Bibles in Pollock Halls? You’ve got to be joking…

Edit: Since writing this, it has come to my attention that the Christian Union actually have nothing to do with the motion (see comment dated 11/11/09). It was proposed by two of their long standing committee members, which is what led to the confusion on my part. I can only apologise for that assumption. Please note, however, that although much of the argument here is misdirected towards the CU, it loses none of its validity.

Unfortunately not. The Christian Union at the University of Edinburgh have put forward a motion for the student association’s AGM to allow themselves or another organisation to put Bibles in each of the bedrooms in Pollock Halls. If you’re a student at Edinburgh University, I urge you to read this post, although it’s likely to be quite long, and if you have a comment, if you disagree or whatever, post it here in the comments thread. I’d like to get a discussion on this motion going and hopefully get a bit of interest so that the necessary 300 students turn up to the AGM and it’s not a complete waste of time for everyone involved.

But first, a bit of history. A few years ago the Student Representatives Council passed a motion banning Gideon or any other religious organisation from putting Bibles in the rooms at Pollock Halls, the student halls. Following that, the CU proposed a motion to the general meeting lifting this ban, which got a majority of the vote, but not enough votes for it to pass (the EUSA system requires that at least 300 people vote for a motion for it to pass, they got 200 and something). This all happened before I was at uni and before the Humanist Society existed, but there are legends that when Gideon were allowed to place their Bibles in the rooms, it resulted in them being thrown out the window, torn to pieces or even in some cases burnt. I’m not exactly in favour of that but it demonstrates how a lot of students feel about evangelising on campus.

Anyway here’s a copy of the motion as it is now. As far as I can tell it hasn’t been amended so this is what will go before the general meeting. Seeing as I’m not in Edinburgh and won’t be able to attend the meeting, all I can really do about it is post a point-by-point rebuttal of what is says. This is more or less the argument I would give if I were to speak, and if I were given more time than you’re allowed at that meeting.

So, first up

The association notes: Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscious and religion and freedom to manifest such beliefs in public and private) and Article 10 (Freedom of expression which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers) of the European Convention of Human Rights which is incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

That’s absolutely true, it does say that. This is no doubt an inclusion of one of the proposers of this motion, law student David Nixon, who even managed to use the right to freedom of assembly to justify denying non-Christians access to the Christian Union earlier this year. That was bizarre, twisted logic and so’s this. He’s trying to use the right to freedom of conscience and expression to justify leaving a Christian text within the privacy of someone’s room. You have the right to express your opinion, you don’t have the right to come into my living room and do it. Interestingly, the motion doesn’t mention the second point to each of these articles, which states that these rights may be subject to conditions or restrictions in order to preserve the rights of others, among other things.

Next:

The association believes: That the Bible has had a powerful impact on Scottish Culture and is useful to the study of many disciplines including literature, history, law, social anthropology, classics, divinity and philosophy.

That’s true as well (although I’m not sure how it’s useful for the study of law – it is, of course, a perfect example of how not to do philosophy), but so what? Would you use it to justify putting the complete works of Robert Burns in every room in Pollock? The Bible is available online (this point will come up repeatedly, just to warn you), as well as in the library. Anyone needing access to it has it right there at their fingertips.

That many religions, philosophies and spiritualities respect the contents of the Bible.

Most of them consider it blasphemy, actually. Regardless, this is a popularity argument and has no place in a motion of this type.

That many students have taken comfort in a Bible passage in times of distress and this is important given that the University Chaplaincy Centre is only open 9am – 9pm weekdays and is only staffed 9am-5pm.

Let’s take a look at that claim, shall we? Nightline is also open throughout the night, but let’s leave that aside for a minute. What are common causes of distress? Maybe being a member of a disadvantaged or minority group? Say there’s a student who’s gay, but having only just moved to university, noone there knows. Quite a difficult situation, I’d say. Now say that student opens the Bible and discovers that according to that philosophy, they deserve to be put to death. Not exactly ideal. The same kind of discrimination found in the Bible refers to women, pagans, and anyone who’s not a Christian. This isn’t exactly the kind of thing that should be allowed to be placed in people’s rooms. Those who do want to consult the Bible can do so online, or in the library.

That by providing the Bible and other Scriptures the University is not necessarily promoting the contents of such texts but merely making a service available to students. There is nothing to prevent the university or EUSA attaching stickers to any books placed in Pollock making clear that the University does not endorse the views contained within such books.

Yes, it would be making a service available. A service that is already widely available on the internet, or in the library. Hardly one that is lacking at the moment.

5. That it is in the interests of promoting religious diversity and promoting freedom of expression and religion that EUSA do not prevent Bibles being placed in rooms in Pollock.
6. That the University should be a free market place of ideas and as such no view should be suppressed or censored. True tolerance would allow all views a chance to be fairly represented and would not ban the distribution of any books.

