A Catholic cleric who hit out at the "madness" of the Government's gay marriage plans has been condemned for "scaremongering".

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland, accused the coalition of trying to "redefine reality" and claimed the proposals were a "grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right."

But his comments were roundly criticised amid fears the outburst would fuel prejudice.

In an article for The Sunday Telegraph, Cardinal O'Brien wrote: "Since all the legal rights of marriage are already available to homosexual couples, it is clear that this proposal is not about rights, but rather is an attempt to redefine marriage for the whole of society at the behest of a small minority of activists.

"Same-sex marriage would eliminate entirely in law the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child. It would create a society which deliberately chooses to deprive a child of either a mother or a father. Other dangers exist. If marriage can be redefined so that it no longer means a man and a woman but two men or two women, why stop there? Why not allow three men or a woman and two men to constitute a marriage, if they pledge their fidelity to one another?"

Plans to introduce civil gay marriages have divided the Conservative party and put David Cameron on a collision course with a number of religious leaders. Cardinal O'Brien's attack was the most outspoken attack to date.

But the Prime Minister is a "passionate" advocate of the change, telling his party two years ago he supported gay marriage "because I am a Conservative".

Margot James, the first openly lesbian Conservative MP, criticised the "apocalyptic language" used by the Cardinal and accused him of "scaremongering"

"I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk," she told BBC 1's Andrew Marr Show. "I think that the Government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. It is a purely civil matter."

Labour's Deputy Leader Harriet Harman said she hopes the comments would not end up "fuelling or legitimising prejudice". "We have had prejudice, discrimination and homophobia for hundreds of years, that doesn't make it right," she told the show. "I don't want anybody to feel that this is a licence for whipping up prejudice."

Civil rights advocates are expressing puzzlement at a new report from Christians in Parliament and the Evangelical Alliance UK which claims that Christians are victims of prejudice in Britain.

The report, 'Clearing the Ground', suggests that civic and legal authorities in the UK are suffering from 'religious illiteracy' and that there is a failure to treat Christians who hold conservative social views - including those who say that their beliefs should allow them to discriminate against others in the provision of goods and services - with fairness.

During a six-month inquiry, the Christians in Parliament all-party group, led by Conservative MP Gary Streeter, analysed a range of instances, including employment tribunals and court cases, where Christians claimed they had received unfair treatment under the law.

It also took evidence from what are described by the group as "key organisations, denominations and experts" and received written evidence from a further 40 groups and individuals.

The report criticises the Equality Act 2010, despite the exemptions churches have from it, and indicates that some Christian groups believe that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is biased against Christians - even though it made a high-profile attempt last year, criticised by other equalities groups, to intervene at the European Court of Human Rights in four cases in which Christians alleged they had been unfairly treated.

The new report alleges that "indications from court judgments are that sexual orientation takes precedence and religious belief is required to adapt in the light of this. We see this as an unacceptable and unsustainable situation.”

LAST November, you may recall, we reported on the start of a Parliamentary inquiry into claims that Christians in the UK were facing “intolerable levels of persecution”.

Well, the Christians in Parliament all-party group, led by Conservative MP Gary Streeter, have now published their findings – and their report, Clearing the Ground, opens by saying that in the UK:

There is a high level of religious illiteracy which has led to many situations where religious belief is misunderstood and subsequently restricted.

And it alleges that civic and legal authorities in the UK, suffering from this so-called ‘religious illiteracy’, have forced laws on Christians:

Compelling them to provide services that they had never previously offered and which may be contrary to their beliefs.

This led Simon Barrow, co-director of the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia to say of the report:

This is not clearing the ground, it is muddying the water.

In his scathing response, Barrow says:

Initial impressions from this report are that it raises significantly more questions than it answers. For example, it seems to assume that most people who are convinced Christians automatically share, or should share, a range of prejudices – notably against LGBT people – which make them unwilling to comply with requirements to act in a non-discriminatory way in the provision of public services.

This is not the case. Many Christians from all traditions believe that equal treatment of others is not simply a legal requirement but a Christian obligation.

He continues:

The report employs the dubious notion of ‘competing rights’ to seek to posit a clash between Christians (taken to be a homogenous group) and gay people (who are assumed to be quite separate from Christians). In fact, the whole point of the human rights convention and UK equalities legislation is to seek to ensure fair treatment regardless of religion or belief, or indeed sexual orientation. It protects Christians against discrimination as much, but no more, than anyone else.

