Leicester Secularist Blog

Bishop of Leicester Tim Stephens recently had a First Person article in the Leicester Mercury, Tinsel is no substitute for Gospel truth , gloating over a claimed increase in sales of religious themed Christmas cards. He complains about 'creeping secularism' in general, and Ariane Sherine's 'Atheist's Guide To Christmas' in particular. His article seemed so out of spirit with the recent Interfaith Week (in which several members of Leicester Secular Society, including our President, Allan Hayes, were involved), that I wrote a response to the Letters page. Unfortunately my first sentence was overlong, and the edited version that appeared in the newspaper (which you can see here: Bishop enjoys a privileged role ) made little sense. Here's what I actually wrote under my title, a play on his, 'Gospel truth a substitute for Peace and Goodwill? ': Tim Stephens must be glad that Interfaith Week is well behind us now, with its themes of social cohesion and u

BBC Newsnight ran a feature on alleged dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire – now Trafigura and their lawyers Carter Ruck are pursuing a libel case against the BBC over the news story aired in May 2009 using our arcane libel laws that restrict our freedom of speech. You can see it here:- and read more here

This Bishop of Leicester has been sniping at secularists in a letter in the Leicester Mercury (19/11/09 "Faith and the Planet") . I have sent in a response that appears below. Dear Sir , In a letter in the Leicester Mercury (19/11/09 "Faith and the Planet") the Bishop of Leicester was critical of Roger Helmer's somewhat eccentric views on climate change. However he also took the opportunity to make two cheap shot assertions about secularists and those without faith. "That is why climate change so clearly reveals the gap between a religious world-view and secular capitalism". Why "secular" capitalism? Surely protestant capitalism would be nearer the truth? Is not the Church of England a strong supporter of capitalism (as are many other religious sects) with c.£4bn invested in various stocks and shares? Despite its campaigning against the effects of climate change, I understand that the Church of England's two largest equity

One of the biggest problems facing the world is posed by religions whose followers believe that they have the one and only "answer" and that all others are condemned to hell. Such a belief, though not in its most extreme form, is set out by Michael Brucciani in his letter to the Leicester Mercury shown below. Constantine and the Church Saturday, August 15, 2009, 09:30 I fear that Patrick Trigg's understanding of Catholic doctrine and history is a bit wobbly (Mailbox, August 6). The monotheistic religions do not worship the same god. In revealing the Holy Trinity, the mystery of three divine persons in one God, Jesus Christ allows us to identify the one, true God. Those who reject Christ as God, have made for themselves a different god. Catholics accept that Christ, as God and man, teaches the eternal truth that leads to the resurrection of the body and eternal happiness in heaven. When the divinity of Christ was attacked by the Arian heresy, Emperor Constantine helped to

Leicester Secular Society joins dozens of other organisations in re-publishing portions of an article by Simon Singh on the scientific status of chiropractic therapy, for which he is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association. The article, originally published in April 2008 by The Guardian newspaper, offered criticisms against claims made by, among others, the British Chiropractic Association on some of the alleged medical benefits of chiropractic therapy. Given his critical position on the scientific status of the BCA's claims, namely that they are not supported by the evidence, Singh's article argued that the British Chiropractic Association "happily promotes bogus treatments". Rather than mounting a robust scientific defence against these claims, the British Chiropractic Association instead personally sued Simon Singh for libel. On 7 May this year a preliminary hearing to determine the "meaning" of the piece, prior to a full trial, ruled that

I listened to the Sunday Programme on Radio 4 today (I think I must be a repressed masochist) and was annoyed by a wimpish interview with the Bishop of Exeter who spouted a lot of nonsense that went unchallenged. Would John Humphries let a politician off the hook with no questioning of illogical claims? He had been invited on as he was one of the principal opponents, in the Lords debate, to Lord Faulkner's attempt to remove the threat of prosecution for assisting in suicide when people accompany friends or relations abroad, who wish to end their lives, where assisted suicide is legal. He argued that the main motive for people wanting to commit assisted suicide was the loss of dignity, which he defined as an inability to contribute to life and society together with total dependency on others. The Bishop then pointed out that this applied to babies. The analogy is ridiculous. The prospect for a baby is that it will grow and mature into an adult who can enjoy and contribute to life as

Bishop Tim ( Leicester Mercury -First Person 11 July 2009) used his column to traduce Camp Quest, Richard Dawkins, A.C. Grayling and all the "God Free" under this headline: Anti-religious campaign close to intolerance The Bishop of Leicester notes the latest idea in Richard Dawkins' drive against God - an Atheist Summer Camp The full article can be read here . The Bishop misrepresents almost everyone and everything he mentions in this piece and it would not be an exaggeration to describe it as a gross distortion. Several months ago Bendy-buses in London began to appear with the slogan "There's probably no God". The atheist posters were the idea of the British Humanist Association and were supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. In fact the Atheist Bus campaign was the idea of and created by comedy writer Ariane Sherine and launched on 21 October 2008, with official support from the British Humanist Association

Are we fighting to keep alive something that is already in its death throes when we stand up for free speech? It seems that voicing any criticism of values or beliefs, rather than being seen as an opportunity to engage in discussion, education and even social progression, is seen as oppression, intolerance and “disrespect” of the person expressing their opinions. Nowhere do we see this more than in the criticism of religion and nowhere do we see hypocrisy raising its ugly head more. The idea of “love the sinner, hate the sin” is one that, in a somewhat altered form, I will applaud. A child who is confident of their parents’ love will value their approval. Behaviour that is frowned upon is likely to be changed and avoided in the future. The value of disapproval (parental, peer and societal) has been responsible for many changes in the moral zeitgeist. Disapproval of drunk driving has certainly paid dividends, the same seems to be working with smoking, and was doing so long before the re

I wondered about the wisdom of posting two articles linked to creationism in a very short time, but decided to go ahead because it is somewhat relevant to a recent talk at the Secular Hall. Following the visit made by Professor Michael Reiss, a conversation sparked by that event and a debate about religion (but not creationism) between Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens on YouTube, a thought entered my head that just wouldn’t go away. Why is it that the “evilutionist” scientists who actively and vociferously speak out against the nonsense of creationism and ID are almost universally atheists? The Christian biologists, like Dr. Kenneth Miller, who actually take a stand, seem to number in single figures. To a non-believer, the Holy Books are just books; books written by primitive human beings. In general, they seem to have been written by not-very-nice human beings judging by the atrocities and bigotry they appear to have revelled in. They are books which are historically a

Creationism: Is it ignorance or dishonesty? Preachers who seek to teach Creationism as science are mistaken, or worse. There was a time when everyone believed Earth was flat. Philosophers and mathematicians found this belief to be flawed. Initially, they were ridiculed or feared. Then, a few took notice, now everyone finds the evidence that the earth is spherical to be overwhelming. It took hundreds of years. We fly to distant parts of the world, see images from space and accept time differences in various countries, all of which reassures us of the truth of claims that Earth is not flat. Could it all be a conspiracy by scientists to deceive the gullible masses? This seems unlikely, as knowledge of the shape of the earth underpins so much of what our understanding of the modern world is built upon. There was a time when people believed that the creation stories in scriptures were historical fact. Scientists have found this belief to be flawed. Initially, they were ridiculed or feared.