Ramblings of a Godless Heathen

Atheism and religious extremism are both on the rise - it's time we talked about it

  To be an atheist in the United Kingdom today is a thankfully easy thing. The 2011 census states that a more than a quarter of the population officially have no religion, and a poll this April revealed that only a third of Britons believe religion has a positive role to play in the country, while over a quarter believe it has an actively negative effect. However, religious extremism is also on the increase - the exodus of British Muslims to fight for IS in Iraq and Syria and the rising social media popularity of Protestant extremist groups like Britain First prove that.

  In a Britain where both extremes of attitude to faith - total disbelief and total belief - are becoming more common, it is important to talk about this, even if it does provoke discomfort to do so. The champions of what is often (mis)termed 'militant atheism'  - people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - have reached the point now where they are alienating as many people as they convert. It is perhaps time then for a less charged discussion. Here goes...


What's in a Name?

  To start with, let's define some terms. We'll kick off with the aforementioned 'militant atheist' - a nonsense term if there ever was one. A militant is someone who takes up arms in the name of a cause; very few people have ever taken up arms in the name of not believing in a god - why would you? (And no, Stalin doesn't count. Don't go there.)


  Atheist means simply someone who does not believe in any gods. To be clear, it does not mean they believe there definitely aren't any - just that, on balance, they think there is insufficient reason to believe there are. What people mean when they say 'militant atheist' is usually antitheist - i.e. someone who is opposed to religious belief. It is entirely possible to be an atheist without being an antitheist. 

  Theist, as you probably guessed, is someone who believes in at least one god - they may believe in many more. The word for this is polytheist, whereas someone who believes in a single deity is a monotheist. Some faiths have a concept of multiple aspects of a single deity having semi-independent existence of their own - e.g. Hinduism and most denominations of Christianity - which is known as pluriform monotheism. 

  Agnostic is a more ambiguous term - technically it describes anyone not 100% certain that god(s) either exist or that they don't, which includes most atheists and most theists. More usually, however, it is used to describe someone who is halfway between the two - i.e. someone who considers the probability of the existence of god(s) to be as likely as it is not. These people are pretty rare, in my experience.


Who's Who?

  The three most important faiths within the UK, according to the 2011 census, are Christianity (59.5%), Islam (4.4%) and Hinduism (1.9%), with 25.7% of the population having no religion. Within Christianity, the most important denominations are Anglicanism (62%), Roman Catholicism (13.5%), Presbyterianism (6%) and Methodism (3.4%). 

[statistics from a 2005 estimate]

  The British Social Attitudes Survey suggests a somewhat different picture, however. The 2013 edition put Christianity on 41.6%, Islam on 4.6% and Hinduism on 1.5%, with a majority (50.6%) stating they had no religion. There are numerous possible causes for this discrepancy - more up-to-date data, a smaller sample size, the elimination of the problem of parents putting their own faith as their children's on census forms etc. (it should be noted, however, that the margin of error in the Survey was only 1.72%).


What I reckon...

  I am, and have been more or less since the age of fifteen, an atheist. This does not mean, as noted above, I am certain no gods exist - what it means is that I have never seen any particularly compelling evidence to prove that any do. The claim that one or more supernatural entities exist, hidden from our sight, and control many aspects of the world and human life seems to me to be quite an incredible one. It requires, therefore, some fairly incredible evidence - evidence which is not apparent to me.

  Though I was raised a Christian (of somewhat hazy denomination - mostly Anglican with a bit of Methodist thrown in for good measure) I was never a particularly devout one, and - following a brief period of heightened religious awareness in my early teens - more or less slowly lost my faith over the course of a couple of years. It simply seemed to me that the only reason I believed in God was that I had been told he existed, without any independent corroboration of the fact. Whilst I am open to any evidence any theist might care to proffer, so far I have seen nothing even remotely convincing.

  Following the loss of my faith I became fairly antitheistic for a brief period. I would now consider myself somewhat less so, but I do believe the existence of religion causes a few problems. My opposition is not really to the kind of personal spiritual belief which characterises many ancient polytheistic religions and the so-called New Age beliefs of the twentieth century. Whilst some of these ideas do strain my credulity - frequently well past breaking point - they do little real harm. No, my main concern is organised religion.


The Dangers of Organised Religion

  I would define organised religion as one which has a hierarchy within it - where certain people are placed above others in the religious pecking order. They also tend to have what you could consider the 'traditional' trappings of religion - holy books, places of worship, formal prayers and rituals. The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are the two clearest examples of this kind of set-up, but it also includes most other Christian denominations, as well as most Judaic, Islamic, Sikh, Buddhist  denominations, and many others besides.

  The issue with these kinds of hierarchical religions is they impress upon their members the idea of obedience - blind obedience, without question. The problem is especially marked when children are introduced to such organisations - the human impulse to listen to and take heed of the advice of our elders, essential for survival in early humans, allows indoctrination and exploitation of young people. Vulnerable adults, such as those with severe learning difficulties or mental illnesses, are also easy targets for these hierarchies. The upper echelons of such religious groups - Archbishops, Cardinals, Ayatollahs and the like - are able to exert massive influence over vast swathes of people.