He went on to point out that:

The Christians in Parliament document also jumbles up a range of quite distinct and different legal cases, advocating the notion of ‘reasonable accommodation’ in a way that stretches from matters like workplace dress, where negotiation may be entirely appropriate, through to cases where exemption from equality requirements in the provision of goods and services would clearly disadvantage and discriminate against those not sharing narrowly conservative Christian views. This is not ‘clearing the ground’, it is muddying the waters.

Mr Barrow added:

The bottom line here is that being a Christian is no longer a ‘trump card’ in public life in the way that it may once have been, and many Christians whose views are not reflected by this report will undoubtedly say, on strong theological grounds, ‘nor should it be’. Christianity is a free choice, and freedom of belief is abused when it is imposed on people, particularly in a limited and limiting way.

The general public mood now is that discrimination and prejudice against gay people, for example, is as unacceptable in public life as discrimination against black people or any other social or ethnic group. It is very sad that some Christians find this hard to accept, and wish to maintain a privileged position for themselves, regarding equal treatment as ‘discrimination’ against them.

He also pointed out that legal cases brought by a small number of religious complainants have failed again and again.

This has not happened because there is bias or ignorance in the legal system, but because of a failure of evidence …  Specific attempts to show that the law has been inaccurately or unfairly interpreted have been notably unsuccessful, so attempts are now being made to insinuate prejudice. This is regrettable, to say the least.

Last year, the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries sealed a landslide victory in our annual Bad Faith Award contest after accusing humanists of favouring infanticide. Her suggestion prompted numerous objections and refutations from humanists, who were keen to point out that a) they don't support infanticide and b) even if someone who is a humanist did, it wouldn't therefore apply to all humanists. Those arguments, however, seem to have had little impact on Dorries, who has this afternoon repeated her assertion that humanists favour infanticide. The prompt for doing so was the news that the Journal of Medical Ethics has just published a paper entitled "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", in which Alberto Giubilini of the University of Milan and Francesca Minerva of Melbourne University consider whether the arguments used to justify abortion could also be used to justify the killing of newborn babies. The abstract of the paper is as follows: "Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled." Controversial? Yes. Evidence that humanists support infanticide? No, of course not. Even if the authors happened to be humanists (I can't find any information, admittedly in a brief search, that indicates whether they are or not), that wouldn't have any bearing on what other humanists think. But that hasn't stopped Dorries taking to Twitter to repeat her sweeping attack on humanists, posting two tweets, one linking to the Catholic Herald's coverage of the story and the other to the Telegraph's, both saying the following:

"This is also position of humanists, justification being that commiting the infanticide makes you happy"

And she hasn't stopped there, following it up a few minutes later by saying:

"Evan Harris is a humanist and humanists support this http://tgr.ph/xlwj1G why do people wonder at his Dr Death Moniker. #welldeserved"

Dorries, of course, is a leading voice in the anti-abortion lobby, and humanists generally (but not universally) tend to be pro-choice, which probably explains why she is so keen to denounce humanism in this way. She is, of course, welcome to take issue with the arguments advanced by humanists who are pro-choice – indeed, it is in everyone's interests to have a sensible debate about the issue. But it would be interesting to know why she feels the need to make such sweeping, ill-informed generalisations about humanists. Does she really think that all humanists, or a significant numbers of humanists, are in favour of infanticide?

If so, what is her evidence for this? And if not, why does she keep repeating the accusation? Does she think "humanists" are a large, monolithic group who all share the same infanticidal views, or does she recognise that it is a label that covers a diverse array of views, and that humanists will often disagree with each other, even over abortion. Does she not realise that many of her constituents in mid-Bedfordshire will be humanists, and will not appreciate her making sweeping comments about them in this way? Those are just some of the questions Dorries' latest comments raise - it would be very interesting to hear her answers.

Update: Looking at Dorries' most recent tweets, it appears people have been tweeting her with some similar questions. Several seem to have asked her to explain why she accuses humanists in general of supporting infanticide. In reply, Dorries makes a statement about "the humanist movement [giving] an heroic accolade [to] the humanist who does believe this". Here she is referring to Peter Singer, who, in her second blog post about humanists last October, she used as evidence that "humanists" support infanticide (in her first post she referred to a humanist who had "recently commented", and then when challenged for evidence she produced some of Peter Singer's writings from the 1970s and 1990s). Peter Singer was named "Australian Humanist of Year" by the Australian Humanists in 2004 and, following Dorries' logic, because he has explored the question of infanticide in his work, this means that humanists in general are in favour of infanticide. Which is clearly not the case, but there doesn't seem to be any way of explaining this to Dorries. In fact, as I was typing this update, one of our Twitter followers suggested to Dorries that her argument is "The same as saying all catholics are in favour of peodophillia", to which she then replied, copying out Twitter name (@NewHumanist) in: "No its not, we send Peodophiles to prison. Humanists give advocates of baby killing awards."  I have tweeted back to her with two questions:

 An Australian humanist organisation gave Peter Singer an award, therefore humanists in general support infanticide? (link)

and

Do you really think majority of humanists (millions worldwide, and many of your constituents, surely) support infanticide? (link)

I will of course, let you know if I receive replies.

