Donate to Dorset Humanists

If you share Dorset Humanists aims and values and appreciate our work and activities, please consider supporting the group by making a donation, and/or joining as a member.




We’re very keen to maintain free entry to most of our events, and we do rely on our members and supporters for a reliable source of income to fund our activities. 

Here are just a few reasons why Dorset Humanists is worth supporting:

  • Dorset Humanists is the only group locally which provides a dedicated forum and activities for non-religious people, compared to hundreds of churches in Dorset. 
  • Dorset Humanists have assisted in negotiations to get secular, non-religious philosophies such as Humanism into local RE syllabuses across Bournemouth, Poole, and Dorset, so children can learn to think more broadly about religion and philosophy. 
  • Our events attract media attention and give a voice to people who want a more enlightened approach to public policies such as secular education. 
Dorset Humanists has grown from a handful of members to well over a hundred and fifty in the last few years. With your continued support, we’d like to maintain our growth momentum so we can have an even bigger impact in Bournemouth, Poole, and Dorset.


Provide Dorset Humanists with your local Dorset newspaper contacts

Jane B and I were driving back from the Equality South West meeting in Taunton and decided that we need to send a resume, once a month, to newspapers in Dorset, about Dorset Humanists talks immediate past and future. If you can help, please email your local Dorset newspaper contacts (click example above for details requested).

We already have contact details for Dorset Echo and Bournemouth Echo.

NSS Campaign to stop Council prayers in Dorset - can you help?

National Secular Society say "There are many — maybe even the majority — of local councils in this country that start their meetings with Christian prayers. Non-believers and those of other religions are put in the embarrassing position of wondering whether to participate or pointedly not participate. It is intolerable that elected representatives should be put through this in carrying out their duty. A typical reaction to their protests is that they are told they can leave the chamber during prayers and return. NSS are not seeking to restrict freedom of worship. If some Council members wish to pray, there is no problem with them doing so before Council meetings. But this should be separate from the meetings and preferably not in the same room, so that those arriving for the meeting are not inconvenienced."

NSS have been working on this campaign for some months and after complaints from councillors, top lawyers working on behalf of the NSS have sent a letter to one council advising them that prayers during council meetings are in conflict with human rights provisions. The council is currently considering our lawyers’ letter and we will publish deatils of the outcome shortly.

NSS now need to know which councils are including prayers in their meetings and which aren’t. We need supporters to enquire whether their district, town, parish and county council meetings include prayers. Dorset Humanists have already provided information to NSS on Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset County Council, New Milton Town Council & North Dorset District Council.

If you can you provide information about your local Dorset Council contact NSS in the format requested.

AC Grayling discusses Haiti natural disaster on Today programme


0854
Over the past couple of days the Today programme has been hearing from religious speakers about how God can allow a devastating earthquake to occur. Philosopher and prominent humanist, AC Grayling, discusses religion and disasters. Click here and go to 08'.54".
AC Grayling is a Distinguished Supporter of British Humanist Association to which Dorset Humanists is affiliated.

Equality Bill - Amendment to delete 'or philosophical' from the definition of Belief - is withdrawn

As reported by Dorset Humanists on Tuesday 12 January, the BHA presented a paper to Humanist Peers,  concerning an amendment of the Equality Bill proposed by Baroness Warsi (wikipedia) in The Lords. Baroness Warsi is a Muslim and the youngest person currently in the House of Lords. The committee stage is part of The Lord review the Equality Bill. The term 'belief' in the Equality Bill (Clause 10) means 'any religious or philosophical belief'. The BHA also commented on the outcome of the debate.


Amendment 20 proposed to delete the term 'or philosophical' from the Equality Bill meaning of Belief.


I happened to be attending the BETTS Education exhibition in Olympia yesterday and en route, I took the tube to Westminster (having lost and regained my Trilby hat which blew off onto the tube line at Embankment!).

I went to House of Lords Committee Room 3a at 3.30pm on 13 January 2010 but was advised by the Clerk, after entering the empty Committee Room (a room about 20' x 20' square), that the committee had withdrawn for the day. Actually I missed the meeting; they came back half an hour later and the Equality Bill Amendment 20 was discussed at 4.10pm.

