Richard Dawkins to guest-edit the New Statesman Christmas issue

The Four Horsemen of New Atheism reunited, plus Philip Pullman, Carol Ann Duffy, Bill Gates and more.

In a 100-page special issue, the evolutionary biologist and bestselling authorRichard Dawkins brings together some of the world’s leading scientists, thinkers and writers. His Christmas double issue follows the much-discussedNew Statesman guest edit by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, in June this year.

Dawkins has contributed an essay, written the New Statesman leader column, and travelled to Texas to conduct an exclusive interview with the author and journalist Christopher Hitchens. They discuss religious fundamentalism, US politics, Tony Blair, abortion and Christmas.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates has written a column on the wonders of innovation, the political theorist Alan Ryan has written on Barack Obama, and there are contributions from some of the world’s most respected scientists, includingPaul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, and the space explorer Carolyn Porco, on Saturn.

Richard Dawkins says:

To guest-edit a great magazine with the status of a national treasure is the literary equivalent of being invited to imagine your ideal dinner party – Christmas dinner, in this case – and then of actually being allowed to send out real invitations to your dream companions. Every acceptance is like a present off the Christmas tree, gratefully unwrapped and treasured.

At the same time, I couldn’t help being daunted by the New Statesman‘s historic reputation for serious, well-written radical commentary, and by the need in my literary Christmas dinner to temper merriment with gravitas.

We have no reindeer, but four horsemen; no single star of wonder and no astrologers bearing gifts, but a gifted star of astronomy who knows wonder when she sees it; no kings from the east, but the modern equivalent of a king from the west; and wise men – and women – all around the table. Please join us at the feast.

In 2007, Dawkins, Hitchens, the philosopher Daniel Dennett and the neuroscientist Sam Harris were nicknamed the “Four Horsemen” of new atheism. Both Dennett and Harris have written essays for this issue, on human loyalty and free will, respectively.

Other contributors to the special issue include the human rights activistMaryam Namazie, the comedian Tim Minchin and the rabbi and broadcasterJonathan Romain.

Elsewhere in the magazine, the Poet Laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, speaks to the NS assistant editor Sophie Elmhirst about choosing morals over politics, reading poems at Occupy St Paul’s and her “Christmassy relationship” with God, Philip Pullman defends fairytales and Kate Atkinson offers an exclusive short story, “darktime”.

Jason Cowley, editor of the New Statesman, says:

Richard Dawkins is one of the world’s foremost public intellectuals, and has revived long-dormant debates on the role of both religion and science in public life. We are delighted that he has illuminated both issues in this special Christmas double issue of the New Statesman.

He has assembled some exceptional writers and thinkers, and we’re particularly pleased to welcome back Christopher Hitchens, who began his Fleet Street career on the NS in the 1970s.

The issue, cover-dated 19 December, will go on sale in London on Tuesday 13 December and in the rest of the country from Wednesday 14 December.

New Statesman | 8th December 2011

Growing majority of young people have no religion, government must start listening



Two-thirds of young people and half of the population as a whole do not belong to any particular religion, and the steady decline in religiosity in the UK is set to continue, the 28th report of the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey has found. The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed the findings, commenting that the government is ‘fast becoming out of touch with the population’ when it introduces policies and new laws with a religious bias.

Unlike the highly flawed Census question, which at best measures a weak cultural affiliation to religion, the BSA attempts to examine levels of religious affiliation, whether someone was brought up in a religion, and whether they regularly attend religious services.

The survey found half (50%) of people do not regard themselves as belonging to a particular religion while only 20% belong to the Church of England. 64% of those aged 18-24 do not belong to a religion. More than half of those brought up in a religion never attend religious services or meetings. The survey also found that levels of religiosity have declined over the past three decades and are likely to decline further, as older, more religious generations die out and are replaced by younger, less religious generations.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, commented, ‘It is quite clear that the population is becoming less religious, particularly as the proportion of younger people who have no religion grows, so the government is fast becoming out of touch with the population when it introduces policies and new laws which actually increase the role of religion in the state. Since the general election the government has set in place policies which will increase greatly the number of discriminatory ‘faith’ schools, those which open up vital public services to any number of evangelical religious groups without proper equalities protection, and has proposed not only to keep reserved seats for Church of England Bishops sitting ex-officio in the House of Lords but to give them even more privilege.

‘It is bizarre that the government refuses to take a more secular approach to public policy, to eliminate unjustified religious discrimination and religious privilege in places such as schools and the workplace and promote a real equality between people regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs.’

