made by the Kids Taskforce and pupils from Lilian Baylis Technology School, Kennington. The hard-hitting film features Somali model, author and human rights activist, Waris Dirie, who was a victim of this practice.
The film, which is aimed at 11–17 year olds, was created by young people for young people and opens with a strong message that the practice is abusive to a woman's body and can have profound physical and mental health consequences.
FGM is illegal in the UK and under the FGM Act 2003 it is also illegal for girls to be taken from the UK to undergo the procedure anywhere in the world. Those who are involved or facilitate this process may be guilty of an offence which carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years.
The launch of the film coincides with the forthcoming summer break, as experience has shown that the girls most at risk of FGM are taken back to their countries of origin at the start of the school summer holidays, allowing them extended time to recover from their wounds before returning to school in September.
In London alone there are estimated to be 6,500 girls at risk of FGM annually. The Metropolitan Police Service Child Abuse Investigation Command, through Project Azure, works to tackle this issue and prevent this happening to girls in London.
This is done in partnership with various statutory agencies, charities and organisations, and involves education and enforcement activities.
Speakers at the event included Hannah Buckley, head of sexual violence policy at the Home Office, Sharon Doughty, president founder of Kids Taskforce, and Commander Simon Foy, head of homicide and serious crime investigations for the Metropolitan Police Service.
Commander Foy said "Female genital mutilation is a crime. It is painful and traumatic and harmful to girls and women in many ways. Those who are involved in any way — be it aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or carrying out FGM inside or outside the UK — are committing a criminal offence, as well as putting lives at risk."
Fuck. That. Shit.
~Mooglets
A new international survey by Ispos/Mori conducted in 24 countries and involving 18,473 people sought to discover the attitudes to religion around the world. Needless to say, it found vast differences between Europe and the developing and Muslim worlds.
The survey asked: "What, if any, is your faith or religion even if you are not currently practising?" 47% said Christianity; 11% said Islam; 25% said no religion at all. In Britain 37% said they had no religion. Japan has the largest number of non-religious at 67% followed by China at 62% and Sweden at 49%.
In answer to the question: "Does religion provide the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to thrive in the 21st century?" Overall the number of people answering 'yes' was 48%, but there were huge differences in different areas of the world. In Britain, 29% did so, whereas it was 19% in Sweden and 92% in Saudi Arabia.
Worldwide, 30% of people agreed with the statement "My faith or religious belief is an important motivation in my giving time or money to people in need"; 14% of Britons agreed, whereas only 11% did in Sweden but 84% of people in Indonesia said yes.
52% thought "My faith or religious belief makes no difference to my giving time or money to people in need – I see this as important in any case".
When asked to agree or disagree with "My faith or religion is the only true path to salvation, liberation or paradise" 9% of Britons agreed, 5% of Spaniards and 75% of Saudis agreed.
To the question: "How important, if at all, is your faith or your religion in your life?" 52% of Britons thought it important to some degree, whereas 41% of Swedes and French thought it was important – and all the Saudis.
The results for Saudi Arabia should be treated with caution, however, the authors of the survey say. Respondents there were given the opportunity to opt out of answering questions they found "sensitive" (and presumably because the wrong answer might get them into trouble).
~Mooglets
