Are we getting closer to the horror of the American redneck warehouse-style "Charismatic" Christian movement here in our beloved "Live and let live" UK?

Here's a fascinating documentary on the threat of Christian fundamentalism in the UK. It's on Youtube, so it's broken up into five parts. 

There was all the usual stuff you'd expect with any documentary about religious fundamentalism:

• Children getting indoctrinated and being educated off the National Curriculum: One child in particular sitting a "Science" test where the questions included, "How long did God take to create the Earth?" and "When did God create the Sun?"
• Hatred of homosexuality and equating it with paedophilia and murder.
• A victim complex, presumably for the purpose of galvanising the group to work harder against the perceived injustices of other people in the world living differently to them.
• A vicious loathing of the big rival - Islam.

I really think that we should give our children the best possible start in life. That includes teaching them the facts of the world they live in and allowing them to explore knowledge with open minds. What I saw on this programme was tantamount to child abuse.

A load of beardy loons with placards and prayer is one thing, but warehouses full of thousands of evangelicals ready to support whatever they're told to support by their minister is quite another. The stated aim of these groups is to "Radically transform this nation for Christ's purposes". And they're getting advice and money from fundamentalists in the USA. Worse still, one scene in the documentary shows a fundamentalist lawyer handing an amendment to the recently-tabled abortion bill to Norman Tebbit, which he appears to have used verbatim in the process of lawmaking. This is the same lawyer who states her belief that the earth is 4,000 years old and that Islam is evil.

And it seems that these people have the foot in the door of the Conservative Party too. Nadine Dorries MP, who tabled the recent attempt to reduce a woman's right to choose, is backed by these groups. I suspect that if a Conservative Party revival takes place and they get in power, the fundamentalist Christian groups will enter Downing Street with them. I vote for my MP to represent my interests and their manifesto. I don't vote for my MP so that he or she can fall under the spell of a religious pressure group.

I really want to live and let live. I don't see these fundamentalists doing the same. In the end, it doesn't matter how rational and well-argued the reasonable voicce of atheism is. Against this sort of mass indoctrination, I fear we don't stand a chance unless we unify and agree that our country should be secular.

National Secular Society Website

My barrister friend had invited me to attend a lecture on the subject of Sharia Law and British Law. He'd invited me in early January and I'd pencilled it into my diary.

I was two minutes late arriving at the British Court of Justice and because they have such strict security, I was unable to enter. Instead, I had to console myself with watching a heated debate in the street between two women who shared my timekeeping predicament.

Rowan Williams announced to a packed room of about 1,000 people the existence of "the presence of communities which, while no less 'law-abiding' than the rest of the population, relate to something other than the British legal system alone".

This isn't really news. We've all heard of stories where family ties conflict with the interests of the law, but my take on this is that if there are people who don't relate to the British legal system, that's one thing. If they choose not to obey the law, then they're criminals. It's pretty simple, really. 

I don't have a religous belief. I think the way that we are governed should be determined by reason, by agreement and not by revelation. God is not a democrat: what he says is law and must be followed without question and his laws are unchangeable. To me - any move away from a legal system that is determined by a democratic system is dangerous and possibly irrevocable.

Equality under the law is something we've treasured since the Magna Carta. And it's paid off: being free of despotism, having a system within which there are a series of rules that are predictable and which free the individual to be productive and achieve their potential; has allowed Britain to flourish.

In theory, even the Monarch can be tried for murder.

I usually like a good discussion. I think the one thing that unites pretty much all of my friends and many of my colleagues is that they are totally opposed to this idea. In some way, this is a shame because I'd like to at least what sort of justification there could possibly be for this idea.

So I've had to turn to the Internet. Apparently, some apologists claim that other religious groups are permitted to live according to their religious/ cultural norms, so why shouldn't Muslims? To me, the answer to this is pretty straightforward: everybody should be equal under the law, regardless of their beliefs.

