Christianity Under Attack

As I am writing this it is around 10pm on a Friday night. Yet the morning headlines have already been written. In particular, the Daily Mail has offered us something quite profound for the masses to get hysterical over.

The headline has been generated because of a landmark ruling in the High Court. The report is here. Here is an excerpt...

"Atheist former councillor Clive Bone started the case against Bideford town council in July 2010, claiming he had been ‘disadvantaged and embarrassed’ when religious prayers were recited at formal meetings.

Backed by the National Secular Society, he insisted that the ‘inappropriate’ practice breached the human right to freedom of conscience and discriminated against non-believers, making them feel ‘uncomfortable’.

The society claimed council meetings should be ‘equally welcoming to everyone in the local community’ and should therefore be ‘religiously-neutral’."

The emphasis is mine but I see in no way how this position could discriminate against any person. Religiously neutral. It protects every viewpoint. No prominence of one religion over another. Sounds like a perfect set of circumstances to thrive in.

"Communities Secretary Eric Pickles described the ruling as ‘very illiberal’.

He said: ‘The ruling is surprising and disappointing. Christianity plays an important part in the culture, heritage and fabric of our nation."

It is not illiberal... it is religion neutral. That Christianity is part of our heritage means nothing whatsoever. It was part of the culture of the British Empire to utilise slavery but it would have been a crass argument for its retention pre-Abolition.

"Harry Greenway, a former Tory MP and ex-chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast, said: ‘If people do not want to attend prayers of this nature, they can stay away instead of meddling and busybodying with other people’s beliefs.

‘Non-believers are not harassed in this way by believers. Why cannot the non-believers show the same kind of tolerance?’"

Perhaps Harry Greenway might like to read the paper he is being quoted in which reported that a street preacher got off scot-free after screaming out pious abuse at a gay couple. Yup, the believers really keep their faith to themselves.

The trouble is, people like Greenway always play the victimisation card. The trouble is that the most oppressed minority in the history of mankind has always been those without faith who have had to see societies ripped apart over arguments about whose god is better or whose holy book contains the right information.

So no, Christianity is not under attack. It is simply having to conform with a modern and progressive society which states that all religions are equal. It might be a painful process but it is necessary.

Only people with faith could suggest that their own religion deserves prominence. No Muslim, in their right mind, would argue that a Hindu society deserved their religious customs to be observed because of time honoured traditions. The same applies here in Britain.

The curious case of Peter Vardy

Back in December 2010 a guy called 'Sir' Peter Vardy won an apology from the Tribune Magazine after issuing libel proceedings; damages were paid and therefore the case is considered to be settled out of court. It's not a binding precedent and there are a couple of inferences that can be made about the Tribune's decision to settle:

1. The Tribune were in the right but couldn't afford the short term legal costs in defending the claim and thus it was easier to put an end to the situation now and let others make their own mind up on the merits of the case (possible)
2. The Tribune were wholly wrong with their allegations and therefore took the quick route out of extended proceedings (likely)

Peter Vardy was recorded in an interview saying this:

"He told how he has been “saddled with this unwarranted and wholly untrue” Creationist label for many years, finally losing patience when the accusation was repeated in an article in October 2009 by Tyneside author Ed Waugh."

"Yesterday, after winning his case in London, he said: “I felt forced to take this action in the High Court of Justice to set the record straight and finally lay the matter to rest."

“These allegations were not based on any fact and have been extremely damaging. The court action reflects the gravity of the matter and the seriously damaging effect that such untruths can cause.”

BBC News also reported the settlement:

In a statement, Sir Peter who was knighted for services to education, said: "I have been saddled with this unwarranted and wholly untrue 'creationist' label for many years.

"I felt forced to take this action in the High Court of Justice to set the record straight and finally lay the matter to rest."

Now, if a person had a vested interest (just so happens) in proving that calling someone a 'creationist' is considered pejorative they might be inclined to use Peter Vardy's case as an example of how 'damaging' such an allegation could be.