British Humanist Association | 7th December 2011

Notes

For further comment or information contact Andrew Copson at andrew@humanism.org.uk or 07534 248596.

As part of the BHA’s campaign on the Census this year we commissioned our own survey which showed clearly that there were low levels religious belief and belonging in the population.

Read the 28th British Social Attitudes survey findings

More information on surveys and statistics on religion and belief.

 

Church and humanists clash over Bishops in parliament

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association.

*Watch the evidence session http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9552*

The conflicting views of the Church of England and the British Humanist Association (BHA) were clear at today’s evidence session on Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, the ‘Lords Spiritual’. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, were both invited to give evidence to the parliamentary Joint Committee looking at the draft House of Lords Reform Bill on Monday 28 November. The BHA had, last month, submitted detailed written evidence to the Committee opposing and criticising the government’s proposals on the Bishops.

In his written submission to the Joint Committee, Dr Williams described why he supports having Church of England Bishops in the House of Lords as of right and why the appointments process should also have regard to increasing the presence of leaders of other denominations and faiths. The UK is the only democracy in the world to have reserved seats for clerics in its parliament, and the BHA has been campaigning for many years to have abolished this outdated, undemocratic, unequal and unfair tradition which, if retained, would seriously undermine the validity of any reform of the House of Lords.

Mr Copson set out why there are no good arguments for keeping reserved seats for the Church of England in parliament. Throughout the evidence session, Mr Copson emphasised that there was no constitutional reason to have automatic places for the Bishops, and anyone who argued for their retention was simply arguing to extend a religious privilege which has no place in a modern, liberal and diverse democracy.

He told the Committee that the argument of tradition, that we should have Bishops because we have had them for a long time and it’s best to leave things as they are, was irrelevant and insubstantial.

Mr Copson emphasised that many would disagree with the idea that the Bishops ‘speak’ for those of all faiths and that there are many too, including Anglicans, who would disagree that they can provide a unique ethical perspective in the chamber. He described how there was no case to be made for reserving seats for Bishops in the House of Lords on the basis that those men are uniquely well placed to provide vital expertise on matters of public policy, because they are not. This is the case not least because their views on the ethics of assisted dying for the terminally ill or equal rights for gay people or state-funded religious schools were unrepresentative and often lay far outside the mainstream.

Mr Copson spoke about how, increasingly, advocates of Bishops have also built their case on the position of the Church of England as our largest NGO – a civil society group with a branch in every community. However, he pointed out that it were the case that we should treat the Church as an NGO (doubtful given its entanglement with the state), why then should we consider it unique compared with trade unions or the National Trust or the Women’s Institute?

Mr Copson detailed for the Committee how there were clear objections to having automatic places for the Church of England Bishops on grounds of equality and fairness. If parliament is supposed to represent the people, Mr Copson questioned, why should only one denomination of only one religion have a guaranteed twelve seats when other denominations of that religion, other religions and other non-religious philosophies and approaches to life have no such representation? It would only be fair to represent all religions and philosophies. Mr Copson said this could immediately be seen to be impossible, not least because we would need an unfeasibly large second chamber to represent all shades of religious and non-religious opinion. Having reserved seats for Bishops of any number represents a privilege that is insupportable in today’s diverse and increasingly non-religious society.

British Humanist Association | 28th November 2011

Notes

For further comment or information, contact BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson on 07534 258596, or BHA Head of Public Affairs Naomi Phillips on 07540 257101.

The BHA will give evidence to the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill in a session from 18.45 on Monday 28 November, in the Moses Room, House of Lords. The Archbishop of Canterbury will give evidence from 18.00.

The Joint Committee was formed to examine the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill published in May 2011 and consists of 26 members of both Houses of Parliament. In October 2011, the BHA submitted written evidence to the Committee opposing the government’s proposals to retain automatic places for 12 Church of England Bishops in the reformed chamber.

Read the BHA’s written submission to the Joint Committee

Read more about the BHA’s work on Bishops in the Lords

The British Humanist Association is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. It promotes a secular state and equal treatment in law and policy of everyone, regardless of religion or belief.

 

The Brussels Declaration

We, the people of Europe, hereby affirm our common values. They are based not on a single culture or tradition but are founded in all of the cultures that make up modern Europe.

