The Labour Humanist

Sally Morgan "star psychic" forced to withdraw bogus claims

Congratulations to the gang over at badpsychics for exposing how self styled celebrity psychic Sally Morgan misleads and lies about her activities. Here are some of the claims that badpsychics have debunked:

• That Sally Morgan falsely claimed to have worked for Bob Geldof.

• Exposed Morgan's claim to have assisted in police investigations and "other investigations" and forced her to remove claims from her web site.

• Exposed how Sally Morgan claimed to have never met "celebrity" Brian Dowling before given him a "psychic reading" on her ITV1 show, but in fact had meet Dowling before and had given him other "psychic readings".

To the contributors at badpsychics we salute you, this is the way the internet can make itself socially useful!

Shame on Stephen Timms for spouting insulting nonsense

Ok, count to 10..........no it's no good, I am furious with party vice chair Stephen Timms MP, because he speaks irritating, ignorant and insulting nonsense, and in the process has produced what I see as a disgraceful slur on the character of non-religious voters.

In a speech to Traidcraft - the Christian-based fair trade organisation Timms said:

“There is positive impact when people of faith are involved in the lives of their community, because these people bring valuable qualities in their service which are rare elsewhere and they are qualities modern Britain urgently needs,”

It's is hard to translate that this in any other way than a gross, and discriminatory, slight against the millions of British citizens who lead their lives, quite happily, without a religion. Of course, Timms was brown nosing to his audience, but that is no excuse for this US Republican style rhetoric.

What qualities Stephen, does someone who believes in a faith the paranormal and follows religious rituals bring to a community that I as a Humanist, or the growing millions of other non-religious UK residents, do not?

Timms is saying that when I, as a non-believer, do voluntary work in my community, donate money to local causes, give time and support to local clubs and societies, when I join in and support progressive campaigns, it is of less value and "rarely" of the value of the very same activities undertaken by "people of faith". The contribution of the non-religious is not to be regarded as holding the same value as any contribution from believers. This is bare-faced discrimination against the non-religious and has no place coming from the lips of a representative of the modern Labour Party.

"We" atheists work in our millions across the public services, as nurses, teachers, as volunteers in local charities. But we don't put ourselves above other citizens when we do so. Stephen clearly thinks his Christianity makes him more valuable citizen than any Humanist. Shame on him.

The O Project agrees Timms has insulted the non-religious

"The point is if when speaking to a (thoroughly noble and admirable) Christian organisation he can generalise about them being a faith-based organisation why does he not generalise about them being a charitable organisation, a social-justice organisation or a part of civil society. Surely that would hardly be a slap in the face to them and wouldn’t take anything away from their amazing work.

But making faith-based organisations out to be a special case is an insult to those who “have a vision of a world freed from the scandal of poverty, where trade is just and people and communities can flourish” that is not based on belief in a God."

Stephen Timms needs to explain his remarks, he needs to apologise and publicly state that when a Christian and an atheist take part in their community their efforts are of equal worth. Timms holds a campaigning remit within the party's structure, insulting millions of voters in this way is some strange way of carrying out those duties.

DUP creationists: Will they succeed in turning Northern Ireland into the new Kansas?

Is Northern Ireland turning into the new Kansas? The DUP seems intent on importing the lunacies of the American creationists into British politics and education.

Last night Lisburn council voted  to write to all its grammar and secondary  schools encouraging them to teach alternative theories to evolution like 'intelligent  design'. The proposal was made by DUP councillors, but opposed by SDLP and Sinn Fein representatives.  DUP head office is briefing that these stunts are in keeping with party policy.

As the Belfast Telegraph reports, this is not the only move in Ulster to undermine the science education of local pupils:

"DUP MP David Simpson (Upper Bann), who is a member of the Free Presbyterian Church, questioned Education Minister Caitriona Ruane on the availability of materials and resources for schools wishing to teach alternative scientific theories to evolution as part of the revised   curriculum."

"Mr Simpson also asked for an assurance that pupils who answer GCSE examination questions outlining creationist or intelligent design explanations for the development of life on Earth, will not be marked lower than pupils who give answers with an evolutionist explanation."

(Yes, you did read that right, he wants pupils to be able to make up non-scientific answers in science exams and not be "marked lower".)

Of equal concern is the response by the NI education department to the Belfast Telegraph which displays zero concern for the educational welfare of children and maximum accommodation of the anti-science zealots:

"In a statement the Department of Education said the teaching of alternative theories was a matter for schools.

