At the altar of non-belief: philosopher Alain de Botton proposes a temple for atheists

An artist's impression of Alain de Botton's "Temple to Perspective

Alain de Botton has been accused of many things – of being superficial, self-absorbed and most recently (by Terry Eagleton) "banal" – but no one would call him stupid. The PR campaign for his latest book Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, is a case in point. To accompany the book’s publication he has launched a campaign to build a “£1 million atheist temple” in the City of London, dedicated to the wonders of the evolution. It sounds rather nice – a 46 metre narrowing tower (De Botton himself refers to it as "A Temple to Perspective") with a roof open to the sky, with layers of fossil-studded rock representing the different eras of the earth’s life, ending at the ground with a wafer-thin strip of gold depicting the infinitesimally short span of human life on the planet.

De Botton, who has some previous motivating property developers to invest, claims he has already raised half the money, but, more importantly for the sale of his new book, he has raised the ire of Richard Dawkins and the interest of the media. According to today’s Guardian, Dawkins is appalled at the idea, and would prefer to see the money sunk into his (not entirely uncontroversial) idea of secular schooling. It was also dismissed by Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association, who said humanists can get their sense of awe and wonder from art, theatre and long walks in the country, thanks very much.

Some on the other side are not happy either: Rev Katharine Rumens, rector of St Giles' Cripplegate church, in Barbican, near where the temple is likely to be located, suggested that it would lack the sense of community of a church and wouldn't really speak to the human condition. However, media vicar George Pitcher welcomed the move as offering a more positive form of atheism than that represented by Dawkins.

All in all a perfect strategy. Reject God and piss of Dawkins? Check. Have a groovy picture and a slick website? Check. A million quid to chuck in the headline? Check. Stoking the embers of the debate over modern architecture, and available for comment at short notice? Check and check. Which is probably why every newspaper appears to have run with the story, no doubt the TV news shows will follow suit, and Hamish Hamilton will be licking their chops.

I interviewed De Botton at length last week for the next issue of new Humanist (out Feb 16). No spoilers, but I’ll say this: he’s a smart guy.

A giant Jesus for London?

Here's an idea sure to divide opinion – the Camden New Journal reports that there are plans on the table to erect a giant statue of Jesus Christ, evoking Brazil's iconic Christ The Redeemer statue, on North London's Primrose Hill to mark the end of the 2012 Olympics and the transferral of host city status to Rio de Janeiro.

The proposal has not yet been reviewed by the local planning department but, according to the New Journal, a London-based planning consultancy working with the Brazilian Tourist Board recently sent an email "to a handful of Primrose Hill residents" informing them of the plan and requesting secrecy in order to retain "a 'wow' factor" for Londoners and “the world’s media" when it is unveiled at the end of the games.

Opinion among those interviewed by the New Journal is divided between those who wouldn't mind if it was temporary and a local councillor who says it "sounds a bit like some marketing brainstorm" and who thinks the planners "need to get some more original ideas". But the religious nature of the project has also attracted the attention of secularists, who question the wisdom of erecting a giant symbol of Christianity above the London skyline. In a statement on its website, the National Secular Society's president Terry Sanderson said:

"The Olympic Games is supposed to unite people of all creeds and cultures through sport. Introducing something as blatantly sectarian as this would completely go against the spirit of the games and be a kind of triumphalist statement about Christianity. It is a very bad idea and must be kicked into touch immediately."

So what do you think? Could London do without a Saviour lording it over its population, or is it time our decadent capital city acquired some new religious iconography and climbed on board with JC? Answers in the comments.

Get the New Humanist app for iPhone and iPad

We're very pleased to announce that the New Humanist app for iPhone and iPad is now available for download from the iTunes store.

The iPad/iPhone edition is available as a free download and brings you selected pages from the latest issue as soon as it is published. You can subscribe within the application for full access, which brings you every page of the issue and a searchable archive back to March 2006. A subscription costs £1.99 per month or £9.99 per year.

The app, produced by our digital edition provider Exact Editions, has the following features:

• Swipe or tap the page edges to flip to next/previous page.
• Use the animated thumbnail view to flick through the pages.
• Pinch or double-tap pages to zoom.
• Switch between single or double-page view (iPad only).
• Search the current issue or (paid-only) the archive.
• Tap any page links to web sites, email addresses, phone numbers or maps.
• Tap contents-page links to jump to a particular article.
• Sync back issues to your device for offline reading (requires wi-fi).
• Network connection required otherwise.