  This is a form of social control. Throughout history, the unelected leaders of religious organisations have wielded enormous power over the populations they ostensibly serve. They have also frequently collaborated with governments to the detriment of the people - the complicity of the Catholic Church in the atrocities of the fascist regimes in Italy and Spain  in the twentieth century (though less so in Germany) being perhaps the most dramatic example of this. Ultimately, the fact that anyone wields such power without being democratically elected is concerning.


Blind Faith

  This leads me to another (linked) problem with the more dogmatic religions - the accepting of doctrine on blind faith alone. This occurs in most religions, to varying degrees, but it is particularly pronounced in Wahhabi Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Christian denominations such as Mormonism (and in other Christian Churches before the secularisation of the late 20th Century). There is a fine line between these extremely dogmatic faiths and dangerous cults and extremist groups. It is no coincidence that IS, for example, are followers of a particularly extreme form of Wahhabi. 

  The practice of accepting doctrine on the basis of faith - i.e. without independent evidence - is inherently worrisome. It begets a mindset which is easily corruptible - even if the faith itself is benign. Stalin, for example (see, he does come in somewhere) received training as an Orthodox priest; since the population of the Soviet Union was predominantly Orthodox Christian before the Revolution, he and the other Soviet leaders were able to exploit this to inculcate a culture of blind obedience to the Stalinist version of Communism. Indeed, he revived the Church in 1942 in order to assist in the war effort. 

  Unquestioning obedience to authority and acceptance of doctrine without supporting fact is how demagogues build up support for their ideologies without challenge, and it is a mindset which is fostered by the dogmatism of many religious groups. Sceptiscism is the sign of a healthy, enquiring mind -  nothing should be taken on faith alone.


Conclusions

  I hope I have outlined clearly my own beliefs and just two of the principal issues I see with organised religion in the 21st century. This is not to say there are not others, and it is certainly not to say that religion does not have its positives. Talking about faith, why one is or is not religious, and what the issues are which one sees in people of differing beliefs to oneself is still something of a taboo in British society today - but it shouldn't be. Only by having a frank, honest and open dialogue can we resolve these issues and challenge the extremist positions taken by some individuals. Faith - or lack thereof - is a protected characteristic under UK anti-discrimination laws, but that shouldn't mean we can't talk about it and criticise it if need be.

  if we don't, after all, we've seen what the consequences can be.

ISIS and the War for the Middle East

  The situation in Iraq is dire, and growing more so almost by the hour. The incursion of Salafi Jihadists fighting under the banner of ISIS into the north-west of the country represents an existential threat to the country's fragile democracy. Around 7,000 fighters have put an army of over a quarter of a million to rout and seized control of around a third of Iraqi territory. This is a staggering feat for an organisation which did not exist fifteen years ago.



  Things are worse, though, than they appear at first glance, because this war is neither explainable in terms of bipolar conflict nor limited to Iraq. The map to the right shows the current state of Iraq and Syria, with the territories controlled by the major players detailed. The green areas in the north are under the control of the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds, the pink area to the west is held by Assad's regime in Damascus and the purple area is under Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's control. The light blue areas are held by the Free Syrian Army and other, largely moderate Syrian rebel groups. The grey area is ISIS. 

  It is immediately obvious that a warzone of this size and complexity is about far more than just ISIS vs. Baghdad. This war is one which has origins dating back decades, even centuries, and which has the capacity to spill over yet more borders and engulf more of the Middle East. To understand the nature of this war, it is first necessary to look at the fundamental roots of the conflict in the region. Oldest and perhaps most pressing of these is the schism between Sunni and Shia Islam.


Death of a Prophet

  It was the death of the Prophet Muhammed in the year 632 AD (10 AH according to the  Islamic Hijri calendar) which catalysed the great schism. With the Prophet who had united the Arabs and began the conquest of the Middle East dead, a new leader for the fledgling Rashidun Caliphate had to be chosen. The eventual choice, Muhammed's father-in-law Abu Bakr, was made by general consensus, as was the Arabian custom of the time, a method which is supported by the Sunni community. The Shia, however, believe that only Allah may choose a leader, and that - through Muhammed - he had selected Ali (Muhammed's son-in-law) as the Prophet's successor.

  Although Ali did eventually become Caliph, after the assassination of 3rd Caliph Uthman ibn Affan in 656 AD, the split between these two Islamic factions remained. The massacre after the Battle of Karbala in 61 AH (680 AD) intensified and solidified the divide. Though this is, to all intents and purposes. ancient history, the importance of these events for Sunni and Shia alike remains very real. Over time, different cultural and religious practices have further differentiated the two groups and the rivalry between them has grown.

  It is the political divide which most concerns the current situation. The Islamic world has seen significant violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims over the centuries, and this has intensified in recent years. From Pakistan to Yemen, inter-sect conflict has become the norm for the divided Muslim community. In the majority of Muslim countries, Sunnis are the larger group, and Shias are often persecuted.  Iraq itself has been one of the worst-hit places; in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War the incidence of Sunni-Shia killings has frown dramatically. By 2008, over 1100 Sunni suicide bombers had attacked Shia-populated areas, whilst government-sponsored Shia death squads routinely tortured and killed Sunnis in the early years of the new Iraqi state. 