On the basis of the articles they might feel that they can prove their case to such an extent that Peter Vardy's own words could be used? I mean, the articles above clearly infer that Peter Vardy 'won' his case for being called a 'creationist' and that the matter was "laid to rest."

I cannot work out whether Vardy was being economical with the truth or whether it is a case of shoddy reporting. Because the actual case itself, in which an open statement was read out in court and contains a statement that the Tribune accepts that Peter Vardy is not a creationist, states nothing about the claim being about the private beliefs of Peter Vardy and nor considers any allegations about him being a creationist.

So why is the case seemingly referred to as a "win" for Vardy in dealing with the Creationist tag?

Firstly, Peter Vardy is a creationist and I'll explain why I think so:

*ads removed and spliced to read into a single jpeg (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationist)

The dictionary reference contains all of the information I need to make the claim that someone is a creationist. There may be other phrases which work in tandem with the term creationist but it all reduces down to one element; the belief that human beings were created by another being as opposed to a naturalistic process.

This is useful too:

"The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says the term "creationism" is used for the doctrine that the world is created. "Young earth creationists" believe in the literal word of Genesis: that God created the universe in six days. Critics say this dates Earth to younger than 10,000 years. "Old earth creationists" say God created the universe by evolutionary means."


Any person, organisation, charity that suggests that the biblical account of creation is correct would fit the the definition of being called a Christian creationist. There are different degrees of course, as with political leanings, but there tends to be a one size fits all category for believing the world is created and creationist fits; for what else could it be called???

So why do I think Peter Vardy fits the definition above?

In an interview here, Peter Vardy says the following:

Another article considers quotes from the head of the Vardy’s Emmanuel Schools Trust:

Also relevant is an article in the Guardian who ran a statement from a local council who conduct OFSTED inspections at Vardy's schools:

"Alternative theories" - I love that phrase. But it's nonsense. The only theories that should be taught are ones which have scientific and verifiable evidence. There is a place for religious creationism and that's in the RE classes. And I suspect that this is where the bulk of any creationist education or story telling takes place anyway (I think that is right to say for all schools, not just limited to Vardy's).

But it's a natural position to notice the contradiction of teaching science in the morning and wooky woo in the afternoon.

I do wonder what other alternative theories are credible enough to fit into the masterplan though? Japanese vomit gods might have a hard time being accepted...

Anyway, I've digressed enough.

I think it's clear that Peter Vardy is indeed a Creationist based on his own words, the destination of his generous funds, the words of the head of his school trust and the comments by Middlesbrough Council that they understand that alternative theories are discussed which, by deductive reasoning, are more likely to be the Christian theories than the Japanese spunking gods myth

But the apology from the Tribune says: "We accept that Sir Peter Vardy is not a creationist". And the interviews conducted make it seem as if he feels exonerated in being called a creationist and thus has a libel case victory to back it up. Now again this could be down to shoddy reporting, and I think it is, but the point remains as to what the open statement from the court actually said because this contains all of the grounds upon which he brought action and won by default (i.e. the Tribune gave up rather than a judgement being given).

I'm a reader of the Sensuous Curmudgeon and even they issued an apology based on the reports. This is no criticism of anyone suckered in by the reports and the fact that those reports were accompanied by the idea that Peter Vardy succeeded in court would have caused people to take a step back and not inflame the situation further.

However, I have read the open statement made in court and all it says on Peter Vardy's personal beliefs as follows:

"They also accept that Sir Peter is not a creationist, and still less has sought to advance the teaching of creationism by means of the sponsorship of education in the UK."

I do not know what the Particulars of Claim stated. But it would have been strange for it to have included a request for the Defendant to accept that Peter Vardy is not a creationist considering the volume of evidence that could be found which would support that conclusion. Therefore I think that the comment above was simply made as part of the settlement and was never part of the original proceedings. It was sort of the icing on the cake for Peter Vardy in having this read out in court and as part of an apology.

This leaves any rational person with the comments that Peter Vardy has made over a number of years with either the impression above - that it was an icing on the cake throwaway comment - or that Peter Vardy has moved considerably from the position he had taken with respect to the bible and that his entire philosophy on creation has changed.

