Ethical Record The Proceedings of the South Place Ethical Society Vol. 112 No. 2 £1.50 February 2007

CONFIDENT ANSWERS FROM TWO SHARIA EXPERTS I happened upon a meeting of the Islam Society of Kings College, London, last Friday, when two expert speakers were discussing the Sharia law. Britain was described as a police state, its democracy was ridiculed, it was rife with theft (which would soon cease, it was said, if the Sharia remedy - chopping off of hands - were introduced) and paedophilia. I found their answers to the simple questions below quite awe-inspiring

Q. Why is the minimum age at which a girl may marry only nine in Iran whereas it is sixteen in Britain? A. Your (British) laws are always changing but Sharia law is constant...eg homosexuality used to be illegal in Britain, now it is not. Who knows what your law (on minimum age) will be in twenty years time?

Q. Why did the Taliban blow up a girls' school in Afghanistan recently? A. Because the streets are dangerous and the girls would be attacked on their way to school. It was done for the own safety. But girls' schools are not a priority in such a poor country. Q. Islam claims "there is no compulsion in religion" and yet the penalty for ) apostasy is death. How can these be reconciled? A. Does Britain not have the death penalty for high treason? Islam is not just a religion but a complete way of life. When someone leaves Islam, the damage caused is a form of treason to those left behind and is thus a capital offence. That is why, in recent times, there has only been one apostate out of a billion Muslims. These replies were received with deferential silence by the students present. If Islam does have any more enlightened exponents, I trust the Kings College Islam Society will invite them one day.

AGAINST FAITH SCHOOLS Roger Marples 3

IS FAITH UNDER FIRE? Jennifer Jeynes 11

POST-WAR ANTISEMITISM IN THE UK Daphne ladle 12

REVIEW A DICTIONARY OF ATHEISM, SKEPTICISM AND HUMANISM by Bill Cooke Robert Morrell 19

VIEWPOINTS: Chris Brateher 21

NORMA HAEMMERLE (1931 - 2007) Derek Marcus 23

ETHICAL SOCIETY EVENTS 24 SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Conway Hall Humanist Centre 25 Red Lion Square, London WC IR 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8034 Fax: 020 7242 8036 Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected] Editor, Ethical Record: Norman Bacrac Elected Officers Chairman: Terry Mullins Hon. Rep.: Don Liversedge Vice-chairman. Terry Liddle Treasurer: Chris Bratcher Registrar: Edmund McArthur Editor: Norman Bacrac SPES Staff Acting Admin Secretary: Miranda Perfitt Tel: 020 7242 8034 Librarian/Programme Coordinator: Jennifer Jeynes M.Sc. Tel: 020 7242 8037 Hall Manager: Peter Vlachos MA., MBA Lettings Assistants: Carina Kelsey, Kim Chung Tel: 020 7242 8032 Caretakers: Eva Aubrechtova, Shaip Bullaku, David Wright Tel: 020 7242 8033 Maintenance Operative: Zia Hameed New Members We are pleased to welcome the following new members to the Society: John R. Catt, Loughborough, Leicestershire; Barbara White, Altrincham, Cheshire; Richard J. White, Altrincham, Cheshire.

DONATION OF BOOKS TO THE ETHICAL SOCIETY The Society is grateful to SPES life member John Dowding of Nayland, Suffolk, for the donation to the Society of several hundred books. included were a large number of the Thinkers Library, other humanist material and many works on Christian origins, the Dead Sea scrolls etc. Those not required for the Humanist Reference Library (because it already has them) will be available for sale to members visiting Conway Hall library:John Dowding, a retired research chemist, is also a life member of both the NSS and the RA. It was while doing his National Service in 1952 at an RAF base in Singapore that he came across Abdul Gaffar's bookshop in Changi village and saw the Thinkers Library books; this began his interest in Archibald Robertson, H.Cutner and freethought writings.

SOUTH PLACE ETHICAL SOCIETY Reg. Charity No, 251396 Founded in I 793. the Society is a progressive movement whose aims are: the study and dissemination of ethical principles based on humanism, the cultivation of a rational and humane way of life, and the advancement of research and education in relevant fields.

We invite to membership those who reject supernatural creeds and are in sympathy with our aims. At Conway Hall the programme includes Sunday lectures, discussions, evening courses and the renowned South Place Sunday Concerts of chamber music. The Society maintains a Humanist Reference Library. The Society's journal. Ethical Record, is issued eleven times a year. Funerals and Memorial meetings may be arranged. The annual subscription is f 18 (L I 2 if a full-time student, unwaged or over 65).

Ethical Record, February, 2007 AGAINST FAITH SCHOOLS Roger Marples Lecture to Ethical Society 19 November 2006

Roehampton University, Froebel College, Roehampton Lane, London SWI5 E-mail: [email protected]

If it were not for the Church of England: through the Anglican and National Society and the non-conformist British and Foreign School Society's concern for elementary schooling in England in the early years of the nineteenth century, there would, in all probability, have been little in the way of formal education for the vast majority of children before 1870. Since then the number of Church schools, including Roman Catholic schools, has continued to grow with approximately one in five of the nation's children attending state-funded faith schools. During the twentieth century Britain was transformed into a multi-faith and multi-ethnic society while at the same time becoming a largely secular society. Church schools today are therefore in a remarkably privileged position. If it is acceptable for the state to subsidise schools with a Christian foundation, why should not other faiths enjoy the same privileges? Abolish All Schools With A Religious Foundation In 2001. as part of its concern for diversity of educational provision, the British Government proposed that religious minorities should be encouraged to open their own faith schools, for which there would be state funding. (MEE, 2001). It is all too easy to welcome this decision with cries of 'About time too!', but there is another equally valid and equally consistent response, and that is to abolish all schools with a religious foundation. I shall argue that this is the most appropriate course of action for a liberal democracy to take. Every society has a legitimate interest in the kind of education its young people receive. What happens to children in school, in terms of the curriculum content and the teaching they receive, has a major causal role in affecting the kind of society in which we all live. A system of schooling may be designed for many reasons, not all of which are morally acceptable. Children have been forced to attend schools, whose specific intentions included producing Christian gentlemen or committed communists, where any reference to the potentially liberating possibilities afforded by schooling have met with incomprehension or hostility. Those who have wished to indoctrinate the young into particular conceptions of the good life have all too frequently found schools willing to accommodate them. Part of what is involved in assessing the moral acceptability olf a system of schooling is the extent to which children are manipulated or controlled for purposes other than those they would freely endorse. If teachers were indifferent to children possessing relevant information as well as the ability to critically evaluate it, they would be in breach of their moral responsibilities towards them. But children also have lives beyond school, as children and as adult citizens. They will have to relate to countless other people and institutions and it is for this reason that the wider society of which they are a part, has a stake in the kind of education they receive. Those of us who wish to abolish faith schools are frequently accused of being in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whereby parents have the right 'to ensure (an) education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.' Before exploring the extent to which faith schools might be incompatible with the legitimate interests of children and the society of which they Ethical Record. February, 2007 3 are members, I hope to be able to demonstrate that the argument for faith schools by reference to parental rights is far weaker than its defenders would have us believe.

It goes without saying that (most) parents conceive of their parental status as part of their personal identity and find parenthood to be a source of profound satisfaction and fulfilment. But it is one thing to recognise this and quite another to conclude that it provides sufficient justification for the claim that the interests of parents and children are coincidental and harmonious, or that simply in virtue of occupying the role of parent, one is optimally equipped to determine a child's best interests. A child has interests in being able to formulate her own values and life plans and this is true whether or not she happens to be interested in any such thing. If children are mere appendages of their parents, their moral status as independent persons is both disrespected and undermined.

