The EHA AGM takes place on Saturday 17th December at the home of Maggie Adams, our membership secretary. I sincerely hope there will be a good turn-out for this important meeting. Please call Maggie at 020 88403543 to confirm your attendance. While doing this, please make sure you tell Maggie that you will be able to stay for the Yuletide party to follow the AGM at about 7.00 p.m.

All committee posts are up for re-election - so come prepared to cast your vote and do consider standing for office. The AGM is also a good occasion to discover what goes on behind the scenes of your humanist group and for you to make useful suggestions about its future programme. We are always looking for ideas.

The Yuletide Party is a wonderful occasion to talk, drink, eat and be merry with other members in an old-time spirit of mid-winter festivity. The one authentic date for worth celebrating at the end of the year is the Winter Solstice which this year falls on 21 December - at 6.35 p.m. to be precise.

The AGM/Party is also just two days after the full moon so you should be able to find your way home by moonlight! Of course we might also note that it is 8 days before the so-called birthday of Christ but I suspect that will be of little concern to you … and it is certainly not authentic.

So please come to the AGM and stay on for the party. See you there.

Many Christians, according to a comment I overheard recently, remain firmly attached to what they refer to as the eminently reasonable principles of Christian philosophy, through which they develop their attitudes towards other people - kindness, helping one’s neighbour, generally doing good, maybe turning the other cheek etc . While retaining this strong contact with all that is best in Christian tradition they, at the same time, totally reject the absurdities of Christian Dogma.

When one reader of the Daily Telegraph recently wrote a letter to the editor on this matter it was printed under the title, “Unbelieving Christians”. That is about right - these people are sufficiently attached to tradition that they prefer to be called ‘Christian’ as a sort of crutch despite having discarded all the dogma that defines the term.

Humanists don’t need crutches. They too endeavour to distil the general principles of morality from the widest possible range of cultural tradition and filter out all dogmatic theological absurdities including that extraordinarily cruel concept of a personal, punishing God.

ARC

This BBC2 documentary ‘God and the Politicians’ was presented by David Aaronovitch on 28 September 2005. It was designed to examine what seems like a growing tendency for religion to influence political decisions. It is quite evident that politicians woo religious believers. This is not surprising as it has been shown that, for those who claim not to be influenced by religion some 55% (approx one third of the electorate) can be expected to vote. In the case of those who claim a religious affiliation (two thirds of the electorate), that figure rises to about 65%. This imbalance is obviously being maintained and exploited by religious groups who constantly jostle for attention at Westminster and who draw politicians into their orbit. For example, before the last election, the South London evangelist, Steve Chalke, and his outreach organisation, “Faithworks” invited all the party leaders to a service where they each proclaimed how important faith was.

Catholics do not sit in the House of Lords as do Anglicans: The previous Cardinal (Basil Hume) actually refused when offered the chance. This does not mean the Catholic viewpoint does not get aired at Westminster. On the contrary, by clever questioning, Aaronovitch showed how the Catholic hierarchy is very powerfully represented through their system of briefing Catholic MPs. This is probably more effective than ermine!

The fundamental questions addressed in this programme were:

Is ‘faith politics’ on the rise in Britain? Are organized religions seeking to get people to vote as acolytes rather than citizens? Should we fear the influence of religious lobbyists on our lives and laws? Are faith schools damaging for a genuinely plural society?

The answer to the first three of these questions is clearly in the affirmative as might be expected from the first two paragraphs above.

On the question of faith schools (a third of all state schools! - and rising), it was interesting how different ‘faith leaders’ responded when quizzed about schooling. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said he went to a Christian school, that it was a good experience, that he did not experience discrimination but that his own children went to Jewish schools. The Muslim guru, Iqbal Sacranie, was asked if he would send a Muslim child to a Catholic school and he said he would far rather do that than send the child to one with no faith. When Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor was told that Muslims would be happy to send a child to a Catholic school, he replied, with evident pride, that that was reasonable because the ethos of Catholic schools is something they can cohere with (whatever that might mean). But when asked if he would be happy with Catholic children attending Muslim schools he replied, “Well that would be another matter wouldn’t it, er, I wouldn’t because, fundamentally, the creed of Islam is totally diverse from the creed of Christianity”. Well, I suppose he is right there. Can we wonder that faith schools are so divisive? It certainly seems quite inappropriate to put them so highly on the political agenda of our very secular country.

As well as hearing the views of all the religious leaders we were also treated to a few wise religious comments from lesser mortals - such as, “ I am a great fan of religious schools”. We were also treated to a high standard of critical comment by well known disbelievers such as, Anthony Grayling, Tony Benn, Keith Porteous-Wood and, of course, David Aaronovitch himself.

