Recently in religion Category

Last June, writer Ariane Sherine wrote an article on Comment is Free complaining about the amount of religious advertising on the side of London buses. As part of the research for the article she calculated that it would take about 4,500 atheists donating £5 each to get together enough money to have an atheist advertising campaign on the side of a bus. This idea caught on and a pledge was set up to try to make it happen. This original pledge failed, but the idea had taken root and several people started beavering away to try and turn the idea into a reality.

The campaign relaunched today. This time, some recalculations have been done and the project team have worked out that they for £5,500 they can get adverts on 30 buses for four weeks. Richard Dawkins is involved and has said that he will match all donations up to a limit of £5,500 - effectively doubling the purchasing power of the campaign.

The donations page on Just Giving went live this morning. When I gave my donation at about 10am the total stood at about £4,500. As I write this, it's approaching £15,000.

The response has been phenomenal. Atheists obviously really want to get their message out to more people. It looks like the campaign will be able to put posters on far more buses than expected and therefore reach far more people than they hoped for. This is obviously an idea which has struck a chord with a great many people who are tired of being presented with religious advertising which largely goes unquestioned.

So it looks like it's going to happen. The adverts will probably start appearing on buses in the next few months. They will say "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". The "probably" there is to satisfy the bus advertising people that they aren't leaving themselves open to accusations of blasphemy. Seems a little weak to me as the religious adverts make the most ridiculous claims with no need to back them up in any way.

If these adverts raise a smile then it will have been worth while. If they stop just one person from taking a religious advert too seriously then the campaign will have been a great success.

The campaign are still accepting donations on the Just Giving page. Most people seem to be giving £5 or £10. Please consider giving a little bit to the cause.

Sherine has a another piece about the campaign on Cif today. The story has also been covered by the BBC and the Times. I expect it to get more coverage tomorrow, once it becomes clear just how successful it has been. I can't wait to see how the Mail covers it.

Now. Who's up for trying something similar in the US?

I've mentioned before that I run a few planets. A planet is a simple web site which aggregates web feeds on a particular subject. They are named after the software which is used to build many such sites.

I'm always looking out for good ideas of other planets to add to my collection. Yesterday on irc, Dave Hodgkinson suggested a "planet sceptic" which is, of course, an excellent idea. It would be great to have a planet which aggregates a number of feeds from the growing sceptic/atheist community. And I thought it would be an interesting experiment to ask for ideas for the feeds to include.

Looking through my Bloglines subscriptions, I find a number of obvious candidates.

• Bad Science
• Certic
• MediaWatchWatch
• TeenAtheist
• New Humanist
• Pharyngula
• Richard Dawkins
• Sam Harris

But I'm probably missing dozens of interesting feeds. If you have a suggestion, then please leave a comment. I'll start with my list today but it'll be easy enough to add stuff later.

Oh, and one other question. What should I call it? Dave originally suggested "Planet Sceptic". Does "Planet Atheist" sound better? Or "Planet Rationalism"? Or perhaps "Planet Bright" (no, probably not that!) Again, let me know what you think in the comments.

Michael Reiss has stepped down from his post as director of education at the Royal Society. This follows the controversy over his remarks about creationism in science lessons last week. I think he's right to go as having an ordained minister in such an important role in the Royal Society is pretty silly. I agree completely with Richard Dawkins, who described it as "a Monty Python sketch".

I'm slightly worried, however, that some of Reiss's real message has been lost in the furore over what he said. Nowhere did he actually call for creationism to be taught in science classes - and that's what many of his critics seem to be claiming. What he actually said was that teachers should be ready to discuss creationism when students bring it up in the classroom. He goes a bit wobbly here, saying that creationism should be seen "not as a misconception but as a world view". This is obviously nonsense. A science teacher should be willing and able to show up creationism as the nonsense that it is whenever it is mentioned in the classroom.