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."

Peers in the House of Lords this week rejected moves to make collective worship in schools optional, rather than compulsory.

The amendments were moved by NSS Honorary Associate Lord Avebury during the Report Stage of the Bill on Monday. He said: “It is time for the long-standing tradition which no longer reflects the beliefs of more than a tiny fraction of the people to be jettisoned”.

One of the proposed amendments to the Education Bill would have given community schools the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to hold acts of religious worship. A second amendment would have given pupils the right to withdraw themselves from worship. A further amendment would have allowed pupils aged 15 or older to withdraw themselves, building on the NSS success in 2006 in introducing sixth form pupils’ self-withdrawal.

Speaking in the Chamber, Lord Avebury set out a list of reasons why requiring schools to conduct a daily act of religious worship is no longer appropriate. Not least of these were numerous references to the high rate of schools’ non-compliance with the law, showing it to be unenforceable and unpopular. Ahead of the debate, the NSS sent extensive evidence to the Education Minister at the request of the Department for Education. England and Wales are alone among Western democracies in requiring such enforced worship in community schools. The Joint (Parliamentary) Human Rights Committee endorses the proposal to bring down the age of self -withdrawal.

Speaking on behalf of the Government, Lord Hill of Oareford made it clear that the Government did not support the amendments. He said “Our starting point is that the requirement is long-standing. It is difficult to dissociate that from the history of the country and the role that the Church has played over a long period in individual schools and also collectively in society. A full account of the debate can be read here.

Stephen Evans, Campaigns Manager at the National Secular Society said “It is disappointing to hear the Government repeat the same old tired justifications for insisting on a daily act of Christian worship.

“The amendments were pragmatically drafted not to argue for an end to all worship in schools but simply to allow schools the freedom to choose for themselves whether hold it. It is perhaps an indication of the influence wielded by the Church of England that the Government wasn’t willing or able to make even the smallest concession, in the face of such reasonable amendments.

“The law requiring worship will eventually change; it is just a question of when. It is important that people make their views known to their MPs as it will clearly take a massive groundswell of public opinion to give the Government the backbone to stand up to the Church on this issue”

Sex and relationship education

Also this week, during Wednesday’s Education Bill debate NSS honorary associate Baroness Massey of Darwen issued a strong rebuke to the Christian Institute over their deceitful campaign against her amendment to ensure that the chief inspector of schools reports on the delivery of personal, social and health education including sex and relationship education.

Speaking during the debate, the Baroness said: “My amendment is about well-being and protecting children. The public have been fed dangerously misleading information. Never in the time that it has been my honour to serve in your Lordships' House have I known such a sinister and vicious campaign, which has sought to misinform others.”

Baroness Walmsley, who also put her name to the amendment, told the chamber, “we have a so-called Christian organisation telling lies and being both uncharitable and cruel.”

The amendment was not supported by the Government, who are seeking to make inspections less prescriptive and more focused, and was withdrawn.

A further amendment from NSS Honorary Associate Baroness Flather to re-introduce the duty for the Inspector to report on schools’ contribution to community cohesion went to the vote but was narrowly defeated.

England and Wales are alone among Western democracies in requiring such enforced worship in community schools.

Let's compare Rick Perry's version of "Christian values" to what the Bible really dictates.

In a campaign speech in September, Rick Perry hit upon some familiar Republican themes. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek article:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, in an appeal to evangelical voters, said "Christian values" and not "a bunch of Washington politicians" should be the touchstone guiding how Americans conduct their lives. ...

"America is going to be guided by some set of values," Perry told a crowd of 13,000 students and faculty members yesterday at a sports arena on the school's campus. "The question is going to be, 'Whose values?'" He said it should be "those Christian values that this country was based upon."

It's worth calling attention to Perry's obnoxious rhetorical ploy of using "Christian values" to refer only to his own very specific, right-wing set of beliefs -- preemptive war, gay-bashing, tax cuts for the rich, creationism in schools, deregulating corporations, dismantling the social safety net, the standard Republican package -- as if he owned or had the right to define all of Christianity. In reality, there's such a huge diversity of opinion among self-professed Christians past and present that the term "Christian values" could mean almost anything.