Religion in South-East Europe

At the January meeting of Stockport Humanists Pavle Mocilac gave a talk on Religion and Humanism in the Balkans (or preferably, "South-East Europe") with the help of some very impressive maps. 

Religion is a major factor in determining politics in South East Europe. Ethnic boundaries did not match the boundaries of the Republics and ethnic characteristics are very complicated so Religion became the basis of the various countries. Thus if a person leaves his/her religion and become an atheist the effect is to deny their national identity. This is treasonous in tribal society. 

When Yugoslavia was ruled by Tito, there was massive secularisation of state and society. There was freedom to practice religion but it was discouraged.  Church properties were nationalised and education was provided by the state. There was a feminist agenda with female voting rights, legalised abortion, 
contraception, healthcare and the right to work. Burqa, Niqabs and Hijabs were discouraged. No churches or mosques were destroyed but interference by the churches in politics was banned and this was strictly enforced. As a consequence there was an increase in non-believers and religion was wiped from politics. 

After the death of Tito and the fall of communism there was liberalisation, democratisation and a return to religion. Many people professed to religious belief to prove they were not communists. There was an economic crisis in 1980-91 and a massive rise in nationalism 1986-90. 

Following the Balkan wars of the 1990s, new states emerged. Constitutionally all the countries are secular but in reality religion plays a big part in them all. 

In 1997-8 Croatia made agreements with the Roman Catholic Church known as The Vatican Contracts, resulting in confessional religious education being introduced in the state public education system. State funding of £30million per year is paid to the church and Clergy and RE teachers are paid by the state.The church can also raise its own funds without paying tax. Politicians are afraid to challenge this because the Vatican contracts have the status of international treaties. 

In Serbia the Government introduced confessional RE into public schools by decree. State funding goes to seven traditional churches but the majority goes to the Serbian Orthodox church. Nationalised properties have been returned, and postal stamps finance the Orthodox Temple. Serbs cannot be atheist or unbaptised so Serbia is being turned into an ‘Orthodox Iran’. The clergy support clerco-fascist and extreme right wing organisations, gay pride is not allowed and women’s rights are under threat. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina has turned into a triple Theocracy with Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim factions. The Wahhabi/Salafi movement is a major threat. At least 150 have gone to fight for ISIS and the radical media openly supports ISIS. 
In spite of all this atheists exist in the former Yugoslavia and belong to such organisations as Atheist and Agnostics of Croatia, Centre for Civil Courage and Movement for Secular Croatia.  

David Hume

The January Meeting of Greater Manchester Humanists was a presentation about David Hume the Humanist Philosopher by Robin Grinter.


David Hume, a Scotsman, was born in 1711 and died in 1776, which coincidentally is the year the US wrote the Declaration of Independence.  He was one of a number of distinguished Scots involved in the Scottish Enlightenment. He was also among other original thinkers of that period in Western Europe whose aim was to shine the light of reason into the darkness of superstition. Other such renowned thinkers were Voltaire from France, Kant from Germany as well as Thomas Paine and Jeremy Bentham from England.  (Voltaire is said to have referred to the Scottish Enlightenment as a hotbed of genius.)

Hume was one of a number of influential thinkers of the enlightenment who were part of an intellectual discussion group that debated philosophical and secular ideas. Others of the group and their respective subjects, of which they were recognised as the founders, were:

Adam Smith – Economics
Adam Ferguson - Sociology
James Hutton – Geology
Joseph Black - Chemistry [this was challenged by members of the audience]
James Barnet - Linguistics 

The view of this group was that their thinking should be practical with a view to improve the world. Only one of the group however was a non believer – Hume.
Although today Hume is recognised as a great philosopher, in his day he was better known as historian. Hume went to university at the age of just 12 but was later unable to pursue an academic career as a professor because of his non-belief; this despite him being something of a monarchist and politically conservative. 
Among his publications were:

An Enquiry into Human Understanding - 1740 
An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals – 1751
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - 1779

The latter of these is notable because it examines the concept of intelligent design; it says that design and order in nature is not evidence for the existence of God. Hume was very much a scientific thinker who needed evidence for the belief in anything. He campaigned against speculative thinking, saying that miracles are subjective and violate the laws of nature. 