Baroness Warsi said 'We have tabled this amendment in order to probe what exactly will be included in religion or belief as is used in this Bill.' What she seems to mean by this was whether Church of Scientology, which is a philosophy, would be deemed eligible for certain tax exemptions such as non-domestic tax rates for religious buildings. The Humanist Baroness Thornton said this amendment was a 'probing amendment' (MPs may put down a probing amendment, which means they want to know what the Government's thinking is on a particular clause, rather than necessarily wanting to change the clause.) . 'Matters of philosophical belief have been protected under domestic legislation since the first definition of religion or belief introduced by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003' said Baroness Thornton.

After objections from British Humanist Association members Baroness Turner of Camden & Baroness Thornton, the amendment, to exclude 'or philosophical', was withdraw by Baroness Warsi at around 4.30pm.


Report of minutes in Hansard (copied below in full).

4.10 pm
Clause 10: Religion or belief
Amendment 20
Moved by Baroness Warsi
20: Clause 10, page 6, line 11, leave out "or philosophical"
Baroness Warsi: My Lords, this amendment effectively leaves out the words "or philosophical" from the definition of religion or belief. We have tabled this amendment in order to probe what exactly will be included in religion or belief as is used in this Bill. Part of the reason for the great welcome which this Bill received when it entered your Lordships' House was that it consolidates and helps to simplify a very complicated area of legislation.
13 Jan 2010 : Column 519


In keeping with this theme, it is therefore necessary to maintain the utmost clarity when defining the terms of what is included under a protected characteristic. The Explanatory Notes are very helpful in this area. They explain that this is a very
    "broad definition in line with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights".
This means that the "main limitation" is that
    "the religion of belief must have a clear structure and belief system",
and that this will include denominations or sects within a particular religion, and those beliefs such as humanism or atheism.

This appears simple and to provide an adequate description for the purposes of the Bill. The examples show that while such belief systems as Rastafarianism, Sikhism, Christianity and atheism would all be included under the definition, adherence to a particular football team, for example, would not. However, fears have been expressed that there are unintended consequences stemming from this definition. It would be very useful if the Minister could inform the House whether this would be the case.

As the law stands, places of worship are eligible for complete exemption from business rates, and ministers of religion can get significant discounts or even possible exemptions from council tax. Sects such as scientology, which was defined as a philosophical belief rather than the worship of a deity, were, however, ruled not to be included in this bracket. This judgment was passed in the 1970 Court of Appeal case, where because of its definition as a philosophical rather than a religious belief, scientology was deemed not eligible for the same tax breaks.

Since that case there have been many Parliamentary Questions which have allowed this particular ruling to be stated again and again. On 28 October 2009 in another place, Robert Neill asked the Government about the application of non-domestic rates to religious buildings used for public religious faith worship. Barbara Follett, who answered for the Government, included in her reply that the exemption does not extend to organisations which practise a philosophy.

Perhaps the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but it does appear at the moment that the Bill would undermine this court ruling, and set us in a situation whereby philosophical beliefs in fact would also be included under that exemption. The Bill and the Explanatory Notes state clearly that a philosophical belief is also included. Furthermore, the Bill imposes a duty on public authorities which prohibits discrimination, harassment or victimisation by people who supply services or perform public functions. The Explanatory Notes state that this also applies to revenue raising and collection. Can the Minister therefore clarify whether this will mean that those premises used for scientology meetings would undermine the 1970 definition so far that this would mean that the Church of England and the Church of Scientology would have to be treated in the same way for tax purposes? Does she agree that this sends out a difficult message to the public, because, at a time when families and local businesses are really struggling, as bills rocket, scientologists will soon be eligible for more tax breaks? Most people are in favour of freedom of expression, but it is difficult to maintain this when, at such a difficult time, it seems also to extend to tax breaks.

I look forward to the Minister's response and hope very much that we will receive greater clarity about exactly what the inclusion of "philosophical belief" will mean in practice. I beg to move.

