The People vs Scientology

28 November 2008 · Comments 

The UK Government today has responded to two scientology related petitions on the number10.gov.uk web site.

The first petition asked the government to stop the “church” of scientology calling itself such (“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to rename The ‘Church’ of Scientology under section 32 of the Companies Act”) received the following response from the government:

Legislation deems some words to be “sensitive” in the context of company names. A company wishing to use such a word in its name must satisfy certain conditions. The word “church” is not deemed to be a sensitive word and its use in a company name is therefore not subject to any particular controls. Indeed, it is used in many company names which appear on the Register.

Section 32(1) of the Act states that a direction may be issued where, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, a company’s registered name gives so misleading an indication of the nature of its activities as to be likely to cause harm to the public. It is not the company’s activities themselves that are under scrutiny. The name needs to: (i) give an indication of the company’s activities; and (ii) that indication must be so misleading as to cause harm to the public. A company’s registered name means the company’s name as a whole, not one word considered in isolation. It is the name “Church of Scientology (England and Wales)” that is under consideration, not just the word “Church”. .

As the Company is called the “Church of Scientology (England and Wales)” and its main activity is the promotion of Scientology there does not seem to be any attempt to mislead. A person dealing with the Company might not have a comprehensive understanding of what Scientology is, but he or she should be aware that the company’s “trade” is Scientology, therefore there is no basis for the Secretary of State to issue a direction.

So, no win there.

The second petition, to stop the scientology-based Narcanon drug “treatment” programme from inveigling its way into UK prisons and schools (“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to ban the usage of Narconon in any publicly funded orgianisation”) had the following response from the government:

The Government is clear that the commissioning of drug treatment services such as Narconon, is the responsibility of local drug partnerships. Such partnerships are best placed to know the needs and priorities of their clients and how well particular drug treatment services can meet these needs and priorities. We have produced a number of pieces of evidence based guidance to support commissioners and providers in ensuring the drug treatment services that they commission and deliver are of a high quality. This guidance is available on the Department of Health website.

Narconon courses are not run in prisons, but they are delivered via correspondence and there is no legal basis on which to deny prisoners access to Narconon letters. The National Offender Management Service does, however, encourage staff to refer misusing offenders that receive correspondence from Narconon into accredited interventions.

In schools, teachers should be the main providers of drug education and maintain responsibility for the overall drug education programme. External contributors can be used where they add to the drug education programme a dimension that teachers alone cannot deliver. It is for schools and local authorities, however, to decide whether to use the services of an external contributor to assist with their drug education programme, and if so who this should be. The Government’s guidance on drugs, Drugs:Guidance for Schools (DfES 2004) http://www.teachernet.gov,uk/wholeschool/behaviour/drugs/ encourages schools to liaise with their local authority and local Healthy Schools Programmes on the range of individuals and agencies who can support drug education programmes.

This reads like a partial success to me.

As Tony Curtis might have said, you can’t win ‘em all.

Tags: <, , , >

Religious privilege trumps equality yet again

29 July 2008 · Comments 

As reported in today’s The Telegraph, a sikh teenager who was excluded from school after refusing to take off a religious bangle has won her discrimination case at the High Court.

Sarika Watkins-Singh, 14, was reprimanded for breaking the “no jewellery” rule at Aberdare Girls’ School in South Wales last year.

In court, she said wearing the slim steel bracelet was as important to her as it was to the England cricketer Monty Panesar.

Sarika, who is Punjabi-Welsh, claimed she was the victim of unlawful discrimination when she was first taught in isolation and finally excluded last November.

The school, at which Sarika was the only Sikh among 600 girls, does not permit jewellery other than wristwatches and ear studs.

But Mr Justice Silber ruled that the bangle - known as the kara - was a symbol of her Sikh faith and not a piece of jewellery.

He said that the school was guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Right. That’s it. Fuck it.

I have a religion. It’s a lack-of-faith-based “faith”, and it’s called “Realityism”. It doesn’t have any gods, but it does have beliefs (based on good evidence). I will hereby quote the entirety of the scripture of Realityism here:

The Big Bumper Book of Realityism

Chapter 1

1 The cosmos, and everything in it, simply is.

2 The universe, and everything in it, are the tacit and explicit symbols of your “faith”. 3 Carry any symbols that you want to, to demonstrate your acceptance of your “faith”. 4 Nobody can tell you that you are wrong in your choice of symbol - it is they who are wrong.

5 Let reality, through evidence, be your guide.

6 Enjoy life.

There. Dead easy to remember and live by.

I wonder what my choice of symbol can be. I’ve always fancied a ninja outfit. But that’s not enough, I really need to show people how sincere I am in my “faith”. I know, why not something like sikhs do with their knives kirpan’s or this kid does with her jewellery symbol.

What I choose to carry won’t be jewellery or a weapon either, it’ll be a symbol just like these people have. And I will of course be free to carry it where something very very similar might otherwise be prohibited in a secular environment. But, of course, as a symbol, it’s completely different, isn’t it?