It would be foolish to underestimate the extent to which the argument from parental extension is invoked in discussions of so-called parental rights to faith schools, especially when it is couched in the more appealing language of familial intimacy. According to Ferdinand Schoeman 'it is the significance of intimacy, and not just a concern for the best interests of the child, that is essential to understanding the basis of the parents' moral claim to raise their biological offspring in a context of privacy, autonomy and responsibility' (Schoeman, 1980, p. 6). While it would be absurd to deny the value of intimate relationships within the context of family life or to resist temptations on the part of non-family members to interfere, it is questionable whether the value attributed to such relationships can be cashed out in the language of rights without losing much of the importance we properly attribute to them. If parents do have the right to mould their children in accordance with their own religious convictions, then an argument with considerably more justificatory force than appeal to the value of intimate relationships is called for. Are Parental Rights A Myth? Philip Montague has gone so far as to argue that the very idea of parental rights is a myth. At the heart of the parent-child relationship, he says. are responsibilities or obligations that parents have to protect the interests of their children and to nurture the children's decision-making abilities. Such obligations are child-centred rather than parent-centred 'because of the orientation all rights have towards their possessors' (Montague, 2000. p. 57). If there were such things as parental rights it would follow, Montague argues, that parents would have discretion over whether or not to protect their children's welfare — something which is clearly incompatible with the existence of parental obligations (ibid., p. 62). All of which, he concludes, is perfectly compatible with allowing a measure of latitude in how parents might care for their children; discretion regarding how to fulfil one's obligations being very different from discretion over what is to count as fulfilling them. The granting of discretionary powers to parents would thereby limit the extent to which outside agencies should be permitted to interfere with parents' decision-making relating to their children's welfare, while at the same time denying that parents have a right to implement such decisions.

To the extent that references to rights is appropriate in the context of child- rearing, it is the child's right 'in trust' to become an autonomous moral agent and to what Joel Feinberg so memorably refers to as an 'open future' (Feinberg, 1970), where significant options in life — such as one's religion — are not foreclosed. This is an appealing notion for several reasons. Not only is it a realistic and hard-edged view

4 Ethical Record, February, 2007 about children and the conditions required for autonomous well-being, it is resistant to the idea of children's rights canying more weight than it merits. One of the major concerns shared by those of us with strong reservations about faith schools, is that they may not attach sufficient importance to children's autonomy. Before exploring this further, it is important see what it is about children that gives them rights 'in trust' as opposed to rights per se.

Most parents wanting a faith based school for their children are no doubt motivated by concerns other than the fanatical, but it would very interesting to know what it is exactly that motivates them in this endeavour. Clearly there is a widespread belief that children in faith schools are better educated in terms of overall results, in spite of the limited evidence in support of this supposition. Many parents also believe that pupils in faith schools are better behaved and more academically motivated than those in secular equivalents. This may or may not be true, but if it is it should come as no surprise in view of the opportunities for selection available to faith schools. Whatever truth there may be in such matters, in themselves they provide nothing to support the case for parental rights. Another important factor influencing parental choice is the desire to have their children associate with teachers and class mates who share the same religious convictions and the opportunities for a specific kind of religious education fliat such schools afford. And it is this which prompts so much concern. Indoctrination Without Intention While this is not the place to embark on a lengthy discussion of such a contested concept as indoctrination, it cannot be denied that-faith schools actively foster religious commitment through their assemblies, RE lessons, and selection of teachers. l-n the light of avowals by the Church of England to the effect that the Church's mission is `to bring others into the faith' (Archbishop's Council, 2001, 3.11). that the Church school 'promotes Christian values through the experience it offers all its pupils' (3.24), values that will 'run through every area of school life as the writing runs through a stick of rock' (3.25), it is easy to see why the Humanist Philosophers' Group (2001) is concerned about the possible indoctrinatory effects. To account for religious indoctrination in terms of the intention to establish belief irrespective of evidence and counter-arguments, as they do, is to presume too much. If children do acquire religious beliefs unquestioningly, out of fear or undue respect of parents and teachers, then they may be said to have been indoctrinated whether or not there was any intention. The key factor is the likelihood of children coming to accept the truth of religious propositions given the influences to which they are exposed. If, in their formative years, their principal influences are parents and teachers who share the same religious outlook, they are more likely to believe in the truth of religious propositions than they might otherwise have been and it is unrealistic to suppose that all faith schools would attach priority to ensuring that pupils are encouraged to critically reflect on their religious beliefs.

Opinions differ over whether children in faith schools are more likely to be indoctrinated than their peers elsewhere but it seems to me that the dangers are sufficiently great to cast doubt on whether they should be permitted to operate. Again, it is too easy to slough off the charge with the unwarranted assumption that the products of faith schools are just as capable as other school leavers of subjecting the claims of religion to critical scrutiny. Unfortunately, discussions of autonomy frequently fall

Ethical Record, February, 2007 5 short in being confined to cognitive autonomy, the principal concem being with the process by which people come to subscribe to beliefs. Emotional autonomy is no less important when it comes to assessing someone's overall autonomy. It is quite possible, for example. that a one time Catholic having lost most or all of her faith continues to feel guilt about not going to mass or confession. Again, someone who has grown up in a devout Moslem family may well no longer share the convictions of her parents while continuing to fear not only their reactions but also placing trust in her own judgments. As Benson says: 'intellectual skills cannot exist without qualities of character. The fear and anxiety that subvert the mind in forming judgments also subvert the will in standing by them and translating them into action' (Benson, 1975, p. 14). As Susan Moller Okin says: 'individuals must not only be formally free but substantially and more or less equally free to leave their religion or culture; they must have realistic rights of exit' (0kM, 2002, p. 206). The Case Of The Mozert Parents A particularly notorious case of Christian fundamentalist parents who wish to prevent their children from knowing about ways of life other than their own, unless such exposure is accompanied by a statement to the effect that there is only one correct way of life, is that of the Mozert parents in Hawkins County Tennessee who. in 1986, obtained the legal right to withdraw their children from reading classes (a right subsequently overturned in the Appeals Court on the grounds that compulsory attendance at such classes violated neither the free exercise nor establishment clauses of the First Amendment). The parents' objection to the reading materials were numerous and included the fact that a boy was seen adopting a role in the kitchen traditionally associated with women, and that they conveyed the message that all human beings had inherent dignity and worth. Above all, they rejected the distinction between exposing their children to ways of life other than their own and the inculcation of a belief in the value of such ways of life. As far as they are concemed. getting children to critically evaluate different ways of life is tantamount to heresy.

In response to the appeal of a religious minority to opt out of state education in accordance with the principle of tolerance. Peter Hobson and John Edwards refer to the 'logical inconsistency of justifying action that would deny individual freedom of religious choice to their members by employing a principle which upholds that very same freedom', which demonstrates the futility of non-liberal minorities appealing to liberal principles in their demand to have one faith promulgated in their schools. (Hobson and Edwards, 1999, p. 118).

Defenders of faith schools are not lacking in support from philosophers. Both Terence McLaughlin and Mark Halstead share the belief in the importance of children being introduced to what McLaughlin calls an initial 'primary culture' (whereby children receive a 'determinate starting point from conditions of stability as well as openness' towards achieving autonomy, (McLaughlin, 1994, p. 103), which, by extension, entitles them to 'a determinate form of schooling, harmonious with the values and beliefs of the family' (ibid. p. 106. See also McLaughlin, (1992a) and McLaughlin ( I 992b). As sensitive as he undoubtedly is to a child's need to develop autonomously, McLaughlin is altogether too sanguine about the limited extent to which religious communities might succeed in frustrating this laudable goal (McLaughlin, (2003), or how 'autonomy via faith' can be secured (McLaughlin, (1984). It is all very well to oppose the fixation of beliefs in a child, whereby she is incapable of submitting her beliefs to subsequent criticism, but given the extent to which some people lack