Quite appropriately, in a country where the head of the Anglican church is also the head of state, the Rt Rev Bishop Tom Butler was given the last words on the programme. He candidly declared that religion is two-faced - which, in my book, means deceitful and insincere. To avoid quoting him out of context, his actual words were, “I think we should treat religion with respect and realise that it is two-faced. It can be an immense blessing and it can be a powerful destructive force. I think we have to treat it with respect and with intelligence to try to mould what is good and use it for the common good and make sure that it doesn’t at the same time destroy us”.

Personally, I think the best way of treating religion with intelligence is to give it up.

Reviewed by Anthony Constable

Footnote:
Since the documentary, 'God and the Politicians', there have been two other BBC TV programmes of interest to the humanist. There was a three part series entitled “The Battle for Britain’s Soul” by Rev Peter Owen-Jones dealing with the history of the churchgoing habits in this country - how they have altered over many generations and how people have flirted with atheism so effectively. Owen-Jones’ entertaining style took a bit of getting used to as he flitted in and out of historical scenes with a long flowing coat, but he gave a very honest account of this fascinating subject.
The other important programme was the four parts series, 'A Brief History of Disbelief' by Jonathan Miller. He took a careful look at the very long history of atheism in Western culture and dealt with it with the wisdom, philosophical reflection and intellectual integrity one has come to expect from such an accomplished performer. I well recall Jonathan Miller’s entertaining contributions to 'Beyond the Fringe' in the early 1960s and consider the best of all the sketches was his own uncanny imitation of Bertrand Russell in 'Portrait From Memory'. In those days Miller was at his best and in 'A Brief History of Disbelief' he is still at his best. I do not recall hearing Bertrand Russell’s reaction to Miller’s performance in the 1960s (when he was still very much alive) but I do believe this recent account of the history of atheism would have made the truculent old philosopher smile ‘seraphically’.

Anthony Constable

The Group Representatives Annual Meeting (GRAM) took place this year on 5th November at Conway Hall. Charles Rudd reports:

The morning session consisted of a presentation by Sue Lord on the use of the Internet for information about humanism. After lunch one or two local groups reported on their activities, among them North East Humanists whose Barrie Berkley presented a discussion document [available from me]: point 14 caught my eye, and also came up again later in the last session of the day, “Humanist representation at all ceremonial occasions where there are ... representatives from religious bodies". I wondered (but not aloud) whether, as an alternative to getting a foot in the door of religious memorial services etc., the BHA should consider organising one of its own - but that wouldn't be inclusive, unless we invited religious representatives (and would they attend?), so perhaps it is better to get ourselves invited to the religious ones, even if the framework is Christian or broadly Christian. -- Ian Roberts of the Armed Forces Humanist Assn spoke (inter alia) about the anomaly by which members of the RAF can opt out of religious services without a fuss, whereas Army and Navy personnel have to write a letter. -- Next, Marilyn Mason, BHA Education Officer, spoke about developments in schools and SACREs. She left some of us wondering what is being achieved by humanists’ attending SACRE meetings. Tony Constable voiced the opinion that, although non-faith state schools may be the only schools trying to use the new Framework, the religion they teach is hardly likely to contribute to a society of religious believers! Perhaps we should find ways of communicating with faith schools where religious teaching is often little short of old style religious instruction.

Lastly, Sam Rimmer and Hanne Stinson reported on the BHA Ceremonies Network (of wedding, funeral etc. officiants). Some recent celebrity funerals had been conducted by "Independent" officiants. BHA is now in competition with an organisation called Civil Ceremonies, which in turn is competing with its own trainees who are setting up as independents. BHA has been tempted to stand aside and leave the field to them, as they are fulfilling a need, just as BHA has relinquished direct control of its housing and adoption initiatives. What has prevented BHA from standing aside (Hanne said) is the evident need for quality control. There is no national regulation. Complaints come in from people who have had bad experiences of ceremonies, most of which turn out to have been conducted by independent or non-accredited officiants, but as BHA is also offering this service, it is also adversely affected. A working party has been set up to consider the future of ceremonies (see Humanist News Sep-Oct 2005). -- Regarding memorial services, BHA is campaigning for genuinely inclusive meetings. BHA was invited to the tsunami memorial, but not to the more recent St Paul's event for 7/7 London victims, no idea why not.

