Controversy over atheist billboards in New York

The two versions of the American Atheists' billboard

One of the leading US non-religious groups, American Atheists, has sparked controversy with a new billboard campaign aimed at Jewish and Muslim communities in the New York area.

The billboard, which reads "You know it's a myth and you have a choice", comes in two versions, one in Hebrew and English and one in Arabic and English. The Arabic version will be revealed in Paterson, New Jersey, which has a large Muslim population, while the Hebrew version was set to be unveiled in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, which is home to a large Hasidic Jewish population.

However, attempts to erect the Hebrew billboard failed when Kenny Stier, the landlord of the site where it was to be displayed, refused to allow its installation. According to The Brooklyn Paper, the president of American Atheists, David Silverman, claims that local rabbis used their influence to encourage the landlord to block its display, but Stier himself has refused to comment. The paper was able to obtain a comment from a local rabbi, David Niederman, who branded American Atheists "a group of crazies":

“They lost their purpose in life. They’re not even going to make a dent. It’s a disgrace. The name of god is very holy to us and to the whole world.”

Silverman, who is promoting the 24 March Reason Rally, which will see thousands of atheists gather in Washington DC to hear speakers and performers including Richard Dawkins, Taslima Nasrin and Tim Minchin, says he is disappointed with the landlord's decision, pointing out that the Hasidic community is "teeming with atheists" looking to break away from their religious backgrounds. The organisation has identified a new site for the Hebrew billboard, and will have it erected on Thursday.

Meanwhile, New York isn't the only area in which an American Atheists billboard is causing a stir. Last night, a billboard linking Christianity with slavery was vandalised in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The advert is said to have caused offence among member of the town's African-American community.

In defence of uncertainty

Richard Holloway

As the debate over gay marriage continues to rage, one thing that has characterised the religious statements against a change in the law, particularly the remarks of Cardinal Keith O'Brien at the weekend, is a sense of absolute certitude as to the wrongs that same-sex unions would represent.

Writing on the Guardian's Comment is Free, the former Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway, who has since become agnostic on matters of faith, suggests religious leaders could elicit more public sympathy by allowing a little doubt into their pronouncements:

"It is striking that when these otherwise kindly and even-tempered men clap on their mitres to address the nation, they lose not only their sense of humour, but all sense of proportion. This is one reason why many decent-minded people are turned off religion in our society, being so blinded by its exaggerated prejudices that they fail to recognise its many virtues."

There is, of course, plenty that non-religious observers will dispute in that statement (it's hard to picture Keith O'Brien as "kindly and even-tempered", for example), but for my own part I would agree that it would be refreshing to hear some doubt in the religious contributions to the big debates. Reading Holloway's piece, I was reminded of an article we published last year by Christopher Lane, which argued that atheists, along with the religious, should not be afraid of being uncertain:

"Doubt and its religious cousin agnosticism, a word rarely heard nowadays, may have fallen out of fashion, but they have much to teach us, despite the disdain of Richard Dawkins, who famously wrote in The God Delusion: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.” He also quotes approvingly Quentin de la Bédoyère, science editor of the Catholic Herald, who in 2006 wrote that the Catholic historian Hugh Ross Williamson respected firm religious belief and certain unbelief, but “reserved his contempt for the wishy-washy boneless mediocrities who flapped around in the middle.”

To see doubters and freethinkers such as Herbert Spencer, Leslie Stephen, George Eliot, Thomas Huxley (who coined the word “agnostic”) and Darwin himself mocked in this way, given their intense engagement with complex human issues, only highlights the boldness of their thinking and the intellectual hubris of today’s unbridled certainty. The stridency of both Dawkins and de la Bédoyère misses how these and other Victorian intellectuals saw doubt as a creative force – inseparable from belief, thought, and debate, and a much-needed antidote to fanaticism and zealotry."

Again, plenty to take issue with there, but nevertheless something to bear in mind amid the increasingly polarised public debates involving religion.

Infanticide debate: Moral philosophers need to defend their arguments, not hide behind 'thought experiments'

The debate over abortion, infanticide and academic freedom continues ... a quick recap. Following the publication of a paper by the Australian academics Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva called "After-birth abortion: Why Should The Baby Live?" in the Journal of Medical Ethics, The Sun ran with the headline "Slaughter newborn kids, say academics"  and anti-choice UK MP Nadine Dorries repeated her ridiculous slander that humanists support infanticide. We responded with this comment from philosophy lecturer John Appleby which defended the right of the authors to publish what was, he said, a thought experiment in moral philosophy, not a policy proposal.