As usual, the right-wing press has gone to town. It's quite funny to read the Daily Mail's comments on their site. One reader said,

"So it's fine for the UK law courts to adopt Sharia Law to fit Muslims' needs, but Christian people, in a historically Christian country, will be prosecuted for not promoting homosexuality? Something needs to change…"

"Not promoting homosexuality" is, of course, standard right-wing code language used to imply that homosexuals can only either be persecuted or "promoted", rather than just thinking, "it's none of my damn business if you're gay or not". Whatever the reader is getting at, would she prefer homosexuals to be persecuted in the name of Jesus or Allah? In the end, what's promoted by both religions is an intolerance of homosexuality.

We need to get rid of the intolerance of religion in our public discourse. It is the 21st Century and we're in Europe, we should move on from this primitive thinking and live and let live.

"Ah!", runs the counterargument, "If you want to live and let live, at least give us Sharia Law! We're not imposing it on you. We want to use it for ourselves; for our families and for our children."

We have to draw the line somewhere. We do so with some cultural practices. We have family law in place to protect vulnerable people in society. This includes women and children.

The moment you open up the "choice" to follow a more restrictive, paternalistic set of laws, rather than the laws of the land, you open up the opportunity to pressurise the vulnerable into laws that don't protect them as effectively.

There are also technical issues to do with, inter alia, deciding on which set of laws to apply to family court proceedings, and when; how to staff up the bar with Sharia-compliant barristers and importantly: coming to a clear definition of what Sharia actually means, since it appears to have different cultural influences in any case. 

Is Rowan Williams Playing Chamberlain or Machiavelli? Is he giving in to demands made by a vocal minority, or is he playing the long game of protecting religious privilege? As I've mentioned earlier in this post, I think it wrong that any religious considerations are involved in making laws. I totally oppose the idea that you need religion to have morals. I think it wrong that churches can play the game of politics and remain tax-exempt. I think it's crazy that, in 21st Century Europe, we have bishops sitting in our upper chamber. Is Rowan Williams kicking up a fuss to drive people into supporting the status quo against the possibility of Sharia, and in so doing keeping the privilege with the Church of England?

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with integration at the moment. I think we need to look at our melting-pot and how we make it work. I'm from a mixed background myself, so I have a little bit of an insight here.

And you mustn't shove a group of people, religiously-identified or otherwise, into a legal ghetto because a minority of them demand it. Remember we're dealing with only a fraction of 3% of the population here. They're free to vote to elect people to try to change the law how they wish (within reason).

Until that time:

… do as the Romans do.

"Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." 

L. Ron Hubbard - founder of the Church of Scientology

An internet movement called "Anonymous" has declared war on Scientology. They appear to have done so after Scientologist lawyers tried to have a video of Tom Cruise talking about scientolgy taken off Youtube. This followed many years of attempts by Scientology's lawyers to stifle freedom of expression on the internet.

Here is the declaration of war video in full:

If you click through to the actual YouTube site, you'll find a transcript of the message. It ends with:

"Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
WE DO NOT FORGET.
Expect us."

Anonymous appears to be something quite new. Since critics of Scientology get silenced with lawsuits, Anonymous has chosen anonymity. Anonymity makes association difficult, but not on the Internet.

Anonymous has grown organically into a (possibly) large, decentralised mass through web technologies, such as Internet Relay Chat, Message Boards, Wikis and sites such as Digg and Facebook. Anyone could be part of Anonymous! I say "possibly" because I don't know how many are active in the Anonymous cause. This mass seems to work a little like a terrorist cell, except this cell is massive and everyone inside the cell is anonymous to one another.

In any case, their activities seem to be having some effect. Aside from the video of Tom Cruise, which has gained it enough publicity to feature in the Economist, Anonymous has called for the investigation of Scientology's tax-exempt status, circulated damning documentation about the current Scietology leadership and (controversially) carried out Denial of Service attacks to disrupt Scientology websites. Internet chatrooms are buzzing with discussion of Anonymous, and other mainstream media is carrying stories about the group.

On February 10th, 2008, Anonymous is planning peaceful protests outside Scientology offices. It will be interesting to see how many people actually turn up for these protests, and whether this aggressive campaign towards the Scientologists will win them more sympathy than ridicule.