What do you mean to say that I can’t carry a 30″ blade or a crossbow or a shotgun in public? They’re not weapons, you heathen, they’re SYMBOLS! Don’t you understand, it was recently ruled in the High Court that one can happily flout societal norms when “faith” is involved?

DON’T OPPRESS ME OR MY RELIGION!

Source: The Telegraph: Sikh teenager wins bangle discrimination case.

Tags: <, , , , , , , , , >

Revoke UK blasphemy laws (petition)

5 November 2007 · Comments 

UK citizens: if you haven’t done so, why not take a couple of moments out of your day to sign the Number 10 petition to get rid of the UK’s blasphemy laws (deadline to sign up by: 8 March 2008).

Further reading: Appendix 3 of the First Report of the Select Committee on Religious Offences in England and Wales.

Citizens of the world: Please post this on your own blog so that we can get a wider exposure for this. 70 signatories is a poor show for a modern secular nation.

Tags: <, , , , , >

Forgive us when we cock things up

2 November 2007 · Comments 

From the “You couldn’t make this shit up” department:

This story from the Romford Recorder is just too precious retarded:

A PEARLY Queen’s Cockey slang version of the Lord’s Prayer recited during a formal council meeting has sparked an official complaint.

The modern interpretation of the prayer was brought to the Town Hall by the Pearly Queen of The Old Kent Road, Doreen Golding, who was invited by Havering Mayor Georgina Galpin.

The Pearly Queen, dressed in her traditional outfit, joined the 52 members of Havering Council and several officers and opened the Full Council Meeting on Wednesday, October 17, with her cockney rhyming slang-ridden version of the Lord’s Prayer.

The prayer, recited daily by thousands of Christians, was converted to include the phrases “ave a butchers” (look), and “give us some Uncle Fred” (bread), colloquial terms and abbreviated words.

What the story fails to report is to whether it was up-their-own-arse christians, non-christian theists or non-theists who made the complaint. It it was made by christians, I would then ask them if they would make the same complaint if it were made in, say, Latin? Somehow, I doubt that they’d be so black-affronted if it were. Or would it be that they might imagine that their god is offended by supplications ululated in anything other than King James’ English?

Not that I advocate any kind of special religious representation in government, even local government, but while it’s allowed (or at least tolerated) in the UK, then at least give each their own chance to chant their respective mumbo-jumbo in their own way, and then get down to the business of reality.

The full story, and full version of the prayer, are available in this week’s Recorder, which I don’t have a copy of and am not in a position to pop to the newsagent’s to get, although I do know plenty of people in that neck of the woods, so I’ll put the feelers out to see if one of them could ‘ave a butchers on my behalf.

Lahverly.

Tags: <, , , , >

The qualities of the faithful

27 September 2007 · Comments 

At a recent christian fair trade conference, Labour MP and government minister Stephen Timms made the following comment:

There is positive impact when people of faith are involved in the lives of their community, because these people bring valuable qualities in their service which are rare elsewhere and they are qualities modern Britain urgently needs.

It’s not reported by Ekklesia as to what Timms thinks are these valuable qualities actually are, nor if indeed these qualities are actually valuable, but from reading some of his speeches from his web site, he seems to think that simply having “faith” is enough of a virtue in itself.

Inexplicably, I’m not convinced. Like all socially progressive activities claimed exclusively by the religious, there’s no reason why these things can’t be both motivated and achieved without resorting to superstition.

I’ve never heard of Timms before, but apparently he’s the Labour Party’s “vice-chair with special responsibility for faith communities”, whatever that is.

On his web site, Timms writes on christian socialism:

It is clear from the Bible that Jesus was not only a man who empathised with people’s problems, but was a man who took action to change them. It is my hope for this generation that people who are committed to following the lifestyle of Jesus will seek to engage in politics and with the political authorities, as Jesus himself regularly did.

From my own reading of that same book, I remember an episode whereby the Jesus character also told people that they should sell all of their belongings and give the proceeds to the poor. I wonder if Timms is willing to go that extra mile for his biblical convictions, seeing as he’s so adamant that it’s the basis for social responsibility.

Somehow, I think not.

Tags: <, , , , , , , >

Even more faith schools?

15 September 2007 · Comments 

Recently, the UK government (in the guise of the aptly named Ed Balls) and a bunch of mutually incompatible (are there any other kind?) religious groups decided to get together and tell the rest of us that they want to control more state schools, and that we should all pay for them, regardless of whether we’re religious or not, and the government published a report about it (PDF).

They also decided that the status quo - any non-religious school should still be subject to current laws - which the report summarises as:

All maintained schools are required to have a daily act of collective worship. In schools without a religious character, this must be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian nature; while in schools with a religious character, collective worship may be in accordance with the tenets and practices of the religious designation of the school. The Government recognises the value of collective worship in schools in contributing to young people’s spiritual, social, moral and cultural development and to exploring social and moral issues and their own beliefs

should remain. I guess the christians must have played their “the UK is a christian country” card to win over the other groups.