He believed that common sense could explain the ways of the world: understand why things happen through observation; recognise patterns based on constant connections; predict likely outcomes. But being a realist he accepted that you can never be 100% sure about your conclusions from observation. 

He also questioned the religious view of morality saying effectively that all religions are dogmatic and they can’t all be right. He believed you could be good without God, deriving your morals by looking to reason, to compassion and the benefit both for oneself and society; and to the ability to see right from wrong based on personal observation and experiences.

Another philosophical conundrum he dealt with was that which we might now call free will but which he referred to as freedom of action and the incumbent responsibility of it. He believed we relied on patterns and connections in life to allow us to understand how to act. And while this could result in us always taking the same action given the same patterns and connections (perhaps with negative consequences for ourselves and/or others) we have the ability to recognise the pattern and the freedom to act differently to improve the outcome. 

Acoustic Amnesty

In place of our December meeting we lent our support to this fundraising event at Sacred Trinity church in Manchester in both name and number.

With musical performances from The Manchester Samba Band, The Stone Flowers and the GMH Choir as well as poetry from three comedic poets it was a varied, entertaining and enjoyable evening. The Samba band had people up dancing, while the Stone Flowers performed a number of songs in a range of styles and tongues.

The poets were of the modern variety, part poet, part comedian (and one a rapper – see picture) who while touching on serious social issues, did so in a humorous way.

The GMH choir, below, had (nearly) everyone chuckling with laughter with a song called Blah Blah Bethlehem. I say nearly, because being a church there were a few church folk there (including the vicar) who were struggling to have a laugh at what was essentially a parody of the typical Christmas carol.

The lyrics of Blah Blah Bethlehem are reproduced below for your amusement:

Blah blah shepherd,

Blah blah kings,

Blah blah angels,

Blah blah wings,

Blah blah little child,

Blah blah meek and mild,

Blah blah virgin,

Blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah virgin,

Blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah cattle,

Blah blah shed,

Blah blah donkey,

Blah blah head.

Double up the tune in thirds,

Sprinkle in some Latin words,

In excelsis,

Gloria,

In excelsis,

Blah blah blah blah.

Stuff goes here about a joyful birth,

Chuck in bits about all bells on Earth,

Sound effects evoking how they ring,

Ding, dong, ding, dong, ding.

Bit about the wise men,

Bit about the star,

Don't forget the frankincense,

Etcetera.

(A further Acoustic Amnesty fundraiser is being held on 13^th March. For details check out –

http://www.wegottickets.com/event/303264.)

"Show and Tell"

On Wednesday 17th December Stockport Humanists had a member generated discussion and social evening, which proved very successful with several members contributing.

Books profiled and discussed were:

Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here by Karima Bennoune which says that the politicised version of Islam peddled by fundamentalists is dangerous and misrepresentative

 

What is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live by A.C. Grayling in which proposals on how to live a good life are examined, from the ideals of the Greek poets to Kant’s theories on freedom and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Almost Like A Whale by Steven Jones is a modern introduction to Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Six Poets, Hardy to Larkin: An Anthology by Alan Bennett in which the poems and the poets are described in Bennett’s customary conversational style.

Stolen Innocence by Elissa Wall describes the life of a young woman growing up in and eventually leaving the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS).

The Village Against the World by Dan Hancox tells the story of Marinaleda in Andalusia, Spain where the inhabitants are attempting to create a communist utopia, where no-one has a mortgage and everyone works to clean up the village.

Also recommended were The BBC Reith Lectures presented by Dr Atul Gawanade on Radio 4 talking about Why do Doctors Fail, the Century of the System, the Problem of Hubris, and the Idea of Well Being.