  Nouri al-Maliki has proven himself a sectarian leader of the worst kind. His government has discriminated against and disenfranchised Iraq's majority Sunni Arab population and the Kurds in the north in favour of the Shia Arab community to which he himself belongs. His first reaction to the incursion of ISIS forces into his country was not to remedy the relative lack of Sunni officials in his government in the interests of national unity, but to remove those few who did exist and arrest his own (Sunni) Deputy Prime Minister. This is a man chosen by the electorate of Iraq to lead their country through this crisis, but to whom a large portion of the blame can be ascribed and whose current policies are only making a bad situation worse. 

  His warning to the USA that, should they not initiate bombings against ISIS, he will ask the Iranians to instead belies this sectarian agenda. The Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s may have been initiated by Saddam Hussein's megalomania, but the conflict - the twentieth century's longest - has left scars in the minds of many in Iraq, and the country is widely disliked by the Sunni population due to its Shia theocracy. With the dubiously reformist Rouhani as Maliki's main regional ally, and the Sunni Saudis allegedly funding ISIS, this latest outbreak of bloodshed can be firmly set against the larger background of inter-denominational friction going back over thirteen centuries. 

The Poison of Empire

  As well as the Sunni-Shia conflict, the current war also draws heavily upon the legacy of Europen imperialism in the last two centuries, and Anglo-American neoconservative foreign policy in more recent years. ISIS have released a video proclaiming the establishment of their new Caliphate the 'end of Sykes-Picot'. This refers to the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, which divided the then-Ottoman-ruled lands of Greater Syria and the Levant into British and French spheres of influence. Exposed by the Bolsheviks after they seized control of Russia in 1917, the Agreement broke promises made by the Triple Entente to the Arabs of a single, independent nation-state for their home. It also implicitly committed the Allied powers to Zionism - hardly a recipe for a good start to Arab-European relations.

  Sykes-Picot drew arbitrary borders across the map of the soon-to-be-defeated Ottoman Empire which made no effort to correspond to the actual distribution of ethnic and religious groups in the region. It is mainly down to the peculiarities of this clandestine treaty that the Kurdish people are divided between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey rather than having their own home; that the Sunni Arabs of Western Iraq and Eastern Syria share states with their Shia and Alawite counterparts rather than each other; and, ultimately, why ISIS has been able to overrun large swathes of both countries by exploiting existing divisions within their fragile structures.

  If Sykes-Picot created the unstable base upon which the whole collapsing edifice of Middle Eastern relations is built, then it was the wars waged by the US-led coalitions in 1991 and 2003 which set the walls tumbling. Whilst the Gulf War was arguably justifiable - Hussein's government had launched an unprovoked attack on a small, oil-rich neighbour - it certainly had consequences which go far beyond the cost of lives and capital expended in waging it. It was this war, after all, which spawned al-Qaeda. The Iraq War, though, was entirely unjustifiable: It was launched without UN backing, sold to the British and American people on false pretenses and fought in the most incompetent manner possible, with virtually no thought given to what would become of the country in its aftermath. 

  The Iraq War shattered the country, and sparked waves of unrest which have engulfed the entire region. Tony Blair may bluster that his pet invasion has nothing to do with ISIS, but anyone with a modicum of common sense - let alone any knowledge of the area and its history - should be able to see through this transparent facade. ISIS is certainly not solely the responsibility of the Blair-Bush alliance, but those two megalomaniacs cannot and should not escape their fair share of the blame.


The Evolution of ISIS

  Despite the recent eruption in media coverage, ISIS itself did not suddenly explode out of nowhere. It began life in around 2000 as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ), the project of Jordanian Salafi Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi - a veteran, like Osama bin Laden, of the Afghan Mujaheddin - originally intended the group to overthrow the Jordanian government, but the group moved to Iraq in 2001 following the Anglo-American invasion of Afghanistan. Foreign Islamic fighters travelling to Iraq to fight against the Western invasion forces from 2003 onwards became increasingly dependent on JTJ and the group's main objectives became the ejection of the occupation forces, the elimination of the Iraqi Shia community and the establishment of a strict Islamic theocracy in Iraq - objectives which remain the core driving force behind ISIS today.

  By 2006, the group was officially part of the expanding al-Qaeda network and known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) . AQI declared the existence of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006 - from this point on, AQI activities were attributed to ISI. AQI waxed in power in Iraq from 2006 to 2008, before entering a period of relative decline. However, the beginning of the withdrawal of US troops from January 2009 saw AQI's resurgence and by April 2013 the group's current leader - Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - unilaterally declared a merger with Syria's al-Nusra front. Al-Nusra itself and the al-Qaeda leadership protested, but were unable to prevent the declaration of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham - ISIS.

