IHEU News - summarised by Margaret Nelson

source: http://www.suffolkhands.org.uk/node/860

---

By Margaret Nelson - Posted on 06 October 2008

This is a monthly update of news from International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU). You can find the full versions of these news stories on the IHEU web site. To receive the monthly news update, sign up here.

HUMAN RIGHTS SPECIAL
This issue includes reports from IHEU's delegation to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where real progress has been made, particularly on issues of freedom of expression and separation of religion and state. For other news, please scroll down.

Human Rights Council: The fight-back begins
In what was probably a first for the United Nations, delegates to the Human Rights Council heard two Muslims describe Islamism as "Racism" and tell their listeners that the OIC does not speak for the majority of the world's Muslims. Danish MP and leader of the Liberal Alliance Naser Khader, and Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress were eloquent in their denunciation of the OIC, its Saudi paymasters, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. The conference was widely reported, including in the Pakistan Daily Times. Read more

Egypt accuses IHEU of inciting hatred
An Egyptian delegate to the Human Rights Council has accused IHEU of inciting and promoting hatred. “Every statement is incitement to hatred. Every statement is promoting hatred” he said. The accusation was made during a point of order by Egypt’s Amr Roshdy Hassan, who objected to the statement being made by IHEU representative Roy Brown on the subject of Islamophobia. We have a transcript of the Egyptian intervention in full (below). Readers can decide for themselves whether the accusation was justified. We now have video of this intervention. Read more

Growing opposition to the concept of "defamation of religion"
The tide really does seem to be turning in the debate on combating defamation of religion -- even to the point where there are hopes among some delegates that the concept will soon be buried, at least in the Human Rights Council. Following attacks by France and Belgium last week on the notion of defamation of religion, several NGOs joined the attack on Tursday with several strong statements. The Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies with Article 19, the European Center for Law and Justice, and Center for Inquiry in a joint statement with IHEU were among those who weighed in. Read more

Criticism of religion is not blasphemy
The IHEU position on defamation of religion was strongly supported on 23 September 2008 in a statement to the Human Rights Council prepared by Rabbi Francois Garai of the World Union of Progressive Judaism. Egypt tried to have the statement ruled out of order on the grounds that "Nobody can discuss the basic tenets of any religion in this Council." In other words, a Jewish Rabbi (unlike the Holy See) was not qualified to discuss the basic tenets of Judaism! Read more

IHEU attacks concept of "Islamophobia"
IHEU has told the UN Human Rights Council that the concept of "Islamophobia" is unhelpful and misleading, wrongly implying that any criticism of Islam is based on “irrational fear” and must lead automatically to hatred of Muslims. Read more

New team attacks religious privilege at the UN
After ploughing our lonely furrow at the Human Rights Council for the past five years, often with only the colourful veteran Human Rights advocate David Littman for company, it was a pleasure to welcome three new additions to the team for the 9th session of the Human Rights Council: Austin Dacey and Hugo Estrella from CfI and our new intern Xavier Cornut. Read more

IHEU speaks out (cautiously) against OIC censorship at UN
Following the successful attempts by the Islamic States at the 7th and 8th sessions of the Human Rights Council in March and June to silence any criticism of Sharia Law and the linking of certain abuses of human rights, such as the stoning of women, to Islam, IHEU main representative, Roy Brown, struck back at the 9th session on 19 September with a statement on the human rights of women. He argued that "No State should be permitted to hide behind tradition, culture or religion in order to justify any abuse of women's human rights," adding "It must be possible here to freely exercise the right to freedom of expression in order to defend the human rights of all, including women, and to expose abuse, whatever the attempted justification." Read more

IHEU defends rights of women and attacks censorship at the UN
In a joint statement with Center for Inquiry, IHEU has condemned abuses of women's human rights, including child marriage and "honour" killings, especially in Pakistan and Iran. IHEU also attacked the culture of censorship that now prevails in the Human Rights Council. Read more

AWE addresses human rights violations experienced by women
In an oral statement to the UN Human Rights Council, the Association for World Education has supported IHEU in calling for concerted action to prevent female genital mutilation, "honour" killings, stoning, facial maiming with acid and child marriage. Read more

