Mathematics, Astronomy and the National Secular Society
I imagine that a great many people have been thinking hard recently about democracy, free speech and religious belief in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. There’s also been a great deal of stuff in the print media covering these issues. I just want to mention one thing that I have decided to do, namely to join the National Secular Society an organization that campaigns against religious privilege.
Let me reproduce a statement from their webpage here:
The National Secular Society works towards a society in which all citizens, regardless of religious belief, or lack of religious belief, can live together fairly and cohesively. We campaign for a secular democracy with a separation of religion and state, where everyone’s Human Rights are respected equally.
We work in the UK and Europe to challenge the disproportionate influence of religion on governments and in public life. We provide a secular voice in the media, defending freedom and equality as a counterbalance to the powerful religious lobby and some of the more destructive religious impulses that can threaten human rights worldwide.
The National Secular Society is a non-party-political organisation with members from across the social and political spectrum. Our Honorary Associates include MPs and peers, as well as leading figures from politics, journalism, law and the arts.
The NSS is a democratic and independent non-profit organisation which receives no funding from government or other public bodies. Our campaigning is wholly supported by our members and supporters, people like you who share our belief in the urgent need to keep religion and politics separate.
One of the National Secular Society’s very active current campaings is against the egregious Local Government (Religious etc Observances) Bill, which includes a provision that would require local councillors to attend sessions that involve prayers. This bill is wholly unacceptable to me, as it is perfectly possible for councillors of a religious persuasion to pray whenever they like, either before during or after a meeting, without requiring non-believers to be present.
I respect the right of others to whatever religious belief they choose and would not interrupt or disrupt an act of religious observance, but imposing such actions on others is simply unacceptable. I don’t think religious services should be imposed in schools and colleges, and I don’t see why this is any different.
Anyway, the general point is that I firmly believe that the only way we will ever develop a society that allows people of all cultures and beliefs to live in peace with each other and in atmosphere of mutual respect is to remove any reference to religion from our political and legal establishment. It’s a ridiculous anachronism that Bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords, for example.
You’ll all no doubt be glad to know that I’m not going to “preach” about this at length here, although I may from time to time post on matters related to the National Secular Society (NSS), though hopefully in such a way as it doesn’t get confused with that other NSS the National Student Survey. I will however include a little story as a kind of postscript.
When I tweeted about the National Secular Society recently a friend of mine pointed out a curious connection between it, astronomy, and my former employer, Cardiff University. The first ever Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University College of South Wales and Monmouthsire (which eventually became Cardiff University) was a distinguished chap by the name of Henry William Lloyd Tanner, who was appointed to his position in 1883. In November 1883 there was a vigorous campaign by religious types to have him removed because of his connections with the National Secular Society (which was founded way back in 1866); you can read about it here. The campagign did not succeed, and H.W. Lloyd Tanner remained in post until 1909.
We have at least made some progress since 1883, in that nowadays a Professor would not be threatened with the sack on the basis of his religious beliefs or lack of them, but there’s a long way to go before our nation is a truly secular society.
Follow @telescoper
In the Dark 
January 17, 2015 at 5:09 pm
Been meaning to join … done it now … thanks for the reminder ! …
January 17, 2015 at 9:13 pm
Peter, you will not find me (an evangelical Christian) objecting to the removal of religious privileges from public life. Have you verified, though, that the NSS is pro-free speech? Secular people are deeply divided between the politically correct who are in favour of “hate speech” laws, some of which already exist, that would outlaw peaceable criticism of Islam or homosexuality (to take two not wholly random examples); and those in favour of free speech and who are willing to have their beliefs and practices peaceably criticised in order to be able to peaceably criticise the beliefs and practices of others. That is the key issue that has been raised by the Hebdo murders. In which camp is the NSS?
And yes, I would decriminalise racist speech. It obviously shows up its speaker as an obnoxious fool.
January 17, 2015 at 9:19 pm
Anton,
I think the following explains their position clearly enough
http://www.secularism.org.uk/freedom-of-expression.html
Peter
January 17, 2015 at 9:40 pm
Looks fine to me.
January 19, 2015 at 11:09 pm
Whether or not the first group is smaller than the second, the first has more political power.
Brigitte Bardot has been repeatedly hauled before French courts for speaking out – without any call for violence – about the growing influence of Islam in France.
Charlie Hebdo had been taken to court for much the same in the past.
Elizabeth Sabaditsch Wolff was convicted of the same in Austria in 2011.