  ISIS claims the territories of Iraq and Syria, with implied claims over much of the surrounding Levant region. During 2013 and early 2014, the group seized control of large parts of eastern Syria, effectively appropriating control of the Syrian revolution from al-Nusra, the Islamic Front and the secular Free Syrian Army. The capture of Iraq's second city, Mosul, on 10th June 2014 marked the growing success of ISIS in that country. The month of June saw ISIS seize more and more territory in Iraq, though suffering some small losses in Syria as a result. On the 29th June, ISIS formally proclaimed the Islamic State with its capital in Ar-Raqqah, historic seat of the Abbasid Caliphate, and with al-Baghdadi as Caliph.


The Future of the War

  So, now that we understand something of the nature of the beast that is ISIS, let us look once again at the specifics of the warzone as is. The Islamic State has around 7,000 troops in Iraq and 5,000 in Syria; furthermore, it has access to the latest US-built military technology, taken from the retreating Iraqi Army in early June. Iraq has around 270,000 men; the army's second division has fallen back in disarray but other army sections - such as the battle-hardened first and seventh divisions - are moving to confront the insurgency. Iraq also has new Russian fighter jets which will help it achieve dominance of the skies - as yet, ISIS has no air force.

  Meanwhile, the other players in this battle are readying. The Iraqi Kurdish army - the Peshmerga - numbers 200,000 soldiers, mostly independent of Iraqi central control. There are rumours that the already largely autonomous region of Kurdistan is planning to hold a referendum on independence; as the most economically successful and politically stable part of Iraq, with a large and experienced fighting force, such a move would not prove entirely impractical. There is also the opportunity to link up with the Syrian Kurds to Iraqi Kurdistan's immediate west, paving the way to the Kurdish people's long-cherished dream of a united, independent homeland. ISIS has so far given Kurdistan a relatively wide berth, for good reasons.

  Assad in Damascus also remains important. As an Alawite, his participation in the Sunni-Shia feud is limited, but he has a clear interest in opposing ISIS. With a quarter of a million active military personnel remaining to him, the Ba'ath leader is far from finished. The other Syrian rebel organisations, including the Free Syrian Army and the Islamic Front, have several tens of thousands of their own troops in the field also (the exact number is unknown). If ISIS wishes to Expand the borders of the Islamic State into the rest of Syria, it will face nothing if not stiff opposition.

  The war must, as noted above, also be seen in the context of the wider Sunni-Shia conflict. Iran, upon whom Maliki has grown ever more dependent, leads the Shia bloc which also includes the Lebanese militants Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia, accused of bankrolling ISIS, heads up the larger Sunni group. These two powerful countries are both highly dictatorial regimes, and are not above using the chaos in Iraq and Syria to their own advantage. Israel, caught up in its own struggle against Hamas - which has itself flared up once again - must also be factored in, as ISIS would be extremely unlikely to tolerate the existence of a Jewish state in the Levant should it attain dominance in the region. As far as the international community is concerned, the West is relatively toothless. The UK and the USA are too war-weary to even consider intervention against ISIS, and Russia seems content merely to supply equipment to Maliki and nothing more. 

  What will happen next? Frankly, the situation is too fragile to make any kind of accurate prediction. Some things can be presupposed, though - Iraq and Syria are unlikely to survive as contiguous states, for one. The emergence of an independent Kurdistan seems increasingly likely and, though the international community is unlikely to accept the Islamic State in its present form, it is clear that the Sunni and Shia communities of the region are unable to coexist at the present time. Some kind of partition is inevitable, whether or not ISIS carries the day. Much depends on whether al-Qaeda, which broke with ISIS in February, endorses the new Caliphate or not. If it does, that will draw many more Islamic militants into the ranks of ISIS and link the fledgling state firmly to the attempt throughout the Middle East and North Africa to impose radical Sunni theocracy. If not, the resulting rupture could scupper the Islamist cause.

 This war is far from over. It will take decades for the damage done to the Middle East to even begin to repair itself, if indeed it ever does. And here in the West, we can do little but watch and hope the repercussions for our own countries are not too severe. Oh, and put Blair and Bush on trial in the Hague. Then dearest Tony can give his opinion all he likes.

Education, Education, Education - Part Two: Take It On Faith

  As will be news to absolutely no-one paying the slightest bit of attention to the universe, a number of schools in Birmingham have recently been criticised by Ofsted for enforcing a conservative Islamic curriculum and creating a 'culture of fear and intimidation'. Five schools, out of 21 which were subjected to snap inspections, have been placed in special measures.

  This move comes in the wake of a (probably faked) letter leaked earlier this year threatening a 'Trojan Horse' plan for Islamist extremists to take over a number of schools in the area, in order to inculcate the children their with strict Islamic values. This story has been churning away for over three months now, and up until this point I have steered clear of it. The reason is pretty simple: there wasn't actually any evidence on either side of the debate. 

  This didn't stop the mainstream media, of course, who are traditionally rather less concerned with facts than selling newspapers/attracting web views. Indeed, the 'Trojan Horse' story has been run in the usual overdramatised way, with helpful interjections by the likes of Theresa May and Michael Gove making it all the easier to sensationalise the story and cloud the actually very important issues with senseless mud-flinging. Once again, this should surprise exactly no-one.