Coupled with him being called a creationist for years and years without issuing a single claim (to my knowledge) it seems reasonable that the action taken by Peter Vardy was taken because of something else.

Something which couldn't be proven under the current defamation laws in the UK.

Well the open statement for the court reveals exactly why Vardy took this action in the first place:

Note the wording from the counsel representing Peter Vardy: "None of these allegations is correct".

Nothing, in the sentences above, refers to Peter Vardy allegedly being called a creationist. I suspect that the original article more than likely made this allegation but it was not part of the open statement denial anyway which leads me to believe that either the article didn't mention it or it was a point which Vardy was not able to proceed with. In other words, he 'won' his case on points which the burden of proof would have been too difficult for the Tribune to have coped with. 

My opinion is that the libel action was brought because of these allegations only based on the open statement:

1. The article claimed that ‘the Vardy Foundation, led by Chrisitan Evangelical Peter Vardy, which... controls three State Schools with the fourth on the way’ was imposing ‘pseudoscience’ ‘again on children whose education is paid for by taxpayers’ money’.
2. The article also claimed that; ‘By virtue of donating £2million of the £22million it cost the taxpayer to build an academy, the Vardy Foundation can impose its fundamentalist beliefs on children through the science curriculum’.
3. The article asserted that by virtue of the funding provided by the Vardy Foundation; ‘children in State Schools, funded by taxpayers’ money, are being taught in biology lessons that evolution is as much a ‘theory’ as creationism and that everything was designed by a God creator as stated literally in Genesis’.

I argue that the reason the Tribune settled was because they had implied in their article that taxpayer's money was being spent supporting a school peddling creationism... had implied that children were being indoctrinated with creationist dogma and that the literal account of Genesis was correct (a Young Earth Creationism position and considered the more 'fundamentalist' approach)... 

...and the Tribune could not prove beyond any doubt that these allegations were correct. 

This is because, under UK defamation law, there is a reversed burden of proof making it a difficult and costly process. Hopefully, the Libel Reform Campaign will get this ridiculous situation sorted out in good time but I for one do not blame the Tribune for folding at this stage considering that costs can reach into six figures for the simplest of trials.

However, as above, the open statement did not deal with allegations that Peter Vardy was a creationist; the acceptance that he wasn't a creationist simply made up part of the apology that the Tribune made and presumably a condition of such a settlement. Why would Peter Vardy need the apology to make it clear that he is not a creationist considering that in all of his previous public statements the opposite would be true?

I think it was a way of stifling further criticism and limiting debate. I can think of no other reason that could be taken as a serious argument. 

We know from his own words that he believes the bible is correct and that mankind was created by god. We know that his organisation promotes a 'Christian ethos'. We know that senior staff in his organisation are extremely vocal about their creationist principles and refutation of evolutionary theory.

We also know, from the open statement in court, that any allegation of Peter Vardy being a creationist was not denied. Read that again. It was NOT denied. Only the allegations which the Tribune could not prove were denied. For the reporter to have run the story at all would suggest that there was something in it. Some sort of mileage but that in the absence of fair and decent libel law such proofs would need to be so convincing that, in the end, the wick wasn't worth the candle.

Vardy is happy because he can continue doing... whatever it is he is doing... and with the kudos of an out of court settlement. 

Either way, the case is not a binding precedent, made no rulings on the meaning of the word creationism or creationist, made no adverse inferences about the state of play of creationism in the UK, considered no points of law about fair/honest comment (or indeed the truth) and was simply an exercise in using the crap defamation laws in the UK to stifle opinion.

So people might now be concerned about calling Peter Vardy a creationist. But, if he fits this definition then the rules of logic surely apply? If not, then the situation is an obscene and farcical one. However, with the Tribune caving in (rightly so in the current climate) and the reporting of the case people are concerned that they could get themselves into trouble.

The thing is, Peter Vardy has had plenty of opportunities to refute being called a creationist. The best opportunity came in then open statement for the court and no denial was made.