We recommend first running the app within a wi-fi area so it can sync the latest issue to your device - after that you can use it anywhere. Subscribers will receive new issues automatically via Newsstand.

For those asking about other platforms, including Andorid, we do hope to be able to offer a branded app for those in the not-too-distant future. But in the meantime, a regular digital subscription will give you access via the Exact Editions Android app for just £9.99 per year.

Jesus & Mo cartoon censorship controversy reaches LSE

The Jesus & Mo cartoon strip that has sparked controversy
at London's universities

Following the recent controversy surrounding the use of a frame from the satirical cartoon strip Jesus & Mo by the atheist student society at University College London, it has now emerged that the cartoons are at the centre of a similar dispute at the London School of Economics.

The Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society at LSE (LSEU ASH) reproduced the Jesus & Mo cartoons on their Facebook page following news of the controversy at UCL, and were yesterday instructed by their student union (LSEU) to remove them. In a statement released on the union website, LSEU explained the decision:

"On Monday 16th January it was brought to our attention via an official complaint by two students that the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society posted cartoons, published by the UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, depicting the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus "sitting in a pub having a pint" on their society Facebook page. Upon hearing this, the sabbaticals officers of the LSESU ensured all evidence was collected and an emergency meeting with a member of the Students' Union staff was called to discuss how to deal with the issue. During this time, we received over 40 separate official complaints from the student body, in addition to further information regarding more posts on the society Facebook page.

It was decided that the President and other committee members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society would be called for an informal meeting to explain the situation, the complaints that had been made, and how the action of posting these cartoons was in breach of Students' Union policy on inclusion and the society's constitution. This meeting took place on Friday 20th January at 10.30am. The society agreed to certain actions coming out of the meeting and these were discussed amongst the sabbatical team. In this discussion it was felt that though these actions were positive they would not fully address the concerns of those who had submitted complaints. Therefore the SU will now be telling the society that they cannot continue these activities under the brand of the SU.

The LSE Students’ Union would like to reiterate that we strongly condemn and stand against any form of racism and discrimination on campus. The offensive nature of the content on the Facebook page is not in accordance with our values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. There is a special need in a Students' Union to balance freedom of speech and to ensure access to all aspects of the LSESU for all the ethnic and religious minority communities that make up the student body at the LSE."

The atheist society have decided not to comply, and have appealed to the union to withdraw the instruction. In a statement on behalf of the society's committee, LSEU ASH president Chris Moos said:

"There are no reasonable grounds for the LSESU’s instruction because we are in no way violating their policies or byelaws. The cartoons on our Facebook page criticise religion in a satirical way and we totally reject any claim that their publications could constitute any sort of harassment or intimidation of Muslims or Christians.

That there was no deliberate intention to offend is illustrated by the fact that the cartoons were posted only on the LSESU ASH page and not in other spaces. But even if some people are offended, offence is not a sufficient reason for certain artistic and satirical forms of expression to be prohibited. A university should hold no idea sacred and be open to the critiquing of all ideas and ideologies.

We want to engage with LSESU and work with them further to resolve the situation, but not in a way that jeopardises the legitimate criticism or satirising of religious and other beliefs. That is a freedom which is indispensable."

As was the case with UCL, the LSEU ASH have received the backing of both the British Humanist Association and the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS), which have announced that they will conduct an investigation into the handling of free speech issues by student unions, with a view to providing guidance to student atheist, secular and humanist societies.

"There has been too much conflation recently of being offended and being intimidated, with the implication being that they are equivalent," explained Jenny Bartle, president of the AHS. "Such an assumption is a potential threat to free speech and free debate, and we are concerned to address this underlying problem in the long term."

A demonstration in defence of free expression, prompted by the student controversies and organised One Law For All, is set to take place in London on 11 February.