4.15 pm
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not agree to this amendment. I am a member of the British Humanist Association. I gather that it believes that the exclusion of philosophy from the Bill would be damaging to it. The association thinks that it is necessary to protect its existence, in the same way that it is willing to agree to the protection of people from a number of religious beliefs. Does my noble friend accept that including "philosophical" would enable the Humanist Association to regard itself as protected? "Philosophical" would also protect people who have no belief at all. The association to which I belong has a certain set of beliefs, and believes that it would be protected by including "philosophy" in the Bill.
Baroness Thornton: The amendment concerns matters of religion or belief and would prevent beliefs of a philosophical nature being protected under domestic legislation. There are several reasons why we would resist this amendment, which, I realise was a probing amendment.

First, matters of philosophical belief have been protected under domestic legislation since the first definition of religion or belief introduced by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Since its introduction, this form of protection has never been a cause for concern in either the extensive consultation leading up to the introduction of the Bill or its scrutiny. Since its parliamentary introduction, no opinion has been expressed that appropriate philosophical beliefs should not be protected.

Secondly, removing protection for philosophical beliefs would mean that acceptable and long-recognised belief systems such as humanism would no longer be protected under law. I am sure that many here in this House would not wish for that-not only those who have humanist beliefs, but those who recognise and appreciate the right of others to be protected for holding that belief. I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Humanist Group.

It is true that our European legal obligations that relate to matters of religion or belief, such as the employment framework directive- Council Directive 2000/78/EC- do not attempt to define specifically what the terms religion or belief mean. However, European case law has determined that among the relevant factors that need to be taken into consideration as to whether something can be considered to be a valid religion or belief is that such beliefs must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, provided that the beliefs are worthy of respect in a democratic society, are not incompatible with human dignity and do not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. They must also be beliefs as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and not an opinion based on the present state of information available.

As regards the issue of scientology and the question about building ratings-the noble Baroness asked a legitimate question-the Bill does not change the current situation. There is a statutory authority exception in relation to public functions which would cover tax relief on religious buildings. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness on that particular question.

Ultimately, whether or not something can be considered to be a valid religion or belief for protection under domestic legislation is a matter for the courts. Therefore, irrespective of the immediate effects of the amendment, our domestic courts would be obliged to take European case law into account. This is likely to mean that philosophical beliefs such as humanism would almost inevitably be considered to be worthy of protection by the law and thus negate the effect of the amendment. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss: For the past 30 years at least, the Church of Scientology has not been accepted as a church. I did not understand from the Minister's answer whether the way in which Clause 10 is set out will change that situation.
Baroness Thornton: No. I thought I made it clear in my remarks to the noble and learned Baroness that this does not change the situation.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I, too, would like to resist this amendment. The inclusion of the word "philosophy" is really rather important-for religious people as well. The distinction between religion and philosophy could be too sharply drawn. In the Explanatory Notes, paragraph 71 talks about religion or belief having,
    "a clear structure and belief system".
It then uses some rather general, catch-all descriptions like "Catholics" and "Protestants". Belief systems are much more complex than are reducible to simple denominational or institutional forms. "Philosophy" here introduces into the scope of the law that degree of freedom for recognising that people actually occupy a number of different positions in relation to the wider belief system in which they find themselves. I therefore wish to resist this amendment.
Baroness Warsi: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am heartened to hear the position in relation to exemptions for tax purposes and am thankful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for requesting clarification on the Church of Scientology. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 20 withdrawn.

Humanist Beliefs in Britain


36% of the British population has a Humanist outlook on life


Ipsos MORI conducted a survey on behalf of the British Humanist Association in 2007. The objective of the research was to gauge the levels of Humanist related opinion that exist amongst the British population.
Just over a third (36%) of the British population has a Humanist outlook on life calculated as those choosing all of the following three statements:

  1. Scientific and other evidence provides the best way to understand the universe
  2. Human nature by itself gives us an understanding of what is right and wrong
  3. What is right and wrong depends on the effects on people and the consequences for society and the world


What happens after death? Opinion is split. 

41% endorsed the Humanist statement 'This life is the only life we have and death is the end of our personal existence'. Fractionally more — 45% — held the view that 'When we die we go on and still exist in another way'.