And here's where the current situation is letting children down. As in so many other areas of life, religion is given too much respect. Teachers are wary of discussing it as it is seen as disrepectful to question the children's beliefs. Well, of course it's disrespectful. But creationism doesn't deserve any respect. Creationism is nonsense. Letting these ridiculous ideas go unquestioned is ultimately more harmful to society than confronting them and showing children exactly why they are nonsense.

To paraphrase a comment I saw on Comment is Free last week[1] - "intelligent, honest, creationist; pick any two".

[1] And can't now find, or I'd credit the author.

Obscure bits of religious  dogma are causing a bit of a ridiculous argument over in the USA. It seems that crackers need to be treated with the right level of respect if you don't want the might of the Catholic League coming after you.

It's not just any old cracker, of course. Oh no. It needs to be a cracker that has gone through the mystical transformation process that turns an ordinary cracker into the body of the messiah.

I don't know if you realise this, but all over the world catholics believe that during the communion service, the crackers and wine literally turn into the body and blood of Jesus. Of course, it's still really well disguised as crackers and wine, but that doesn't matter to the catholics. What matters is what they believe. Which is that as part of of the communion they are literally consuming the body and blood of Jesus. I suppose that explains why the ten commandments contain no injunction against cannibalism.

Anyway, this story begins when a Florida student called Webster Cook decided that instead of eating the cracker he was given he would instead walk out of church with it. This decision didn't go down well with local catholics. A representative of the local diocese described it as a hate crime. Fearing repercussions, Cook returned the cracker.

The story was picked up on Tuesday by PZ Myers, the Minnesota biology professor who wirtes the Pharyngula blog. Myers, quite rightly, had a little bit of a laugh at the expense of the catholic church before making a more serious point:

I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.

He then takes it a step further:

Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare.

And that has done nothing at all to calm the situation down. In a follow-up post, Myers catalogues the hate mail he has received since posting his previous entry.

So far today, I have received 39 pieces of personal hate mail of varying degrees of literacy, all because I was rude to a cracker. Four of them have included death threats, a personal one day record. Thirty-four of them have demanded that I be fired.

He also has the Catholic League starting a witch-hunt against him.

The Catholic League are, of course, just showing themselves up as ridiculous fantasists. It's the twenty-first century. No-one is going to believe in transubstantiation unless it has been drummed into them from an obscenely early age. It's a nonsense. The communion wafer remains a communion wafer. The wine remains wine. You can believe whatever you like about what it represents. But it doesn't actually change.

The more that religious organisations like the Cathloic League over-react to situations like this, the more they will alienate themselves from the general public. This has to be a win for rationalism. This story needs to be seen by as many people as possible, so that as many people as possible have the chance to look at it and say, "What are they talking about? It's only a bloody cracker!"

Over the last two days, as part of the debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, Parliament has had four votes[1] where the forces of Medievalism tried to impose the views of their imaginary friends to prevent the advance of science.

As you'll have seen in the news, they lost on all four counts. This is fantastic news. I really think that we might be seeing the power of Bronze Age myths starting to fade away in the UK. It's laughable, of course, that anyone could even consider debating in the House of Commons on the basis of fairy stories. But it's heartening to know that rationalism might be starting to break out.

Of course, the objections to the Bill weren't all religious in nature. During the abortion debate there was plenty of mention of a poll which says that 75% of women want a reduction to the 24-week limit on abortions. Of course the poll was conducted on behalf of the Christian Institute (so maybe I was wrong and there wasn't any non-religious objections). And given that this is a debate on a medical topic, shouldn't we give more credence to the views of the medical profession, rather than the general population?

Well, apparently the majority of MPs agree with me. They did listen to the medical advice and didn't lower the limit. Let's hear it for rational debate and the defeat of superstition.

I'm looking forward to looking at the front pages of our more reactionary press this morning. I bet they'll be livid. The BBC was a little disappointing. Their lead story (at least on  the 7am bulletin I saw) was a preview of some football match that is taking place tonight.

A final word from Health Minister Dawn Primarolo, talking about Nadine Dorries contributions to the debate: “She has asserted many things as fact which are not this evening.”