CFI supports humanity, equality and human rights for women
Center for Inquiry has delivered an oral statement at the UN Human Rights Council supporting IHEU in defending the rights of women. Read more

USA speaks out strongly against OIC manoeuvring on "defamation of religion"
The US Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, John V. Hanford III, has strongly supported freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and opposed the OIC's promotion of the concept of "defamation of religions" at the UN as incompatible with international human rights law. Read more

Defamation of religion is not a human rights concept - Belgium
In a statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Belgium has come out firmly on the side of individual human rights. Read more

IHEU calls on UN Human Rights Council to condemn Sudan
In a statement to the Human Rights Council, IHEU has called for Sudan to be condemned for its failure to safeguard the human rights of vast numbers of its citizens. Read more

Spinoza and secularism at the UN
Quoting Spinoza in a statement to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva delivered jointly with the Association for World Education, IHEU has urged the Council to prioritize freedom of expression over demands for laws of the state to yield to the laws of God. Read more

IHEU stands up for the primacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
In a written statement to the UN Human Rights Council, Sixty years after the UDHR: threats to the universality of human rights, IHEU has highlighted the overriding, universal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the wide divergence between the UDHR and the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Read more

OTHER NEWS

Recognition for the Ainu
Japan's parliament has adopted a resolution that, for the first time, formally recognises the Ainu as "an indigenous people with a distinct language, religion and culture". In a nation that has always preferred to perceive itself as ethnically homogenous, it is a highly significant move. Traditionally the Ainu lived off the land, worshipping natural landmarks and Read more

Celebrating Darwin - February 2009
In February 2009, we shall be marking the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his great, seminal work, On the Origin of Species. Just as Copernicus and the many great scientists who followed him had upset the view that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, so Darwin upset the view that humans were privileged beings, specially created by divine will and totally distinct from the rest of life. It is no exaggeration to say that Darwin's discoveries have provided a basis for modern Humanism. Read more

HSS conference - Humanism in Scotland - North Queensferry, 25 October 2008
IHEU member organization Humanist Society Scotland will hold its annual conference in North Queensferry on 25 October 2008. The theme will be The impact of Humanism on Scotland in the 21st century. Read more

Humanist events for Europride 2008
On 30 July, as part of the programme of Europride 2008, the Swedish Humanist Association organised two very successful events. The first was a panel discussion, 'Religion: the hotbed of homophobia?' for which the 120-person auditorium in the main Pride Hall of Stockholm was packed to capacity, with many more would-be listeners turned away at the door. The second was a more informal pub evening allowing humanists from different countries to discuss the issues of the day over drinks and food. Read more

Continuum of Humanist Education
IHEU member organization the Institute for Humanist Studies has made its online e-learning materials on Humanism freely available to all. Starting now, anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world can learn about Humanism for free. Read more

National conference on Osu caste system and untouchability - 21-22 October, 2008
Join Humanists, Freethinkers, human rights activists, intellectuals from Nigeria and Overseas to discuss and debate on how to eradicate caste discrimination and untouchability in the world. Sponsorships are available for victims of caste discrimination and untouchability in Nigeria. Read more

---

International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the world umbrella organisation for Humanist, ethical culture, rationalist, secularist and freethought groups. Based in London, it is an international NGO with Special Consultative Status with the UN (New York, Geneva, Vienna), General Consultative Status at UNICEF (New York) and the Council of Europe (Strasbourg), and it maintains operational relations with UNESCO (Paris).

Its mission is to build and represent the global Humanist movement, to defend human rights and to promote Humanist values world-wide. IHEU sponsors the triennial World Humanist Congress.