I've had personal contact with Scientology, and I've seen a friend of mine descend into the abyss and sign a billion year contract with them. I don't think they're heralding the "Truth". I certainly don't think the Earth was visited by an alien called Xenu. I feel uncomforable about the intolerance Scientology seems to show its critics. I see a lot said about their mistreatment of members and family of members. I do think it is a cult, and whilst I disagree with religion, I actually hate cults.

However, they should be allowed to expose themselves to ridicule. With their denial of service attacks, Anonymous is sailing very close to accusations of persecution of Scientology, and that is never a good thing because it can strengthen the faith of members already involved with Scientology, as well as winning sympathy and dividing Scientology's opponents.

To learn more about the Anonymous movement, visit their wiki site here.

It's all kicked off about yoga, that uncomfortable-looking way of sitting and lying around.

It started at the end of August, when a Church of England priest decided that the yoga class that had been using the church hall for some years should no longer be allowed to take place on church property.

The yoga teacher couldn't understand that permission had been withdrawn from two different churches in Somerset.

The more reserved of the two Somerset priests said, “If it was just a group of children singing nursery rhymes, there wouldn’t be a problem but she’s called it yoga and therefore there is a dividing line we’re not prepared to cross.”

So an exercise regime based on Hinduism is fine if you omit the Hinduism part? Fair enough - perhaps that's why some christians have recognised the popularity of Yoga and the indifference of many to the Hindu roots of the practice. So they've created a christian alternative to Yoga called "Praise Moves":

But whilst one of the priests was at least open to the idea of compromise, the other wasn't. How exciting!

“Any alternative philosophies or beliefs are offering a sham - and at St James’s Church we want people to have the real thing. Yoga has its roots in Hinduism, and attempts to use exercises and relaxation techniques to put a person into a calm frame of mind - in touch with some kind of impersonal spiritual reality.

“The philosophy of yoga cannot be separated from the practice of it, and any teacher of yoga, even to toddlers, must subscribe to the philosophy.

“Yoga may appear harmless or even beneficial, but it is encouraging people to think that there is a way to wholeness of body and mind through human techniques - whereas the only true way to wholeness is by faith in God through Jesus Christ.” 

My personal view is that since the Church of England is tax exempt, I'm theoretically paying higher taxes and therefore subsidising a "public service" that I cannot use. I live with this, because I don't claim dole money or a lot of other public services, but I don't expect to be denied access to their Services or related services. The Church's doors are open to unbelievers, but their schools are closed, as if to say, "We welcome you if you might potentially become a customer, but you can forget access to the schools you pay for". This is one of the many reasons why I think faith schools are a terrible idea. 

But I couldn't help my eruption of bemusement and amusement at the news that the Hindu Council UK is considering challenging the ban. Said Anil Bhanot:

"These priests might appear to be advising Christians not to practice yoga because they believe it is based on a 'sham' and a 'false philosophy', but what in effect they mean is that Hinduism is a false religion,"

Well, of course they do! They're not polytheists who believe in reincarnation: they're Christians!

So I think this bleating about being referred to as a false religion is pretty laughable and the Hindus claim the Christians are wrong and the Christians claim the Hindus are wrong. There's always a silver lining to every cloud. In this case, I can happily say that I agree with both of them!

The technology was available: it isn't wholly uncommon to have complications during birth that require transfusions.

The blood was available: the doctors were desperate to perform the procedure.

She refused the blood that would save her life.

She refused by ticking a box on a form and this choice appears to have been upheld by her husband and family during the medical emergency in the hospital, whilst she lay dying on the bed with her newborn infants.

She chose death over life, and was supported in this grim choice that left her children without a mother because she and her family are Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse blood transfusions.

It's sad to think that a lot of people say that having children gives their life new hope and meaning - this is something that she and her family have denied themselves because of what would seem to the outside, rational observer to be a tragic devotion to a dubious set of beliefs.

One's thoughts turn to the surviving father and the children. the children who will be without a mother, and the father who supported his wife's decision to die in the name of a new take on Christianity dating from the 1870s. If it were me, I would wonder if I were a suitable father after choosing death for my wife in a parallel to the story of Abraham and Isaac.

But I think that would be too hard on the man and his family: religion's about social control as well as belief, and people in groups will often enforce the hardest line possible. It must have been a terrible dilemma; and the intense pressures from the church leadership must have been unbearable.