Charles Rudd

The only time I have ever been inside a courtroom was at the request of a friend who, some years ago, had been wrongly accused on a matter of ‘national security’. I went as a character witness on his behalf. I suppose the court atmosphere is always somewhat daunting except for those hardened multiple offenders who have learned to treat all those strange court formalities with a cynical sense of humour. However, I was hustled into the witness stand where the usher thrust a card into my hand and said ‘swear’. At the same time she thrust a bible in my direction and said ‘put yer ‘and on it’ - quite Dickensian really.

Just as I was about to swear she said, ‘you can affirm’ as if to suggest, ‘if you dare’. So I didn’t. I swore the oath - with judge, council and jury looking in my direction with sinister intent - or so it seemed. It was some years before I learnt about Charles Bradlaugh and affirmation.

Charles Bradlaugh was born in London on 26th September, 1833. As a young man he came under the influence of the ideas of Richard Carlile, the man who had been sent to prison for blasphemy and seditious libel in 1819. Like Carlile, Bradlaugh questioned the truths of Christianity. In 1849 he left home at the age of 16 due to religious differences with his family. After a short spell in the army he went to work in a law office in 1853. Now a committed republican and freethinker he joined Joseph Barker in 1860, a former Chartist from Sheffield, to establish the radical journal, 'The National Reformer'.

Bradlaugh wrote pamphlets on politics and religion and by the early 1860s had become one of the leading freethinkers in Britain. In 1866 he helped to establish the National Secular Society where he met Annie Besant who came to work for 'The National Reformer' where she wrote many articles on such issues as marriage and women's rights.

In 1877 Bradlaugh and Besant published 'The Fruits of Philosophy', Charles Knowlton's book advocating birth control. They were both charged with publishing material that was "likely to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences". They argued that "we think it more moral to prevent conception of children than, after they are born, to murder them by want of food, air and clothing." They were both found guilty of "obscene libel" and sentenced to six months in prison. At the Court of Appeal the sentence was quashed.

The authorities attempted to obstruct their activities and those of other freethinkers. Their pamphlets were seized by the Post Office and they were often excluded from using public buildings for meetings. In 1882 the staff of 'The Freethinker' were prosecuted for blasphemy, and two of them were found guilty and sent to prison.

After a few failed attempts, Bradlaugh was eventually elected MP for Northampton in 1880. He asked for permission to affirm rather than to swear the oath of office on the Bible. The Speaker refused and Bradlaugh was expelled from Parliament. The Prime Minister, William Gladstone, sympathised with Bradlaugh, but he had already upset a lot of people with his own views on Christianity, the monarchy and birth control. Consequently, MPs voted to expel Bradlaugh from the house.

He now mounted a national campaign in favour of atheists sitting in the House of Commons. He gained a little support from Nonconformists but was strongly opposed by the Tories and leaders of the Anglican and Catholic churches. When Bradlaugh attempted to take his seat in Parliament in June 1880, he was arrested and imprisoned in the Tower of London. The Tory leader, Benjamin Disraeli warned that Bradlaugh would become a martyr. He was released.

The following year Bradlaugh was once again refused permission to affirm and was not willing to wait for Gladstone’s promised reforms. When he attempted to take his seat on 2nd August he was forcibly removed. He and his supporters organised a national petition and on 7th February 1882 presented a list of 241,970 signatures calling for him to be allowed to take his seat. However, when he next tried to take the Parliamentary oath, he was once again removed from Parliament.

Gladstone's Affirmation Bill was discussed by Parliament in the spring of 1883. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the RC Cardinal Manning argued against the right of atheists to be MPs. When the vote was taken in May 1883, the Affirmation Bill was defeated. In 1884 Bradlaugh was once again elected. He took his seat and voted three times before he was excluded. He was later fined £1,500 for voting illegally.

He tried again to affirm on 13th January 1886. The new Speaker did not object, arguing that he had no authority to interfere with oath-taking. Bradlaugh now had the right to speak and vote in the House of Commons. Over the next few years he was an extremely active MP. He outmanoeuvred the government when the Evidence Amendment Act of 1869 enabled the evidence of freethinkers to be taken. But the final chapter was only written on 9th August 1888 with the passing of the affirmation bill legalising the substitution of an affirmation for an oath both in the House of Commons and the law courts.

Charles Bradlaugh died on 30th January, 1891 at the age of 57. His funeral was attended by 3,000 mourners.

I (hesitatingly) look forward to my next appearance in court where I will affirm with the full knowledge of the effort made by this great man to acquire on our behalf such a basic human right.

Sources: Dictionary of National Biography and others.

Anthony Constable

Attendees: Maggie Adams, Alex Hill, Raymond Carlisle & John Bennett (chair). D.J.Stewart joined us later for the outing to Tate Modern - see below.