The film Inherit the Wind starring Spencer Tracy depicts the arrest and trial of a teacher for teaching Darwin’s ideas on evolution. This is a thinly disguised rendition of the Tennessee monkey trial.

Should Humans Have the Right to Unfettered Reproduction?

An article by Peter Bowen-Walker.

Reproduced with the kind permission of The Student Lawyer http://thestudentlawyer.com/. Permission to reproduce the article does not necessarily amount to an endorsement of any of the other views or opinions expressed on this website.

“Should humans have the right to unfettered reproduction?”

According to the UN, ‘the world population of 7.2 billion (in mid-2013) is projected to increase by almost one billion people within the next twelve years, reaching 8.1 billion in 2025, and to further increase to 9.6 billion in 2050 and 10.9 billion by 2100.’[1]

A report by the WWF stated that humanity’s use of natural resources ‘exceeded the Earth’s total biocapacity in the 1980s; [and that] this overshoot has been increasing [ever] since. In 2005, demand was 30 per cent greater than supply.’[2]

The figures cited above are complex and multivariate and exploring them is beyond the scope of this article – nevertheless, they compel us to stop and think because all our futures will be profoundly impacted by the changes they will bring. As future lawyers practicing in this rapidly changing world, we will have a duty to “uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice”, we must “act with integrity” and we must “act in a way that maintains the trust the public places in [us] and in the provision of legal services”. So what duty do educated professionals have in terms of contributing to any debate on this potentially existential threat?

This article will argue that the laws of man are in conflict with the laws of nature. It will be argued that whilst human laws sit above all humans, humanity’s laws do not sit above those of nature. We have a finite planet and it is about time the law took into account this undeniable fact. So in the event of a conflict between the interests of a client and a threat to the existence of humanity – which SRA principle should prevail? Are lawyers expected to continue facilitating multinational companies when it is apparent some of their lawful activities are endangering natural resources and potentially damaging the environment? Are lawyers expected to continue promoting Human Rights when it is clear they may inadvertently be leading to damage being caused to the planet and may threaten to degrade the quality of life of future generations? Can lawyers really just sit back, provide the best service for their client – even if it is clear that in the long term, such advice will not be in the public interest?

Article eight of the ECHR provides a right to respect for private and family life. It limits the control public authorities can exert over our lives. Despite being a qualified right, any suggestion that the state could have a say in the number of children a family can or should have would be defeated by this article. Should there be any doubt about the unfettered reproductive rights of humans, Article 12 augments our right to breed by providing ‘Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right’.

Indeed, even as far back as 1968, Resolution 18 of the International Conference on Human Rights in Tehran declared; ‘Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children’. This resolution was significantly expanded in scope by the UN World Population Plan[3] which extended the right not only to parents, but also to ‘all couples and individuals’. In addition, these couples and individuals should ‘have the information, education and [the] means to do so’. In other words, it is down to individuals to decide whether having one, two, five or ten children is responsible; and the contracting states should provide them with information and the “means” with which to go about their business.

So despite the fact that the earth and its resources are finite, and that humanity’s exploitation of natural resources exceeded their availability as far back as the 1980s – humans have created laws which provide them with rights to limitless reproduction (if they individually feel it was responsible).

Where countries have attempted to impose reproductive limits on their populations (such as China’s “one-child” policy implemented in the early 1980s[4]), they have been criticised as restrictions which violate Human Rights[5]. It is of course fair to say that the methods they employed were clear violations of human dignity – but was the underlying logic and science of the policy wrong? It should also be pointed out that other undesirable and unforeseen consequences arose from the policy which have now largely extinguished its credibility[6].

