In May, Ray Evans, co-ordinator of Republic in the North West, came to Stockport to talk about electing our head of state. He began by introducing the organisation Republic which is a national campaign group, with local groups, not aligned to any political party. It has only one full time and two part time staff members, the rest of the work being carried out by volunteers. It is a fast growing group which gets many new members and supporters at times of royal events.
Many aspects of Republic are in tune with Humanist thinking: Separation of Church and State, Political Equality for all from birth, Opposition of prejudice against any group, Promotion of Free Thinking. They believe in the three P’s: Monarchy is wrong in Principle, in Practice and for our Politics.
The British Monarch is a huge organisation with 18 working royals plus support staff, security, aides, footmen, Lords Lieutenants etc. Charles employs 150 on his own. The Monarch still has immense political power even though much has been transferred to the Government under Royal Prerogative. A bizarre association with the armed forces reinforces the notion that patriotism is synonymous with support for the Monarchy.
There is a myth that the bloodline goes back to William the conqueror, but there were usurpers in the 1400s and William of Orange was imported to avoid a Catholic succession. George I was a distant cousin from Germany who didn’t speak English. A few years ago, the “Real King of England” was found in Australia.
Wrong in principle. The Monarchy is undeniably undemocratic in a country that prides itself on democratic principles. David Cameron called the new laws, allowing females to inherit ahead of younger males, a victory for Human Rights but the institution discriminates against everyone not born into the house of Windsor. The Coronation Ceremony has a core religious message that the Monarch is appointed by God through the Archbishop of Canterbury. The concept of a State Religion is incompatible with a Republican Democracy.
Wrong in Practice. Charles Bradlaugh MP refused to take the religious oath but was re-elected four times. The New Oaths Act (1888) resulted in MPs being able to affirm but the oath to the Queen still exists. The Royal Family cannot be openly criticised in Parliament. Price Andrew’s dodgy dealings in his overseas trade role cannot be discussed, four years after he was effectively sacked. Prince Charles has a continual involvement in politics. After the Guardian successfully campaigned for the release of Charles’ 26 spider letters to government departments, the law changed in 2010 to exclude Royals from the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). Royal Consent is required before any Bill is presented which affects the Queen or Charles private interests as heads of the two duchies. This has affected twelve Bills between 2005 and 2011, but we are not allowed to know what changes were made. The Queen has defined the role of the monarch because she has been there so long and people are comfortable with it. Charles will redefine it.
Wrong for our politics. Royal prerogative gives more power to politicians without them being held to account. The Queen is said not to interfere but she made comments on the Scottish referendum. The weekly meeting with the PM is not just a formality and the Privy Council is not a ceremonial. These are influential, undemocratic Parts of our constitution.
The Alternative. Republic are not seeking an executive model like USA or France and feels that the Republic of Ireland has an excellent model which has thrown up excellent presidents.
The way forward. In reality there will be no change while the Queen is still there. Much of the support for the Monarchy is centred on her personally. She has avoided controversy by saying little. Charles is a man of strong opinions. Republic would like to see a referendum ahead of a coronation. In the meantime they would like to take steps to end the monarchy’s exemption from the FOI, change the oath of allegiance to one for the nation not the Monarch, give MPs the right to criticise the Royals, end Royal political interference, end the State Opening of Parliament and end the lavish expenditure.
This won’t be easy. They are up against a huge PR machine and there are plenty of vested interests.
At the April Manchester meeting (after the AGM) Elio Pennisi delivered an interesting brief on culture and how this interfaces with belief.
Elio touched upon the anthropological concept of culture which argues that simple societies without knowledge and reason had a large proportion of believers. This, Elio argued, explained why religion was so prevalent during the Middle Ages and how the number of religious followers has reduced since the Enlightenment.
