Up there with Iran

Well, today's proposals for the House of Lords reform were to keep us as one of two countries that reserve places in their parliaments for unelected religious clerics, who then get an automatic say in writing the laws the country's citizens must obey.

Thankfully, Nick Clegg's plans to "modernise" the House of Lords did include rumors of an imam and the Chief Rabbi that haven't come through, but today's proposals still make the House horribly out of date.

The plans are to reduce the number of Lords, but, unelected Bishop's are still to be kept, and proportionally, in greater number - currently they make up 3%, but the new plans would have them at 4%.

I'd urge you to visit the BHA page and join in on their work to reform the House of Lords.

In which I disagree with Bishop Nick Baines

I'm super busy, but was in a queue so started catching up on blogs I've not had a chance to read. I also wanted to remind everyone about the Census Campaign from the BHA, and saw this criticism of it: Poor stupid people who need to be told what to think. So here's a super quick reply...

It appears the critics haven't quite grasped the campaign. Firstly, the Census Campaign isn't, as the Bishop says "against the ‘religion’ question", but it is actually for the religious question, by encouraging the accurate answering of the question. No one is telling any one what to think, just to answer the question honestly. If you're not religious, for God's sake say so.

Christianity is on the decline in the UK, despite what previous census data has said. However, as Johan Hari has pointed out: Which two nations still reserve places in their parliaments for unelected religious clerics, who then get an automatic say in writing the laws the country's citizens must obey? The answer is Iran... and Britain.

It's no wonder Bishop Baines is critical. It's also a pity he doesn't link to the campaign himself, only via the two posts he links too. I always think it's better to link directly to what you're commenting on, so people can make their own minds up. Kinda funny, given his title...

So, remember, you're not a Jedi, when it comes to the Census, if you're not religious, then say so.

Also, I don't know Nick Baines' opinion on homosexuality, but he seems to come a bit close to defending some bigots. We need a secualr society because if we indulge every religious whim it's every man for himself, given the mutually contradictory nature of the various religions out there. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you get to have a free card to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc. Nick Baines writes:

So, if you ‘believe’ that living according to the precepts of Jesus Christ is good or essential, you are supposed to keep your ‘belief’ in the realms of opinion. But, if you ‘believe’ that no negative  judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle, that is a ‘belief’ that can be given free rein. Is that not weird?

No, it's not weird, and I don't think any one is saying that "no negative  judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle". People are welcome to their beliefs, but not to be openly bigoted.

In answer to PZ part 2, in which I disagree with him a bit

PZ Myers asked "Why are you an atheist?" and went on to describe some of his peeves with atheists. In my last post I answered with why I'm an atheist, and will now point out where I think PZ's wrong to be peeved. It is this bit:

"Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion. Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist — it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is.

Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all.

There are a fair number of adults who ought to know better who insist on the dictionary definition, too. They've been brought up without god-belief, and some of them may not have even considered religion much at all. Unless they are real lightweights, genuine feathers adrift in the wind, they also carry a set of values that incline them towards godlessness…otherwise you'd expect them to fall on their knees and turn Christian the instant they first hear about Jesus. They don't, and why? Probably because they learned some critical thinking skills from their parents. They carry positive values that make them resistant to the cheap promises of faith."

I would actually like to see an increase in this category of atheist.

Granted *right now* you'd be a fool to say religion isn't important in the world. However, I think it would be great to see more people raised godless, who don't really consider religion at all, and get on with their lives, in the same way, that lots of people don't believe in ghosts, or the Bermuda triangle, or crystal healing. There is a lot of nonsense floating out there, and there are not enough hours in the day to take a serious look at it all.

I would like these people, when pressed, to explain they've never considered it as it's just ridiculous nonsense, and it would be great if this could be the way the majority of people are raised.

This is easy for me to say though, Britain is already, or at least getting close, to the point of religious types being in the minority.

I think it is the above type of atheist that help this. At school, I was very interested in religion (well, still am), but a lot of people just didn't bother considering it.

As the BHA highlights, there's still plenty of work to do in becoming more secular. Also, I don't think the States are ready for more of these atheists, as, if they're not considering religion, then they won't be considering such issues as atheism in schools and such.

However, ultimately, I'd like these people to be the norm. A man can dream...

