Logic Fail: National Secular Society and the Coronation Oath

He (Keith Porteous Wood) added: "We object almost as much to Prince Charles's intention to be 'defender of faith'; that is like saying he doesn't care about half of the population who are not religious or are religiously unconcerned."

from this piece on the latest National Secular Society headline-grabber. If Mr Porteous Wood intends to defend the rights of a town councillor who doesn't want to pray in a public meeting, does that therefore mean that he doesn't care about anyone else in the country? The suggestion that Charles will only rule (if he ever does) on behalf of people with faith is ridiculous.

Scouts still keeping their promise to God

The National Secular Society has turned its attention away from setting legal precedents with small district councils, and is now trying to undermine the foundations of the world Scouting movement. Unhappy with a promise that invokes God, and unwilling (it seems) to set up an atheist alternative...

the NSS has now written to Mr Grylls, urging him to support the introduction of a secular version of the scout promise. They say that, unless this happens, atheist children will be excluded or will have to lie in order to join the organisation.

The NSS were unable to provide an exact figure for the number of complaints they have received.

The Scout Association told the BBC that the scout promise is an integral part of the worldwide scouting movement.As a membership organisation, they say they are entitled to set certain criteria for joining.

Spokesman Simon Carter said the association was aware of the views of the NSS but did not intend to change the wording of the promise: "We will continue to offer adventure and development opportunities to our membership of over 500,000 adults and young people which is steadily growing”

full story here. I'm not surprised the NSS can't provide any stats, their membership has been a thing of mystery for as many years as anyone can remember, despite repeated calls for them to publish the figures.

Praying is Fine, Just Don't Put it on the Agenda: Bideford Links

Update: with spectacularly good timing, a new form of prayer for use in Council meetings has just been published.

Lots of pixels spilled over the Bideford judgement in the last 24 hours, here are a few links:

The original court judgement, finding that making prayers part of official council business is 'not lawful'

Heresy Corner: good piece, noting that the judgement was based on what powers a council does and doesn't have, and not on any supposed violation of human rights. The judge was also careful to spell out that the judgement doesn't automatically entail similar conclusions on other Christendom legacy events (e.g. Remembrance Day)

Steve Tilley isn't too flustered, "it is a matter of common courtesy to ask permission before you pray"

Cranmer quotes Eric Pickles at length, who opposes the judgement and argues that new localism powers would enable councils to overturn it.

Thinking Anglicans has a good roundup of the main news coverage.

The Beaker Folk note another problem closer to home.

The BBC report makes it plain that the NSS failed to get prayers declared as a breach of human rights:
The NSS, which said prayers had no place in "a secular environment concerned with civic business", argued the "inappropriate" ritual breached articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect an individual's right to freedom of conscience and not to face discrimination.

However, the case was not won on human rights grounds but on a point of statutory construction of local government legislation.

So whilst the National Secular Society are bouncing up and down in public, their 'victory' is pretty minor. Change one line of the 1972 local authority legislation, and we're back where we started. It's this argument that has the most implications, and the fact that it didn't carry in court is a major setback to the NSS.Me? This is clearly part of the wider campaign by the NSS to exclude religion from public life, a point well made by Michael Langrish as he toured the news studios yesterday. In the end it turns on a point of process, rather than of rights. Councils can still pray, they just shouldn't put it on the official business to which all members are summoned. I remember being pleasantly suprised to find that our local town council had a chaplain and had prayers at the start of meetings - but I'm with Steve Tilley, it should be voluntary, as prayers are in the House of Commons.

I don't know if the NSS have the cash to bring cases like these to small district councils across the country, or whether the police will have better things to do with their time than descend on councils waving illegal agenda papers to arrest them half way through the Lords Prayer.

In the end, surely councils should be free to decide whether they pray or not? It shouldn't be for a judge to hand down a judgement for them all to follow. Hopefully the localism stuff from the government will allow a bit of common sense.

On other local stuff, there's more on the continuing saga at Somerton Town Council, local blog here.

National Secular Society and the General Election

Excellent piece of analysis by Matt Wardman about the National Secular Society, their political agenda, and the likely extent of their influence after the General Election.

Ironically, I think that if the NSS was pushed to the margin, the case for a secular state could be put far more strongly, as there’d be far fewer insults thrown around, and far more use of accurate information in the debate.

Spread the Joy, not the Jaundice

3 ideas for making other people's Christmasses better

1. Give your bin lorry crew a crate of beer, just think what a mess you'd be in without them.

2. Don't shop until December 29th, that's next Tuesday. Monday 28th is supposed to be a Bank Holiday, but you could have fooled most workers in retail, who will be slaving away over a hot till. Our local Tesco corner shop will be shut on Christmas Day, and then reopens as normal for Sat 26th, Sun 27th etc. One day off for Jesus, 364 days on for Mammon. This only happens because there is the demand from shoppers. If nobody shopped from close of play tomorrow until next Tuesday, then there wouldn't be the demand for the shops to open. If they didn't open, millions of retail workers would get time with their families and friends to enjoy Christmas, instead of having to be back at work on Saturday for our retailing frenzy.