  A spokeswoman said: "The revised curriculum offers scope for schools to explore alternative theories to evolution, which could include creationism, if they so wish."

All of which goes against the recent Council of Europe statement that states that Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

Politicians and the education establishment in Northern Ireland need to do more to defend scientific knowledge or else Ulster will be in danger of becoming known as an educational backwater dominated by religious extremists. The story has already hit the major science blogs in the USA, how long before Louis Theroux will be filming his next show in Lisburn?

DUP wants schools in Northern Ireland to teach creationism in science lessons

Meanwhile, just when you think sanity is returning to politics in Northern Ireland, Dr Ian Paisley's DUP party are attempting to coerce schools into teaching creationism in science lessons as an alternative to evolution.

Tonight will see DUP councillors in Lisburn officially propose a motion that schools in Lisburn  be encouraged to "teach alternative theories to evolution as the origins of the earth, such as Creation and Intelligent Design."

The proposal has been opposed by SDLP councillors and received a mixed response from Ulster Unionist members:

Cllr Givan from the DUP said: "I have never believed in the theory of evolution and, like many people believe in the teaching of creation. I believe science points to creation but our schools are teaching a very narrow remit and many exclude alternative theories to evolution. I have asked the Council to write to local schools encouraging them to give equality of treatment to other theories of the origins of life and how the earth came into existence." However, other committee members voiced their objection to the proposal. The committee's Vice Chairman, SDLP Councillor Peter O'Hagan, said: "I think it is a dangerous road to go down for Lisburn Council to be getting involved in school curriculum.

It's hard to imagine within the mainstream UK education system this loony attempt at undermining children's education would getting anywhere near to succeeding....unless of course, the schools involved were faith schools or city academies, in which case dogma can be given a special place over science. In reading a debate on this story on the Richard Dawkins web site I was rather amused by this response:

Mr Givan said: "I have never believed in the theory of birth by sexual reproduction and, like many people, believe in teaching that the stork is responsible. I believe science points to stork theory but our schools are teaching a very narrow remit and many exclude alternative theories to sexual reproduction. I have asked the Council to write to local schools encouraging them to give equality of treatment to other theories of the origins of life and how babies come into existence."

Let's hear it for Martin in the Margins

Let's say a big no to tory bloggers placing themselves as the arbiters of what makes a good left wing blog shall we! Added to my list of links is Martin in the Margins - a very fine Labour supporting politics blog with decidedly secular humanist leanings. Lots of interesting and well argued material including this explanation of how multi-cultural education in primary schools can go horribly wrong:

"As a parent, and an erstwhile school governor, it's irked me the way that multi-cultural education often gets translated, especially in primary schools, into multi-faith education. Learning about 'other cultures' is reduced to finding out about the religious beliefs and customs of different groups. Non-white, non-indigenous groups are characterised as unchanging, homogenous cultures defined mainly by faith. Schools think if they've 'done' Diwali, Ramadan and Passsover, then they've fulfilled their multicultural obligations. In my experience, there's very little sense (at least at the primary level) of migrant communities as diverse, living entities, shaped by historical events, and very little sense of the secular and political forces at work within communities.

Defining non-white children primarily in terms of a nominal faith privileges that aspect of their identity above others, including loyalties based on nation, locality or cultural tastes. It also makes it more difficult for children to put any distance between themselves and their faith-of-origin, or to experience school as a neutral, secular space in which they might explore alternatives to the beliefs they were brought up in. And it has a spin-off for 'indigenous' children: they get categorised, by default, as 'Christian'. This subtle re-introduction of sectarian identities is ludicrous, in a nation where a majority are not active believers in any religion."

Labour Party Conference - on the fringe

If you are attending this year's party conference in Bournemouth do make sure you support the fringe meeting and reception to celebrate the first conference since the establishment of the Labour Humanist Group.

The reception will feature the humanist philosopher, AC Grayling. A Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association, an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society, and author of (amongst many others) "What Is Good?: The Search for the Best Way to Live"  and "Against All Gods: Six Polemics on Religion and an Essay on Kindness". His latest book, "Towards the Light: The Story of the Struggles for Liberty and Rights That Made the Modern West" is published this September. He is a lively and engaging proponent of humanist values in the modern world, and a speaker always worth hearing.

The reception is being held jointly with the British Humanist Association.