Anyway, in the spirit of this, we’ve decided to come up with a handbook for non-religious schools, which contains some choice christian moral teachings. We present an extract in the form of a page from this book below.

Christian Morality Handbook for secular schools

We’re looking to get this published for the beginning of the 2008/9 school year. We think it’ll be a massive hit because, as everyone knows, one can’t have morality without religion, and the christian scripture is just so replete with prime examples.

Thankfully, the NSS and the ATL step in to the fray in an attempt to put this nonsense to bed.

Tags: <, , , , , , >

Anti-Coulter vs Coulter

17 June 2006 · Comments 

Coulter’s own argument, when being interviewed by Matt Lauer in refutation of her own obnoxious standpoint. The names have been changed to neglect the ignorant.

“To speak out using the fact that they’re [christians] - this is the [religious right's] doctrine of infallibility.

“If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we’re allowed to respond to: nonono, we always have to respond to someone who just had [a divinely-inspired epiphany], because then if we respond: “oooh, you’re questioning their authenticity”.

…

“They were cutting commercials for [Bush]. They were using their [religion] to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding. … Don’t use the fact that you [have religion] as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding. Let [Jesus] make the point, let [God] make the point - don’t put up someone I’m not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their [authority].

…

“But that is the point of [divine] infallibility - of putting up [Pat Robertson], of putting out these [christians], of putting out [Jerry Falwell] - nonono, you can’t respond, it’s their doctrine of infallibility. Let somebody else make the argument then.”

Twat.

This article was originally posted at In Defence of Reality.

Tags: <, , , , >

Theocracy, 21st Century Style

12 June 2006 · Comments 

With the USA’s administration’s current predilection for fundamentalist christian values, it’s not difficult to see the USA becoming as Iran, although obviously of a slightly different, perhaps more bitter, flavour.

What sort of elements make up a modern-day theocracy?

  • A ruling party made up of rich politicians overly influenced by religious zealots - check
  • Access to legal representation for some (alleged) crimes is restricted - check
  • Religious law overtakes common-sense (or even natural) law - check
  • Capital punishment is still in place - check
  • Those of alternate faiths (or none) are persecuted - check
  • Women, and their rights, are marginalised - check
  • Homosexuals, and their rights, are marginalised (at best) - check
  • ‘Unfamily’ attitudes are severely frowned up - check
  • Knowledge and science take a back burner to dogma - check
  • Intellectuals are treated as second-class citizens - check
  • Those who disagree with the ruling class are treated as traitors - check
  • Human rights are abused on a daily basis - check

I don’t think I’ll bother taking a look at Iran - it’s pretty much the same sort of stuff.

This article was originally posted at In Defence of Reality.

Tags: <, , , , >

The best person for the job

3 June 2006 · Comments 

One must have been living under a rock for the last few years if you’re not aware of the increasing influx of pervasive religious attitudes into daily life. I’m not talking about living in a theocracy here - I live in the UK. I’m talking about in the ’secular’ West, where increasing scientific knowledge, affordable and accessible technology and mass (in terms of ease, not in terms of distribution) communications have a reasonably good exposure and there’s a general level of appreciation of them all.

Let me give you an example of this sort of thing in the UK: you may or may not be aware of a UK Government minister called Ruth Kelly.

Kelly is a devout Catholic and a member of the now-infamous Opus Dei sub-sect. Kelly has very strong links with the Catholic church and is a key member of Prime Minister Blair’s Government, as well as being a close personal friend of the Blairs. Kelly has, since she became an MP in 1997, missed a number of key votes on equality and equal rights, preferring to abstain from making any commitment either way.

This may seem odd, considering her personal[1] opinions on such issues. Another Catholic might think she’s a weak Catholic; a freethinker may wonder why she isn’t representing her constituents’ interests and abstaining from key votes. Either way, she’s not being entirely honest. Can you guess what her rôle in the Government is?

She’s the Minister for Equality[2].

Yes, that’s right: she’s the one that’s supposed to ensure that homosexuals, women, non-traditional ethnic Britons (I won’t say ethnic minorities - in some communities non-whites are in the distinct majority), the disabled and everyone else that is supposedly disadvantaged in day-to-day life are treated fairly and equitably.

Apparently, within Blair’s Labour party, she’s the most qualified person that he could find. Well, she must be: Blair wouldn’t choose someone less qualified than that to serve us, the British public… would he?

At every opportunity, Kelly has refused to discuss her attitudes to topic of gay rights, women’s rights and the seemingly inherent contradiction of her job and her beliefs.

This doesn’t sound like the best person for the job to me.

Addendum: In a previous rôle, Kelly was Minister for Education instrumental in reforming education to allow private organisations, including religious ones, to run schools, but that’s another story.

[1] ‘Personal’ obviously includes those advocated by the Vatican.
[2] Technically the name of the post is the ‘Secretary of State for Communities’.

This article was originally posted at In Defence of Reality.

Tags: <, , , , , , , , , >