Click on the 2 images below for a larger table.


BHA opposes undermining of equality and human rights of humanists in the UK


The BHA (British Humanist Assocation - affiliated to Dorset Humanists) has expressed deep concern at an attempt by the Conservative Party to change the definition of the term ‘religion or belief’ (a 'protected characteristic') in the Equality Bill. Baroness Warsi, who is leading for the Conservatives on the Equality Bill as it makes its way through the House of Lords, has tabled an amendment to the Bill which would remove the phrase ‘and philosophical’ in the definition of belief, which currently reads:  ‘“belief” means any religious or philosophical belief”’.  

Naomi Phillips, BHA Head of Public Affairs, explained,
‘We are deeply concerned that this amendment has been tabled – an amendment that we consider would affect humanists in particular. In practice, this could mean that humanists would be unprotected against discrimination and unequal treatment in the provision of, and access to, public services, employment, education, funding and elsewhere.’
Read the BHA’s briefing for Peers on this amendment. The amendment (Clause 10) will be debated in Lords Committee on Wednesday 13th January 2010.
Read comment from the Conservative Humanist Association.
Read more about our work on the Equality Bill.

Equality South West (ESW) provide this useful link to track the progress of the Equality Bill. Clause 10 - The amendment by Baroness Warsi should be debated tomorrow 13 January in The Lords.


Dates of all stages of the Equality Bill (April 2009-Jan 2010)

Live in Dorset but only express your Humanist views in internet forums? For £1 a month support our vital work and join Dorset Humanists for one year of monthly meetings in Bournemouth.





The Myth of Jesus by Geoff Jones, Dorset Humanists, Bournemouth

Geoff  Jones, committee member of Dorset Humanists, spoke to a packed Dorset Humanists audience on 9 January 2010 about The Myth of Jesus.

Predating Jesus by 500-1500 years, the Godmen of the Mysteries religions are Dionysus from Ancient Greece, Osiris from Ancient Egypt and Mithras from Persia. A typical Godman characteristics are that their Father is a God and the Mother is a human virgin. They are all born in a cave or a cattle shed on 25th December before three shepherds. They offer their followers the chance to be born again through baptism. They die at Easter time as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and are reborn again. After their death they descend into hell and on the third day they rise from their death and ascend into heaven in glory.

For instance, similarities between Dionysus and Jesus are:- The birth place of Dionysus was indicated by a star. His Father was God and his mother was a human virgin. He was born in a cave or humble byre on 25 December before shepherds. Dionysus came riding into town on a donkey while crowds waved branches. He was hung on a tree or crucified. Dionysus turned water into wine at a wedding ceremony; as did Jesus. Dionysus was baptised; this had been a ritual practice for centuries in the Mysteries. Dionysus is followed by twelve disciples.

Geoff explained how the Gnostics in Alexandria, who claimed that Jesus was a myth not a real person, were persecuted by the Christians in Rome. Almost all  traces of the Gnostics documentation was destroyed, but some still remains.

Geoff concluded that Jesus like Dionysus, Osiris and Mithras, never actually existed - they are all myths.

Review by David Warden:
Jesus „not historical. At our packed January meeting, Geoff Jones presented a convincing argument for doubting the historicity of Jesus. It was common knowledge in the first few centuries that there were striking similarities between Jesus and pre-Christian mythical gods such as Osiris and Dionysus. The parallels include virgin mothers, born on 25th December, dying at Easter time as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and resurrection on the third day. The Christians claimed that this was „diabolical mimicry. but the more plausible explanation is that the Jesus story was created out of pagan and Jewish motifs. The thesis presented by Geoff is that a Jewish version of the so-called mystery religions was created in Hellenistic Alexandria, possibly in the early part of the first century. This version of the mystery religions incorporated the Jewish figure of Joshua (the name means „saviour.) to be a dying and rising god on the pattern of Osiris and Dionysus. The name given to this figure was, of course, „Jesus. which is the Greek version of Joshua. The earliest Christians practised a mystical version of the faith and did not intend their allegorical gospels to be understood as literal history. This original version of Christianity came to be known as Gnosticism and it is thought that Paul was in fact a Gnostic Christian. In time, however, the appeal of a real, historical saviour rather than a mythical one proved overwhelming and the Jesus myth came to be understood as history by an anti-Gnostic faction. This faction evolved into the Roman Catholic Church which eradicated Gnosticism with predictable brutality.