Now Kenan Malik enters the fray with this characteristically thorough and well-argued piece on his blog. Malik defends the right of the academics to publish, but criticises those who have leapt to their defence, including John Appleby. The paper does not, he argues, despite the claims of the authors, read like a thought experiment: "Their argument," he writes "is part of a long-standing philosophical tradition that has pushed to break down traditional moral boundaries and done so for practical reasons. Peter Singer’s arguments, for instance, have transformed attitudes to animal rights over the past four decades, and helped shape contemporary debates on abortion and euthanasia." He goes on to point out several places in the paper where the authors do seem to be making clear practical proposals. Though he can understand why the authors chose to defend themselves, from vitriolic attack, by saying they were merely doing abstract thinking, Malik thinks this is very bad for both free speech and moral philosophy: "Moral philosophy is important, intellectually, socially, politically", he argues, and therefore should not be downgraded, especially by its practitioners, as merely abstract logical reasoning. And in terms of free speech "you must also accept responsibility for what you say. Otherwise free speech becomes a game rather than a political and social necessity."

Peter Singer himself has just broken ground on the issue, telling the Chronicle of Higher Education:

"The moral status of newborn infants is a real issue, and it is proper for academic journals to publish articles that, like this one, discuss it in a serious and well-reasoned manner. People who wish to defend the traditional view of the sanctity of all human life should respond to the authors’ arguments, not by mere abuse."

I hope Singer gets to read Malik's piece, which is a philosophically serious response to the kind of utilitarianism that Singer, and the paper's authors, represent. We'll keep our eye on this one.

Introducing the new atheist martyr... Miley Cyrus

Miley Cyrus

Be still my achey-breaky heart, we have a new atheist heroine, in the, ahem, divine form of Southern-fried popstril and film starlet Miley Cyrus aka Hannah Montana. According to this report she has enraged "the haters and her fans" alike by tweeting a photo of the theoretical physicist and prominent atheist Lawrence Krauss, alongside the following quote:

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than the atoms in your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about the universe.

You are all stardust.

You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements (the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and all the things that matter for evolution) weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in stars. So forget Jesus. Stars died so you could live."

Miley apparently thought this sentiment was "beautiful" thus revealing herself to be, in the eyes of her public, Satan and Richard Dawkins rolled into one. A torrent of hate from the haters followed. “You seriously believe that crap?" asked one Twitter follower. "It’s so ridiculously stupid. Go to hell.” “So are you no longer a Christian?" asked another "Forget Jesus??? Seriously? What has happened to you out there in the famous world? What????”

As her outraged fan highlights, Miley has a lot of questions to answer.

Letter against gay marriage to be read out in every Catholic church this Sunday

The Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nicholls,
head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales,
is a co-signatory of the letter

Following on from Cardinal Keith O'Brien's controversial remarks condemning proposals to legalise gay marriage, which he likened to legalising slavery, a letter has been sent to every Catholic church in England and Wales, co-signed by the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark, calling on Catholics to resist the government's plans.

The letter, which avoids the uncompromising tone adopted by O'Brien on his weekend media rounds, will be read from the pulpit of all 2,500 Catholic churches in England and Wales this Sunday and restates the anti-gay-marriage campaign's argument that "neither the Church nor the State has the power to change [the] fundamental understanding of marriage itself". It then sets out what this "fundamental understanding of marriage" involves:

"Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.

There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible."

Thus, marriage must not be opened up to same-sex couples, because doing so would fatally undermine this "fundamental understanding" of its meaning:

"Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children"

As the academic and blogger Norman Geras points out, even if you leave aside the issue of gay marriage, many heterosexual marriages would not meet the definition the Catholic church is offering here. Marriage can indeed simply be about "the commitment of the two people involved", to borrow the Archbishops' words, and the idea that it is ultimately a means for creating an environment for raising children has long been an archaic one.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Equal Marriage, which has been established to counter the anti-gay-marriage Coalition for Marriage and campaign for a change in law, continues to gain in strength, with more than 16,000 names on their petition at the the time of writing. You can add your name to that, if you like, and also follow them on Twitter to track the progress of the campaign.

Follow @NewHumanist on Twitter

From the Rationalist archive: What Albert Einstein really believed

Albert Einstein

I've been dipping to the Rationalist Association archives recently, including the Thinkers Library series published in the first part of last century (that's some of them there, on the right). The series was designed to bring knowledge to the masses, with cheap reprints of classic texts (Epicurus, Darwin) and new books by scientists and rationalists like Russell, HG Wells and Haldane. Here's a little something I stumbled upon yesterday, from a book we published in 1936 by RA member Albert Einstein. I have often heard him quoted as saying he was a religious man in some way, but never appreciated the full context until now. Inspiring words.