After surrendering your mind to the authority of those "above", what room is there for compassion, for protecting yourself, protecting your family, for doing what's right and what's natural?

The video does outline some of the actual techniques that cults use on prospects and members, and even if it seems a little light-hearted at first, it makes some serious points. These cults are a serious problem, there are lots of cults in existence today and plenty of atrocities throughout time, including:

• Order of the Solar Temple (Famous Swiss murder-suicides in which 48 people died in 1994)
• Peoples Temple (909 deaths, including 270 children in 1978)
• Aum Shinryko (gassed the Tokyo tube system in 1995)
• Heaven's Gate (Suicide Cult - The "Heaven's Gate Away Team" left Earth in 1997)
• Lord's Resistance Army (has been waging a civil war against the Ugandan government since 1987 using child soldiers)
• The Manson Family (of Charles Manson fame - responsible for a string of brutal murders)

Years ago, I read a book that outlined the mechanisms that these cults often use to effectively brainwash recruits into their ideology or religion. If you think you're clever enough to avoid their fate, think again! I knew a good few people at University who got hooked into cults. To read more about cults and be aware of the dangers, take a look here.

1. Add to the mountain of "news" around the Islam issue in this country.
2. Air some half-baked ideas I've got.
3. Open myself up for possible abuse and threats.
4. Hopefully learn from my readers through their comments on my thoughts.

  I don't really understand where the government is going with its efforts to engage the "Islamic Community". I don't even think there is an "Islamic Community"; maybe there are "Islamic communities". It seems the government is talking to people who are mainstream, who are not involved in the terrorist atrocities and near-misses we've seen in this country. What's the point in that? Didn't we make the same mistake by not talking to Gerry Adams in the first place, instead putting it off for decades? And on the other hand, I see some logic in what they're doing. Maybe they're trying to dry up the water around the terrorist fish. Maybe if the mainstream community could be persuaded to seek out and reject the terrorists in their midst, we'd have less of a problem. As it stands, though, I don't see (perhaps the media isn't telling me) Muslim leaders condemning their fellows for effigy-burning, bombing and incitement to violence. I do see the government funding projects that separate people, including separate faith schools, which I think is a terribly backward step. What got my back this time was reading about the heckling John Reid got. I'm all for politicians getting heckled, but here's what was said to him by Abu Izzadeen:

"How dare you come to a Muslim area when over 1,000 Muslims have been arrested?"

John Reid was later interrupted during a question and answer session by Anjem Choudary to tell the home secretary that Muslims did not need British values:

"We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day. It is very rich for you to come here and say we need to monitor our children when your government is murdering people in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Later on, one of the above explained is actions saying that he would not dicsuss these matters with a non-muslim. So it seems that these opinions assert:

1. That there are areas in Britain where only Muslims should be allowed to go.
2. That the number of muslims arrested has any bearing on the issue of whether people should blow themselves up and take others with them.
3. That Islam is superior and that a move to overturn the liberal democracy we have in the UK is to be applauded.
4. That British foreign policy absolves Muslim parents of any responsibility for their childrens' upbringing.
5. That if you're not a Muslim, your opinion is worthless to a Muslim.

We're told that this is a minority view, Of course. We're told that these chaps don't represent mainstream Muslim opinion. So:

1. Why isn't more being done or being seen to be done by the mainstream Muslims who want to live by our laws and by our cultural norms?
2. Why does the media give people like Abu Izzadeen the spotlight and not the two women he told to "be quiet"after they tried to encourage dialogue?
3. I know there are people out there who want to make this country an Islamic theocracy, but is all the attention they're getting all some sort of media conspiracy?

I don't really see what the problem was with John Reid's speech on its own, other than it stated the bleeding obvious. What he seems to have been asking for was that parents should raise their children to be tolerant and to resist those who would call on them to become terrorists. The simple reaction should have been, "Yes. That's how we bring up our children." The other point that he was making was that if you see a crime being committed or if you see someone premeditating a crime, you have an obligation to report this to the police. The simple reaction should have been, "Yes. That's morally right and it is the law of this country. We agree." The summary of the responses from the crowd in front of John Reid should have been: "And your point is?"