In a 2010 scholarly article entitled ‘The costs and consequences of assisted reproductive technology: an economic perspective’ it was stated that ‘3.5 million children have been born worldwide following assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment, with ART children making up to 4% of births in some European countries.’[7] With our current economic constraints in mind, a newspaper article, responding to a recent government proposal to increase the availability of ART to NHS patients, predicted the consequence of doing so would be to decrease funding available for other life-saving treatments such as the availability of cancer medication.[8]

This article doesn’t claim to reach a satisfactory conclusion. Its purpose is simply to highlight some important constraints which are too often forgotten by policy-makers and which, as a result, make their way down into our laws and influence our way of thinking about what is right and wrong.

Whilst the author supports Human Rights wholeheartedly, they are clearly an imperfect work in progress. The author would ask those who champion Human Rights to be prepared to cede ground when they are found to be counter-productive for future generations and more widely, counter-productive to the stability of our life-support system – the earth.

Should humans have the right to unfettered reproduction? The author would argue not. Should the NHS spend significant sums of money on ART if it entails cutting back on other life sustaining treatments? You the reader can decide.

[1] http://esa.un.org/wpp/documentation/pdf/WPP2012_%20KEY%20FINDINGS.pdf

[2] WWF, Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network. 2008. Living Planet Report 2008. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

[3] http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/bkg/wppa.html

[4] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1710568/one-child-policy

[5] For a more lengthy exploration of the issues see Freedman, L.P & Isaacs, L. (1993) Human Rights and Reproductive Choice. Studies in Family Planning 24:18-30.

[6] For a more lengthy exploration of the issues, see http://www.popcouncil.org/uploads/pdfs/PDRSupplements/Vol38_PopPublicPolicy/Wang_pp115-129.pdf

[7] http://humupd.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/6/603.full

[8] www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-193870/Can-NHS-afford-400m-IVF-bill.html

Shakespeare The Humanist

This was a talk given by David Seddon at the November GMH Meeting.

David began by stating that while much has been written about Shakespeare, little is actually known. He then summarised what we do know from the historical record:

• He was christened on the 29th April 1564 and that in those days it was the tradition to perform the christening within the first month of the birth – so his exact date of birth is not known. 

• He died on the 23rd April 1616.

• His father was probably a glove maker.

• In 1582 aged 18 he married Ann Hathaway who was 26 at the time and gave birth to their first baby some 6 months after the marriage. 

• He went to a Grammar School in Stratford. 

• Within a few years of being married he moved to London. 

• In 1585 his wife Ann gave birth to twins Judith and Hamlet, but sadly Hamlet died at the age of 11 in 1596. (There’s no reason to believe that the play Hamlet which was written in 1599 had any association with his son of the same name.)

David next talked briefly about Shakespeare’s life as a playwright in London where he wrote 37 plays which were performed in the various theatres of the day including the Globe.  Some years later Shakespeare returned to Stratford to live. Several reasons have been proposed for this including that it was due to a gay relationship but the fact is nobody really knows why. 

David then moved on to the topic of the talk, i.e. Shakespeare the Humanist. He addressed this by referring firstly to the 3Rs: Renaissance, Reformation and Revolution (the French one). The Renaissance, he explained, was the rebirth of classical thinking; the re-examination of classical history and literature from the Romans and Greeks; of scientific learning from the Arabs; of dangerous ideas like democracy from the Greeks; and the creativity of the Italian masters like Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. He also highlighted the work of Erasmus who was more interested in the human than the divine. It was known, David explained, that Shakespeare had read Erasmus’s works; he’d also read Thomas North’s translations of Plutarch’s works on Roman history. From these influences Shakespeare starts to think about people’s motives for their actions in history; and in the context of Roman history therefore, the story of Julius Caesar, Marc Anthony, Cleopatra, Augustus et al which feature in the play Julius Caesar.

As well as his attention to people’s thinking, David identified Shakespeare’s use of rhythm and language as something unique in his writing. Shakespeare frequently used phrases based on 3 stressed beats to a line as well as the more common iambic pentameter of his predecessors (5 to a line).  One other feature, he said, was Shakespeare’s lack of references to God, referring instead to ‘nature’, which is a more humanist expression.