5 Ethical Record, February, 2007 emotional autonomy it is easier said than done to ensure that they are capable of 'exit' from their primary culture. Halstead tries to find a compromise solution to the demand of religious minorities for faith schools as part of the preservation of their cultural identity on the one hand, and on the other, the fears of those who believe that in granting such concessions they would be compromising their principles relating to an education requiring children to be taught the importance of rational debate, the ability to grapple with conflicting world views and to value diversity of tastes which of necessity requires the ability to distance themselves from their primary culture in the interests of autonomous decision-making. Such a compromise would, he believes, require the curriculum to include the following: (i) 'education for democratic citizenship'. requiring the recognition of all citizens to fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as the collective duty to support and uphold institutions that embody a shared conception of justice and the rule of law; 00 'education for specific cultural attachment', (a) on Rawlsian grounds that citizens may have affections, devotions and loyalties from which they should not distance themselves, (b) because of the presumption of the equal worth of different cultures, and (c) the belief that children, at least in their formative years. need a secure and stable environment where the cultural values of the school are broadly in line with those of the home; (iii) 'education for cross-cultural understanding', designed to provide 'tolerance and respect and the ability to live alongside groups with different cultural values' (Halstead, 1995, pp. 269ff). Can Faith Schools Provide 'Emotional Autonomy' While (i) and (iii) would be common to both faith and non-faith schools, (ii) would vary from school to school. Clearly (ii) is the most problematic. Not only does Halstead fail to specify the content required for such an education, he is the first to concede that there are profound implications for social cohesion. Again, it is far from clear that an education for specific cultural attachment is compatible with (i) and (iii). Unless any and every faith is to be subsidised, we need criteria by reference to which particular faiths should be denied public funding. If Christians, Moslems, Jews, Sikhs and the like merit subsidies why not Pagans, especially if their values are not incompatible with those required for democratic citizenship? Halstead is complacent in supposing that 'rivalry and divisiveness would be less likely to thrive in a state which showed equality of respect towards diverse cultural groups and (that) suspicion and resentment between groups would be further diminished by education for cross-cultural understanding' (Ibid.., p. 270). One has only to look at the recent history of Northern Ireland, where most children have so little opportunity to relate to their peers from different religious backgrounds during their formative years, to appreciate how difficult it is to achieve the cross-cultural understanding favoured by Halstead. If faith schools were allowed to proliferate, is it not counter-intuitive to expect that they would be overly concerned with the socially divisive consequences that are more than, likely to ensue? Our fears in this respect would be no less misplaced were we to rely on a curriculum that merely teaches about other cultures and rehgions, with actual contact with children from different religious backgrounds having no bearing on the matter. If we are serious about cross-cultural understanding, why go to the trouble of insulating children from one another during their school years? It is too easy, in the interests of 'tolerance', to ignore the irrational pressures on young people to conform - not only to the demands of a cultural or religious tradition,

Ethical Record, February, 2007 7 but also to those associated with the clamouring materialism of mainstream culture. Such pressures serve to remind us of the state's all-important role in ensuring that future citizens of a democracy acquire the knowledge, skills and capacities required for active citizenship. The implications for public policy, as well as for teachers and parents. are enormous. A democratic state must ensure that children receive an appropriate version as a bulwark against those who, however unwittingly, would deprive young people of opportunities for autonomous well-being. More is required of a system of schooling than the provision of information; strength of will, determination and courage are equally important. Suffice it to say that we have reason to be sceptical about the capacity, and indeed the willingness, of faith schools in this enterprise.

Notes John White cites evidence to suouest that in 1998 only 21% of British people express a belief in God's existence. (See &SO, Social Trends 30, in White, 2004, p. 151).

Montague relies on a distinction between 'interest' and `choice' conceptions of rights developed by Sumner (1987). The interestconception depicts parents as beneficiaries of a network of protective and supportive duties shared by others. The genuine interest parents have in protecting the welfare of their children is worth protecting because their children's welfare is worth protecting. The choice conception of rights on the other hand, would grant parents the right to make decisions concerning their children's well- being only if there is a corresponding area of activity within which parents have moral discretion whether to act. Parents may have the right against society that they not be prevented from fulfilling their obligations towards their children, but this does not extend to denying the right of society to step in when parents fail to fulfil their obligations. (Cf. Brighouse, (2000, p. 85): The right to be allowed to fulfil obligations is precisely that. It does not imply the right to refrain from fulfilling that obligation, nor the right to prevent others from fulfilling their obligations to the same persons.'

Citing the research by John Marks (see Marks, 2000), Robert Jackson points out that attainment in literacy and numeracy 'shows the complexity and ambiguity of evidence for higher attainment in Church Schools over against Community Schools'. Marks reports that while there is a slightly better average performance in Church Schools than Community Schools. 'there is a huge variation in standards between faith based schools'. (Jackson, 2003). (See also Schagen, et al, (2002).

Indoctrination is similarly explicated by Ivan Snook (1972) and John White (1967).

The Humanist Philosophers' Group presents a very powerful case against faith schools but relies on an account of 'religious education' as nothing more than 'teaching about religion' (op cit., p.I 4. their italics). I have elsewhere argued that in order to be religiously educated as opposed to being merely informed or instructed, one needs to understand religious concepts such as 'God', 'worship', 'salvation' and so on which itself entails that one is to some extent — the extent depending on the depth of understanding — on the 'inside' of a religion. How could one understand such concepts in anything other than a superficial sense if one had not been initiated into their possible use? I would argue that to understand anything at all about the nature of God is to believe that there is something that counts as 'God' - which is another way of saying that understanding presupposes belief. If true, and if it is not the business of a publicly funded system of schooling to get children to believe in the truth of propositions that are highly disputable, then it is difficult to see how there could be a legitimate place for a

8 Ethical Record, February, 2007 religious 'education' of this kind. Indeed it is difficult to see how it could be distinguished from indoctrination. (Marples, 1978).

The Mozert's claim to have their religious convictions take precedence over an appropriate civic education are vigorously attacked in many places. Stephen Macedo argues that 'children cannot be go-od citizens of a diverse liberal polity unless they are taught that critical thinking and public argument...are appropriate means of political justification. Children must...be exposed to the religious diversity that constitutes our polity for the sake of learning to respect as fellow citizens those who differ from them in matters of religion.' (Macedo, 1995a. p. 226). Macedo believes, correctly in my view, that 'a liberal or-der does not and should not guarantee a level playing field for all the religions and ways of life that people might adopt....We have no reason to be equally fair to those prepared to accept, and those who refuse to accept, the political authority of public reasons that fellow citizens share' (ibid. p. 227); (a view he defends at greater length in Macedo, 19956). Similar arguments are deployed with considerable force by Arneson and Shapiro (1996). A well considered liberal democracy, Gutmann insists, 'expects us to exercise critical judgment in our willingness to take unpopular political positions, respect reasonable points of view that we reject. and respect public policies from which we dissent. A civic education that satisfies the Mozert parents' objections...would interfere with teaching the virtues and skills of liberal democratic citizenship (such as the teaching of toleration, mutual respect. racial and sexual non- discrimination, and deliberation)' (Gutmann, 1995).

Two interesting, but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to defend the educational rights of religious parents are made by Shelley Burtt (Burn, 1996), and William Galston - the latter by reference to liberalism's commitment to toleration and diversity. (Galston, 1991).

The TES recently published a letter claiming that Paganism 'is recognised as a religion by the NHS and the Prison Service, both of whom employ Pagan chaplains.' (7 November 2003).

References Archbishops' Council (2001) The Way Ahead: Church of England Schools in the New Millenium, (London. Church House Publishing).

Arneson. RI and Shapiro, I. (1996) Democratic Autonomy and Religious Freedom: A Critique of Wisconsin V. Yoder in I. Shapiro and R. Hardin (Eds.) Political Order (New York UPmss).

Benson, J. (1975) Who is the Autonomous Man?, Philosophy, 58, pp. 5-17.

Blacker, D. (1998) Fanaticism and Education, American Journal of Education, 106, pp. 241-271.

Brighouse, H. (2000) School Choice and Social Justice, (Oxford. Oxford University Press).

Burtonwood, N. (2000) Must Liberal Support for Separate Schools Be Subject To A Condition Of Individual Autonomy?. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(3). pp. 269-264.

Burn. S. (1996) Parental Authority and the Public Schools, in: I. Shapiro and R. Hardin (Eds.) Political Order (New York. New York University Press).

Department for Education and Employment (200 I) Schools: Building on Success. (Norwich. The Stationery Office, DfES Publications).

Feinberg. J. (1980) The Child's Right to an Open Future, in: W. Aiken and H. Lalollette (Eds.) Whose Child? Children's Rights, Parental Authority. and State Power (Totowa. NJ. Littlefield. Adams & Co.).

Ethical Record, February, 2007 9 Galston, W. (1991) Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtue and Diversity in the Liberal State (CUP).

Gutmann, A. (1995) Civic Education and Social Diversity. Ethics. 105 (April). pp. 557-579.

Hobson. P.R. & Edwards. LS (Eds.) (1999) Religious Education In A Pluralist Society: The Key Philosophical Issues (London, Woburn Press).

Halstead, M (1995) Voluntary Apartheid? Problems of schooling for religious and other minorities in democratic societies. Journal of Philosophy of Education 29(2). pp. 257-272.

Humanist Philosophers Group (2001) Religious Schools: The Case Against (London. BHA).