Geert Wilders fought a lengthy and expensive court case in the Netherlands under hate speech regulations.
A man in the NE of England was jailed for publicly burning a Quran a year or two ago. it was his own property; he committed violence against nobody, stole nothing.
Street preachers are regularly hauled before English courts for reading out from the Bible lists of acts categorised as sinful that include homosexual behaviour. I know two personally. There is no incitement to violence whatsoever.
This highly incomplete list should persuade you that, unhappily, there is not freedom of speech in Europe, and that the attitude that one should be willing to accept peaceable criticism of one’s own views and deeds in order to be able to peaceably criticise the views and deeds of others has been lost.
January 20, 2015 at 10:05 am
Phillip, the point is that laws exist in those countries that preclude free speech. Otherwise those cases couldn’t have happened at all. Such laws have a chilling effect on peaceable public speech, and the fact that Europe has freer speech than many places is no consolation to its citizens, who have less free speech than formerly. Those are merely the higher-profile cases. Unless supporters of free speech lose complacency and push back against political correctness then it will get worse.
January 20, 2015 at 11:13 am
Actually there is sufficient deterrence against crying Fire in a crowded theatre from the likelihood of being held responsible for subsequent injuries.
The libel laws to which you implicitly refer are a difficult area.
“the examples you mention shouldn’t have occurred, but this does not mean that there is no free speech in the countries concerned, but rather that it is too restricted.”
Agreed. The point I am trying to make to you is that the problem is getting worse. Reportedly Sweden has just passed a law criminalising peaceable criticism of its immigration policies:
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.122/sweden-passes-law-to-criminalize-any-criticism-of-immigration.html
Liberal democracy my ass!
January 20, 2015 at 12:45 pm
Phillip I agree with much of that, but I don’t seem to be able to convince you that there is a major battle to maintain free speech going on now in many European countries.
January 20, 2015 at 12:50 pm
Under EU Law, if I criticise Swedish immigration policy in a bar in France then can I be extradited to Sweden and put on trial?
This is a binary question; no guesses please.
January 20, 2015 at 2:18 pm
Phillip,
The length of your reply is why I asked for a Yes or a No!
Here’s why I believe it might be Yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Arrest_Warrant
But i’d like to know.
January 19, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Phillip, FGM is common in Islam because there is a hadith (a tradition about Muhammad) in which he is said to have instructed a circumciser of women: “Do not cut severely, as that is better for a woman and more desirable for her husband” (Sunan of Abu Dawoud, bk. 41, statement 5251). Muslims categorise hadiths according to how reliable they are considered to be, and this one is not accepted by all Muslims which explains the extremely variable FGM statistics across Muslim countries. Nevertheless, although the practice pre-dated Islam, and continues today among some traditional pagan peoples, this hadith has made Islam a major driver of the practice.
January 20, 2015 at 10:18 am
The covenant of circumcision started with Abraham long before Moses. And of course it was standard practice in arid sandy areas long before that.
Re your first paragraph, Western countries today are secular democracies and I am Christian. So I lobby for those laws that I wish to see by using secular arguments. I find it possible to give public secular arguments that complement any private religious motivations I have, so this is not a problem for me. Thomas Aquinas demonstrated this complementarity 750 years ago.
January 20, 2015 at 7:51 pm
In my experience such groups are too easily hijacked by more aggressive types. The policy on free speech seems fine (if applied to everyone) but I am more dubious by the policy on education. Excluding religious groups from schools, even as volunteers, seems discrimination based on faith. If evangelicals are excluded from schools (and not just running them, but any activity!), shouldn’t secularists be as well? Who defines these limits to personal freedom, and which opinions are acceptable and which are not? Who is allowed to teach? I don’t know the NSS but experience with one other organization makes me cautious. Tolerance can easily become limited to people you agree with.
You advocate excluding bishops from the house of Lords. That seems to miss the heart of the issue. This house is non elected but consists largely of political and business appointees. Is it really an improvement to throw out those bishops? Do you trust the rest more? Having rules on who should be there seems not a bad thing to me. Opening this up to other major groups, religious and other, seems a good direction. Removing bishops for the crime of their faith is superficial. (How about lord Sachs?) I have no national voting rights in the UK (just the right to pay tax) so probably should stay out of this!
January 20, 2015 at 9:26 pm
I read only the free speech policies of the NSS. I know enough about some of its other activities for me not to wish to consider joining. I believe that Christians should be in politics as individuals wherever possible, but the church as a body should not be. When the latter happens we get the horrors of the mediaeval church, for instance.