Nadine Dorries withdraws her bill proposing abstinence-based sex education for girls

Nadine Dorries MP

Conservative MP (and New Humanist Bad Faith Award winner) Nadine Dorries' Ten Minute Rule bill proposing abstinence-based sex education for girls, which passed a first reading in the House of Commons last year, was due for its second reading in Parliament today. Campaigners for comprehensive sex education, including humanists, feminists and sexual health charities, had gathered outside Parliament this morning to hold a demo against the bill, but as they did, news emerged that the proposed legislation had not appeared on the Commons order of business for the day. Here's what the author of the Guardian's Politics Live blog, Andrew Sparrow, has to say:

"10.54am: Nadine Dorries's sex education bill has been removed from today's order paper – meaning it will not now be debated today, the Commons information office have confirmed to me.

It may be debated another day, but for now it has been "removed from effective orders", a spokeswoman told me.

The bill is likely to have been withdrawn by Dorries herself. "No one would be able to remove a private members' bill without the permission of a member."

I am just going to ring Dorries's office to find out why she has withdrawn the bill."

In an update a few minutes later, Sparrow added that the person he spoke to at Dorries' office could not explain why the bill had been withdrawn.

So we don't know for sure that the bill has been permanently withdrawn, but if it has it's a victory for comprehensive sex education in our schools, as the British Humanist Association's Andrew Copson points out:

"If the Bill had been debated, it would not have been passed, and there was always a good chance that there would not be enough parliamentary time for it even to be debated. It would be nice to think that Mrs Dorries withdrew her Bill because she at last realised that  abstinence 'education' is a dangerously unrealistic and irresponsible proposition for our young people; in the more probable eventuality that her decision was guided by politics rather than a change of heart, we will all certainly need to remain on our guard against such foolish proposals in the future. The fact that the Bill ever got tabled for a second reading at all has given all those who care about good quality, comprehensive sex and relationships education to say so, and take a stand against the sort of un-evidenced, ideologically motivated policy making that the Bill represented."

UCL atheist society issue statement over ongoing Jesus & Mo cartoon row

The controversy over the UCL Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society's use of an image from the cartoon Jesus & Mo, which I reported on last week, has made it into the national press today following news that the society's president, Robbie Yellon, has stepped aside.

The society's new president, Michael Thor, has issued a statement regarding the situation:

"Since the cartoon image was put up in the event page of our pub social, many things have happened very quickly. First came the complaints, the Union complaints, our petition, then the counter-petition. These events were reported by various articles and blog posts, and it doesn’t seem to stop. We are continuously being contacted to make a statement but we have a society to run and lives to get on with so we're making a statement now to mark an end to this immediate situation.

"What makes a student society is the ability to be open, foster community and - most importantly - encourage critical debate. The principal objective of our Society is to maintain a sceptical view on everything, be it astrology, numerology or theism. I am personally a strong believer of freedom of speech and I believe that it is a vitally important freedom to maintain. Freedom of speech guarantees the space for  intellectual discourse, and in that space, people should be able to say what they want, without being afraid of censorship on the grounds of offence.

"By our publication of this image there was no intention to offend and I am sorry to hear that people took personal offence when viewing it. However, "offence" was certainly inadequate grounds for the removal of the image to be requested by the UCL Union. Their policies need clarification to prevent this same situation from arising in the future.

"In the meantime, I am looking forward to maintaining the positive spirit and riveting discussions that characterise our Society on campus, both within our group and with other societies."

Meanwhile, Jenny Bartle, president of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS), emphasised the need for student unions to uphold the right to free speech:

"Our members support the freedom of speech of religious societies on campus and we would hope for the same respect from them. Our members are also committed to working with their Student Unions to secure good relations between students with different beliefs. However, Unions should must also understand that the giving of offence does not constitute harassment and when it is the incidental by-product of legitimate activities, offence is not a good reason to inhibit free expression."

This was reiterated by Andrew Copson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association (BHA):

"No one has the right not to have the most profound beliefs challenged – and in Universities it should surely be encouraged. We will continue to support our affiliate society at UCL as they get back to business as usual, but the use of the grounds of offence to target non-religious student groups in particular is something that we will continue to monitor." 

The story was reported today on both the BBC and Daily Mail websites, with both stories featuring a quote from Adam Walker, spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association, which has objected to the use of the cartoon by the atheist society. Walker explained that the organisation will continue to protest over the matter:

"The principle is more important than who is being attacked – this time it is Muslims and Christians but in the future it could be atheists themselves.