Jackson, R. (2003) Should the state fund faith based schools? A review of the arguments, British Journal of Religious Education, 25(2). pp. 89-102.

Macedo, S. (1995a) Multiculturalism for the Religious Right? Defending liberal civic education. Journal of Philosophy of Education. 29(2), pp. 223-238.

Macedo, S. (19956) Liberal civic education and religious fundamentalism: the case of God v. John Rawls?, Ethics 105 (Spring), pp. 468-496.

Marks, S. (2001) Standards in Church of England, Roman Catholic and LEA Schools in England. in: J. Burn, J. Marks, P. Pilkington and P. Thompson (Eds.) Faith in Education (London. Civitas)

Marples, R. (1978) Is Religious Education Possible?, J. Philosophy of Education. 12. pp. 81-91.

McLaughlin, T. (1984) Parental Rights and the Upbringing of Children. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 180 ), pp.75-83.

McLaughlin, T. (1 992a) The Ethics of Separate Schools, in: M. Leicester and MJ. Taylor (Eds,) Ethics. Ethnicity and Education (London, Kogan Page).

McLaughlin. T. (199210 The Distinctiveness of Catholic Education, in: T. McLaughlin, 1.M. O'Keefe and B. O'Keefe (Eds.) The Contemporary Catholic School: Context, Identity and Diversity. (London. Falrner Press).

McLaughlin, T. (1994) The Scope of Parents' Educational Rights, in: M. Halstead (Ed.) Parental Choice and Education: Principles, Policy and Practice (London, Kogan Page).

McLaughlin, T. (2003) An Extra-Liberal(?) Stance to Philosophy of Education: Adding to, or going beyond, Liberalism?, Journal of Philosophy of Education. 37(1), pp.174-I 80.

Montague, P. (2000) The Myth of Parental Rights, Social Theory and Practice. 26(1), pp. 47-68.

Okin, S.M. (2002) 'Mistresses of their Own Destiny': Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Rights of Exit, Ethics, 112(January), pp. 205-230.

Schagen. S.. Davies, D.. Rudd, P. and Schagen. I. (2002) The Impact of Specialist and Faith Schools on Performance. Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research).

Schoeman. F. (1980) Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family, Ethics 91(October), pp. 6-19.

Snook, I. (1972) Indoctrination and Education, (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

White, J. (1967) Indoctrination. in: R.S. Peters (Ed.) The Concept of Education (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).

White. J. (2004) Should Religious Education be a Compulsory School Subject?. British Journal of Religious Education. 26(2), pp. 151-164.

White. P (1988) Educating Courageous Citizens, J. o'f Philosophy of Education, 22(1), pp. 67-74.1s

10 Ethical Record, February, 2007 SPES ESSAY COMPETITION on the subject DO HUMANISTS NEED THE CONCEPT OF EVIL? 2500 words max. Entry open to all. Prize: £200 Essays must be typed, preferably double spaced and posted (NOT emailed) to the Registrar, The Ethical Society, 25 Red Lion Square, London, WC1R 4RL. The essayist's name and address must be supplied on a separate sheet of paper. with no identification on the essay itself. The closing date for entries is 4pm Sunday, 25 Febmary 2007.

IS FAITH UNDER FIRE? On 6 Febmary, Norman Bacrac and Jennifer Jeynes were invited to Portcullis House, Westminster, for the Premier Christian Radio's symposium Is Faith Under Fire? Judeo-Christianity in the UK. Norman and Hanne Stinsen of the BHA, who was a main speaker along with Dick Taverne, had featured on Premier Christian Radio debates. The main religious speakers were Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg and the Bishop of Rochester. The latter stated categorically in his speech that the Enlightenment led directly to Robespierre and the Terror in the French Revolution and then Hitler (apparently with nothing in between). JJ was incensed and involuntarily said 'nonsense' a bit louder than she intended. Fortunately there were no New Labour heavies to remove her. The Rabbi clearly thought the Bishop had gone too far (the Enlightenment had tended to free the Jews). Hanne remarked that it was obvious how dedicated to equality the bishops were as there were only male bishops in the Lords. Evan Harris, the Lib Dem MP and staunch secularist, made an excellent contribution from thefloor. Jennifer Jeynes

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY WOMEN'S RIGHTS, THE VEIL & ISLAMIC/RELIGIOUS LAWS Univ. of London Union, Room 3D, Malet Street, WC1E 7HY. Thurs 8 March 6-9pm. Speakers include Ann Harrison: Researcher, Middle East & North Africa Department of Amnesty International's International Secretariat; NSS Honorary Associates Maryam Namazie. Taslima Nasrin and Polly Toynbee. Also the first showing of a short film by Reza Moradi called In the Name of Honour. Free Admission Info: 07719 111738 or 07950 924434. Refreshments Co-sponsored by NSS & International Campaign in Defense of Women's Right in Iran/UK.

DONATION We are grateful to Mr L E West of West Wimbledon, London for his kind donation of £30. Such support from our members is always most welcome. THE HUMANIST REFERENCE LIBRARY The Humanist Reference Library is normally open for members and researchers on Mondays from I 2noon-4pm and from Tuesdays to Fridays between 2.30 and 630pm. It is best to let the Librarian, Jennifer Jeynes, know in advance of your intention to visit the Library. Tel: 020 7242 8037/4. Email: [email protected]

Ethical Record, February, 2007 11 POST-WAR ANTISEMITISM IN THE UK Daphne Liddle Lecture to Ethical Society for Holocaust Day (27 Jan,) 28 January 2007

Historically in Britain organised fascism and racism —including antisemitism —have been intertwined though they are not exactly the same thing. Not all fascists are racists and not all racists are fascists. The Apartheid regime in South Africa was racist but not fascist. It did have a form, albeit limited to a minority, of elected representation in its legislatures, much the same as Britain had prior to 1832.

Fascism And Racism Fascism and racism are not exactly the same thing but they do have common elements. All fascist movements have proclaimed aggressive nationalism and militarism. The allegedly masculine "virtues" of strength and discipline are praised. as are the principles of Social-Darwinism and the "survival of the fittest" in national terms. The inequalities of both nations and individuals are proclaimed as real and beneficial, as is the idea that the improvement of humanity depends on the "less fit" failing or being prevented from reproducing and so dying out. It is from this eugenicist aspect of fascism that many fascist regimes, though not all by any means, adopt racist policies. Mussolini's fascism was not racist until it allied itself to Hitler's Nazism.

So in Britain, since 1945, most fascist organisations have combined racism with their fascism. Within that racism there have been two deep but connected strands. First there is the traditional British imperialist racism arising from the history of colonialism. This sees the peoples subdued by British imperialism in Africa. India and Far East — mainly people of a different colour skin —not as inherently evil but as intellectually inferior and childlike: people who have to be ruled for their own good.

The fascists see Jews differently. They see them as highly intelligent and inherently evil. This links in with a long tradition of antisemitism more prevalent in Europe than in Britain. It is descended from a view that was held by the Catholic Church that the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. This ignores the fact that the alleged Jesus Christ was himself Jewish and that it was apparently all part of God's plan that Christ should be crucified in order to redeem humanity from "sin" — so their God must take ultimate responsibility for ihat alleged event.

Antisemitism flourished in feudal Europe where the laws of the Catholic Church forbade Jews to own land, many to become financiers and bankers. But in Britain antisemitism declined with the advent of Protestantism. After the civil war in Britain, Oliver Cromwell abolished laws against Judaism and since then, although antisemitism has existed here, it is has not been such a big issue as in Europe.

The fact that nearly all the organised racist and fascist organisations in Britain have always been deeply antisemitic is an indication of their roots in European fascism and Nazism. Their reasoning is never consistent at the best of times but when they recruit people in Britain purely on the basis of anti-black immigration racism, they quietly draw these people aside and ask them if they think it is really the blacks who are the root of the problem. "After all," they argue, "the blacks are not intelligent enough to be a serious problem without a powerful secret intelligence behind it all". They then start telling their raw recruits all the conspiracy theories dating back to the

12 Ethical Record, February, 2007 publication of the fraudulent treatise, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, published in the late 19th century, and how western civilisation is threatened by a world conspiracy of Jews, communists and sometimes Freemasons as well. Sonic develop this to mystic levels, with extra-terrestrial beings behind the Jews in theories that date from works by Nesta Webster in the early part of the last century.