However, nothing was decided in law. And of course the right of reply remains open and invitations are made for either a counter statement or a concise explanation of why years of information which all point to Peter Vardy being a creationist are wrong or are no longer relevant owing to an 'evolution' of beliefs. For this could be the only explanation relied upon for why Peter Vardy would deny being a creationist.

So if Peter was considering taking action to right this alleged 'wrong' he needs to consider that the words in the past were either WRONG or are NO LONGER TRUE. I'm curious as to which one will be admitted to should he refute the creationist tag.

Until then, a person should be taken on their word and I would argue an honourable gentleman like Peter Vardy, should he have belief in the bible to the extent previously asserted, would be proud to believe in creation and thus not seek to deprive fair comment or honest opinion. I accept that he used to law to challenge allegations which couldn't be proven. No problem there and I have said nothing about those allegations. 

But I do think, based on his own words/actions that he is a creationist (whatever inferences other people make about that or for whatever consequences come for holding such beliefs)

We'll make you worship you damn heathens!

An article in the Guardian raises the important question why compulsory worship of a broadly Christian character still exists in the British state system?

Read that question again and then argue that we do not live in a semi-theocracy.

This brought to my mind a small dispute I had with my children's school when this letter was handed out to the parents:

I can vouch for the fact that those worship sessions are of a broadly Christian character as parents have been invited along to them for as long as I can remember. Hands together, eyes closed and "Amen" are not found outside of Christianity/Judaism are they? No; so the end credits are distinctly Christian then.

Anyway, the headteacher is concerned at the number of children collected early so that they do not have to sit through this compulsory sessions. In fact, she shouldn't be concerned at all because there is a "get out clause" in the Act where parents can remove their children.

But this comes at a cost according to the headteacher because she will subject them to an "embarrassing" ejection from the assembly while in progress spoiling the atmosphere for her sheep sheeple loyal adherents victims of brainwashing pupils.

The headteacher makes it clear, in no uncertain terms that in future, unless it is an emergency you may not collect your children unless you have prior agreement.

Parents may well think that the headteacher has the final say on the matter or be confused as to whether they are breaking the law in removing their child from compulsory worship.

Well their rights can be found here.

Under Section 71 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 you can withdraw your child from these 'compulsory' sessions.

And this is where the headteacher's letter completely falls flat on its face and demonstrates both the arrogance of religious belief and the deliberate misrepresentation misunderstanding of what the law states.

The sessions ARE NOT compulsory for the children to attend

It is only compulsory that the schools make the provision for the collective worship

Children are not bound to attend these collective worship sessions whatsoever.

EDIT:

Had to post this comment from Twitter:

UPDATE 03/10/11


I've been getting a bit of stick in some places by people who cannot be bothered to read the blog post properly.

I tend to find that it is those in foreign countries who cannot get their head's around the idea that schools with religious administrations in Britain receive government funding or that there is something called a "catchment area" which means you have to travel ridiculous distances (or jump through stupid hoops) to give your child a secular education.

Even so, the standard of my children's education is actually quite good. There is no need to remove them from the school disrupting their work, their friendships and their routine.

What this issue boils down to is the following:

1. A headteacher that has either misinterpreted or misrepresented the law.

2. That even if "collective worship" remained in force, then there should still be a provision within the school for children of no faith (or non-Christian faith) to go to during this period instead of them being led out of the actual assembly in an admittedly "embarrassing" fashion.

3. That the headteacher is a fruitcake.

4. That Atheists and Secularists can be fruitcakes too...

READ THE FUCKING BLOG POST PROPERLY!!!

That is all

Collective Worship Morons Out In Force

The hot potato topic right now in the world of theological nonsense is Collective Worship. If you have been following the news here in Britain you will know that:

"Almost two thirds of parents questioned said their child did not attend a form of communal worship at school, such as a Christian assembly. The duty on schools to provide a daily act of Christian worship dates back to 1944 but was strengthened in the 1988 education act."

It seems the furore, if we can even call it that, is the issue of Headteachers breaking the law in not ensuring that their assemblies are of a "broadly Christian character". It's all a red herring of course; it's a simple effect of the incompatibility of the Labour multi-cultural initiative and the CofE school system.