You can find out more about IHEU on the web site

A Humanist view of Christmas by Margaret Nelson

reposted from: http://www.suffolkhumanists.org.uk/node/535
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Submitted by Margaret Nelson on Wed, 24/10/2007 - 15:53. Humanism

We’re often asked what Humanists do at Christmas. It’s generally assumed that the festival based on the winter solstice (the shortest day) is Jesus’s birthday. That’s what a lot of people refer to as “the real meaning of Christmas”. What they may not realise is that:

• It’s highly unlikely that Jesus was born on 25 December;
• The Christian nativity story is very similar to other stories of baby deities born to virgin mothers; it’s not unique.
• The Christian Church didn’t celebrate Christmas until the 4^th century, as it took a dim view of all hedonistic hoo-ha enjoyed by the pagans at that time of year;
• There’s been a midwinter festival of one sort or another in Europe, Scandinavia and the Middle East for thousands of years, since long before the Christians claimed it;
• “Traditions” like Christmas trees, cards, gifts and turkeys are all fairly recent. The Victorians, particularly Prince Albert, had a lot to do with their introduction.

Some Humanists regard the festival as a time to enjoy good food and drink with family and friends, but without going OTT because they regard the commercialisation of the season as irritating and wasteful. Others prefer to ignore the whole thing, which is difficult. There used to be special get-away-from-Christmas holidays for Humanists, who’d go and stay somewhere Christmas-free – I don’t know if they still happen.

Living in a Secular Society by Margaret Nelson

reposted from: http://www.suffolkhumanists.org.uk/node/530
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

Submitted by Margaret Nelson on Wed, 17/10/2007

Margaret Nelson led a discussion at a Suffolk Inter-Faith Resource Forum of Faiths on 16 October 2007. The others speakers were Manwar Ali (Muslim), Robin Herne (Pagan) and Shpetim Alimeta (“thinker” of Albanian origin).

For those who don’t know me, I’m a Secular Humanist. I make that qualification because in the States there are Religious Humanists as well as Secular Humanists.

However, in Great Britain and other countries where there are Humanist organisations that are part of the International Humanist & Ethical Union, Humanism is totally non-religious. It’s an approach to life for people who’ve rejected religious and supernatural explanations for life, the universe and everything, and whose ethical outlook is based on our common humanity and our experience.

We have a naturalistic view of life, rather than a supernaturalistic one.

Science can’t explain everything but it can and does help us to understand our place in the natural world, and where there aren’t any answers – yet – we prefer to leave a question mark, rather than explain the gap in our knowledge with a religious answer.

Humanists believe that this is the only life we have, and we must make the most of it. We’re generally described as atheists or agnostics, but I prefer to avoid those definitions, as they can be confusing. Suffice it to say that religion is irrelevant to my life, and if asked if I believe in God, I’m with the first openly non-believing MP, Charles Bradlaugh, who’d respond by asking his questioners to define God. Since none of them could agree on this, Bradlaugh said he couldn’t be expected to say whether or not he believed in something they couldn’t explain, and for which there’s no evidence. But that’s not why we’re here.

I’m here to talk about living in a secular society, and why I believe passionately that it’s a good thing. I feel fortunate to live in a democratic secular society, knowing that if I lived in a religious state I wouldn’t enjoy the freedom to live as I please or to speak about what matters to me, for fear of recrimination, harassment, persecution and punishment, even death in some cases. There are still many places where non-believers cannot safely express their disbelief, just as anyone who doesn’t have the “right religion”, according to a country’s religious rulers, can’t be open about their beliefs.

I know that what we have here isn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than the sort of repression, want and hunger than many people suffer around the world. As for seeking answers for our ills in religion; I agree with Polly Toynbee, who’s the new President of the British Humanist Association. She said, “You devalue the good things in life if you really think there’s something better somewhere else. This is all there is, but it’s pretty good. Those that look elsewhere perhaps sometimes don’t look hard enough for what’s best all around them.”

I think this applies to complacency about living in a secular society. Not just complacency, but ignorance too. I like to be clear about what we mean by the words and terms we use, just as the philosophers of antiquity, such as Socrates, insisted on clarity. We can’t discuss a subject properly if everyone has their own definition of a word and they all think they know what everyone else means by it.

The word “secular” is often misunderstood. It doesn’t mean consumerism, or entertainment, or activities other than religious activity. It doesn’t mean being “anti-religious”, though some who describe themselves as “secularists” are anti-religious while many Christians support a secular state – “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. It doesn’t mean being value-free, in terms of morality or ethical behaviour.

