Archive for June, 2008
Odone report totally wrong on faith schools
Posted by: | CommentsThe British Humanist Association (BHA) has condemned as misguided a report published today by the Centre for Policy Studies, written by Cristina Odone, which seeks to portray the UK ’s state-funded faith schools as inclusive and under attack from hostile secularists.
Pointing to the recent expansion of state-funded faith schools and academies by the government, and to the reality of the powers to discriminate which state-funded faith schools continue to have and which have increased in recent years, the BHA has claimed that today’s report is driven by ideology alone, and reflects a lack of concern for a future of inclusive education in this country.
The BHA points out that the state funded faith schools which the report seeks to promote differ from state funded community schools in that, for example:
They are allowed by law to discriminate in their admissions policies;
They are allowed by law to discriminate in their employment policies;
They teach their own syllabus of Religious Education without the regulated syllabuses that apply to community schools.
Andrew Copson , Director of Education at the BHA, rejected the implication that such schools can ever be the way forward for the education system of a diverse society like modern Britain: ‘Our aim should be for all state funded schools to admit and include children regardless of their religious or non-religious backgrounds, so that they can learn from and with each other in a mixed environment.’
Today’s report reiterates arguments in favour of state-funded faith schools that have been extensively refuted in the past, such as the claim that faith schools are more academically successful than community schools because of their religious character. In fact, this claim is totally un-evidenced, and ignores the fact that faith schools fail and close in adverse local circumstances just as community schools do. It also ignores repeated academic studies that have indicated that state funded faith schools benefit academically from their power to select pupils.
Today’s report also seeks to paint a picture of a Government which is persecuting faith schools in the face of public support for them. Mr Copson rejected this impression: ‘In fact, the British public is overwhelmingly opposed to an expansion of state-funded faith schools: a fact demonstrated by repeated opinion polls on the subject over the last six years. Anyone who cares about a more fair and equitable education system, far from attacking the Government for seeking to prevent admissions abuses, should be welcoming any moves to clamp down on the undoubted abuses that exist.’
The Transplant Dilemma
Posted by: | CommentsFor many humanists the question of organ donation and transplantation doesn’t take much thinking about. It’s fair to say most humanists would gladly donate their organs after their death to save the life of another human being.
Perhaps this goes to the core of our belief in having the one life, where we work for the benefit for all humankind even in death?
For Hanif Mohammed in Reading this did not present such a clear cut choice. As a follower of Islam he had to consult his Imam to ensure it was ok for him to receive a kidney from a transplant donor. You can listen to the interview with Andrew Peach on BBC Radio (Requires RealPlayer).
As a humanist, I would hope that should I get run over by a bus tomorrow, any organs which can be salvaged to save another should be used in this way. I am on the organ donor register, and I have expressed my wishes to my wife and other family members to ensure they are carried out. When I make that commitment to help my fellow humans, I do it indiscriminately. I have placed no special conditions on the giving of my organs and so provide maximum potential benefit.
Having listened to the interview with Hanif, it was interesting to hear that during the discussion he took no time to consider the wishes of the donor, or the donors family. In a time of grief these people had the capacity to think of another suffering human being, the ultimate expression of compassion and human love. Of course we would never wish to force organ transplants on people where their conscience does not permit it. However it is important to realise this is not simply meat on a slab, but the act of one human saving the life of another.
It is fortunate that Hanif was able to benefit from the generosity and compassion of his donor, so let us hope a progressive Islam will support organ donations and transplantation more widely. I wonder if he will ever find out what kind of person the donor was?
If you would like to know more about organ donation visit UK Transplant’s web site.
Download July Newsletter
Posted by: | CommentsEU meeting warns of dangers of restricting free speech
Posted by: | Comments
Should religious belief be protected from “defamation”?
(From NEWSLINE of the National Secular Society)
Is respect for the sensibilities of religious believers compatible with freedom of speech? How should the EU respond to a UN Human Rights Council resolution that endorses restrictions on freedom of expression in the name of “respect for religions and beliefs”? These issues were discussed by MEPs and experts at a meeting of the EP Subcommittee on Human Rights yesterday (Thursday).
Hélène Flautre (Greens/EFA, FR), chair of the subcommittee, opened the meeting by citing Asma Jahangir, UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, who addressed Parliament’s plenary last week. Mrs Jahangir had argued against “protecting religions per se” and had said “criminalizing so-called defamation of religions can be counterproductive”.
Thursday’s guest speaker, Sara Whyatt (International PEN Writers in Prison Committee), took a critical view of the UNHRC resolution of 30 March 2007, which calls on UN member states to take steps against “defamation of religions”, focusing particularly on Islamophobia.
For her part, Ms Whyatt argued that “religions are systems of ideas and cannot therefore be seen as beyond criticism”. In any case, “what does ‘defamation’ mean?”
Moreover, “religious defamation laws have been used by governments to stifle dissent” and “can lead to violations of human rights”. Protests about the UNHRC resolution had come from many quarters, “over half from Islamic states!” Ultimately, it was crucial to see that “protection of religious freedom is compatible with freedom of expression”. She urged the EP to push for a review of the UNHRC resolution.
The representative of the European Commission stated that EU Member States had not supported the UNHRC resolution and that the EU “does not see ‘defamation of religion’ as appropriate to the human rights discourse”. The very concept poses problems, such as the right of diverse currents to exist within a religion and the freedom not to have a religion or to change one’s religion. The EU’s preferred approach was “to protect individuals not beliefs”.