3. Instead of shoplifting, get your Christmas Eve congregations down to the local supermarket, blag all the perfectly edible food which is going to get thrown out and make up food parcels together. Ok it's a bit late to organise for this year....

Anything for an alternative to some of this: some extraordinary stuff both from the 'everyone's persecuting us' Christian Voice, and the National Secular Society, who use their seasonal message to fire both barrels at 'primitive' immigrants, compare faith schools to prisons, accuse Gordon Brown of being a lunatic and uses the charming epithet 'Taliban Tories'. Ironically, it's a message which starts off by protesting that the Christian faith spreads intolerance, bigotry and irrationality. Go figure. (Church Mouse is similarly disturbed)

The NSS should be glad the press haven't got hold of their line about Christmas celebrations in schools being 'soppy sentimental stories'. Far be it from me to wish the Daily Mail upon anyone, but this makes Nick Baines look like a pussycat....

There's Probably No Street Pastors, Now Stop Vomiting and Get Home by Yourself

Hands up who thinks this is a 'success':

I thought I would provide a small success story Westminster Unison had regarding Street Pastors, which were nearly introduced at Westminster City Council. Following a complaint made by myself, and a letter to Newsline, outlining the reasons why a local authority should not pay for the Ascension Trust, an evangelical Christian group, to patrol the streets, I was informed this week that Westminster has now withdrawn the proposal.

or this a 'victory'

After some persistence on my part, however, the Council undertook something called an Equalities Impact Assessment, which had to acknowledge the fact that, under the aims of the scheme Street Pastors could only be recruited from "individuals with a Christian Faith" and was also only open to those "whose relationship lifestyle is in keeping with mainstream Christian teaching" – i.e. no gays or lesbians, thank you.

I have just received confirmation from a slightly embarrassed Council official that the scheme will receive no further public funding, and wanted to share with your readership a small, but satisfying, victory against the encroachment of religion into public life. I would even go out on Friday night to celebrate, but the Street Pastors are still out there after my soul.

I'm caught between bewilderment and boiling blood at the sheer short-sightedness of this 'secularism at any cost' approach. The real losers will be the clubbers, who SP's are there to look out for, help where needed, and be a listening ear for. The police and emergency services jobs will get a little bit harder too. In both cases there'll probably be enough financial support from the churches to make up the difference, but there are obviously some very odd ideas out there of what the Pastors do.

In the last few months I've heard of young children found sleeping rough by SP's on a Saturday night who were got back home, someone else who was about to commit suicide who talked it through with some Street Pastors and changed their mind, fights avoided, vulnerable women protected from people trying to bundle them into cars, you name it. These are the people Street Pastors help.

At the same time if someone asks why we're doing it, they'll get an honest answer. That gives all sorts of opportunities for people to sound off about God, get into deep theological argument, or walk away - and that's completely up to them. At no point is there any attempt to evangelise or exploit people who are slightly worse for wear. If there was, the police would quite rightly tell us to go back home. As it is, police in several areas are actively inviting the local churches to set up Street Pastor initiatives, as it's recognised that they do some good.

So what's the problem? That if a group is motivated by their faith to do something of public benefit, then it shouldn't get any funding. You can be motivated by anything else, and we won't complain, but we can't have Christians doing good, because, well, they're Christians. And? We have a night shelter for the homeless in Yeovil, originally set up by Christians, now passed on to other leadership. And the Lords Larder, which gives out hundreds of food parcels in partnership with Social Services - the clue is in the name. Both work in partnership with secular agencies, and have received support from non-church sources. Does the council have to wait for agnostic charities to set up before it's allowed to fund them, or can it support positive action no matter who does it, or whether or not they are motivated by some kind of faith?

Perhaps the problem is the conviction that there must be an ulterior motive. That wouldn't be unreasonable - every other stranger who acts friendly is usually a salesman or a Scientologist. The church itself sometimes gets in a muddle over 'friendship evangelism' - friends are not friends if they're just people you are getting to know so you can invite them to church. So that suspicion is understandable. And of course if clubbers show some interest in the Christian faith, they'll be encouraged in that. A comparison: our local MP and councillors all represent political parties. They'll work on behalf of constituents of any political conviction, but if those constituents show signs of supporting the LibDems, or whoever, then that will be encouraged, but the help isn't made conditional on people's political viewpoints. Same with Street Pastors - the help isn't conditional, but enquiries are welcomed.

There are clearly a lot of myths about Street Pastors doing the rounds, so lets nail a few:
- SP's main aim is to be a pastoral presence on the streets, to look out for and help the vulnerable where appropriate. They are not 'after your soul'.