  Now that the inspections have been completed, steps have been taken and the dust has at least started to settle, perhaps we can take a sober and rational look at the issue. Let's give it a go.


Trojan Horse or Red Herring?

  Red herring is the short answer. Despite the absolutely incredible scrutiny that has been brought to bear on these schools over the past few weeks, there remains no credible evidence that the original 'Trojan Horse'  plot ever existed. Ofsted have stated publicly that 'no evidence of radicalisation' is to be found within the classrooms of the schools so accused. So that's that. Time to go home, then?

  Not quite. The original letter, hoax though it is now thought to have been, has actually had the benefit of unearthing some very disturbing goings-on in the five schools mentioned above. Whilst nothing on the level of an Islamist conspiracy, there are some things here which we have to take very seriously indeed. One school in particular - Oldknow Academy - was described as 'trying to promote a narrow faith-based ideology', and all five show serious signs of an unhealthy relationship with the Islamic faith in what are - ostensibly - secular academies.

  Whilst banning Christmas and organising Muslim-only trips to Saudi Arabia at the taxpayers' expense  are hardly evidence of an extremist plot - and those who have decribed the Ofsted report as a 'damning verdict' are clearly guilty of some serious overexaggeration - they certainly aren't the kinds of things we want in our schools. The fact that this situation has been allowed to develop, threatening children's education and their ability to interact with those of other cultures, is a damning indictment of existing scrutiny procedures - not only Ofsted, who should have picked up on this much sooner, but also Birmingham City Council and the Department for Education itself (which, as most of these schools are academies, is directly responsible - see my earlier article on just what exactly I think of that). 

  The relevant authorities have been shown to be woefully incompetent, and we need an urgent review of procedures to make sure this kind of thing never happens again. The sad fact is, though, that the government in general is perfectly happy for such 'narrow faith-based ideologies' to dominate education - as long as the correct protocol is observed.


Give Me A Child Until He Is Seven, and I Will Give You The Man

  This old (and sexist) Jesuit quote belies the fact that indoctrination of the young is no modern problem. Yes, the religious orders have been doing it for centuries, if not millennia - and the sad fact is, if Park View Educational Trust (which runs three of the five schools placed under special measures) had registered the schools as a faith-based academy or free school, all would most likely have been well.

  Faith schools have always existed in the UK, of course - indeed, go back far enough and they were pretty much the only schools available anywhere. A modern faith schools has to follow the national curriculum, except that they are not required to teach about other religions - just their own. Now, I happen to think that is unacceptable in a multicultural society - children have the right to be educated in ALL areas, not just those selected for them by religious demagogues - but I realise that many people are perfectly okay with this. 

  What I don't think many people would be okay with is a curriculum entirely dictated by the faith of a schools leadership; one which teaches creationism in science lessons or forbids arts subjects such as music on religious grounds. But this is exactly what is allowed under the academy and free school systems, which makes explicit provision for faith groups to take over schools and gut the curriculum accordingly.

  The mistake Park View made was registering their schools as secular academies. If they'd thought to classify them as Islamic free schools - or Catholic, Sikh or Jewish for that matter - their actions would have been perfectly legal. Other faith academies have already been investigated for similar, and in many cases worse actions, but whilst the Al-Madinah school was closed down for making female teachers wear headscarves, the Yesodey Hatorah Jewish girls' school in London is still going strong, despite censoring students' exam papers to remove evolution-based questions.

  It is no surprise that Yesodey Hatorah serves an Orthodox Jewish community which is so culturally isolated that some of its members, born and bred in London, have German accents because the only adults they were exposed to growing up were German-born Jews. These kinds of 'narrow, faith-based ideologies' are allowed to persist, though they are easily as damaging as that in Park View, if not more so.

  I do think there is an element of Islamophobia to this - Muslim schools like Al-Madinah or effectively Muslim schools like Park View and Oldknow are, rightly, cracked down on whilst Jewish schools like Yesodey Hatorah and Christian schools like those run by the sinister-sounding 'Exclusive Brethren' escape notice. There's also the fact that some of these schools are free schools or private schools rather than academies, and thus have even more freedom to manipulate their pupils' education. But whatever the reason, it's got to stop.


A Not-so-Radical Solution

  Free schools, Academies, Faith Schools, Private Schools - all of these allow unacceptable intrusions of faith into children's lives. All of these allow religious organisations to indoctrinate the young and vulnerable with their beliefs. Whether you agree with their doctrines or not is immaterial - as adults, the choice is yours. But as children, you tend to believe what you are told. And if you are being blasted with religious dogma at schools as well as at home, what chance of developing into a free-thinking, sceptical individual do you really have?

  The solution is obvious: Abolish all Faith, Free, Academy and Private schools. Replace them with state-maintained, secular schools which can protect children against indoctrination rather than being complicit in it. Let's give our children a rounded, full education, covering all aspects of the sciences, arts and humanities - as well as technical and vocational skills training - to allow them to become well-balanced adults.