Discussion topic: Proposed by Raymond: “The Legacy of Derek Hill” and introduced with some of Derek’s hitherto unpublished thoughts viz:

My wife and I are both unreservedly humanists. We do not believe in the supernatural and our atheism is unqualified. Certain aspects of humanism such as its requirements for morality are open for discussion, not argument. We agree that many good people do harm in the name of religion.

The Individual in Western Society: Christ’s crucifixion can be compared with the Moslem impulse to sacrifice the life of individuals to God. Moslems fail to understand the present concern in the West over the killing of one individual at Stockwell by the police in response to the death of 56 others. The aftermath of the crucifixion, the rise of importance of the individual, was preceded by a similar Greek concern in their myths. Similarly, during the enlightenment, there was a reassertion of the individual in confrontation with the church and ultimately the state. Totalitarian regimes under Hitler and Stalin are examples of a reversal of that tendency where the individual was subjugated by the state.

These thoughts of Derek Hill are what some of us would describe as the insights implicit in subjective humanism and individual autonomy. Although never accepting a subjective/objective division, Derek expressed the views:

1. The enhanced role of the individual in Western Society, as expressed above, was established by Greco-Christian thought and by the enlightenment.
2. There is much frustration in contemporary philosophy.
3. We may be tolerant of religion but not of religious fundamentalism.

To me all are important but particularly the first although this view was only shared with us shortly before his death. It provides the link between Derek’s writings and what he thought should be appreciated in the Christian tradition. The priest who officiated at his funeral rightly described Derek as a ‘seeker’.

There was general agreement with these expressions of what we call 'Derek Hill’s Legacy' and it was generally agreed that Derek made a significant contribution to humanist thought.

Reported by Raymond Carlisle

Our small group of five proceeded by bus and tube to South Kensington for our planned lunch at the Polish restaurant. However, on arriving, we found the place in a sorry mess; a notice on the door stated there had been a fire and it was hoping to resume business in the near future! Not to worry, there is no shortage of restaurants in the area and we eventually ensconced in a very pleasant Italian establishment where our lunch included much interesting conversation.

We then proceeded by tube to Blackfriars Station for the pleasant riverside walk up to the Millennium bridge and over the river to Tate Modern. It was a beautiful afternoon and the converted power station looked really impressive - a certain grandeur emanates from the building and the whole massive project of converting it into an art gallery with its impressive special concept can only be applauded. It is simply a pleasure to visit the building irrespective of its contents: which is just as well as the main gallery on level 3 was closed for redecoration and re-hanging, and other spaces were being used for two exhibitions - Henri Rousseau, ‘Jungles in Paris’ and photographic transparencies by the Canadian artist, Jeff Wall. Part of the massive ‘dynamo’ space was given over to Rachel Whiteread’s ‘Embankment’, consisting of milky-white plastic boxes which look like sugar cubes tipped out of the packet and ‘organised into blocks of varying degrees of neatness, or nonchalantly piled in an informal but extremely tall pyramid.’ When down on the ground the overriding impression is of being in a vast warehouse. From a distance, as light filters through the boxes, it has been likened to the effect of translucence emanating from ice (Whiteread recently visited the Arctic); however, one commentator remarked that, close to, the material is utterly mundane, ‘associations are more with Tupperware than with tundra’. The overall effect is of course purely subjective: Whiteread is one of the darlings of the young British Artists group; she is also making a lot of money which is a reflection on our contemporary art scene.

Because of the temporary closures referred to above, we were unable to see much of the permanent collection which includes some very interesting good work indeed; the Italian art from the 50s, including works by Burri, Fontana and Monzoni, showing on level 4, was in some ways, an anti-climax for this writer. The rest of the group were of the same opinion - our tastes do not include much of the British and international output from the 50s onwards. So-called taste in contemporary art is dictated by influential critics, wealthy dealers and collectors: Charles Saatchi is a case in point. He is reputed to spend £2 million a year buying contemporary art for his gallery in the old County Hall. He exercises overwhelming power in the international modern art market, makes and breaks artists’ reputations and influences the character and direction of much recent British art.

As I have already stated, being in the Tate Modern and walking around the various levels, is an experience in itself irrespective of the contents - there are many places to pause and sit down - to take in the view over the Thames, and to appreciate the sheer enormity of the place. Our group had diminished later in the afternoon (two members left early to visit our Life President); however, it turned out to be an enjoyable afternoon and we made our way back to Blackfriars in the dusk by the river walk.

John Bennett