"The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms – it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude: in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who [c]ould survive his physical death is beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egotism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”

From Albert Einstein The World As I See It, The Thinkers Library, No. 79, 1935 (RPA/Watts and Co) 

If you want more of this kind of stuff why not join us on March 21 at the lovely Bishopsgate Library in London, for a special evening of Rationalism Past and Present. Some of the Rationalist Association archives will be on display – I'll be talking a little about what's in them – and our special guest David Aaronovitch will be speaking on 'Why I Am A Rationalist'. Tickets are very limited and costs £20 (£15 for RA members). All proceeds will go to support our ongoing work of democratising knowledge. Be quick its almost sold out. Buy your tickets here.

Follow @NewHumanist on Twitter

Islamic states oppose discussion of homophobic violence at UN

Zamir Akram, Pakistani ambassador to the UN

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the bloc of Muslim-majority states which has previously attempted to introduce resolutions condemning the "defamation of religion" at the United Nations, has registered its opposition to a discussion at the UN on “Discrimination and Violence based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”.

In a letter to the president of the Human Rights Council, Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Zamir Akram, outlined the OIC's opposition to the discussion:

"The OIC States are deeply concerned by the introduction in the Human Rights Council of controversial notions like “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The OIC countries have been consistent in their opposition to the consideration of these controversial notions in the context of human right at international fora."

Akram goes on to explain that the OIC are "seriously concerned at the attempt to introduce in the United Nations concepts that have no legal foundation in any international human rights instrument" and "disturbed at the attempt to focus on certain persons on the grounds of their abnormal sexual behaviour, while not focusing on the glaring instances of intolerance and discrimination in various parts of the world, be it on the basis of colour, race, gender or religion, to mention only a few".

Akram then explains why "the issue of sexual orientation is unacceptable to the OIC":

"It must also be recognized that the international community agreed during the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, that while considering the issue of human rights, national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind. [...]

The OIC Member States are concerned that the Panel will discuss issues that relate to personal behavior and preferences, and have nothing to do with fundamental human rights. This debate will shift the focus from the real issues that deserve the attention of the Council."

The discussion on homophobic violence will take place tomorrow (Wednesday 7 March) at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Follow @NewHumanist on Twitter

New research suggests religious schools favour middle class families

New research by the Guardian has shown that religious schools in England accept fewer children from low-income families than the non-religious schools in the same local area. The charge that faith schools favour middle-class families has long been disputed by both the Catholic and Anglican churches, but the Guardian's findings support the arguments of those campaigning to end the proliferation of state-funded religious schools.

Using data published by the Department for Education, the newspaper analysed the number of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) in every non-selective primary and secondary school in the country (19,534 schools in total), and found that Catholic and Church of England schools have a smaller proportion of pupils claiming free meals than non-religious schools.

This in itself is not a surprise – it has long been known that the national proportion of pupils from impoverished backgrounds is lower in faith schools, but it is often claimed that this is because faith schools tend to be located in better-off areas. However, the Guardian have tested this claim by examining schools in comparison to other schools in their area, and revealed that faith schools, on average, have a lower proportion of pupils claiming free meals than their local, non-religious counterparts.

The Guardian compared schools to others in the same local authority and, on an even more localised scale, in the same postcode, and the results were as follows (source: BHA website):

• For Catholic schools, 73% of primaries and 72% of secondaries take fewer pupils eligible for FSM than the average in their local authority (LA); 76% of primaries and 65% of secondaries take fewer pupils than the average in their post code.

• For Church of England schools, 74% of primaries and 65.5% of secondaries take fewer pupils eligible for FSM than the average in their local authority (LA); 63.5% of primaries and 40% of secondaries take fewer pupils than the average in their post code.

• On the other hand, for schools without a religious character, 51% of primaries and 45% of secondaries take fewer pupils eligible for FSM than the average in their local authority (LA); while 47% of primaries and 29% of secondaries take fewer pupils than the average in their post code.

You can see a more detailed explanation of the research on the Guardian website.

As to why this happens, one explanation could of course be that church schools actively favour children from wealthier backgrounds. This is something that both the Catholic and Anglican churches strenuously deny and, in responding to the Guardian research, both argue that there are other statistics that demonstrate their commitment to serving poorer communities. A Church of England spokesperson points out that the "church is the largest sponsor of academies, mostly in deprived areas where the schools had a history of under-performance", while the Catholic representative argues that the Guardian's figures misrepresent the demographics of Catholic schools:

"Maeve McCormack, policy manager at the Catholic Education Service, said Catholic schools appeared not to reflect their communities in our data because their catchment areas were geographically wider than the postcode or local authority where the schools were situated.

She said separate figures from the DfE showed 18.6% of pupils at Catholic primary schools live in the 10% most deprived areas of England, compared with only 14.3% of primary school pupils nationally. Some 17% of pupils at Catholic schools lived in the 10% most deprived areas compared to 12% of pupils nationally."