The fascists' argument is contradictory in that they claim there never was a policy of exterminating Jews in Nazi Germany but that Jews should be exterminated and that Jews escaped extermination by fooling western governments into rescuing them. They also try to disguise their antisemitism by using words like "internationalists" or cosmopolitans" when they really mean Jews. They also claim to be anti-Zionist rather than antisemitic, which are two totally different things.

Their Ideology Took A Bashing Just after the war the ideology of fascism and Nazism took a battering but there still remained two active strands who kept their heads down at first but re-emerged when immigration into Britain from the West Indies, Africa and the Indian sub-continent provided opportunities for recruitment on the basis of anti-black racism.

Britain's National Socialist Movement was led by Colin Jordan and published a paper called National Socialist. Behind Jordan was the high priest of post-war neo- Nazism, Arnold Spencer Leese, a man who described himself as an "anti-Jewish camel doctor". He was a former army vetinary surgeon who had served in the Middle East and who retired from the army aged 50; in 1929 to 1939 he led the Imperial Fascist League. This organisation had only about 200 members and was overshadowed by Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

The Imperial Fascist League was extremely pro-German, adopting the swastika in preference to the Italian fascist symbol, the fasces. Leese thought that the extermination of the Jews would be a good thing, but suspecting the British public would never support this, he publicly declared that they should all be deported to Madagascar. Leese spent most of the Second World War in prison. After his release he published a book entitled The Jewish War of Survival.

He also published a newsletter, Gothic Ripples and picked up a disciple, Colin Jordan Jordan was an avid student of Leese's conspiracy theories. In 1954 he joined the League of Empire Loyalists, run by AK Chesterton, but was expelled in 1957 after accusing the League of being too lenient towards Jews. In 1958 Jordan founded the White Defence League, which he ran from his headquarters, "Arnold Leese House" in Notting Hill.

Oswald Mosley was also doing his best to exploit racial tensions arising from immigration with his Union Movement. Mosley and his wife Diana had spent much of the Second World War interned under Defence Regulation 186 but they were released in November 1943 on health grounds with heavy restrictions of their movements and activity. In 1947 Mosley published The Alternative containing his plan to save western civilisation from collapse. In it he admitted that narrow nationalism and pre-war fascism were outdated and began to call for a united Europe to be a third force between communism in the east and western capitalism. His policies were the same as before the war only on a Europe-wide rather than a purely British scale.

Ethical Record, February, 2007 13 The Union Movement In 1949 the Mosley's Union Movement emerged from the chaos taking a stand against the demands of the Palestinian Jews but his undisguised antisemitisrn won his all-round condemnation in the press. He had to live in county Cork for three years to escape the notoriety.

From 1950 onwards he started to publish a pamphlet called The European. mostly covering literary topics. In 1953 he returned to Britain and began electioneering, warning that a massive economic crisis was due in the late 50s. He began to exploit prejudice against immigrants from the West Indies. A year after the Notting Hill riots he stood as a candidate for North Kensington, campaigning for compulsory repatriation of immigrants. He came bottom in the poll. Disillusioned, he more or less gave up on electoral antisemitism and changed tactics to seek international alliances in Europe. In 1962 he organised a "Conference of Venice" with various small European fascist groups.

But Leese had official recognition from the only remaining segment of the original German Nazi Party - the NSDAP Ousland or overseas section - which operated in America, especially New Jersey. This gave Jordan a higher standing among international Nazis than Mosley's organisation. Jordan lost his job as a teacher because of his political activity.

In 1962 Jordan held a -Free Britain from Jewish Control- rally in Trafalgar Square and three weeks later Mosley held a similar rally there; 6,000 people turned up and it seems most of them were anti-fascists. Jeffrey Hamm's warm up speech was drowned in a hail of copper coins, eggs and rotten vegetables and fights broke out between Mosley's supporters versus Communists, anti-fascists, anarchists, members of the Committee of 100 and the police. Mosley never got to speak. Shortly after, the same battle was re-enacted in Manchester. He tried stomping round his old haunts in London's East End but met with serious physical resistance.

After that Mosley's movement faded from the scene and Mosley and his wife went to live in France - though they did come back occasionally to visit their old fascist colleagues.

The League of Empire Loyalists was also involved in stirring up racism and so was John Bean, who ran an organisation called the National Labour Party. The Labour Party took out an injunction against Bean using this name for his racist party. Bean then decided to merge his party with Jordan's White Defence League. By Febniary 1960 they had started a new party called the British National Party with Norfolk landowner Andrew Fountaine as president. Fountaine had fought for Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

They propagated a policy of repatriation for immigrants with all Jews to be deported either to Israel or Madagascar - in keeping with Leese's ideas. They claimed to be fighting against a Jewish plot to turn the British into a "mongrel race" and their aim was unity with other white, northern European peoples throughout the world to oppose other "lesser races.

14 Eth cal Record, February, 2007 Spearhead In the summer of 1960 Jordan founded an elite corps inside the BNP called "Spearhead.' —a sort of paramilitary training group which conducted exercises on Andrew Fountaine's Norfolk estate while wearing imitation Nazi uniforms.

The foundation of the Spearhead corps led to a split in the BNP in 1962, with Bean and Fountaine concerned about the seditious and illegal nature of Spearhead. Jordan joined forces with john Tyndall, a former member of Bean's NLP and the two tried to steer the'BNP more firmly towards out-and-out Hitlerism. Bean and Fountaine tried to unseat Jordan as BNP leader but failed because the organisation lacked internal democratic structures and because the headquarters. Arnold Leese House, was the property of Leese's widow who regarded Jordan as her adopted son and would tolerate no move against him.

Bean and, Fountaine had no choice but to leave but they took most of the membership with them to found a new BNP, publishing a journal called Combat. Jordan and Tyndall hosted an international conference of National Socialists in Gloucestershire and founded the World Union of National Socialists (WUNS). In August 1962 Jordan and Tyndall. with others, were charged under the Public Order Act with attempts to set up a paramilitary force. In 1961 on Hitler's birthday, 20 April, Jordan launched yet another organisation, the National Socialist Movement, with about 20 members. Tyndall became national organiser with Mrs Leese as vice president.

Within a year this tiny group had split after a clash between Jordan and Tyndall. Tyndall then founded the Greater Britain Movement while Jordan turned the NSM into the British Movement with Mike McLaughlin.

In 1967 the National Front was founded by AK Chesterton of the League of Empire Loyalists, which merged with the Racial Preservation Society led by Robin Beauclaire. Martin Webster was its national organiser. Its initial policies were purely anti-immigration and opposition to international treaties like Nato and the United Nations. Webster had worked as one of the racketeer slum landlord Rackman's bully boys. He had also worked politically with Tyndall before and there was some animosity between them. Webster was competent organiser but overtly homosexual. which Tyndall did not approve of.

In 1979, Dave Roberts. who had infiltrated the National Front on behalf of Searchlight, was able to expose that Webster had been receiving money from the Special Branch in exchanue for information about the NF. We published this in Forewarned Against Fascism and believe it played a role in helping the NF to split. With hindsight. I believe the Special Branch fed this information to Dave, knowing we would publish it. as part of a decision by the state to pull the plug on the NF at that stage.

The National Front Taken Over For the first few years of the National Front, Webster and Chesterton maintained a bar on overt national socialists joining and so kept Tyndall out. But individual members of Tyndall's Greater Britain Movement started to infiltrate the NF and soon the ban was lifted and Tyndall joined. It did not take him long to take over. The NF grew quite quickly in the 1970s to around 20,000 members in 1974. It stood in elections and came

Ethical Record, February, 2007 15 third in a number of parliamentary by-elections. The NF also developed links with the Ulster Volunteer Force.

The fascists also targeted young working class football fans as recruits. encouraging them towards extreme partisanship for their teams and their 'race'. The fascists were a major factor in the upsurge of football hooliganism and racism among football supporters. There were frequent clashes with anti-fascists; especially the Anti- Nazi League and Searchlight continually exposed its neo-Nazi links. These links led to a split in 1974.

There were a number of other related groups around at the time. The League of St George regarded itself as a more intellectual fascist and antisemitic organisation, which had links with some very wealthy people, including in the intelligence services.