Moving on to the Reformation David referred to the period between 1483 and 1546 when people like Martin Luther started to critically examine religious doctrine, and to expose the nonsense of original sin and the power of the Catholic Church. Luther, David continued, makes the point that individuals matter. So it is on the back of this thinking that Shakespeare talks about individuals.  He introduces in his plays the motives, thoughts, actions and ways of behaving of individuals, and uniquely he uses the soliloquy as a form of expressing and individual’s thoughts to the audience. 

David observed how this idea is developed in the book, Shakespeare the Invention of Character by Harold Bloom, where Bloom talks about the ability of Shakespeare’s characters to over look themselves (meaning to think about themselves). And that in this book Bloom also proposes that Shakespeare created the two greatest characters ever in the form of Hamlet and Falstaff; two complete extremes character wise. Hamlet because he starts out being self satisfied but ends up full of self loathing. And Falstaff who is a complete rogue who steals, lies, womanises, and basically does whatever he wants but is entirely likeable nonetheless. David’s own view is that Lady Macbeth is another extreme of character. The play Macbeth is all about her strength of character and her use of psychology to encourage Macbeth to commit murder against his will. This play also delivers the idea that when life is over – it’s over - a very humanist idea.     
David finished by saying that while Shakespeare’s humanism doesn’t conform to our views of humanism today, he invented the idea of what we now call personality. And while there’s a lot of politics in his plays, most of all they are love stories. If there were ever a perfect piece of literature, he believed, it is Romeo and Juliet.

Humanist Pastoral Support - David Savage (BHA)

This was a talk given by David Savage at Greater Manchester Humanists on 8th October.

David started by describing the aim of Humanist Pastoral Support which is that non-religious people should have the same access to care as religious people. And that non-religious people should have the same opportunities to provide it. 
Accordingly, the BHA is currently in the process of identifying, training and accrediting humanist volunteers to provide pastoral support in prisons and hospitals.

David provided some charts showing that in hospitals:

• Paid for pastoral support (by the NHS) is 100% undertaken by the major religions.
• A significant proportion of NHS patients will be non religious (45% - using the social attitudes survey or 24% - using the 2011 census figures). 
• 96% of chaplains’ visits are undertaken by religious chaplains. 

The point being, as David put it, that religious chaplains think they’re there for everyone, but the non-religious don’t want to talk to them.

David then went on to talk about his own experiences of being a hospital chaplain. He starts by walking around and telling people he’s from the spiritual care department. People will talk about anything, he has found; they often just need an opportunity to unload or complain. Even when he tells them he’s not religious they’re still happy to go on talking. The key, he says, is to listen, show empathy, and be seen as neutral and non judgemental. Some religious chaplains have said to him that you can’t talk to dying people because you don’t believe in the afterlife. His response is that when he talks to the terminally ill he gives the humanist perspective which is to focus on the life that’s left and what you can still do with it.

He briefly contrasted the difference between pastoral care and counselling. Counsellors he said have similar elements to their work and do a great job, but operate in a different way; they have to be referred to the patient by the medical team as part of a treatment plan. So they are addressing the needs of the individual from a health and well being perspective as opposed to a purely spiritual one.

He then described the training course that the BHA is starting to provide to volunteers around the country. The aim of the course is to give people an understanding of what humanist pastoral practice is; also to see if they are suitable for the job. And if so, to give them confidence to apply to an institution for a role as a chaplain (subject to BHA accredition). The two day course runs over a weekend and involves: role play, e.g. to talk about a loss, assessing people’s abilities, and understanding how to work cooperatively with religious chaplains.

David wound up by saying that he thinks humanist pastoral support is where humanist ceremonies were 25 years ago in that we (the BHA) are at the beginning of a journey, but we will help improve the care of non-religious people in hospitals and prisons, including providing non-religious people to provide that care.

~~~~~

Please note: David has now provisionally booked the St Thomas Centre in Manchester for 21-22 March 2015 for the two day course. Expect to hear more about this from us in future newsletters.