- We work in partnership with the police and council, and involve the police in the (quite intensive) training, which all SP's must complete. That includes drug awareness, conflict management, alcohol awareness, youth culture, probation, child protection etc.

- There is no attempt to 'get people when they're vulnerable'. If folk want to talk about God, the SP's are happy to listen. But there's no preaching. The proof of this is simply to see what happens where SP's are in operation - if they were going round Bible bashing people, most clubbers would either run a mile or beat them up. As well as being extremely bad practice, it would be self-defeating. We'd also not have any Street Pastors, as nobody would sign up to that sort of job description.

- People know what we stand for, it's no secret that these are people from the churches, so there's nothing covert or underhand going on.

- The point of the uniforms is so that SP's are recognisable, that there's some 'brand recognition' that these are safe people who'll look after you and make sure you're ok. There's some suggestion that SP's make too much of what they do, and that proper Christians would do it in secret. Fair point, but the uniforms are very helpful - ask anyone else who wears one as part of their work. A complete stranger with no identification turning up to 'help' a group of clubbers would be pretty suspicious.

- Each SP commits to raising the money (around £300 for training, uniforms, etc.) themselves, many are supported by churches, but we find that the local community/agencies want to support the initiative as well. We had one grant in Yeovil from a local councillor who decided to apply on our behalf. If that support is available, then great - the fact that SP's is primarily a Christian charity shouldn't prevent local authorities and agencies from supporting it. The British Humanist Association recently got a grant from national government, but not many people are suggesting they pay it back.

- SP's will deal equally with everyone they come across: male, female, gay, straight, drunk, sober etc. etc.

Meanwhile here is a long list of the awards that SP's have recieved from local communities who appreciate what they do, and here is an account from an Essex MP of what Street Pastors do in Chelmsford. Simon Burns MP quotes the following statistics:

In Lewisham there was a 30% reduction in street crime in the first 13 weeks that they were operating, in Camberwell a 95% reduction and in Peckham 74%. In Chelmsford they have made an immediate and significant impact.

a few other links
positive noises here on ConservativeHome.
Derby police nominate local SP's for award.
SP's praised by police for bringing down crime in Kingston.
Home Office paper which mentions Street Pastors as an example of good public sector/charity partnership in community safety.
Example of what's going on in Taunton, where they offer a 'safe space' for folk to wait for friends and taxis, and recover from a heavy night in a safe place, rather than in a hedge.
Good explanation of the SP ethos in this BBC Scotland report.
SP's in Bridgend praised by police and welcomed by the council.

and so on...

I don't have the stats for Yeovil yet, but we were told by the town centre beat manager a couple of weeks ago that recorded crime had been steadily dropping on a Saturday night since the Street Pastors started up here, and they're very keen for us to do Friday's too. We've just interviewed about 17 applicants to join the team, and hopefully will start doing Friday and Saturday nights from the spring of 2010.

We could run Street Pastors without funding from the council - it would make the £300 fee a bit tougher for some of the folk who do it, but many of them would probably manage to raise it anyway. Even without the funding, we want to do it in partnership with the council and the police, because that's what works best. And local councillors around the UK clearly see it as something worth supporting. Some people may be opposed in principle to anything done by Christians, but there's not much we can do about that except say: come and see what really happens, and then make up your mind.

Final point: it's been argued that Street Pastors should let folk of any faith or none sign up. In some places this happens - there are 'street angel' projects in several towns. However, it seems a little bizarre to insist that if Christians want to get together to do something of benefit to the public, that they have to let anyone else join in. Surely the important thing is that the benefit is open to all, rather than the membership.

It's a positive thing that Christians want to do this, and do it in partnership with the police and the local authority. That partnership is healthier than forcing the church to go it alone, and freezing it out of any partnership because we're motivated by a set of values and beliefs that some other people don't agree with. Even if your vision is of a secular society, that vision will only work if people with faith and people without it are able to live and work together.

PS Blogger comments has gone a bit weird, I keep getting error messages during the review process, so they may take a bit of time to appear.

National Secular Society to Disband?

"We shouldn't have unelected people influencing decision making." (Terry Sanderson, NSS)

which kind of undermines the whole rationale of lobby groups like the National Secular Society, who are, by definition, unelected. A large part of their work is making submissions to government to try to influence decision making.

Compare and contrast Boris Johnson yesterday (see previous post) and John Denham in the story linked above: "I don't like the strand of secularism that says that faith is inherently a bad thing to have and should be kept out of public life," Mr Denham said. From what I can see Mr Denham is setting up a panel of faith group representatives to encourage them to do their bit in building a good society.

At the same time, he's quite open about the fact that, to be part of this process, faith groups need to be open to critique. That seems much healthier than shutting people out of the democractic process altogether - I'm not sure that's what the NSS are advocating, but that's what it sounds like.

Update: Church Mouse has a bit of background, and isn't that taken either with John Denhams proposal, or the NSS response.