At this time there was a deep division in Europe between the Catholic and Protestant fascists, which manifested itself in regular running battles in the town of Dixmude. The NF, with its UVF links, attacked the IRA as "papists who breed like rabbits" — which upset the Spanish and Italian fascists. Eventually the Belgian authorities banned these rallies. The following year there was a violent, fatal football riot at the Heysel stadium between Protestant and Catholic football supporters.

Another shady group around in the 1960s and 70s was Column 88. This was an umbrella group of sinister, wealthy fascists and antisemites that organised joint military training groups, liaisons and so on. It had strong international links. It is now thought that this was the British wing of what was known as Gladio in Europe. After the Second World War the western allies, pre-empting the Cold War, set up clandestine paramilitary groups in most western European countries to fight against communism and prevent communist governments ever being elected.

The Numbers Game The National Front's real neo-Nazi agenda was confirmed in 1974 with the publication of a booklet Did Six Million Really Die?, by leading NE member Richard VentII, under the pseudonym Richard E Harwood. This claimed that the Holocaust was a fabrication and attacked the integrity of various war crimes trials, including the trial of Adolf Eichinann. He claimed that the number of Jews in Europe under Nazi occupation had never exceeded 2.5 million (this figure is contradicted by all reputable sources, including the Nazis' own figures; they reckoned 11 million Jews were living in Europe in 1942).

Furthermore these arguments based on numbers are always spurious because of the different definitions of who is and who is not Jewish. Many strict orthodox Jewish sects have a very narrow definition of Jewishness. On the other extreme the Nazis included people with just one Jewish grandparent. It is very likely that many of the people who were murdered as Jews would not have thought of themselves as Jewish. This does not lessen the crime of their murder. Red Army prisoners of war who were Muslims were treated as Jews by Nazi camp guards because they had been circumcised. Probably there will never be exact numbers for the people who were murdered in the Holocaust. There is a consensus estimate of around six million for the number of Jews murdered. In addition another estimated five million, including socialists, communists, trade unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, people with physical and mental disabilities and others were murdered.

16 Ethical Record, February, 2007 The World Anti-Communist League In 1979 the National Front splintered into small pieces after Margaret Thatcher made her infamous -swamping" speech. It was also at the time when Forewarned had exposed Webster as a Special Branch nark and the party was nearly bankrupt. There were two reasons for this. One was electoral adventurism on Tyndall's part; the other was the withdrawal of funds from a shady international body known as the World Anti- Communist League.

The World Anti-Communist League has been described by former member Geoffrey Stewart-Smith as "largely a collection of Nazis, fascists, antisemites, sellers of forgeries, vicious racists and corrupt self-seekers". It was formed in 1966 in Taipei, Taiwan under the initiative of Chiang Kai-Shek and a group of exiled Ukrainian former Nazi SS men called the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), who initiated the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which in tum took part in founding WACL.

WACL used to stage conferences around the globe and had funding from various very rich South Koreans, the Sultan of Brunei, the Saudi oil sheikhs and the CIA. It was backed by Ronald Reagan and played a role in forming and funding the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua. It was linked to the notorious Colonel Oliver North.

It allocated funds to extreme right-wing anti-communists in many countries around the globe. In Britain it channelled funds through Lady Jane Birdwood, a rabid antisemite and friend of many fascist and racist groups. She directed its funds in Britain to a number of organisations, including the National Front.

In the late 70s the United States government started to feel embarrassed about funding out-and-out neo-Nazis, antisemites and cranks. In 1980 former US Army and CIA officer Major General John K Singlaub was appointed to head WACL and clean up its act. Singlaub withdrew the funding route from Birdwood and instead directed it to slightly more respectable organisations around the extreme right-wing fringes of the Conservative Party such as WISE, the British League of Rights and the Monday Club. This was a major blow to the National Front finances.

Tyndall's leadership was challenged by Andrew Fountaine after the adventurist election disaster. Although Tyndall saw off the challenge, Fountaine and his followers split from the party to form the NF Constitutional Movement. The influential Leicester branch of the NF also split around this time, leading to the formation of the short lived British Democratic Party. In the face of these splits, Tyndall was expelled and replaced as leader by Andrew Brons. Tyndall formed his own New National Front, which was forced by court action to change its name. Tyndall renamed the NNF the 'British National Party', which has since replaced the NF as the dominant nationalist party in Britain.

The party was splitting into many fragments during the 1980s. The largest group were the Political Soldier ideas of young 'radicals' such as Nick Griffin, Patrick Harrington, Phil Edwards, Derek Holland and, slightly later on, Troy Southgate, who were known as the Official National Front or the Third Way. Under the leadership of the Political Soldiers, the NF lost interest in contesting elections, preferring a more "revolutionary" strategy — back to the clandestine paramilitary training groups.

Ethical Record, February, 2007 17 The fortunes of the National Front have subsequently waned, although it still exists as a small party, and fielded seven candidates at the 1997 general election. The party lost a number of supporters to the White Nationalist Party, groups such as the Nationalist Alliance and the British Peoples Party.

The British National Party The modern British National Party was founded in 1980 by John Tyndall. In 1987 it set up headquarters in Welling, in the London Borough of Bexley. This was followed by an upsurge of racist attacks in the area including at least three racist murders: Rolan Adams, Rohit Dougal and Stephen Lawrence. There were fierce anti-fascist campaigns against the headquarters, with a series of mass protests. Eventually a Labour council was elected in Bexley, held a public inquiry into the effect of the BNP "bunker'. on the local community and then gave the BNP its marching orders.

The BNP developed from within itself a group of thugs and football hooligans who called themselves Combat 18, led by Charlie Sargent. At first they acted as an "honour guard" for Tyndall and his coterie but later their violence brought such disrepute on the BNP they split from it. C18 in 1995 acted as -stewards" to an Apprentice Boys march through London running alongside the march on the pavement, assailing and threatening passers by.

The BNP began to divide in the mid 1990s as Tyndall lost popularity. By this time a seriously ambitious Nick Griffin had joined the BNP with aims to "modernise" it and make it electable. Griffin ousted Tyndall. Tyndall's clique cried foul and accusations of financial corruption flew back and forth. Since then Griffin has tried desperately to change the public image of the BNP, but anti-fascists like Searchlight keep exposing the deep neo-Nazism and antisemitism that is still there.

The BNP now has 55 councillors. In part mainstream political parties are to blame for this for giving up on door-to-door canvassing in election times. This leaves it wide open to BNP members in suits to lie through their teeth with racist scaremongering to uninformed residents, many of whom know little or nothing of the BNP's history or essence.

The Origin Of Metaphysics D. Rooum recently ruminated on what metaphysics is all about. Here is a note as to the origin of the term. Aristotle wrote a collection of pieces about the Natural World, essentially about processes of change within it, that is now labelled his Physics; and others about what he variously called "ftrst philosophy" (with its subject, 'being as such', and 'first causes'), "first science" and "sophia". Long after his death, an editor gave the collection of the latter the name "Ta meta ta phusika" —"the ones /books] after the physical ones", probably implying, if anything, that they should be read in that order. Now tell me I should get out more: after I have read E.J.Lowe's "The Four Category Ontology — a metaphysical foundation for natural scienqe" 1.0UP 2006], which shows how the fundamental questions have not gone away. Chris Bratcher

PER OPEN D1SCUSION CONFERENCE — SHOULD THE STATE FUND FAITH SCHOOLS? WOLFSON COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE. Saturday 10 March I I am-4pm Speakers inc. Andrew Copson, BHA Education Officer 10. Apply to Sheila Richards, 3 Ingleside Grove, SE3 7PH

18 Ethical Record, February, 2007 BOOK REVIEWOF BILL COOKE'S A DICTIONARY OF ATHEISM, SKEPTICISM AND HUMANISM Prometheus Books, Amherst, 2006. ISBN 1 59102 299 I. $70.00 606pp. Hardbound. Robert Morrell

This book is the end product. says Bill Cooke, of 'thirty years of eclectic reading'. Inevitably it will attract comparison with Joseph McCabe's Rationalist Encyclopedia, which in layout it closely resembles. Cooke is aware that such a comparison will be made for in his acknowledgements he refers to having had a conversation with Barbara Smoker, whom he describes as 'the veteran British atheist campaigner', who had praised McCabe's book 'as a very useful work' but one requiring updating. She was quite right, particularly in respect to its entries on science, politics and economics, not to mention developments in Roman Catholicism of which McCabe was a leading authority. Howei/er, in many areas the Encyclopedia'sentries remain correct

Cooke makes it clear that in compiling this book it was not his intention to produce a revamped and updated version of McCabe's work, which was primarily written for unbelievers. He wished to compile one not just for such people but for 'freethinkers in the broadest sense of the word: people,' he writes, 'who like to think for themselves and not according to the preplanned routes set by others'. Whether this was intended as a criticism of McCabe is unclear, but when he also writes that `by no means are all atheists, sceptics. and humanist freethinkers in this broad sense', he appears to be critical of such people.