A secular society is one where religion doesn’t dictate political decisions – where the state and religion are separate – and where freedom of religion is possible, as no one religion dominates society.

George Holyoake, the agnostic British writer who coined the term “secularism” in 1846, used it to describe the promotion of a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticising religious belief. Holyoake wrote, “Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.” Of course, when Holyoake was promoting secularism, it was unusual to refer to any other religion than Christianity in that sort of context.

In general, secular societies are modern, liberal societies. They may not have become so because of organised secularist movements, but through the gradual erosion of old-fashioned religious authority, the modernisation of government, and the development of ethnic mingling through migration.

Constitutionally secular states are all very different. There is no one-size-fits-all form of secular government, and there can be some confusion about how secularism is interpreted. In general, however, they allow freedom of religion or the freedom not to be religious, which makes them different from repressive totalitarian states, including communist states, that forcibly suppress religious expression.

India’s modern secular democracy was founded in 1947, on independence from British rule.

India’s first Prime Minister was a Humanist; Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who believed passionately that India must be a secular state where religions people had to learn to live in harmony with one another.

The Muslims, led by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, rejected this principle. The hasty partition of India, mismanaged by the British, caused great suffering and bloodshed. There are still religious tensions in India today, but people of different religious backgrounds can and do live and work side by side. There are many Humanist activists in India who are working to achieve Nehru’s aims of mass education and the relief of poverty, against a background of the widening gap between rich and poor and widespread prejudice against the Dalit people – known as the Untouchables.

Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms details the “fundamental freedoms” everyone in Canada is entitled to, which are legally enforceable. They are freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. However, the Charter hasn’t got it quite right (in my humble opinion) as its preamble includes a reference to God, though this portion hasn’t been accorded legal effect and has been criticised for conflicting with the fundamental freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed in section two.

The first amendment of the American constitution ensures that the state won’t favour one religion over another, but the country’s secular status is confused. George Bush is fond of referring to his God, who seems to be a sort of unelected co-President, and it’s almost impossible to be elected at all if you’re open about being an atheist. In a research sample of 2000 households, the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology found that the respondents rated atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group they were least willing to allow their children to marry. This form of prejudice is widespread, but one effect of Professor Richard Dawkins lecture tours in the States is that an increasing number of people have “come out” as non-believers, risking the criticism and rejection of their families. It appears that America isn’t as Christian as some people would like us to think it is. Similarly, there are brave people who are openly rejecting Islam in many parts of the world, despite the threat of punishment for apostasy. A Council of Ex-Muslims has recently been formed in the UK. People who change their religion risk similar condemnation.

I was going to talk about France and Turkey, but there isn’t enough time, so I’ll just mention the reasons that Britain is referred to as “a Christian country”. It was a pagan country in Anglo-Saxon times. St Augustine’s mission was to make it a Catholic country. It remained so until King Henry VIII had a little difficulty with his first wife, his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon, who he’d married to secure an alliance with Spain. Catherine failed to produce an heir and Henry lost interest in a Spanish alliance because he fancied Anne Boleyn. Henry’s marital and diplomatic difficulties led to the establishment of the Church of England. Like many male monarchs who were fixated on their wives’ ability to produce male heirs, Henry was, of course, ignorant of the fact that it’s the father’s chromosomes that determine the gender of a baby, but women have traditionally taken the blame for most things.

It’s ironic, considering how the established church was founded, that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate when he wanted to marry an American Divorcee, and that the current heir to the throne had to marry his divorcee in a register office. Not only that, but his talk about being a “defender of faiths” in a multi-faith country has been ruled out of order by Archbishop Rowan Williams. As things stand, if Charles declares himself a convert to another faith or rejects faith altogether, he can forget about the crown. Some have speculated that Prince Harry isn’t a religious man, after he chose to talk about his mother rather than do a religious reading at the recent memorial event.

There are many inside and outside the Church who think it’s time for disestablishment, reflecting the nature of a multi-faith, secular Britain.