Erm, starting with number 5, no it’s not. It’s in the interest of freedom of expression and conscience to allow people to believe and express themselves as they wish in public or private. This is completely contrary to allowing people to impose the Bible onto people who aren’t interested or who hold different beliefs.

As for number 6, the Bible is not being censored. As I’ve said several times now, the Bible is available online and in the library; the University is in fact actively making it available. To claim, therefore, that it is being censored, is nothing short of ludicrous. In addition, the distribution of the Bible has not been banned. The CU is free to, and regularly do, distribute copies of their religious texts. I have 7 copies of John’s gospel given to me by members of the CU. Unless they’ve been taken away since I was last there, there’s a big box of them underneath the stairs in George Square Lecture Theatre, the very building where the AGM will take place! The only difference between them distributing them on campus, and putting them in people’s rooms, is that when they’re distributing them, people can say no. This motion just allows religious groups to push the Bible or other religious texts onto people who otherwise wouldn’t want it.

That any group or society representing any particular point of view who wish to provide literature to be placed in every room in Pollock should be allowed to do so providing the books are made available freely at their own expense.

Oh so we’re not just talking about religious groups? So why don’t we allow the Socialist Society to put a copy of the Communist Manifesto in each room? Of course in response, the Conservative and Unionist Society will want a copy of their literature in the rooms too, and so will any other organised group out there. The University already has this kind of resource available, it’s right next door to George Square and it’s called the Main Library! But that last part, about the books being made available freely “at their own expense” is an interesting addition, I wonder why they put that in? Could it be that they know the CU, with its large membership and funded by the UCCF, is the only group on campus that would be able to afford such a project? Methinks so. More on that later.

The Association resolves: To mandate the President of EUSA to represent these views to Accommodation Services so that the situation can be returned to what it used to be prior to the SRC deciding Bibles
should be removed from Pollock.

You mean returned to what it was before progress was made, right?

Secularists tend to have two responses to this kind of problem. The first, very prominent in the States, would be to allow every group, religious or not, to put their book in the rooms. This is how ludicrous situations like the Washington State nativity scene come about. The second would be to not allow any groups to do it. I favour that option, and here’s why. It doesn’t matter if you give access to all groups, the big fish will always be able to dominate, in this case the CU will be able to put the Bible in the rooms and other groups will struggle. Then we’re back to the situation, where one group is favoured over another, that we were trying to avoid in the first place!

So that is why we shouldn’t pass this motion. Agree? Disagree? Put your comments here!

There are also a number of other motions going through the AGM which are of interest. One is about taking action against Israel, and another is about not giving a platform to discriminatory groups on campus. Maybe I’ll put a similar post up about that one. But regardless of where you stand on any of these issues, go to the AGM and vote! It’s on the 17th November 7pm in George Square Lecture Theatre.

Telegraph lies again (shock, horror)

I know, 2 posts in an hour, tut tut, but this one’s only short.

The National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS) got some coverage in yesterday’s Torygraph. This is the national group which we helped found in order to share resources and ideas between student groups at universities around the UK.

Now the article deals with an idea we’ve had to try and get atheist activism into schools. That, of course, is where a lot of indoctrination takes place. So as well as springing up some new groups at universities, we’re trying to get some societies started in schools. I’m not sure exactly how effective this is going to be, personally, merely because of the nature of societies at school. At uni they’re very independent, they can get funding, lots of students live in the same area, and of course there’s a bigger catchment group; there’s something like 25,000 students at the UoE, the same can’t be said for any school I know of.

I know, for example, that at my school there weren’t many societies and those that there were were pretty much run by the school. We had 2 charity groups, the SVP and the Friday Club, as well as all the sports teams, a Language Club, an RPG club that folded after a while, a chess club, a computer gaming club, but all of them were run by a member of staff, or at least a sixth former. I think it’ll be much more difficult to get an atheist society running, especially in faith schools where it’d be most useful.

Anywho back to the article. It’s main mistake is that we’re not attacking Religious Education in schools, certainly not in the way the article suggests. I (and I think I speak for many atheists when I say this) don’t have a problem with RE. I hope students learn about lots of religions, in fact as a literature student, being familiar with the Bible is a huge bonus, it’s in everything! What we are opposed to is preaching to students, one sided teaching about religion, moral issues being seen as a purely religious thing, obligatory collective worship, etc.

We’re also not really persuading people to believe in God or using children to attack Christianity. We’re not going into a school, brainwashing a few kids into atheism and then saying “here you go, here’s your society”. They’re coming to us!

Here’s the press release from the AHS with more details.

School bus passes

Sorry it’s been so long folks, this blogging malarkey feels really weird now.