[1] Ok, actually more than four as there were a few amendments to the section on abortion.

Today's vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is going to be an interesting test of the power of religion in 21st century Britain. As far as I can see, there are no reasons to object to the bill that don't have their basis in Bronze Age myths.

Gordon Brown has been really rather unimpressive since he took over as Prime Minister but I was really impressed by his defence of the Bill in yesterday's Observer. This is a man who is obviously passion about defending something that he believes in strongly.

Should scientists be given the legal framework they say they need to pursue new cures and treatments through stem cell research or will we turn our back on these potential advances?

Should children who face death or critical illness find new hope in scientific advances that would allow their new brother or sister to be not just a blessing to their family, but also a saviour sibling to them? And should people be able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation?

My answer to all those questions is an unequivocal yes.

I believe that he is absolutely right. Stem cell research is a vital tool that enables us to make advances in the way that we treat many diseases. To turn our back on these advances because of how a shaman interprets texts that are hundreds of years old would be irresponsible lunacy.

Religion has had a strong hold on British society for too long. It's time we said that enough is enough and stood up for a secular society which makes decisions based on rational thought, not on the capricious whims of an imaginary friend. I really hope that parliament sees sense today and votes for rationalism over medieval superstition.

Update: Bid to ban hybrid embryos fails

An MP's attempt to outlaw the creation of hybrid human-animal embryos has been defeated by 336 votes to 176.

An excellent start. More votes follow over the next couple of days.

Here in the UK we don't have many problems with creationists. We  have to be vigilant because it looks like they might be on the increase, but currently we mainly just point and laugh at them. It's therefore hard sometimes to understand how much of a problem creationism is over in the US.

Unless you keep a close eye on our transatlantic cousins you might not have heard of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - a forthcoming film which claims that a number of educators and scientists are being persecuted for their belief in "Intelligent Design" (the modern rebranding of creationism). The film first came to my notice last year when Richard Dawkins mentioned that he had been interviewed for the film under false pretences. Amongst the other people tricked into appearing in the film was PZ Myers, the Minnesota biology professor who is well-known for his blog Pharyngula.

Dawkins is currently in the US on a speaking tour. As part of the tour, he was in Minnesota on Thursday where he was due to speak at the American Atheists Conference. That evening he met up with his colleague and friend Myers. Also in Minnesota that evening was a screening of Expelled. This was one of a number of pre-release screenings of the film which have been held all over the country in order to build awareness of the film. Myers had reserved seats in the screening for himself, his family, Dawkins and some people who work on Richard Dawkins' web site. He did this by registering on a web site. He didn't use a false name or in any way try to disguise that he would be attending the screening.

Whilst the party was waiting in the queue, a security guard approached Myers and told him that couldn't attend the screening and would have to leave - apparently missing the fact that Richard Dawkins was standing right next to him in the queue. Myers went off to the local Apple Store (where he posted this blog entry) and Dawkins watched the film with the rest of Myers' family. In the Q&A session following the film Dawkins asked the film's director why he asked for Myers to be removed and the director just lied in reply.

This is a brilliant own goal by the creationists. They seem to be as inept at public relations as they are at science (and also, if reports are to be believed, at filmmaking).

Myers published another, more detailed, account later and the story has also made the NY Times. The account on the Expelled web site seems extremely unlikely to anyone who knows anything about either Myers or Dawkins.

Finally, here's a film of Dawkins and Myers discussing the incident.

Update: Here's Richard Dawkins on both the incident and the film.

It's difficult to think of last night's Cutting Edge documentary, Baby Bible Bashers without getting very depressed.

In it we met seven-year-old Samuel Boutell (see picture), nine-year-old Terry Durham and Ana Carolina Dias (who was, I think, about twelve). These three children firmly believe that it is their mission in life to fervently evangelise the christian faith to everyone they come across. All of them have been giving sermons in church for years. To see them standing in church proclaiming messages that they couldn't possibly understand was a disgusting sight.