  Then, if they wish, they can pick a religion, when they have all the evidence, all the facts and all the cognitive skills at their command to do so properly. I reckon I know what the result of that will be, though. But that's a topic for another time...

Narendra Modi - The Rise of 'India's Milosevic'

  On Friday, the results came in for the world's single biggest election, a poll covering most of a subcontinent where 815 million people have the chance to cast their vote. The Indian General Election took twelve days to complete, and a further four to count the votes. This is truly a momentous event, easily the most important so far this year, yet it got virtually no mainstream coverage in the UK or US media.

  The really worrying thing about this election in particular, though, isn't the lack of attention the Western media pay to such an important event - concerning though that is. No, the scary thing is that this election marked the ascension to power in India of Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist party, the BJP. Modi swept to power in a landslide, with his party taking 282 of the Lok Sabha's 543 seats, whilst his wider electoral alliance won a further 54 - a total of 62%, compared to its closest rival's paltry performace of just 11%. 

  This is a party, let me make it clear, which has as its official policy a ban on Muslim immigration from neighbouring Bangladesh, whilst opening its arms to Hindu Bangladeshis; a party which states the existence of Pakistan to be illegal and has been consistently hostile towards this and other Islamic states in the region; and which is generally considered the political wing of the Hindu nationalist paramilitary the RSS, an organisation frequently linked to violent acts of terror and banned four times in India by both pre- and post-independence governments.

  In short, the BJP is bad news.

  Narendra Modi himself is a particularly vile example of an already distasteful organisation. Leader of Gujarat state since 2001, Modi was implicated in the Hindu-Muslim race riots of 2002 in that state, which killed around 2000 people - mostly Muslims. Modi's personal involvement has never been proved, but it is certain that Gujarat state police and BJP government officials were involved. Despite receiving heavy criticism for his inaction over the violence, Modi remained in power - and actually stepped up his anti-Muslim rhetoric in the aftermath of the tragedy.

  India is the world's second-largest country in terms of population and seventh-largest by land area; it has the world's third-largest economy by PPP and possesses armed forces of 1.3 million troops, as well as nuclear weapons. This is a powerful nation, make no mistake, and it is now in the hands of a man who until 10 months ago was banned from entering the UK due to his extremist views and connections with the 2002 riots. 

  Modi has been likened to Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević by Mehdi Hasan and to Adolf Hitler by former Indian Union Minister Mani Shankar, but the extreme nature of these comparisons - which has, perhaps understandably, generated calls for restraint in that small portion of the media which is paying any attention - risks undermining the very real point that this is a man with extremely disturbing views, and a history demonstrating his willingness to allow them to be realised, who has now been handed the keys to power in one of the world's upcoming superpowers, with the capability to launch nuclear strikes and a very clear target on its doorstep to aim at.

  And THAT should make us very worried indeed.

The Secular State

  Declaration of Interest: I am an atheist.

  A proper one, too - not an agnostic, in a kind of amorphous muddle as to whether there's a God (or indeed, gods) or not, but a full-nine-yards, there-is-no-God, when-you-die-that's-pretty-much-it, Jesus-was-just-an-ordinary-chap-if-he-even-existed-at-all-which-has-recently-had-doubt-cast-upon-it-as-an-historical-hypothesis kind of atheist. That said, I'm perfectly willing to reconsider this view if any decent evidence is to the contrary is thrown my way, but - until that point - atheist I shall remain. 

  Not that this should really make a difference to the subject under discussion, but I felt it was important to get it out of the way. I have, one might say, a vested interest in this topic. So does everyone else, of course, but we'll get to that.

  Now, what do I mean by 'secular'? The conservative elements within our society - i.e. the Conservative Party, the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, the vast majority of religious institutions etc. etc. - often demonise secularists as 'militant atheists'. What exactly they mean by this phrase is less clear, so I shall turn to the dictionary for assistance - the Oxford English Dictionary, specifically, just to appeal to their conservative sensibilities.

  Militant: Favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause
  Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

  Therefore, the accusation seems to be that secularists are people who favour confrontational or violent methods in support of the lack of belief in God or gods. How exactly one could favour violent methods in favour of the lack of belief in something, I do not quite understand. I could see how one could be a militant anti-theist, which would involve violence in the active opposition to religion, but that's a different matter. Hmmm...could the conservatives possibly have made a ridiculous semantic error? Surely not! Such a thing would be impossible...

  In any case, the OED defines secular as meaning 'Not connected with religious or spiritual matters'. What a secularist is, then, is someone who supports the idea that an institution - in this case, the state - should not be connected with religious or spiritual matters. The destruction of Christianity, western morality and the entirety of civilised society is by no means implied - think of it as an optional extra. Indeed, you don't have to be an anti-theist, atheist or even an agnostic to be a secularist - religious people can, and should, be in favour of a state which is not connected to or affiliated with religious groups.

  The reasons for this are clear: the domination by any one religious denomination of state institutions will almost certainly lead to conditions within that state which favour that religious denomination. So, using the UK as the obvious example, the domination of the established Christian Church of England means that non-Christians (and, to a lesser degree, non-Anglican Christians) are all disadvantaged - whether they are believers or not. The only people who should not be up in arms from a practical standpoint are the CofE themselves - and surely they can see that the status quo is morally untenable.