Thereafter followed some interesting discussions in smaller groups on elements of culture. The following observations were made; that language serves as a cultural determinant; that we can belong to a number of sub-cultures at the same time (music, work, hobbies); that the term “race” is questionable given the level of interbreeding over millennia; that culture is a phenomenon amongst primates and this develops because primates see themselves as superior, and in order to feel this way need to distinguish themselves from other groups. Elio concluded by asking those present to complete a questionnaire.
Elio has subsequently collated and analysed this data and reports that those partaking in the questionnaire considered the following to be the determinants of culture :
1. Education in Humanities and Social Science,
2. Ethnicity, language and kinship,
3. Education in scientific disciplines,
4. Moral belief systems, and
5. Arts (music, theatre, cinema, painting, sculpture…).
On 20th April Narendra Ghulati gave Stockport Humanists a personal view of Hinduism. It is a complicated religion with a large number of gods. He considers it is a way of life rather than a religion.
God has created us all and we are in his image. The principal deities are: Vishnu, the Creator; Shiva, the destroyer; and Bramha the supreme god giving direction and guidance. Different people worship different gods, but each person worships only one of the gods so the religion can be regarded as monotheistic. Hindu Temples concentrate on one deity. There is also a Devil god with nine lives.
Many stories in the Hindu Religion predate, but are similar to those in other religions. E.g. populating the world after a deluge.
Hindus are born with religion and believe you have a set number of breaths before you die. They believe in reincarnation and that everyone has to go through different animal stages before becoming human. The present life is a result of previous Karma. On death, only the body dies and the soul (Atman) escapes into another body.
There are a lot of gods for Hindus to believe in but Narendra says that you have to follow life around as what you want to believe yourself. One complication for the religion is that you can make your beliefs as you go along. Some Hindus do not believe in the images, just in the almighty god.
Narendra does not go to temple on a regular basis because he does not believe in idol worship. But he respects other sects.
Diwali, the Hindu festival of lights, celebrates the return of Rama from a 14 year exile. In Manchester it is celebrated in Platt Fields and Albert Square.
Narendra went on to discuss the caste system. The Brahmins are a priestly caste involved in imparting knowledge. There is also a warrior caste (Kshatriyas); a merchant caste (Vaisyas); and a labour caste (Shudras), the lowest of whom are the so-called untouchables. As a trader, Narendra would not be allowed to teach as this is reserved for Brahmins. However if a Brahmin wished to be trader he would be allowed and he would still retain his Brahmin status. Intermarriage between the castes used to be strictly forbidden, but travel is making the system weaker. Although when Hindus climb the ladder through education they cannot rid themselves of the label of their caste.
Hindus have a large number of festivals. There is usually something most weeks, sometimes including fasting. Which you are involved with depends on your beliefs. Marriages are also performed with religious ceremony.
There are 16 ceremonies each person is supposed to be involved in before they die. These include: before conception, birth, and rites of passage.
Many within Hinduism do not believe in God, but when tragedy happens most people turn to God.
There is eternal guidance for morality, but no written down Commandments. Buddhism and Jainism are branches of Hinduism.
On 16th March Anne Walker spoke to the Stockport group about the work of Amnesty and how it has changed over time.
Anne has been a member of Amnesty International since 1970 and in that time has had various roles such as Branch Secretary, Treasurer and Newsletter Editor.
Amnesty International is a membership based organisation with more than 7 million members in over 150 countries. In the UK there are more than 600,000 supporters and 300 local groups. It is a democratic organisation with national debate, and decision making via the Annual General Meeting. International debate and decision making is via the International Council. Amnesty is financially independent and will accept no money with strings attached. It is not a charity in the UK.
What Amnesty stands for has changed over the years. It began in 1961 fighting for freedom for prisoners of conscience following an article by Peter Benenson in the Observer Newspaper called "The Forgotten Prisoners".
In the 1970s they added calls for fair trials for political prisoners, no torture and no death penalty. In 1973 a new technique “Urgent Action” was developed, aimed at mobilising the membership into action rapidly as some prisoners did not have much time.
In the 1980s and 1990s, they added Female Genital Mutilation and Demolition of homes [Domicide] to the list of things they campaigned against.