Alexis Krikorian (International Publishers Association) described the lack of freedom of expression in Tunisia. He spoke about prisoners of opinion, book and internet censorship, restrictions on freedom of association and official harassment, and urged the European Union to link EU-Tunisia relations to freedom of speech and human rights. He also drew attention to Article 10 of the UNHRC resolution, which states that freedom of expression may “be subject to limitations as provided by law” on grounds of “respect for the rights and reputations of others…and respect for religions and beliefs”. “That says it all”, he concluded.
In her closing words, Mrs Flautre reiterated her view that it was best to stop using the expression “defamation of religion” as it was “not a legally consistent concept”. MEPs will return to this subject. A study is being commissioned by the subcommittee and the Euromediterranean Parliamentary Assembly is due to draft a report on it.
The National Secular Society has been in contact with a number of MEPs about these issues.
Dawkins to appear in Doctor Who – TONIGHT
Posted by: | CommentsFrom The ‘NEW Humanist’ magazine website
Dawkins to appear in Doctor Who
No doubt this is already big news across the web, but we were interested to hear that Richard Dawkins is to make a guest appearance in the new series of Doctor Who.
Writer and producer Russell T Davies, who is an atheist and a massive fan of Dawkins, says the show’s crew were delighted to see Dawkins on set: “People were falling at his feet … We’ve had Kylie Minogue on that set, but it was Dawkins people were worshipping.”
Needless to say we can’t wait to see this. There doesn’t seem to be any news yet on what sort of character Dawkins is set to play, so we thought we’d run a poll. What character would you like to see Richard Dawkins play in Doctor Who?
Timelord
Cyberman
Good scientist
Evil scientist
God
He should be true to himself
Vote at the top right of their page.
See trailer for tonght’s episode
Latest News – exclusive to you at BH is that he is playing HIMSELF….. but it might still be worth voting
Labels: Doctor Who, Richard Dawkins, Very Silly Things
Bookmark with… Delicious | Digg | reddit | Facebook | StumbleUpon
5 comments:
George Jelliss said…
Davies may be an atheist, but the new series of DrWho is full of religious and occult symbolism, and depends far more on magic or sorcery than science. Though of course Clarke’s law is that any advanced technology resembles magic. Nevertheless I’d like to see DrWho get back to being more genuinely science based.
07 April 2008 12:59
Anonymous said…
I hope that the episode makes this one point clear: Anyone who disagrees with Richard Dawkins’ ideas is delusional.
08 April 2008 13:27
LydiRae said…
Oh goodness, I’m going to have to shovel out money for some DVDs of the season.
Oddly enough, it’s not the new Doctor’s good looks, but the prospect of seeing Dawkins act.
12 April 2008 04:27
Anonymous said…
Richard Dawkins in Doctor Who, eh? He must have read this recent review by Thomas Sutcliffe in the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/film-and-tv/tv-radio-reviews/the-weekends-tv-pulling-sun-bbc3br-gavin–stacey-sun-bbc3br-doctor-who-sat-bbc1-812477.html
28 April 2008 13:11
Steve said…
I’d just like to ask george jelliss just when was Dr Who more genuinely science based?
Post a Comment here or in the New Humanist Magazine.
Try New Humanist for free
Unnatural Selection by Caroline Hotopf
Also from New Humanist ‘Dinner with Darwin’ in the Jan/Feb issue of New Humanist
Links to good (and not so good) things ; Bad Psychics ; British Humanist Association ; Butterflies and Wheels ;Call me Ishmael ; Chris Hayes’ Blog ; Chris Street – science and atheism ; Church Sign Generator ; Church Sign Generator ; Concordat Watch ; Council for ex-Muslims ;Crazy stuff from the bible ; Dadblog ; Darwin Awards (stupid ways to leave the gene pool) ; David Aaronovitch ; Dawkins’s Foundation ; deConversion ; Democratiya ; Fafblog ; First Things ; Foto8 ; fundies say the darndest things ; Guardian’s Comment is Free ; Humanist heritage ; Infinite Thought ; Jonathan Derbyshire ; K Punk ; Knight Chair ; Libby Purves’ Faith Central ; Machines Like Us – Evolution, cognition, artificial life ; Mark Vernon’s Philosophy and Life ; Maryam Namazie ; National Secular Society ; Nick Cohen ; Normblog ; Official Richard Dawkins site (plus forum)
Online version of New Humanist ; Pharyngula (PZ Myers’ science blog) ; Phillip Ball ; Philosophers’ Magazine ; Pickled Politics ;Pink Triangle Blog (blog of the Pink Triangle Trust) ; Planet Atheism (blog aggregator) ; Planet Humanism ; Rational Response Squad ; Raving Atheist ; Reason Online ; Religion dispatches ; Religion news blog ; Report on Positivity ; Reuters FaithWorld Blog ;Ruth Gledhill’s Article’s of Faith ; Sign and Sight ;Solana, she’s nice ; Soul bean cafe ; State of Protest ;Talking Philosophy ;That Man Hitchens ; The Freethinker blog ; The great realization ; The Immanent Frame ; The Infidels ;The Lizard ; The O Project ; Wierder than YouTube ; William Crawley’s diary