  Put simply, the CofE has too much power. It gets twenty-six bishops in the House of Lords, making it the only institution in the country which is constitutionally guaranteed a say in our lawmaking process (the relatively toothless monarchy excepted). Justifications of this presence on the grounds of membership simply don't add up - by such a calculation, the RSPB is entitled to at least twelve seats in the House itself, but the clamours for this and other popular charitable organisations to be ennobled are tellingly absent. 

  Religion more generally has huge powers over education - around a third of all UK schools are controlled by religious groups, allowing them a huge ability to influence our children. Faith schools don't have to teach about other religions - this is indoctrination, pure and simple - and can select their pupils on the basis of faith, allowing them to exclude what are often the less advantaged prospective pupils. The state also provides tax-relief to religious groups, running into vast amounts - although the refusal of multiple freedom of information requests on the subject prevents us from knowing just how much is stolen from the taxpayer in this way. 

  A secular state would prevent taxpayers' money from being used to subsidise already hugely-profitable organisations; it would remove the anti-democratic presence of twenty-six men (and they are, of course, men - no female bishops allowed, remember?) from our Parliament whose presence their is predicated purely upon their already-privileged position within a dying church; and it would end the practice of religious groups controlling our children's education.

  Furthermore, secularism is the only truly effective way of guaranteeing equal rights for all. The aforementioned ban on female bishops in the CofE is just one example of how religious influence in our state institutions violates basic human rights; the fact that the head of state of this country cannot, for entirely anachronistic reasons, be a Catholic is another. A secular state would guarantee equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

  It is not an example of 'militant atheism' to demand that all people be treated as equal by the constitution - it is the central principle of democracy. Until we have a secular state, the UK's claim to be democratic is a patently false one.

Russia... It's not the only place that hates gays

I’m sure we have all read or seen something upon Russian anti gay legislation recently with all the media concerning the Olympics etc however I’m not paying as much attention to that as some may think I should.

Now don’t get me wrong I am by no means a fan of Russia and detest the way they are treating my fellow LGBTQs, however with all the focus upon them currently it is all too easy to forget one simple thing.

There is discrimination  in other countries throughout the world and many at a far higher level than Russia.

The Russian law is incredibly vague which has allowed people to make claims about what its intentions are and what it allows. And thats fine you can argue back and forth about what it allows and how it is discriminating against us it is great to see people so passionate about LGBTQ rights. What I wish is to see that transferred to other countries throughout the world who are for the most part ignored. Also you have to remember that no one has been killed in Russia as a result of this and only a few dozen at most have been arrested. It is still an unacceptable breach upon their human rights and I detest it and wish to see it disappear but I am more concerned about those in other countries who are threatened with losing their life.

So what countries am I talking about at discriminate worse than Russia? Well the list is quite long, however there are a couple that implemented legislation very recently or are going to as a result.

Obviously Uganda, this one was in fact recently challenged in court by activists in Uganda but first what does the anti-gay act in Uganda entail?

You see this bill does infact ban homosexuality completely heres a quick summary:

• Life in prison for gay sex of including things such as oral or life imprisonment for being in a gay marriage.
• Seven years for attempting to commit homosexuality which includes things such as simply kissing a man.
• Seven years in jail if you “promote homosexuality” and/or a 25,000 pound fine.
• Seven years in Jail for the director of any business that “promotes homosexuality” and the business being shut down.

Obviously this is a simplification but I think you can see why this is worse than Russia.

Granted you might have heard of the Ugandan legislation as it has at least been reported on, however not nearly in the same amount as the Russian one has.

So why is this? Well a couple of reasons spring to my in this case one is minor and pure speculation, but I find it interesting enough to consider and the other is more important.

The minor reason is that the problem is fueled at the moment by American Evangelical Christian Conservatives. A several hundred have set up parishes and are preaching literalist Biblical views causing the anti gay views to grow in Uganda, now you could say that the American Media has no wish to report this fact though either way I have nothing concrete in support of it. I just thought it was a possible idea and it does help explain why there is so much anti gay feeling in Uganda and many other African countries as Uganda is not an isolated incident of this.

Now the bigger reason that it is gaining less attention is the HIV or AIDs virus which is prolific in African countries such as Uganda. Now the gay population gets the blame for this problem so some people, mostly right wing americans, attempt to justify the legislation against homosexuality in this way so feel there is no need to report upon such things as it is to them an acceptable concept.

I will point one thing out however, gays do not count for the any significant amount the AIDS problem in places such as Uganda. It is infact impoverished couples that account for the major population with the AIDs virus. This is because they do not have the means to protect themselves from the virus with condoms etc and in some cases, again due to evangelicals and people such as the ex-pope, they are told not to use condoms and are lied to saying that it encourages the spread of aids. Meanwhile the legislators are of the opinion it is the fault of the LGBTQ community so make such things illegal.