In the noughties they produced comprehensive Mission and Vision statements emphasising their commitment to Human Rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights standards.
Amnesty international are committed to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending abuses of these rights. In reality a strategic plan is devised and some difficult decisions have to be made. In 1980 campaigns were held against the death penalty, whist in 2003 the mandate was widened amid worries about stopping support for political prisoners.
Originally Amnesty would not condone the use of force but the situation in Rwanda changed all that, as only a UN peacekeeping force could stop the genocide.
A position on abortion was laid out in 2007. They call for the decriminalisation of abortion and access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortions. They want legal, safe, and accessible abortion in cases of rape, sexual assault, incest, risk to life or grave risk to the health of the mother. This was a controversial campaign. Some wanted to go further but others thought it had gone too far. Some groups closed, particularly those that met in churches, but other people joined. The Roman Catholic Church does not support Amnesty.
One of the most recent issues in 2015 is the decriminalisation of consensual sex workers.
The My Body My Rights campaign considers that sexual and reproductive rights are human rights that belong to us all. We need to be able to make decisions about sexual health, and to seek and receive information about sexual matters. The Universal Declaration of Human rights does not explicitly cover sexual and reproductive rights. Also it does not apply to the unborn child. Campaigns are active: in Nepal, where uterine prolapses are a problem; in Maghreb where victims can be forced to marry their rapists; in Burkina Faso where there are forced marriages and no access to affordable contraception; in El Salvador where a total ban on abortion can result in a 30 year prison sentence for miscarriage; and in Ireland where abortion is illegal and 12 women a day come to the UK for
abortions.
What does Amnesty stand For?
“We are ordinary people from across the world standing up for humanity and human rights."
“We work to protect men women and children wherever justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.”
To get involved people can make a donation, become a member, become an individual activist or join a local group.
In February, Stephen Pennels spoke to the Stockport Group about the Global Justice Now (formerly World Development Movement).
The World Development Movement began over 40 years ago and grew out of NGOs such as OXFAM. It provided a front organisation to prevent the NGOs losing their charitable status. Over time Development became a dirty word, being associated with the World Bank imposing development and debt on the third world, so the organisation changed its name to Global Justice Now (GJN).
The issues addressed are global. It is no longer a case of North versus south but the 1% versus the 99%, the increasing injustice and imbalance between a small number of people who have money and power and the rest whose lives are shaped by the 1%.
The slogan of GJN is "People before profits or Global Injustice" because of the sell-out to Transnational Corporate power grabbers: Banks, tax dodgers, agribusiness, construction, arms dealers etc.
Governments are often implicated in practices which are not in the best interests of the majority of people. There are conflicts between farmers being able to control what they grow and food security where there is little choice of what is provided. Food sovereignty may be more productive in the long term. Sustainable models such as timber grown widely apart with crops in between were mentioned.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIPs) are also causing concern. The ongoing negotiations and draft papers are being kept secret, but it is understood that companies will be able to sue governments if legislation prevents them fully exploiting resources e.g. if they are prevented from fracking or if, say, the channel tunnel is closed because of migrants on the lines. The European commission is trying to change the formula but the changes are cosmetic. Quebec has already been successfully sued over fracking. The system of courts with three lawyers presiding has an in built bias in favour of the corporations.
There is a suspicion that the US is trying to establish international norms before China gets its foot in the door. It is expected that all countries will be expected to adhere to the rules set by the corporations, even poor countries like Bangladesh. Fortunately the UNESCO declaration of 2005 enables local culture to be nurtured. Otherwise , for example, TV could be pulled in from the US completely ignoring local output.(Including in the UK.)
Governments are already heavily in the pockets of the corporations. The last Labour Government introduced PFIs tying the public sector to paying corporations for years even when the resource is inappropriate. Under the coalition aid money is going to industries.
The food industry is dominated by Monsanto, leading to monocultures going against the food sovereignty issue. An animal feed company (KOGIL) has been given a concession to take over African agriculture.