So what to my mind stands out in terms of originality in the Dictionary? Certainly not its historical coverage, which is patchy, even if Cooke states that we should not expect to •find everything imaginable' in it. He also proclaims that it is 'not about the falsity of religion', which is not quite correct, nor is it 'designed to be a handbook against religion', but is a product of the author's 'curiosity', which suggests a little more care should have been given when deciding on the book's title.

A Plethora Of Subjects Nevertheless if you want to know more about a plethora of subjects such as ideological totalism, igtheism. imagology, agequake, anachronism, dionysianism, Jesus junk. mereymustification, metrosexual, reciprocal altruism, deconstruction, human- heartedness, laicity, logocentrism, supersessionism along with baby boomers. cafeteria Catholics and yahoo-manity, you will have a field day. although whether these "in words" will attain a lasting value or be superseded by equally obscure terminology is anyone's guess.

Some entries invoke a certain puzzlement as to their relevance. Was it necessary to have over a half page devoted to what is described as a 'super group' called Pink Floyd? Perhaps far more worthy of inclusion, if only briefly, would have been blues singers Sonny Boy Williamson and Big Joe Williams, who at least came up with a very effective song panning dodgy evangelical preachers.

I also find it difficult to understand why the revolting paedophile bishop Charles Webster Leadbetter is given so much space, even if Annie Besant liked him, or that given to Krishnamurti, for whom, though Cooke does not mention the fact, Leadbetter had a large theatre built overlooking Sydney harbour in the expectation that he would

Ethical Record, February, 2007 19 arrive walking on water to make a triumphal entry into Sydney. Then there is the half page devoted to Adolph Hitler, which is vastly inferior and less informative to the entry that appears in McCabe's book, but he could have scored over McCabe with a short entry on Mussolini's days as a socialist and atheist - he even wrote a pamphlet against the existence of a god. Subjectivity and political bias loom large in the entry on Marxism, which left me with the impression that Cooke did not understand the subject. The Dictionaty has no entry for Marx, or Engels, although the latter wrote an important essay on Christian origins in terms of a political hypothesis. This idea was first mooted in the eighteenth century by the German deist Professor H.S.Reimarus, but as might be . expected there is no reference to him, but, then, nor does he appear in McCabe's Encyclopedia.

Atheists Escaped Condemnation As Heretics There are questionable statements if not errors in the Dictionary, as for example the assertion that Thomas Paine's education was negligible. It was not. Thetford Grammar School, which he attended for several years, had an excellent academic record and there is no evidence that Paine was educationally backward, as Keane, whose biography of him Cooke mentions, makes clear (pp.27-28). He also refers to his running off to sea when he was sixteen, which is correct, but makes no reference to his father having prevented his son from doing so and that he completed his period as an apprentice. Nor was Paine a tax collector, he was an exciseman, who assessed goods for duty. It is highly questionable, but a common assertion, that Paine 'fled to France', but as he was followed to Dover by government agents and not prevented from leaving, it was clear that he was not fleeing. Cooke wrote of Paine living in poverty following his retum to the USA. but although he was hard up at times, he was never poverty stricken.

Cooke states that Thomas "Aitkenhead" (the name is spelled Aikenhead, as in the reference he cites), who was the last person executed in Britain for blasphemy, 'was hanged on 7 January, 1697, two months before his twenty-first birthday' (my emphasis). whereas it was 8 January, two months before his nineteenth birthday. Cooke also devotes some space to the notorious book Malleus Maleficarum, (Hammer of the Witches) and names two men as authors, Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger. However, as the first edition of 1486 shows, it was Kramer who wrote it. Sprenger's name was tacked on in later editions (the text was not amended) presumably to give it status. The supposed endorsement by theologians at the University of Cologne, which he also refers to, is not true, being based on a forgery perpetuated by Kramer, aided by a dishonest lawyer. There is little doubt that this atrocious book was extremely influential but it was also heavily attacked and eventually superseded by Nicholas Remy's Detnonolatries (1595), particularly in France. Remy, who was the Attomey- General of Lorraine, boasted of having condemned nine hundred witches to be burned at the stake in the course of fifteen years; Remy complained that atheists, by keeping their opinions to themselves, had managed to escape condemnation as heretics. Although Cooke includes a short piece on witchcraft in addition to that on Malleus Maleficarum, I think it is a subject deserving better coverage.

1 am unclear as to the criteria by which Cooke selected the names of unbelievers he includes, even though he says they are 'only a tiny selection'. He includes some rather obscure Islamic and Asiatic individuals, which is all to the good, but why was F. A.Ridley, one time president of the National Secular Society and editor, for a time jointly with Herbert Cutner of The Freethinker, omitted? Like Cutner. who is included.

20 Ethical Record, February, 2007 he contributed hundreds of scholarly articles to The Freethinker. The Dictionary is a sort of curate's egg, as it contains much of value but also much that for me, at least, is not. I suspect that I shall turn to McCabe's Encyclopedia rather more frequently than I shall to the Dictionary.

Cooke's Dictionary is a useful work, even if, in my opinion, flawed at times. But as an information resource, a book that one reaches for to check on one or other points. particularly in respect to atheism and secularism, well that is another matter. I am unsure about humanism, a term too wishy-washy for my liking, an impression that Cooke for all his entries on the subject, has not dispelled. Had the book been priced more realistically I would have no hesitation in recommending it, but when compared as regards information with McCabe's Encyclopedia it comes out very much second best. McCabe's book may be dated in parts but I strongly suspect that anyone interested in, say, the history of Freethought, and the ins and outs of Christian history, is more likely to have recourse to it than this new Dictionary. It is a pity indeed that Cooke did not take up Barbara Smoker's sage advice, implied if not stated, and set out to produce an up-dated version of McCabe's book. So, if you have around £53 spare then purchase this book, but if you do not already possess it you will not go far wrong by seeking out a second hand copy of McCabe's Encyclopedia, copies of which turn up periodically on the second hand and antiquarian book market at around £25 to £30.

VIEWPOINTS

A Small Matter Of Accuracy In last month's Viewpoints, (ER Jan 07), Chris Purnell questions the accuracy of my comment that the R.A.F. were poor at precision bombing. The Official History of WW 11.(vol IV) recounts how Cherwell, Churchill's scientific adviser, persuaded him to have it investigated. The Butt report compared hundreds of 'before and after photos with targets and aircrew reports, and came to devastating conclusions in August 1941. Even in good weather on moonlit nights, only two-fifths of bombers found their targets, but in rain or haze, only one in ten did so, and only one in fifteen on moonless nights. Of those that did, only a third of them placed their bombs within five miles of it. This was not a reflection on the competence of aircrew, but on the vulnerability of British bombers that had precluded daylight raids (confirmed as the Americans' job at Casablanca in Jan 1943), and the primitive navigation and bomb-aiming technologies then available (the Americans had not shared their Norden bomb-sight).

Churchill consequently turned down Portal's plans for an expansion of what was seen as a futile and wasteful effort, but the latter allowed the biggest raid so far, by all available aircraft, in November 1941, which was a disaster. Only half the bombers reached Berlin, and 12.5% of the total were shot down, with little damage to show in return. It could not go on: the head of Bomber Command was sacked, and Harris appointed, with the change of policy I set out.

Of course Churchill was legally responsible for the change to area bombing, as everything else; but the proposal and particular directive came from the air staff. The later documented battles between the Chiefs of Staff, Portal and Harris, that did not reach the Cabinet, shows the practical autonomy of Bomber Command.