There is hope though, organisations are pushing for education of the population of these areas and the provision of condoms etc, so while I cannot think of a solution for Russia apart from perhaps a complete governmental reform. I feel that there is at least a chance for people in Africa as they have legislated out of fear essentially, so bringing media attention could not only highlight the plight but help to promote education and aid in such countries and to highlight those who spread the lies that the gay population is to blame. So don’t just focus on Russia the please do report on it, devote a larger amount of time to a problem we could actually solve.

Finally I recommend watching Kenya as due to Uganda a study has been ordered as to how they can enforce their own anti gay legislation more severely, so keep an eye on them as it is likely to develop in the next few months.

Blood On the Sands

  On Wednesday, a barrage of rockets was fired by Gaza-based Palestinian militants into the southern part of Israel. Later that day, the Israeli government launched retaliatory airstrikes on twenty-nine sites in the Gaza Strip in an attempt to destroy the culprits. For a wonder, no-one was killed - this time.

  But since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 countless people - soldiers and civilians; citizens of Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, the Lebanon and other countries further afield - have perished in the conflict which has been a central feature of the Middle Eastern political landscape for long, painful decades. Approximately 16,000 people have lost their lives. And for what?

  The roots of the conflict stretch back into ancient history. The expulsion of the Jewish people from their homeland of Judea after the Jewish-Roman War of 132-135 led this people to spread across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, facing much persecution for many centuries. After the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany against the Jews during the Holocaust, the victorious Allies - particularly the UK and the USA - felt it was their responsibility to bring an end to the persecution of the Jewish people. They decided that the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Eretz Israel, as long called for by the World Zionist Organisation, was the best way to ensure this.

  But there was one slight problem: Eretz Israel was part of the British Mandate of Palestine and home to 1.76 million people, over a million of them Palestinian Arabs with a history of conflict with the Jewish nationalists in the area dating back at least twenty years. Nonetheless, the State of Israel was created and achieved independence on the 15th of May 1948. A separate Palestinian state was also intended to be created, the two countries almost overlapping one another (see map).

  The next day, however, the fledgling nation was invaded by thousands of troops from neighbouring Arab  states, beginning the first in a series of intermittent wars which would tear the region periodically apart throughout the mid-twentieth century. During these conflicts, the land designated as Palestinian would be seized by Israel, along with other Arab territories (see above).

  Fast-forward to the modern day, and the divisions remain as deep as ever. There is religious conflict - many of the holy sites of both Islam and Judaism are the same and extremists on both sides demand that they be denied to the opposition; this on top of a deeper inter-faith conflict which has existed in the area for centuries and also includes Christian groups. There is ethnic hatred - anti-Semitism as a phrase cannot be used here, as both Jews and Arabs are Semitic peoples, but there is a definite and ingrained racial and nationalistic prejudice on the part of each group for the other. There is good old-fashioned economic self-interest - the richer Israelis make a good living out of exploiting the poor Palestinians. And there is severe political pressure on the leaders of both sides to continue the conflict - after all, the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty after the 1973 Yom Kippur War led to the assassination of Egyptian President Sadat for daring to conclude peace talks with the enemy.

  And all the while, the conflict escalates. Israel builds illegal settlements on Palestinian soil, destroys shipments of humanitarian aid and launches airstrikes at civilian targets in the hope of picking off a few Hamas fighters. Even as I write this, the Israeli Parliament has passed a law to extend military conscription. The Palestinians respond with missile launches, bombs and other terrorist tactics. And understandably so.

  Let me make this clear - I do not support the terrorism of Hamas. But I do understand it. Whilst there has been in the past clearly fault on both sides, the fact remains that the land Israel occupies is fundamentally not theirs. No Jewish state existed in Canaan for over 1,800 years. That is far too long a time to maintain any kind of legitimate hold over a territory. By that argument, a quarter of the world's surface is sovereign territory of the UK, most of Asia belongs to Mongolia and the coastline of the Mediterranean should be in Italian hands. This kind of reasoning is frankly preposterous. Added to this is the hugely heavy-handed tactics of the Israeli military in response to a relatively minor Palestinian threat - airstrikes in response to the launching of a couple of rockets is the kind of over-exaggerated response that no principle of self-defence can possibly condone. In recent years, casualties in the conflict have overwhelmingly been Palestinian fighters and - tragically - Palestinian civilians, even children.

  The fighting must end.

  Clearly it is no longer practical to remove the State of Israel from the region. The Jewish population is too entrenched and would be persecuted terribly in an Arab-dominated state. But, equally, the terrible racial, religious and socio-economic apartheid of the Israeli state must end. We have to, therefore, push for a two-state solution - one in which both sides have sovereign territory to call their own, so that both Israelis and Palestinians have the security to establish their homes and raise their families in peace. What is more, the Palestinian people must be compensated for the land that has been progressively stolen from them - involving, if not a return to the original 1947 UN plan, then at least a significant redrawing of the status quo.

  If this goal cannot be achieved, the conflict will rage on. More young men will lose their lives in pointless fighting. The lands considered holy by three major world religions will continue to be a battlefield for those same faiths to clash in fruitless war. There will forever more be blood on the sands of Canaan.