Bad week for secular Britain - now Lord Chief Justice says sharia law could have a place in UK

First we have the news that at least 40 faith schools are teaching creationism in science lessons (via a report on More4 news) and now we wake up to discover that Lord Phillips, the Lord Chief Justice, thinks that sharia law could have a place in the UK legal system.

Phillips, who is the most senior judge in England and Wales, told an audience at the East London Muslim Centre that sharia could play a part in settling divorce cases and other family disputes:

"There is no reason why sharia principles, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution. It must be recognised, however, that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales."

While Phillips wasn't advocating the establishment of sharia courts in the UK, it seems his comments will reignite a debate that many hoped had gone away following the furore over the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments earlier this year.

Thoughts?

RSA debate agrees – a secular state is best for Islam

Broad agreement was the order of the day this lunchtime at the Royal Society of Arts, where four leading commentators on the role of Islam in Britain gathered to debate the question: "The Secular State – the best option for British Muslims?" The debate was chaired by the Muslim peer Baroness Kishwer Falkner.

Speaking first was Dr Usama Hasan, director of the City Circle, an organisation that seeks to promote the development of distinct British Muslim identity. Hasan opened by stressing that political secularism is desirable for all, but that many Muslims, himself included, would find it difficult to accept a state of "metaphysical secularism" – one that operates on the assumption that there is no god.

Hasan was followed by Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain, who suggested that the question taken on by the debate was something of a red herring. He stated that among the majority of Muslims in Western democracies there was no problem with secularism, and that the real debate concerns the roles of Islam or secularism in the governments of countries with majority Muslim populations. Bunglawala suggested that some Muslim countries have had negative experiences with secularism, for example in Turkey where the hugely popular governing Islamic AK Party has come under attack from a militant secular minority well entrenched in the state apparatus.

Next up was the Independent columnist Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Chair of the organisation British Muslims for Secular Democracy, who began by stressing that secularism should not be seen as a "backdoor way of privileging atheism", and claiming that she finds "the fundamentalism of Richard Dawkins and Islamic fundamentalism" to be "two sides of the same coin". Brown added that she opposes the French style of secularism - which in her view has been used in "racist ways" and has given secularism a bad name. She stated that there is the greatest potential when the state is religiously neutral, pointing out that this is not yet the case in Britain. As an example of how a secular state can succeed in comparison to an Islamic one, Brown asked the audience to consider the relative stability and development in India since independence when compared to neighbouring Pakistan.

Ed Husain, author of The Islamist and founder of the counter-extremism think tank the Quilliam Foundation, was last to speak and, along with the others, came down in defence of secularism, stressing that it is the reason Muslims are able to live in the UK today. To highlight this he used the example of Abdullah William Quilliam, the British covert to Islam after whom the Foundation is named, who in the far less secular 1890s was stoned along with his followers for leading Muslim prayers in Liverpool.

Husain advanced three reasons why some Muslims have a "psychological block" against secularism. Firstly, the words for secularism in some languages, such as Urdu, have meanings equivalent to "atheism", which can prove off-putting. Second he blames the rising influence of Islamism, whose proponents have been more effective than others in making themselves heard, and lastly the reluctance of the liberal intelligentsia in the UK to stand up for secularism and liberal democracy. He thinks that the answer may lie in better teaching of the values of secularism and democracy in schools, particularly in history lessons where students need to learn about the conflicts and obstacles we had to overcome to establish the secular, liberal democracy we have today.

The debate was rounded off by Kishwer Falkner, who described her own experiences with religious groups lobbying the House of Lords. She praised groups, such as Muslims and Catholics, for being well-organised and ensuring they have a say in public affairs, but warned that at times the religious demands for exceptions from the law can go beyond belief in democracy and reach very exceptional levels.