This theory is supported by the fact that there are no convincing historical records of Jesus. Roman sources such as Tacitus and Suetonius are either too late or too vague to be taken seriously, and there is a scholarly consensus that the key passage in Josephus.s Antiquities of the Jews is a late addition by a Christian scribe. The historical reliability of the gospels has long been doubted, even by Christian New Testament scholars. Geoff stated that without a historical Jesus Christianity would collapse. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before word gets out. Contact Geoff for a reading list.

Stephen Fry on QI says of Jesus, 'he's frankly not original':-


Live in Dorset but only express your Humanist views in internet forums? For £1 a month support our vital work and join Dorset Humanists for one year of monthly meetings in Bournemouth.


New Milton Humanists talks & 'Godless Morality' by David Warden

New Milton Humanists Talks
- 18th April 2008: "Shelley the Poet" by LA and Mike Hammond. Inaugural meeting of New Milton Humanists.
- November 2008: "Tom Paine, Revolutionary & Rationalist Hero" by David Warden
- March 2009: "Intelligent Design?" by Terry Baker
- July 2009: "The Alpha Course Exposed!" by David Warden
- November 2009: "Godless Morality" by David Warden

New Milton Humanists also hold bi-monthly Members' Discussion Group meetings. For details of future meetings subscribe to the Dorset Humanists Bulletin.

Review of "Godless Morality" by David Warden

In his talk David Warden set out to explore the rational foundations of morality and argued that Humanists have no simple, rational method for moral decision-making. Any given moral situation, such as a family faced with the question of whether to move a sick parent into a nursing home, is agonisingly complex. Moral action cannot be reduced to one rational moral principle.  There's a lot going on in any situation that calls for some kind of moral response. It is obvious that morality is objectively rooted in social necessity.  Human life would simply be intolerable if we didn't try to uphold moral conventions. 'Strive to be happy' or 'Aim at human flourishing' is the Humanist equivalent of religious salvation.  If we can achieve a state of human flourishing then we really don't need the additional consolations of religion. David denied that there could be a 'Humanist Ten Commandments' although he suggested a few guiding principles such as 'Do no harm', 'To thine own self be true' and 'Be kind to the people you encounter as you go about your daily business'.
LA


Supreme Court finds school’s admissions policies contravene race equality law

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has welcomed today’s Supreme Court ruling that the admissions criteria to the Jews’ Free School (JFS) in Kenton contravene the Race Relations Act 1976, describing the judgment as ‘of immense importance.’ The judgment upholds an earlier ruling by the Court of Appeal.


Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, said, 'This judgment is immensely important. It puts beyond doubt the position that, even though there may be a religious motivation for doing so, discrimination against children in admissions on racial grounds is illegal under any circumstances.

'This is not a matter of restricting "religious freedom" or otherwise; that the admissions criteria of a state-funded faith school have been found to be racially discriminatory should be enough impetus to look carefully at the criteria all faith schools use to discriminate in their admissions.

'Faith schools are almost entirely state funded in the main. 60 years ago religious groups provided a lot of funding for their state funded schools, it was a genuine partnership, and so they've retained certain control over admissions. But these days 100% of the running costs are paid by the state and so there's absolutely no reason why what is essentially a public service should be denied to any children whatever their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents.'s

Notes

The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the national charity representing and supporting the non-religious, campaigning for an end to religious privilege and to discrimination based on religion or belief and is the largest organisation in the UK working for a secular society. In education, this means an end to the expansion of faith schools and for the assimilation of those that currently exist into a system of inclusive and accommodating community schools.

Dorset Humanists are affiliated to the BHA.

Live in Dorset but only express your Humanist views in internet forums? For £1 a month support our vital work and join Dorset Humanists for one year of monthly meetings in Bournemouth.