  • We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others.
  • We hold that the state must remain neutral in matters of religion and belief, favouring none and discriminating against none.
  • We hold that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. We seek to create a fair society based on reason and compassion, in which every citizen is enabled to play their full part.
  • We reject intimidation, violence and incitement to violence in the furtherance of disputes, and hold that conflicts must be resolved through negotiation and by legal means.
  • We uphold freedom of inquiry in every sphere of human life, and the application of science in the service of human welfare. We seek to use science creatively, not destructively.
  • We uphold artistic freedom, value creativity and imagination, and recognise the transforming power of art. We affirm the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

Made this 25th day of March 2007, being the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome and the foundation of the European Union.

The Declaration was formally launched in Brussels on 27th February, ahead of the 50th Anniversary celebrations of the signing of the Treaty of Rome on March 25th.

No formal signature is necessary; simply use the Sign the Brussels Declaration links on this web site and complete the simple form provided.

Click here to sign the Brussels Declaration Enregistrer votre soutien

International Humanist and Ethical Union | 25th March 2007

 

Yes! The religion and science conflict, only cuter!

Here is a perfect illustration of the debate. Bottom line: never trust anyone who speaks in pink word balloons.

Via My Confined Space.

Reposted by Pharingula | PZ Myers | 24 November 2011

Event – World Government – 23rd November 2011 – 7pm

Brockway Room, Conway Hall
25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL, London

This month our speaker is Daniel Wheatley.
When the international community decided to intervene militarily in Libya, what role did the UN play? Who makes decisions that affect our world, and who are they accountable to? Rather than relying on the ad hoc alliances of nation states to run our world, has the time come for democratic global governance?

The crisis in the Eurozone has raised profound question over the ambitious efforts for a European common currency and has emboldened UK Prime Minister David Cameron to press the case for reclaiming powers from Brussels. The recent zero casualty intervention from NATO forces in Libya has re-built the reputation of the UN Security Council as the global arbiter in matters of intervention and collective security. This may have resurrected the notion of intervention under the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect that had seemed to expire in the wake of Afghanistan .

Dan studied at the international school in Swaziland, Africa and developed an interest in human rights issues after witnessing the injustices of the apartheid system. He has worked in parliament, as clerk to an all party group, and now serves as government relations officer to the Bahai community of the UK. He also lectures at Syracuse university’s London program on multicultural London.

CLHG’s Steve Clapham saw Daniel at speakers corner coping admirably with the Professional Hecklers Association, so he is confident that he can handle us.

As usual we will ask for a £2 contribution to help cover the cost of hall hire. We will separately have a drinks table from which contributions (after costs) will go to the Ugandan Humanist Schools Trust – a charity helping to support three amazing humanist (model secular) schools.

We usually continue the discussion at the Enterprise Arms nearby.

Support the Secular Europe Campaign!

  • Spread the word to colleagues, friends and family – make clear to them that whether religious or not (or just interested in freedom of religion), they should support this campaign.

There are many reasons for supporting this campaign.

There are many challenges to freedom of religion and belief across Europe. Maybe you know people who have concerns about supporting so called ‘aggressive Secularists’ – well actually we are not aggressive but we do support the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; including freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

If you too agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then please show your support and, if you can, join the march and rally.

In order to protect this right to freedom of religion and belief there has to be a secular understanding. The governments of Europe must take seriously their responsibility to all their citizens and not have their writ subverted. The exact form that this secular arrangement can take may differ from place to place but everywhere it must prevent privileged undemocratic access to power and influence. The UK is to some degree a secular society. You can see on the website areas in which things could be improved.

However a cloud of unreason is once again threatening to descend. Some religious organisations are gaining greater clandestine influence. Those who peacefully and reasonably demand equality and wish to have the intimacy of their personal autonomy respected are being branded aggressive and anti-Christian. These descriptions are being encouraged by brazen calumnies.

There is no moral equivalence between those demanding equality of treatment and those demanding permission to discriminate. If I were a government official nobody would allow me to refuse to deal with someone because they were members of the British Defence League or for that matter of Christian Voice or simply Catholic! Why should a public official (or provider of a service to the general public) be able to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation?

People with extreme religious convictions that oppose certain legal entitlements, say to divorce, contraception, abortion and so on, do have the right to express their opinions both individually and collectively, to make representations and lobby for change. However if they are engaged in the provision of a service to the general public they must not be allowed to discriminate.

Unfortunately there are those who would like to construct a hierarchy of entitlement to the protection of human rights. That some believe that LGBT people do not have a full entitlement is maybe, in part, because they have been among the most recent to have had their rights recognised and this is still far from universal. We must challenge such discrimination.

If the humanity of some individuals is qualified it is only a matter of time before others will also find their humanity challenged.

We march in the name of others and always for ourselves.

Central London Humanist Group | Josh Kutchinsky | 27th July 2011