"There is no need to print these things other than to cause offence and history has told us that these things cause offence."

"I wouldn't say we're specifically pursuing UCL atheist society, it's more about the broader principle."

 The stories also include a statement from the UCL student union (UCLU):

"The atheist society has agreed they will take more consideration when drawing up publicity for future events.

"The society was asked to remove the image because UCLU aims to foster good relations between different groups of students and create a safe environment where all students can benefit from societies regardless of their religious or other beliefs."

The manner in which this story has developed over the past week suggests that there is a degree of pressure on atheist, humanist and secular societies at universities to moderate and censor what they do in order to avoid causing offence to religious groups. Given that such censorship would clearly undermine the status of universities as forums for the free exchange of ideas, the ability of student atheist societies to express themselves freely is something humanists, secularists, and indeed anyone concerned with the right to free speech, will need to monitor closely in the coming months.

South African church billboard banned following atheist complaint

The offending billboard displayed by River's Church in Sandton, South Africa

I was interested to read that a church in South Africa has been ordered to remove a billboard about non-believers following a complaint from an atheist to the country's Advertising Standards Authority.

The billboard depicted a man, apparently missing that crucial section of the head that houses the brain, holding his temples in deep thought (lack of brain notwithstanding), alongside a line by the English poet Francis Thompson: “An atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident.”

In his complaint to the ASA, Eugene Gerber argued that the billboard, displayed outside River’s Church in Sandton, was offensive:

"In essence, the complainant submitted that the billboard offends him as an atheist as he does not consider his existence to be an accident. Secondly, the depiction of a man with an empty head communicates that atheists are stupid."

The ASA upheld the complaint, and explained in the ruling how it determines what can and cannot be considered offensive in relation to religion and belief:

"... when advertising with somewhat of a religious connotation or connection does not pass comment or judgement, or belittles a basic belief or tenet of any specific religion or belief system, it would not likely be regarded as offensive to that particular religion."

However:

"the proverbial line is drawn when advertising propagates statements that undermine the dignity and constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious beliefs of any identifiable sector of society."

 By this logic, the River's Church billboard was deemed to be offensive to atheists because:

"The quote [...] suggests that atheists believe that their existence is a result of an unforeseen and unplanned event. The use of the word believe further strengthens this communication.

Furthermore, the visuals of a man holding the sides of his empty head suggest that atheists are 'empty headed' or lack intelligence, presumably as a result of the above 'belief' communicated. This is something that would likely offend all atheists in a manner that the Code seeks to prevent."

A story like this is interesting, because in general we're far more used to seeing religious complaints of this nature than we are atheist complaints. I was alerted to it by Tauriq Moosa, a South African blogger, and he has some good points to make about how it relates to free speech, arguing that atheists should be against such complaints because "it concerns how we defend and articulate free speech and expression, since, by definition, free speech only make sense if you can defend the right of your worst enemies to express themselves too.

It reminds me of something that happened here in the UK at the time of the Atheist Bus Campaign, when the evangelical Christian Party launched a counter-campaign with bus ads saying "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian party and enjoy your life". Large numbers of atheists complained to the British ASA about this, with some arguing that it was a claim that cannot be substantiated and other arguing that it was offensive, making it the country's fourth most complained about advertisement of all time.

Of course, those bus complainants were perfectly within their rights to complain if they wanted, and the same goes for the individual who complained about the billboard in South Africa, but, in my view, if atheists wish to stand at the forefront of defending free speech, such action isn't exactly helpful. If atheists want to be able to say what they like about what others believe, they have to accept that religious people can do they same. In fact, they should welcome it – it's called free debate, and it's actually quite a straightforward way of maintaining a free society.

Gove's Bible for schools plan stalls, becomes confusing

Considering that he is man in charge of one of the most crucial government budgets, and a key member of a government implementing the deepest public spending cuts in a generation, the education secretary Michael Gove seems to have a bizarre enthusiasm for publicly-funded projects that can at best be described as ill-judged.

Earlier this week, Gove hit the headlines for apparently suggesting that the best way to provide opium for the unwashed masses give the nation a lift in tough economic times was to spend £60 million on a new yacht for a billionaire landowner. This followed the recent news that the education secretary ("My department has found itself in an exceptional financial situation as a result of the need to focus on reducing the national deficit and to do so as quickly as possible" - June 2011) had devised a plan to send every school in the country a copy of the King James Bible, complete with his own foreword.