Recently, my local council at home started doing an inquiry into whether children at Catholic schools should continue to get a bus pass for free if they live more than 3 miles from the nearest Catholic school. In the Wirral there are 4 Catholic secondary schools and 19 non-Catholic schools. Now I went to one of the schools in question but I was totally unaware that this doesn’t apply to everyone, just Catholics. But now the consultation on whether to scrap these free bus passes, which cost the local council something like £170,000 every year, has now been cancelled after protest and indignation from the Catholic groups. I find myself almost in two minds.

The thinking behind the bus passes is that since there are fewer Catholic schools, on average the Catholic pupils have to travel further. Now whilst I’m against faith schools, as long as we do have them I’m not against parents and pupils being able to choose between them. So in one sense you could justify this as just levelling the field, since non-Catholics can go to one much closer.

But this is based on dodgy logic. When choosing a secondary school, AFAIC you’re choosing between all the schools, not just the Catholic ones. Noone’s forcing you to go to a denominational school, that’s your choice. Now the way I look at it, you choose a school based on the pros and cons. You may put the religious flavour of the school in the pro column, like I did. But then you also put the distance, as well as any transport costs involved, in the con column. That’s not how it works in the Wirral, oh no. Instead if you’re Catholic you say so on the form, and you get preferential treatment applying for the Catholic schools. I don’t remember there being any explicitly CofE schools (but then again all the schools have collective worship outside of religion lessons so AFAIC they’re all faith schools) so it didn’t really apply to them.

Now this story has drawn my attention to something of a vicious circle. Apart from the fact that some of these schools (mine included) had a selective intake, which made them look like better schools than they actually were, the Catholic schools are getting their choice of pupils from a much wider area, instead of taking all and sundry from just within their area like all the other schools have to. This means that the Catholic schools get on average better performing pupils, and the school appears better than it actually is. As a result, more people want to go to the school and it starts all over again. I remember very few from my Catholic primary school went to a non-Catholic secondary school. Not much to do with the religion, they were just known as good schools. It seems Catholics are getting preferential access to these schools, and all the while they’re segregated from everyone else to stagnate in the Church’s lies, closed to the fresh sound of opinions that disagree.

So, back to the bus passes. Surely the issue isn’t the number of schools of a religious flavour and the average distance? Surely the criterion for getting a bus pass or not should be purely the distance! So scrap this whole religious discrimination, and do one of two things:

1. Scrap the bus passes completely. It costs a lot of money and the alternative would probably cost even more. Maybe spend that money on making public transport cheaper for under 16’s.

2. Make it purely so that anyone who lives 3+ miles away from a suitable school can get a bus pass. Since Catholics have to travel further on average, then on average more Catholics will be eligible for a bus pass, but it wouldn’t be discriminatory. This would truly level the playing field. Now if this costs an unacceptable amount, the solution isn’t to privilege one group over another, you just increase the minimum distance to say, 4+ miles. Easy, eh?

If the Church wants Catholics to get preferential treatment in the applications process AND a free bus pass, they can bloody well stump the £170,000 out of their own coffers.

Here we go again…

Apologies for the lack of action around here but I’m at home and I’m a bit busy.

It can’t be just me who is fed up of unelected religious types sticking their oar in where it’s not wanted. Here’s another story about Anglican bishops getting themselves involved in politics, calling Labour’s economic policy ‘morally corrupt’, just a week after Rowan Williams did the same. Now I’ve looked these people up, as far as I can tell none of them are economists, having studied theology and not much else (some of them do seem to be prominent homophobic campaigners and the Bishop of Carlisle is supposedly an expert in exorcism who blamed Britain’s laws allowing civil partnerships for widespread flooding last year which killed several people :s – why we give these people press coverage is beyond me).

Now I count myself as a bit of a liberal, and I generally don’t advocate people getting themselves more in debt, so I’d probably agree, if they’d proposed some kind of alternative. As it is, they just moan about the crisis, blame the government, give no evidence or even much of an explanation, and leave it at that. The other side of the coin that I tend to side with is that in their time in government, Labour have generally worked towards better conditions for the poor, fighting poverty. I know, for example, that the welfare state and working conditions have been improved, and minimum wage is now (mostly) acceptable. To blame them for the current crisis with little evidence is in poor taste.

What gets me most, however, is that they have explicitly chosen sides. Some of these bishops sit in the House of Lords where they are not supposed to be partisan. They do not have any evidence that Conservative policies to cut public spending would help, and I think they’re just showing their age, class and religious sensibilities in siding with them. I know that organised religion is inherently conservative (small c), else it wouldn’t survive, but I think to be explicitly so is in poor taste too.

Of course we shouldn’t forget the Catholics. Perhaps the most Irishly-named person I’ve ever heard of, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, as well as the Pope, gave their own two-penneth during their Christmas messages. The Pope also said homosexuality is as great a threat to the world as the destruction of the rainforest, another totally unsubstantiated statement.

When will people stop listening to these fuddy-duddies?