So, that's my quick-fire rundown of the debate this lunchtime. It would have been interesting to have someone on the panel who wasn't backing secularism, but it's still fair to say there's plenty to chew on here. It's clear that while the speakers all support a secular state, there was uneasiness among them about the role of atheism (see Usama Hasan's problem with "metaphysical secularism"), and Yasmin Alibhai Brown's suggestion that the likes of Richard Dawkins are "fundamentalists" on a par with Islamic fundamentalists is sure to raise a few eyebrows. Brown also had strong opinions on the merits of French secularism (in her view it's "racist"), an issue covered by Joan W Scott in the March/April New Humanist.

Join this debate by leaving some comments on this post...

Religious wars may not be the shape of things to come

A fascinating article here by Alan Wolfe writing in the Atlantic, discovered via our favourite website, Arts and Letters Daily.

Responding to predictions that the 21st century will be one dominated by wars of religion (as suggested by the Economist last autumn), Wolfe argues that, despite evidence for growing religiosity, the global trend is still toward secularisation.

Time to abolish Britain's blasphemy law

Both the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society are calling on supporters to write to their MPs in support of a new move to repeal Britain's archaic blasphemy laws.

MPs Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem), Frank Dobson (Lab) and David Wilshire (Con) have tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill that would abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, and this will be considered by MPs tomorrow (9 January).

A letter published in today's Daily Telegraph makes the case for repealing the law: "As the Law Commission acknowledged in 1985, when it recommended repeal, it is uncertain in scope, but lack of intention is no defence, and the law is unlimited in penalty.

This, together with its chilling effect on free expression and its discriminatory impact, leaves it in clear breach of human rights law. In the end, no one is likely to be convicted under it."

The letter is signed by a host of honorary associates and distinguished supporters of the Rationalist Association, the BHA and the NSS, including Richard Dawkins, RA President Jonathan Miller, philosopher and regular New Humanist contributor AC Grayling, historian David Starkey and author Philip Pullman. It's even been signed by former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, with the letter pointing out that "the Church of England no longer opposes its abolition on principle".

The BHA have set up a campaign page with instructions on how to easily email your local MP. By doing so you can help to show MPs just how much popular support there is for abolishing this archaic piece of legislation. It is best to act now, as the amendment is being tabled in the Commons tomorrow.

Polly Toynbee: No one's trying to ban Christmas

In today's Guardian British Humanist Association President Polly Toynbee blasts back at the ridiculous notion that atheists, secularists and humanists are trying to ban Christmas. It seems she was moved to write about this after one of her readers sent her a copy of the Christmas message by Rev Jules Gomes, chaplain of the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich, which read: "More Christians have been martyred for their faith in the last century than in any other period of church history. Yesterday's Herod is today's Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee, seeking the total extermination of all forms of Christianity. The great irony is that the greatest opposition to Christ comes from so-called broad-minded people who seek to ban Christmas so that people of other faiths are not offended."

As Polly proceeds to point out, this is all complete nonsense. The myth that secularists are trying to ban Christmas is becoming far more tiresome than that other famous myth you tend to hear at this time of year.

Let's face it, most people love Christmas, even if they don't believe/couldn't care less about the "true meaning". Which is something we've been stressing at New Humanist. As comedian Carrie Quinlan pointed out in our November/December issue, for most people these days Christmas is all about spending time with family, just as New Year is all about spending time with Alka-Seltzer. And the vast majority have no interest in renaming the holiday. As Michael Bywater wrote for our website, it's absurd to refer to it as anything other than Christmas. If there are people out there trying to rename it Winterval or Festivus, they may as well give up because it isn't going to catch on. All they're doing is providing the conservative press with ready-made scare stories.

So, no matter what Vanessa Feltz, Stephen Green, Nick Ferrari and all the rest may think (see Robin Ince on his TV confrontation with this delightful bunch), secularists aren't trying to ban Christmas. In fact, speaking on behalf of the New Humanist staff, we're very much looking forward to it. We're just putting the finishing touches to the January/February issue (Attenborough, Darwin, Zizek, torture, luxury, liberty – don't miss it) before dispersing to spend some quality time with friends, family, food and alcohol.