Ethical Record, February, 2007 21 The introduction of the Lancaster bomber in Spring 1942, once numbers had been built, could have enabled a refocus on precision bombing; but them was no appetite in Bomber Command to revert; they got less flak, in all senses, that way. It was not done, Don, (Don Langdown, ER Feb 07)in order to have the Germans move their factories and population underground; but because of the absence of the former, and consequent lack of protection, made the slaughter more effective. Domestic legal protection and paper warnings, then and now, wouldn't have sheltered any of the chief participants against a hostile War Tribunal. As General Curtis LeMay, in charge of the area bombing of Japan, said: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal". Like it or not, folks, (for example) Article XXII from the Hague Conference of 1923 said "Aerial bombardment for the purposes of terrorising the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of a military character, or of injuring non-combatants, is prohibited .." Chris Bratcher, Holborn and Canterbury

What's Missing On Sundays I have been thinking around what is conspicuously missing from our conception of the compass of the Society, and our Sunday gatherings, that once would have been central - and is so in all religions, and explains their appeal, and the lack of appeal of Humanist gatherings. We never use our Sundays to consider lessons for our own behaviour. In fact, we don't consider morality as it really impinges on us at all, only issues of public good and quasi-politics where we are virtual bystanders, and opinions cost us nothing. (I, of course, blame the Utilitarians who had that as their concern!)

A perfectly secular benefit people get from churchgoing is a moral hoovering and dusting: which is the best sort of Moral Education, because it is not directed to third parties. A reading or sermon will give an example of self-less or selfish behaviour, and the congregation is encouraged or left to draw a moral. The fact that it may, with hindsight, be as bleeding obvious as a dose of bleach for a grubby sink, is irrelevant, although I suppose that is the reason some humanists would give in dismissing the practice as unintellectualor trite or embarrassing (choose your cardinal sin!).

Our Editor recently gave an example from Dickens of Mrs Jellaby neglecting the immediate for the ideal remote good: well done, Vicar! But it comes alive in the best writing. Literature, never mind biography, is full of moral tales. I would like to see us try, at least once a month, this moral tale-telling; the launch 'sermon/reading' would be rarely as long as our 45 minute talks (the Churches have learned their lesson on that!). The topic would be announced in advance, and artenders would bring their own brief contribution on it. Hopefully, the contributions will lead to some collective moral examination. I suppose, like most proposals, it is down to the proposer to offer himself as the launch pad/rocket/first spaceman.

We would, for once, be unambiguously discharging our charitable object, and retuming to our roots. We might even get a different sort of audience, if people other than ourselves get to hear about it. I have no illusions that it might rejuvenate the Society of itself. But what do you think? Chris Bratcher, Holborn and Canterbury

22 Ethical Record, February, 2007 NORMA HAEMMERLE 1931-2007

Derek Marcus officiated at Norma's Humanist Funeral at Southgate Crematorium on Feb 8 at her request. He said at the beginning, "It's become something of a cliché at a Humanist funeral to say that we are not here to mourn a death but to celebrate a life and indeed that is so today. But in this instance, we might say that we can also celebrate a death! For Norma's death was her own choice. She told those of us whom she regarded as close friends that she had had enough of dialysis three times a week and the consequent feeling of exhaustion after each session and that she intended to stop. For four years she had been dialysing on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; it takes little imagination to understand what a burden this was. Yet she was able on Tuesdays, Thursdays and weekends to continue with her other activities — opera, theatre, cinema, dining out with friends and our North London Humanist Group Meetings. Her last dialysis was on Friday January 26.

On the Saturday some of us went with her to a theatre matinee and meal where she asked me to conduct her funeral. In some ways it seemed more difficult for us than for her. On the Monday she booked a place at the N. London Hospice for Tuesday and we were able to say how much we had appreciated each other's friendship over some 40 years. She died peacefully in her sleep on the Thursday. The decision was hers; there was no need to go to Switzerland or for anyone else to assist.

Norma was bom in Southgate in 1931 to Marjorie and Norris Clements; her younger brother was Brian. At age three, Norma showed early promise of scepticism, shouting up the chimney — Father Christmas, I don't believe in you! The children were evacuated with their mother to relatives in County Antrirn. Like many of us children who left London, they came back in time for the Blitz! Norma attended East Barnet Grammar and worked as a secretary while studying in the evenings at Regent Street Poly for a BSc. (Econ). After working for Gallup Poll she went to Toronto in 1956. She returned to London and son Mark was bom. She undertook a teaching course and spent the rest of her working life as a teacher, rising to be head of Parkhurst Infants and latterly head of Ferry Lane .17vIl. She retired in 1988. Then she worked as a volunteer for Oxfam, learnt Italian and horseriding, became a Humanist Funeral Officiant and was for a time Secretary of Southgate Labour Party. She got together with Richard Benjamin around 1986; he died two years ago. Norma was delighted when Mark married Lynn.

There was always at least one cat in the house. Norma was well travelled, having recently visited China with Mark and had been to Russia three times and whale- watched in the Puget Sound in Canada. She had also been skiing. She enjoyed thrillers, sci-fi, historical novels and biographies and was a regular Guardian reader. She and the late Anne Toy regularly won the quizzes we hold. She was musical, sang and played the piano. Her step-father was a violinist in the London Philharmonic and the family were often given concert tickets. She saw her first opera, Faust at 17 and her love of opera was life-long. We have heard excepts from Wagner's Die Meistersinger to enter and leave today. Norma wrote, in her notes for us, "I think I have been very lucky and enjoyed life immensely". Edited by Jennifer Jeynes

The views expressed in this Journal are not necessarily those of the Society. Ethical Record, February, 2007 23 PROGRAMME OF EVENTS AT THE ETHICAL SOCIETY The Library, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborm WC IR 4RL. Tel: 020 7242 8037/8034 Registered Charity No. 251396 Website: www.ethicalsoc.org.uk email: [email protected] No charge unless stated FEBRUARY 2007 Sunday II 1500 DISCUSSION: ATHEISM : TRUTH OR CONVENIENCE? Aubrey Bowman

Sunday 18 1100 JOHN BELOFF: A humanist and dualist philosopher. Chris Bratcher

1500 THE ETHICS OF HUMANIST TOURISM: Josh Kutchinsky on the Humanist Trail to Paris, Albuquerque, Yaoundé, Kampala, Reykjavik and Newcastle upon Tyne

Monday 19 JAZZ APPRECIATION GROUP: BLUESLAND DVD 1900 The subtext to C20 Jazz exploring poetry, irony, humour & emticism

Sunday 25 1100 GEORG WEERTH (1822-56): FORGOTTEN REVOLUTIONARY Weerth lived in Bradford in 1843/6. Described by Engels as "the first and most important poet of the proletariat". Dr Ian King

1500 MEMORIAL MEETING for L.G. (LEN) SMITH (1921-2007) To speak, tel. Romany Smith 07866474408 Refreshments All welcome MARCH Saturday 3 THOMAS PAINE SOCIETY The Good Book of Nature, Thomas Paine and 1430 Science (illustrated) Dr Mark Philp

Sunday 4 1100 MADALYN: "The Most Hated Woman in America" — her life, her campaigns, her money, her murder. Barbara Smoker 1500 THE OMEGA COURSE: THE NEED FOR SECULAR EVANGELISM John Edwards

Thurs 8 ETHICAL SOCIETY BOOK CLUB 1900 The Plot against America by Philip Roth, facilitator David MurraY Suhday 11 SCIENCE WEEK 1100 ALBERT EINSTEIN AND POLITICS Chris Bratcher

1500 A PHYSICS LESSON - 1907. Using original apparatus. Norman Bacrac

Sunday 18 1100 WERE THE DINOSAURS KILLED OFF BY CLIMATE CHANGE? Mike Howgate

1500 THE EVOLUTION OF CREATIONIST PHYSICS AND ITS PART IN MY DECONVERSION Norman Hansen

Sunday 25 1100 WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HEGEL TODAY? Joseph Tendler For Programme update email: [email protected] SOUTH PLACE SUNDAY CONCERTS at CONWAY HALL

organised by the LONDON CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY (seg. a.* No. 1075787) Concerts start at 630pm. Tickets £9 (members of LCMS £6). membership £12 pa www.londonchambermusie.org.uk

Published by the South Place Ethical Society. Conway Hall. 25 Red Lion Square, WC1R 4RL Printed by J.G. Bryson (Printer) Ltd. 156-162 High Road. London N2 9AS ISSN 0014 - 1690