Sadly, though, today's Guardian reports that the Bible plan has stalled, with Gove having been told, apparently for the second time in a week, that he can not use public money to fund the project. According to the report, the Bibles have already been printed, but will remain in storage in a warehouse abroad until Gove can find private sponsorship for the plan.

However, the Department for Education has denied that this is the case, saying that they do not know whether the Bibles have been printed or where they might be if they have, and have reassured schools, which currently do not possess any copies of the Bible, that the delivery will go ahead before Easter as planned. One source has even told the Guardian that the costs will be covered by public money, if a private sponsor cannot be found.

So to summarise, those two conflicting accounts mean it's not entirely clear what's happening with Gove's Bibles. Have they been printed? Will they be delivered? It seems you'll need to stay tuned for updates in this gripping will-they-won't-they saga.

Great new series of faith-themed fiction from Mark Say

Nice to see that Duck in a Bottle, a short story by Mark Say has been chosen as story of the week over at the story and poetry site ABC Tales. Readers may remember the story Mint on the Breath by Mark that we published in 2010, about the terrible consequences of abuse suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest. Duck in a Bottle pivots on a Buddhist parable, and together with Mint on the Breath and several other stories (including a brilliant dysopian tale showing what would happen if rationalists took over the UK) will be published as a collection Perversities of Faith, later this year. You can hear Mark read from a new story at the ABC event in Central London on Wednesday 18 Jan. Keep your eyes on this one.

Student-organised talk on Sharia law at the University of London cancelled following threats of violence

Yesterday evening, a talk on "Sharia Law and Human Rights" organised by the Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society at Queen Mary, University London, had to be cancelled after threats of violence. The talk was due to be given by Anne Marie Waters of the One Law For All campaign, which campaigns against the use of Sharia in the UK.

The president of the society describes what happened:

"Five minutes before the talk was due to start a man burst into the room holding a camera phone and for some seconds stood filming the faces of all those in the room. He shouted ‘listen up all of you, I am recording this, I have your faces on film now, and I know where some of you live’, at that moment he aggressively pushed the phone in someone’s face and then said ‘and if I hear that anything is said against the holy Prophet Muhammad, I will hunt you down.’ He then left the room and two members of the audience applauded.

"The same man then began filming the faces of Society members in the foyer and threatening to hunt them down if anything was said about Muhammad, he added that he knew where they lived and would murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, seemingly there to support him. We were told by security to stay in the Lecture Theatre for our own safety. On arriving back in the room I became aware that the doors that opened to the outside were still open and that people were still coming in. Several eye witnesses reported that when I was in the foyer a group of men came through the open doors, causing a disruption and making it clear that the room could not be secured. Unfortunately, the lack of security in the lecture theatre meant we and the audience had to leave and a Union representative informed the security that as students’ lives had been threatened there was no way that the talk could go ahead.

"This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate, at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate. Only two complaints had been made to the Union prior to the event, and the majority of the Muslim students at the event were incredibly supportive of it going ahead. These threats were an aggressive assault on freedom of speech and the fact that they led to the cancellation of our talk was severely disappointing for all of the religious and non-religious students in the room who wanted to engage in debate."

The police were contacted about the incident and the Society is waiting to hear how their investigation will proceed.

Jenny Bartle, president of the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS), commented:

"More and more atheist, humanist and secular student societies are forming on campuses across the UK and we deserve the same levels of respect as any other community. Our members have as much right as anyone else to participate in the free inquiry, discussion and debate which should exist in universities. The threats our members have received are both troubling and repugnant and we reject all attempts to counter debate with violence. At the same time, we welcome the support from across faiths that many of our societies experience on campus to help us secure the freedom to have our say, just as we support them in having the freedom to have theirs."

 Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association gave support to the society:

"The attempted intimidation that this society has experienced is shocking. Free expression, the free exchange of ideas and free debate are hallmarks of an open society; violence and the threat of violence should never be allowed to compromise that, especially in our universities. We will work to support our affiliate society at Queen Mary’s and look forward to a speedy police investigation and resolution of this case."