In Lesotho most of the aid money has gone on a single hospital, costing more than one in this country. Even our own NHs is not what we think it is. Expensive car parking fees go to private companies and a private x-ray scanning contract is
more expensive than under the NHS.
The EU has a list of 1,377 chemical banned from use in cosmetics because of safety concerns, the USA has only 11. Cosmetic products cannot be tested on animals in the EU, but America has no such legislation. Under TTPI all this will all change.
Any exclusions from TTIP legislation need to be included in the treaty. With fast moving technology this will prove difficult if not impossible.
Stephen ended with a brief discussion on where the UK political parties stood on these issues.
There was a lively Q and A session.
The regular February Manchester meeting was was replaced with a celebratory evening at the Manchester Conference Centre to mark Darwin’s birthday on 12th February. The Darwin Day Celebration spanned the evening and was attended by 142 visitors including a number of Muslim families. There were a range of exhibits from Water Aid, Amnesty International, Population Matters, Hominid Evolution, Natural V’s Supernatural, digitart, LGBT and several Manchester schools displayed projects on evolution and Charles Darwin available throughout the evening . At 7.30pm children from Abraham Moss and Alma Park Primary Schools provided individual presentations on Darwin’s work and this was followed by a group song on evolution to the tune of “London Bridge is Falling Down”. The children were extremely enthusiastic in their delivery and their teacher Paula Hayes has to be commended for the smooth direction of the acts.
Dr Susanne Shultz then presented an outline of contemporary research and thinking on evolutionary biology and on the studies that she directs at the University of Manchester in light of the wider question of whether religious societies are more co-operative.
Susanne touched upon a number of strands of research. She talked about her own research into the factors that make primate societies distinctive and why humans have been able to develop large complex societies. There has been a positive correlation over evolutionary time between brain size and the level of societal co-operation and thus group living. Human cognition allows for the appreciation of art, and enables us to dance, to write, to make music, to communicate and to cooperate. Susanne explored whether religion was a by product of human cognitive advancement in that it meets both individual and group level needs. On an individual basis people get a sense of belonging and can be provided for materially through the religious system which provides security. In addition, it has been shown that membership has health benefits and communal activities activate positive hormonal changes in the form of endorphins. The group benefits relate to bonding and cooperation and provide a mechanism for punishing cheats. Susanne highlighted that there are always costs and benefits associated with membership of such groups. The costs can be associated with a particular dress code, punishments or abstinences and these can also signal membership. People are prepared to pay this price for membership and belonging and for rules to exclude dishonest members. Susanne touched upon similar evolutionary traits in the animal world, where some animals develop highly distinctive or costly characteristics to be part of an exclusive group, e.g. the peacock’s distinctive plumage. Sosis (2002) has examined communal societies and how long these societies lasted.
Susanne focused on whether religious groups were more cooperative than non-religious groups as analysed by the findings of the World Social Values Survey. This survey examined how religious and non-religious groups viewed anti-social behaviour, helping others, and volunteering and how they viewed outside groups. The survey found that religious groups were more cooperative but were less open to people from groups other than their own.
Suzanne pointed out that it has been empirically accepted that religious societies are more cooperative. However a number of recent studies are serving to counter this. For example, Decetey (2015) found that non-religious children were kinder than religious children. Suzanne also referred to her own work in this area which argues that primates have inherent characteristics of cooperation that we have evolved these tendencies and that religion is not the only method by which groups can cooperate. She suggested a number of other ways of providing the positive benefits of religious membership. The positive feelings associated with religious rituals are also found in other ritual activities such as football audience participation. In addition, the individual benefits relating to security associated with religious membership can be met by modern day welfare state systems: religious membership levels have fallen in western societies with their introduction.