Another explanation is that success at a church school leads to a large number of middle-class families, who are better-placed than poorer families to put in the effort required to meet church school admissions criteria, attempting to get their children into the school. The Guardian's Andrew Brown calls this "the self-sustaining Darwinian world of modern education", and it is explained in a straightforward manner in the British Humanist Association's report on the research:

"It is simplest to explain this by using an example. Let’s say there are two schools in a town – one an inclusive community school, and one a religiously selective ‘faith’ school. Let’s say, for whatever reason, the ‘faith’ school performs slightly better (as one would expect it to some of the time).

It then follows that for many parents, it becomes more desirable to get their children into the ‘faith’ school. And more ambitious parents, typically from wealthier backgrounds, are likely to work harder to manipulate the system – for example, by attending church when they otherwise wouldn’t – to get their children into the stronger school. In other words, the selection process itself cuts out the pupils from the poorest backgrounds; and so the school ends up with more parents who will push their children to perform better; and so the school performs even stronger than its neighbours; and so the cycle perpetuates."

While I think the most crucial problem with faith schools concerns their exclusivity and potential for segregating communities, I often think the way in which they encourage this bizarre scramble for places, where parents drag themselves to church on Sunday and pretend to be religious in order to get their child a place at a good school, provides the simplest argument against them. The school someone attends can be one of the most important decisions made for them during their childhood, yet this is one of the key ways in which that decision is made in this country. How can anyone think that this is sensible or fair?

Follow @NewHumanist on Twitter

Event: An Evening of Rationalism Past and Present with David Aaronovitch and Laurie Taylor – London, 21 March

David Aaronovitch

Our readers and supporters are invited to join us on 21 March for an evening of Rationalism Past and Present, in the beautifully restored library of the Bishopsgate Institute in London.

The Bishopsgate Library now houses the RA's 120-year-old archive, which will be on display for the evening, and the editor of New Humanist and CEO of the RA, Caspar Melville, will be giving a short presentation on its contents and the last 120 years of the fight for reason, free thought and humanism.

Plus our very special guest speaker David Aaronovitch (Times columnist and Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Association) will be talking on the subject "Why I am a Rationalist." The event will be hosted by the Chair of the RA, Professor Laurie Taylor.

The Rationalist Press Association (now The Rationalist Association) was founded by the radical publisher Charles Watts in 1885, as a network to support his free thinking and (often) blasphemous publishing. Through its long history it has published hundreds of books - including the historic cheap paperback series The Thinkers Library - pamphlets - such as Bertrand Russell's 'Why I am Not a Christian' - and magazines, including its own journal New Humanist. You can find out more about the organisation's history by visiting the RA section of our website.

Past members of the Association include Bertrand Russell, HG Wells, Sigmund Freud, Marie Stopes and Albert Einstein. Current supporters include Richard Dawkins, AC Grayling, Philip Pullman, Claire Tomalin, Terry Pratchett and Robin Ince.

Come and meet the current team, mingle with our friends and supporters, and find out more about the past, and future, of rationalism.

Tickets, including free drinks, are priced at £20 (£15 for RA members). All proceeds go to supporting the RA.

When: 21st March 2012, 7pm to 9pm.

Where: The Library, Bishopsgate Institute, 230 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 4QH

To book tickets, please visit our online store. Spaces for the event are severely limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis, so early booking is essential.

Footballer sues church for depriving him of career with Manchester United

Old Trafford, or the Theatre of Dreams
Denied by Evangelical Faith

A former semi-professional footballer is suing the British arm of the Baptist World Alliance, claiming that the 19 years he spent as a "fervent evangelist" in the Baptist faith deprived him of the chance to play for Manchester United.

Forty-six-year-old Arquimedes Nganga, who now lives in Forest Hill, London, but used to play for a Third Division side in his native Portugal, converted to the faith in 1989, and quit football two years later at the age of 25, devoting himself to his new religion. The London Evening Standard reports that he is now suing the church, accusing it of "destroying his social life, causing him 'psychological harm' and defrauding him of money through compulsory donations.

Nganga earned £200 per week playing semi-professionally, but says he could have earned £20,000 at a top English club had he not been deceived "into following false beliefs":

"I could definitely have had a long career in the Premiership. I see many players playing today who I am not inferior to - and perhaps even better than. Most midfielders are either defensive or attacking but I was both. I had something new." 

All of those who have dreamed of an elite sporting career will no doubt sympathise with Nganga, and perhaps even look to emulate his legal battle. With this in mind, I am taking this opportunity to announce that I am suing Marlboro, the British drinks industry, numerous takeaways in both the north and south of England, and my own abject lack of talent for deceiving me in my late teens and early twenties and depriving me of the England captaincy and a fruitful career at a leading Premier League club. Wish me luck.