Back in 2004 it was revealed that 60% of school students at Sir John Cass Foundation and Red Coat Church of England secondary school in London's East End came from a Bangladeshi background. How can a law be expected to be enforced against people of a different religion?

More importantly, there seems to be a growing understanding of the irrelevancy of Christian dogma, and religion in general, in which the lawmakers need to take into account in amending the legislation.

I'll accept the very weak argument that exists that the original law was there to take into account the cultural significance of Christianity in Britain. I cannot accept, on any terms, that there continues to be a cultural reason why the law should prevail in its current form or in any form which recognises religion. I have to admit it would be amusing to see an assembly about the moral virtues provided by the Flying Spaghetti Monster though.

And the ridiculous thing is that if religion remained within the scope of the Act then assemblies on Pastafarianism would have to be accounted for.

And so we turn to the morons... as ever with this issue you get the odd nutjob preaching and pouting. I've assembled a few here from the Daily Fail Mail:

Good ole' Brother Anthony (I don't know him) feels that "virtually everyone can agree that the 10 Commandments... form the basis of any civilised society." 

Really? 

Take a look at the 10 Commandments... only 3, perhaps 4, would form the basis of any civilised society (I'll cover this another time). I suspect that Brother Anthony hasn't read them properly. But this ignorance is contagious...

It would be funny to hear a school assembly explaining how the first 3 commandments were designed with Yahweh in mind... this renders the commentators argument at the end that Christian values and the belief in god are not inseparable pretty much redundant. In teaching the Christian values, derived from the 10 commandments, they are effectively telling people their belief in other gods is wrong. I'm surprised other religious figures have not risen up against such inequality... or it might be that this would be like punching yourself in the face considering the proliferation of faith schools in Britain.

This person performs a double strawman in one sentence! Firstly, Sam Harris remarked that "Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

And how is "quality of life" and "Atheism" in any way linked in this context? Secular societies improve the quality of a persons life. But a "secular society" is not "Atheist" in this sense; it simply has no position on them at all. They are not even agnostic.

You can't tell that to people like Ed West who calls the National Secular Societies attempts to drive religion out of public life as "Atheist bigotry"... I'll have to dissect that nonsense another time?

Even Christianity Today acknowledges that "Highly secularized Scandinavian countries consistently rank high on international well-being and life-satisfaction indices... The world's great religions speak of caring for the sick, the poor, and the orphaned, and of practicing mercy and goodwill toward fellow humans, yet these traits are often more evident in the world's least religious nations."

British society does not seem to suffer considering the lack of belief in Zeus or Thor; neither should it suffer from the lack of belief in the Christian god. 

When you are in a theological debate like this, you tend to come across Pascals Wager - put simply, it's the "threat" (for want of a better word) that you'll be judged one day so you had better hedge your bets just in case.

It's such an infantile argument, I'll welcome any persons comment challenging me as to its usefulness in any debate. Just know that I have "plasma TV's" and "glorious modern technology" on my side.

This looks innocuous at first glance but I think it's the most incredulous, stupid, inane, tenuous and bullshittty of all comments I have read today.

Bear in mind the topic this person is commenting on - the law being broken by headteachers who refuse collective worship assemblies of a broadly Christian character - and you should see (hopefully) how mind numbingly stupid this person is.

In her words, "your children have a right to learn about god"; just so long as it's the Christian god referred to in the law yeah?

In any case, children do not have a right to learn about god. That's insane. It's like saying that they have a right to learn about Poseidon and Ananke and Pontus and Vishnu and... ad infinitum.

How many other gods do children have a "right to know about" from the recycling and refuse bins of religious history? I imagine if you taught children enough about Horus and Zoroaster, Mithras, Attis and Dionysus-Bacchus they might well leave their lessons thinking that Jesus was somehow a carbon copy of these other myths... and that wouldn't be no good for the CofE would it?

Actually, let's enforce collective worship and change the law so that every religion has to have a snippet read and in equal measures. 

We should have a fully secular society within around 5 - 15 years and a culture more adept at critical thinking.