The February Stockport meeting saw Adam Benton give a presentation entitled Evolution in the Everyday: How the past 7 million years influences everything we do. Adam studies evolutionary anthropology at Liverpool University and runs a blog http://www.evoanth.net/ He is a long time attendee of Skeptics in the Pub but has never asked a question. This was his first public speaking engagement. For someone new to speaking in public he gave a very impressive performance.
To Adam evolution is everything. Living things change over time, animals reproduce with variation and, as some variants are better able to survive, more children are born to them and those variants become more common. Humans evolve because we’re animals too.
Working backwards in time Adam first considered the present day to 66 years ago (basline 1950). Just like all primates we have good vision (on the whole), the same basic body plan, opposable thumbs and nails instead of claws. Just like apes we have no tails but we do have some unique features: we walk upright, we’re (mostly) hairless, extensive tool users and super smart. Chimps, gorillas, orangutans and Gibbons all share a common ancestor with us.
50,000 years before the present our great (x1660) grandparents were what we now call cave dwellers. They were still primates, still apes and still fully human. They were bipedal, hairless, tool users and smart. They were able to plan and had specialised tools. They also mass produced tools implying ability to teach. They were flexible enough to use new materials and they used symbolism in the form of cave art. They were hunter-gatherers and built houses out of mammoths, presumably bones and skin. Caves were sacred places. Like us they met up with friends. It is thought that Venus figurines were a sort of secret handshake.
Nothing much was different in the life of Cro-Magnum man, except we had a lot of friends: Hobbit, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Hominin-X. For the most part Neandertal man was similar to humans but shorter and squatter to preserve heat. They had old-fashioned skulls with brow ridges no forehead and no chin.
Everyone has their roots in Africa, but non-Africans have 3% Neanderthal DNA. In total 30% of Neanderthal DNA lives on in us. Some of these genes have aided survival giving rise to different shades of white skin and an immunity boost. Some have been harmful leading to Lupus, biliary cirrhosis, Crohn’s disease, smoking behaviour and type 2 diabetes.
A million years ago our great (x33,330) grandparents were categorised as Homo Erectus as represented by Narikotome boy. His skeleton is very modern but his skull isn’t. Homo erectus started with a 600ml brain, (cf, chimps 400 ml and Humans 1.3 litres) but was still capable of making tools such as the multipurpose hand axe. Their brains doubled in size before extinction. Living in groups requires brain power to remember relationships. Humans are good runners particularly over distance but can over heat in midday sun. The need to keep cool led to our being naked.
Two million years ago our great (x66,000) grandparents were living more like apes. Handy Man had a body adapted for life in the trees. He was smaller, had longer arms and more-curved fingers. His brain was only slightly bigger than a chimp. But he was still doing human stuff. Making tools, even simple flakes of rock, requires much skill and dexterity. These evolved into hand axes with much the same height/width ratio as a modern mobile phone. The hand evolved very early on. Some apes make tools and some modern apes have been trained to make flakes.
Three million years ago our great (x100,000) grandparents, as typified by Lucy, were well adapted for life in the trees with long arms and fingers but stared to spend a lot of time on the ground. Traits which evolved to help were a non-grasping toe and changed to the knees to bring the centre of gravity over the legs.
Paranthropus, a more heavily built species, was an actual grazer eating grass and bushes.
Five million years ago we come to the start of our story. Early hominins share many similarities with modern apes. They lived in trees, had grasping toes and long arms. There were several species living at this time. They were upright but in the trees, and needed arms for swinging, which is the reason we can raise ours. Climate change broke up the rainforests forcing them on the ground.
Adam had some very interesting replica skulls, from each of the periods discussed, which he handed round for us to examine.
He also discussed the problems of dealing with creationists who attempt to undermine evolution when they can. Many of them are racist, quoting bible accounts of Shem, Japheth and Ham to justify slavery and servitude.
Evolutionary psychology could be amazing but is too often WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialised, Rich, Democratic), and can be falsified by non-weird studies.
“You have been and are being evolved. There is grandeur in this view of life. . . “
“. . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved “
“We are risen apes not fallen angels”