Merry Christmas.

Robin Ince takes on Vanessa Feltz and Stephen Green

Our latest web exclusive offering comes from stand-up comedian Robin Ince, who recounts the infuriating experience of "debating" the "de-Christianisation" of Christmas with Vanessa Feltz, Nick Ferarri and Stephen Green (he of the delightful Christian Voice) on an ITV talk show.

Personally I could think of few things worse than debating with Vanessa Feltz (if anyone out there wishes to torture me, you could do worse than force me to listen to her radio show), so full credit to Robin for even managing to get through it. As you'll see from his piece, he's slightly annoyed with himself for losing his temper with these people, but you can hardly blame him when he was faced with the likes of Feltz and Green spouting unsubstantiated nonsense about secularists and PC liberals ruining Christmas.

With that in mind, I'm off to protest against the indoctrination of children through use of the traditional school nativity...

BHA launch secularism pamphlet

Just back from the RSA, where the British Humanist Association launched its new pamphlet The Case for Secularism: A Neutral State in an Open Society with a lunchtime debate chaired by its president Polly Toynbee.

The debate was opened by philosopher David Papineau, a co-author of the pamphlet and member of the Humanist Philosophers Group, who put his case for a secular society as one intended not to cause differences, but rather to ensure that all citizens are free to practice their religion (or lack thereof) as they please, with the state favouring none. He presented secularism as a fair system, and one which encourages the loyalty of all groups to the state, since they have no need to fear that it is infringing on their religious autonomy.

There was little disagreement from the rest of the panel. Dr Indarjit Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations began by saying he agreed 70-80% with Papineau, but warned that secularism and humanism are religions in their own right, in that they advocate a particular way of life. He expressed his view that we already live in a secular state, and reminded that it is important for all groups, religious or otherwise, to have the right to influence the state. He also warned that staunch advocates of secularism too often make big issues of the trivial, citing a debate he had yesterday on the BBC with a representative of the National Secular Society over the Sikh girl suspended from school for wearing a Kara bracelet.

The final speaker, Simon Barrow of liberal Christian think tank Ekklesia, agreed with Papineau that a secular society is not anti-religious, but rather provides institutions that are open to all. He warned that privileges harm and distort the egalitarian core of Christianity and believes the Church must be persuaded that letting go of privileges would not threaten their existence.

Copies of the pamphlet can be ordered for £5 inc UK postage from the BHA by calling 020 7079 3580 or mailing BHA, 1 Gower St, London, WC1E 6HD

Election landslide for Turkey's Islamic AKP

As expected, Turkey's ruling Islamic AKP party eased through yesterday's crucial parliamentary elections with 47% of the vote, which will translate into a majority of around 130.

The election was called following a veiled threat of a coup by the fiercely secular army, in response to the AKP's attempt to elect its foreign minister, Abdullah Gül, to the presidency. It remains to be seen how the army will respond to the AKP's victory, given that it is now expected to hold a referendum to reduce the quorum required for parliament to elect the president.

The AKP has long denied pursuing an Islamist agenda and, since coming to power in 2002, it has presided over a period of sustained economic growth and has begun entry talks with the EU. However the old secular elite, led by the army, has remained suspicious of the AKP and talk of a military coup has continued. The army's reaction to the AKP landslide should become clear over the next few months and, as Ahmet Altan warns in the current issue of New Humanist, the effects could be felt far beyond the Bosphorus.

Guardian Discussion

I posted a version of the piece below - the response to Stuart Jeffries Faith and unbelief article in the Guardian - on that paper's Comment is Free blog. Its here. It has got more than 100 responses which is a bit suprising... it was a pretty straightforward argument. Just shows how much of an appetite there is for this stuff around. If you have a spare moment go and have a look. The responses say that it was poorly researched, badly argued and wrong are thankfully (just) outnumbered by those who liked it. Just.