Monday, September 24, 2007
7.30 – 10.00pm
Carrington House Hotel
Knyveton Road
Bournemouth
BH1 3QQ

John Prescott, the Polish Women's Party, and the big clunking fist

It seems John Prescott has had a profound influence on the campaigns of the Polish Women's Party and their approach to, ahem, voter contact.  Watch their latest campaign ad here and all will be explained:

Why RE is not fit for purpose

I hear many colleagues extol the virtues of Religious Education in schools as an essential tool in buidling a multi-belief, tolerant society. I fear their understanding of the function of RE differs greatly to the churches themselves and those people who get to set the curriculum. Their primary purpose is to ensure that children "get god". Philip Beadle explains some of the dodgy agendas written into RE lessons:

"The framework (for RE) is about as sane as these things can be, given that it has to accommodate viewpoints as diverse as the Russian Orthodox church and the British Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists - pretty well all perspectives on religious education in fact (aside, of course, from those of the National Secular Society). It is when we delve into the realms of suggested practice that it all gets a bit Old Testament.

The Standards Site for teachers features schemes of work for key stage 3 that could have been written by Billy Graham. Creationism on the curriculum is not happening only in the American Bible belt or outposts on Teesside: the government recommends it as a topic for study in every school. The suggested learning outcomes say that all year 9 pupils should be able to "explain the nature and meanings of the Genesis creation story for theists, creationists and others". The intent is that children "understand that science leaves questions of ultimate meaning and purpose unanswered".

There is a logical pedagogic link here that, though it may have been intended to promote a mature, dialectical approach, actually gives permission and approval to those who want to teach creationism as fact. First, you teach the theory, then question science's ability to answer questions about our genesis.

The aim of this scheme of work is that children "understand that historians of science now view the conflict account as misleading". Let me unpack this disgracefully disingenuous phrase for you: the government's desired final outcome of religious studies teaching in British schools is that children realise there is no conflict between religious belief and the evidence of science. This is a lie, the extent of which hits the three criteria for a mortal sin: it is grave, committed in full knowledge of the sin and deliberate.

It goes further. I had always suspected that the mark schemes rewarded blind obedience to a theistic point of view: "List 10 reasons why God exists" (10 marks), "Come up with a shaky reason He might not" (1 mark). These suspicions are confirmed with a look at the Standards Site's exemplar materials. The first scheme of work suggested for pupils on entry to secondary school is full of arguments for the existence of a deity. There ain't much there for secularists to sing about."

Yet more research evidence: faith schools "contribute to racial and religious segregation"

Amazingly, there is still a reluctance to accept in debate that faith schools exam results come from their ability, stealthily deployed, to select their pupils and weed out the ones they don't like, who naturally, will go to a local community school instead. This week we see yet more evidence of how faith schools, this time in London, introduce growing levels of inequality within our schools system.

Rebecca Allen, of the Institute of Education, University of London, and Professor Anne West, Professor of Education Policy at the London School of Economics, studied the intake of faith schools across the capital using an extensive 'pupil-level' database compiled by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. They found faith schools are cherry pick too many children from affluent families and contribute to racial and religious segregation.

Their research also showed 17 per cent of pupils at faith schools are eligible for free school meals compared with 25 per cent at non-religious schools. Faith schools educate just under 20 per cent of lowest-ability pupils compared with 31 per cent of non-religious schools. Faith schools also educate a greater proportion of the pupils who score highest before arriving in secondary education.

Isn't time for supporters of faith schools to come clean? The consequences of your support is the growing use of social selection in school admissions and ever growing segregation of our local communities.

Campaigners who get told they don't own the rights to their own election ads

Corporate giants in the shape of Viacom kicking sand in the face of the little guy. Christopher Knight was running for the local education board in North Carolina. He made some quirky campaign ads which he uploaded to Youtube. These ads were used in a VH1 show called "web junk 2.0". Knight amused by his new fame uploaded a clip from this show onto his Youtube page and blog. Only to find that Viacom had forced Youtube to remove the clip. So, Viacom took a video Knight had made - for non-profit purposes - used it in a commercial show without his permission - but when he put up a clip  of his own material he was then charged with copy right infringement. Showing that copyright laws often have very little to do with natural justice and everyone to do with enhancing the market position of big corporations.

Anyhow, it seems from Knight's blog that Youtube have restored the clip.

(By the way, his election campaign did not secure him a place on the board.)