If you're not religious, for god's sake say so

As I mentioned before:

Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian, and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church, despite what they tend to write down on official forms.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has launched the Census Campaign, a drive for people who are not religious to say so on the 2011 census.

As the BHA reports:

After the 2001 Census, the figures collected were used to justify the following policies:

Increase in the number of faith schools
The continuation of collective worship in schools
The public funding and support of ‘interfaith’ and faith-based organisations above the support offered to secular organisations
Suggestions of an increase in the role of faith in Britain under the coalition government
The appointments of government advisors on faith
Contracting out public services to religious organisations
Keeping the 26 Bishops in the House of Lords as of right
Continued high number of hours dedicated to religious broadcasting
Specific consultation at government and local level with ‘faith communities’ over and above other groups within society
Continued privileges for religious groups in equality law and other legislation

It's time to change our peculiar habit of declaring on forms a religious affiliation when we have none. Stating "No religion" won't prevent you from declaring your cultural heritage, if you are say, a Jew or a Sikh, but without believing those faiths, you can use the "ethnicity" section. If you have any more questions, check they may well be answered here.

Obviously, this post is probably preaching to the converted, however, spread the word amongst your family and friends - link to the Census Campaign's site, add a banner to your blog, and donate if you can afford to.

Moat importantly:

On Druidry being officially recognised as a religion in the UK

As you might have read at WEIT, Derren Brown and the Godless Geek, the Druid Network is now a registered charity, and, as such, is the first Pagan practice to officially be regarded as a religion.

It is just the Druid Network that is a charity, and as the Charity Commission say "The form of druidry that is practised by the Druid Network fulfils the four criteria for a religion in charity law and therefore is a religion. However, that isn’t to say that every form of druidry would meet those four criteria."

This is a fair decision – all religions, or spiritual practices, should be charities if they meet the requirements of the law. It’s not fair to exclude less well known, or slightly more minority practices just because they are less popular, or their practices not understood.

The Charity Commission concluded on 21 September that the Druid Network was "established for exclusively charitable purposes for the advancement of religion for the public benefit". You can read the full report. This is a good decision with in the law.

My main issue is the “advancement of religion for the public benefit". Does religion provide a public benefit? I think not, at least not on its own. Druids may, for example, champion conservation causes because of their faith, but, is religious faith really needed here? If people do need faith in a religion to do good, then that is very sad, but I don't think that this is the case.

This seems a good time to high light the British Humanist Association's Charity Law Campaign:

Charity law
The law on charity dates back to 1601, with court decisions on whether an organisation is eligible for the legal and tax privileges of charity status resting on analogies with the types of activity listed in the preamble to the Statute of Charitable Uses of that year. In the 19th century a judge categorised charities into four categories (relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion – and the rest!).

In 2005, the Government produced in its Charities Bill a new 13-fold categorisation, with the last still a catch-all “other purposes” group. Over five years of consultations, correspondence and meetings we had argued without success that the heading “advancement of religion” should be extended, in line with the Human Rights Act, to encompass advancement of non-religious beliefs such as Humanism. At present humanist organisations can win charity status only by qualifying under some other head, such as education. Attempts to amend the Bill in Parliament were unsuccessful, and the Charities Act 2006 is now law.

The Act also extended to all charities, including religious ones, the need to be able to demonstrate that they produce “public benefit”. This concept is legally complex and the Charity Commission has been consulting on draft guidance on how it will be applied. We have made substantial submissions on this question and has had meetings at a high level with the Commission, but the resulting guidance remains unsatisfactory, both in seeming to relax the rigour of the law for religious charities and in its definition of what counts as a religion – a definition that anyway under the Human Rights Act should have no place in law. A recent draft of guidance on public benefit and charities based on non-religious beliefs is similar to but more restrictive than the guidance for religious charities and, anyway seems unwarranted given the law’s lack of recognition of such a category of charity. Our submissions and correspondence under this process are available in the Articles and Submissions section on this page.

What we want
Ultimately we want the new law amended to put humanist charities in the same legal position as religious ones.

We have maintained that the Charity Commission should heed the Human Rights Act and treat charities based on non-religious beliefs in the same way as religious ones. It has so far refused to do so but its intentions with the draft guidance about non-religious beliefs are still unclear. The consultation is now closed and we await the outcome.

If you want to help this, or indeed, any other advancements of humanism, then please do check out the British Humanist Association and its work.