It’s also time to stop allowing the Church to assume control of every state occasion, Government ceremonial, and many other public celebrations. I thought it was significant that the bereaved and the victims of the 7/7 bombings in London chose to organise and conduct a memorial event in a park that was entirely secular, so it included everyone.

So why is it important to defend the secular nature of our society?

There’s been talk from a minority of introducing Islamic Sharia law in this country, to settle family and neighbourly disputes. It would, say those who advocate its use, be a form of mediation and conciliation service. I say that Sharia law and British law are incompatible, and the form of Sharia law that’s practiced in Muslim countries is essentially unfavourable to women. Human rights and British law come before religious “rights” and the claims of some fundamentalists – you can’t have a state within a state.

There are conflicts between the secular state and ideas like “multiculturalism” and “communities”. Over the last few years, under the premiership of Tony Blair, the Government has sought to appease religious organisations that’ve made increasing demands for recognition by granting them special channels of communication. This has resulted in unelected religious leaders presuming to speak on behalf of British citizens who ostensibly share the same religion, but whose attitudes and values may vary enormously. The Conservatives recently declared that this approach to “consultation” was fraught with difficulties, and that it’s better to consult people directly, not through religious leaders. It is also presumptuous to talk about religious “communities”, when this assumes a commonality that may not exist. Personally, I look forward to the day when the word “community” is only used to describe people who live in a geographical area, such as my village. We have community concerns, such as the provision of affordable housing for local young people. Otherwise, we’re a diverse mix, in terms of attitudes and interests. We don’t expect or want special privileges. Neither should groups based on religion. If a group of any sort – the Women’s Institute, a sports organisation, a residents’ association – wants to campaign on a particular issue, they expect people to sign up, to agree with the aims and objectives. Too often, religious leaders have spoken without any such endorsement, only an assumed authority. As for “multiculturalism” – we must be careful what we mean by that too. The last census allowed you to tick a box that identified you as “mixed” in terms of ethnicity. It’s no longer appropriate to talk about the “black community”, as though everyone with a dark skin shared the same interests, so why should you assume that everyone who describes himself or herself as Christian, say, share the same attitudes and values? The same applies to all the religions.

Faith schools are a bad idea because they’re divisive and segregate children according to their parents’ religion, or professed religion. A majority of British people don’t want them. In Newfoundland, Canada, where they had Catholic and Protestant conflict between schools that sometimes resulted in fights at sporting events, they took all the faith schools back under secular state control about ten years ago. We could do the same here. In the last few weeks, a Newfoundland Conservative politician stood for election on a pro-faith school platform. He lost.

There shouldn’t be any publicly-funded faith schools in a secular society. They were a disaster in Northern Ireland, where parents who wanted their children to go to desegregated schools had to resort to fund-raising to pay for them. As Professor Dawkins wrote in the Observer in December 2001, there are no Catholic babies, or Protestant babies, or Muslim babies, or Hindu babies – they are all just babies. When my son was born, no one said that he was an Atheist baby. We may be strongly influenced by our parents in all manner of things, from bird-watching to book-loving, but reasonable parents do not assume that our children will be bird-watchers or book-lovers, whatever we might hope for.

At the last forum, we spoke briefly about being British. That’s the unifying nature of a secular state – we’re all British. We have to reclaim the term from the isolationists. As British citizens, we all have an interest in maintaining our basic freedoms, including the freedom of religion, and the freedom from religion – in other words, to keep religion and the state completely separate, and prevent anyone from seeking to impose their religious beliefs on anyone else. Like most Humanists, I’m more interested in how people behave than what they believe, unless their beliefs motivate them to behave badly. I’d also like to see religion become a private matter, not a public one.

Religion has no claim to the moral high ground, and it’s insulting to over a third of the UK population who don’t have a religious faith to suggest it does. Whether religious or not, ethical behaviour is important to everyone. We could all live harmoniously in an Open Secular Society.

——————

This forum was at my suggestion, after comments were made at the last forum on Community Cohesion that suggested some contributors didn’t understand secularism. There were far fewer attendees at this forum than the last one, suggesting that most forum members aren’t interested in discussing what a secular society means to them. MN