And preaching in church isn't enough for young Samuel. He likes to get out on the street and annoy passers-by. He spends most Saturdays standing outside his local abortion clinic shouting "don't kill your children".

Of course, none of these children came to these beliefs unaided. In each case you can look behind them and see a deeply religious family. A deeply religious family that, in my opinion, should be locked up for child abuse. Samuel's father proudly tells the story of how, at the age of three, Samuel asked how he could be saved from burning in eternal hellfire. I think the child protection agencies should be asking why a three-year-old is worrying about hellfire. Who has been introducing him to such concepts?

All three children seemed to live in quite small and insular communities. Communities where christianity is rife and their precocious preaching is welcomed. The documentary followed Samuel on a trip to Washington DC and New York City, where he seemed genuinely surprised that people on the streets weren't quite as open to hearing his message.

I see no difference between what these children's parents are doing and what the Gaede twins' mother did to them. The last time we saw the Gaede twins, they seemed to be rebelling against their mother's influence. I can only hope that these children do the same thing.

If you haven't seen the programme, it'll be on 4OD for a week. And I expect there will be plenty of copies available on bittorrent. If you like to be outraged, then I strongly recommend that you watch it.

Rowan Williams has certainly opened a bit of a can of worms. In a BBC interview yesterday (which was a prelude to a lecture he gave later) he said that it is inevitable that Sharia law will be adopted by muslim communities in the UK. This has, predictably, induced apoplexy in the readership of the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the BBC's Have You Say.

The most surprising thing about this whole affair is that the Archbishop seems to be ignoring the fact that Sharia law is already practised in parts of the UK, in much the same way as some jewish communities use the Beth Din to arbitrate in civil disputes.

UK law allows parties to use whatever arbitration mechanism that they want in order to resolve disputes. So it's quite legal for muslims to go to their local Sharia council, for jews to go to a Beth din or even for bikers to go to their local Hells Angels chapter. There are, however, two important caveats.

Firstly, the findings of the arbitrators must be legal and reasonable. This means, of course, that some of the worst excesses of Sharia law (stoning offenders or cutting off the hands of thieves) can never be used by Sharia councils in the UK.

Secondly, both parties in the dispute need to agree to be bound by the findings of the arbitrator. This should prevent husbands invoking a Talaq divorce when their wives don't agree or a parent using Sharia to punish a daughter who decides against wearing a Hijab.

These two protections are vital to prevent Sharia law (or, indeed, any of these minority legal systems) from taking precedence over UK law. And people in these communities need to know that those protections are in place and that they can't be forced to succumb to their local arbitration system. Any arbitration panel of any kind that breaks these rules should be closed down.

But with those protections in place, then I can't see why communities shouldn't be allowed to set up their own arbitration panels. It has been legal in the UK for years and it should continue to be legal.

Of course, if Williams is suggesting anything outside of this existing system, then I'm completely against it.

This all comes a as a bit of a surprise. But a very welcome one.

The Government has decided against backing more faith schools, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, Ed Balls, told MPs.

In what is being seen as one of the most significant policy shifts of the post-Tony Blair era in education, he told a Commons select committee: "It is not the policy of the Government nor my department to expand the number of faith schools. We're not leading a drive for more faith schools."

The report also includes this interesting titbit:

Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment at the University of Buckingham, said it had been wrong to argue that church-school pupils did better in exams because of a religious ethos. It was because they could be more selective on admissions, he said.

I can't find a transcript of the meeting (TheyWorkforYou doesn't seem to cover select committees) but the minutes will probably appear here at some point.

What with this and the potential abolition of the blasphemy laws, it seems there's an outbreak of sanity in the government.

Update: It seems that TheyWorkForYou do, in fact, have plans to cover select committees. But they've been hampered by lack of funds. So why not pop over to MySociety (the people behind TheyWorkForYou) and bung them a bit of cash. I'm going to sign up for a tenner a month.