Archives for August 2010

This is my list of the top religion and ethics news stories of the week (so far). Use the thread to add your links to other stories worth noting. If they are interesting, I'll add them to the main page. We might even talk about them on this week's Sunday Sequence.

Religion
Cardinal Brady will accompany Pope on visit to UK.
Stephen Hawking comes out as an atheist.
Middle east peace talks begin.
Senior Catholic blames UK's 'moral wasteland' on equal rights.
Paul Vallely on the "moral wasteland" controversy.
Priest calls for talks with dissident republicans.
Here I Walk: Why Luther walked to Rome in 1510.
I will not resign: Cardinal Brady remains defiant.
Priest defends church after Claudy bomb allegations
Frank Skinner to defend priestly celibacy.
Belgian Catholic Church Leader Urged Victim to Be Silent.
Bishop of Derry burgled.
The ethics of language in the Ground Zero Mosque debate.
Secularists question the value of GCSE religious studies.
The retiring bishop of Durham on the church in British society today.
Birmingham Three: The Latest.

Ethics
Prof David Marsland argues that the mentally and morally unfit should be sterilised.
Religion may influence doctors' end-of-life care. (Read JME paper.)
Harvard professor in "scientific misconduct" controversy.
Humanists respond to Church and Claudy "collusion" claims.
It's just not cricket.

Thinking allowed
Metaphysics and the limits of science.
Pre-historic humans were cannibals.
Why Catholics Don't Understand Economics.
Who owns ideas?
Seamus Heaney's new poetry collection to be published this week.

The Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman has called for a public debate about the "morality or 'rightness' of the decision taken by the Government and the Catholic Church in agreeing to the RUC request" to assist them in removing a priest suspected of terrorist activity from the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland.

On Sunday Sequence this week, we will host a debate that explores precisely those issues. Did Cardinal William Conway and his colleagues do the right thing when they co-operated with the police and state officials in what has been widely descibed as a "collusive act"?

If the RUC "colluded" with state officials to avoid properly investigating the alleged involvement of Fr James Chesney in the bombing of Claudy village, is it appropriate to conclude that the Catholic Church was also party to that collusion? Or should we use kinder language of the cardinal and his colleagues? Indeed, if it is true that the arrest of Fr Chesney in 1972 had the potential to push Northern Ireland over the brink into outright civil war, with churches and priests being targetted for attack, wouldn't it have been reckless and irresponsible of the cardinal to have done otherwise? We will examine the moral dilemma faced by Cardinal Conway in 1972 and ask what should the leader of Ireland's Catholics have done when he was approached by the government and the police at the time.

Police Ombudsman Al Hutchinson will join us on Sunday morning. My others include the former Bishop of Derry, Dr Edward Daly, Fr Timothy Bartlett, a senior advisor to Cardinal Sean Brady, Mike Nesbitt, a former Victims Commissioner, the historian Dr Eamonn Phoenix, and the columnist Breidge Gadd.

Read the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman's report.

The Taliban targets aid workers offering flood relief in Pakistan. Nigerian authorities are concerned about a cholera outbreak that threatens the entire country. 72 people are found dead in Mexico, the victims of a drug cartel. And dozens are killed in a wave of bomb attacks in Iraq. But the Great British public is incensed about the story of Mary Bale, a 45-year-old bank clerk, and former church choir singer, who was caught by a CCTV camera dropping a 4-year-old rescue cat called Lola into a wheelie bin where it was trapped for 15 hours. At first, Mary Bale said she did it for a joke and didn't know what the fuss was about; she has since apologised for "out of character" behaviour after reports of online death threats. According to the RSPCA, Ms Bale could face prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which carries a maximum sentence of six months in prison. But local police told the BBC that no criminal offence has been committed and community support officers were placed outside Ms Bale's home to monitor a large group of people "for public order purposes". What does this episode tells us about our relationship with animals? Do we care too much, or not nearly enough? The story of the cat, the bin and the baying crowd is up for debate on Sunday Morning Live this week (BBC1, 10am). You can call the programme with your views on 08459 555 678, text on 81771, or join the debate live by web cam.

Tony Blair is about to publish his autobiography. Originally titled Tony Blair: The Journey, the book has now been re-titled "Tony Blair: A Journey". That switch from the definite to the indefinite article has already provoked some controversy, as did the news that Mr Blair was to be paid an advance of £4.6 million for his memoirs. Perhaps to counter criticism from opponents of the war in Iraq that this advance constitutes "conscience money", Tony Blair has now announced that he will donate the full sum to the Royal British Legion. The former Prime Minister's annual income from speaking engagements, board memberships and other earnings is estimated to be in the region of £7 million, so he may not notice the missing advance. Indeed, some say it will "significantly" reduce his tax bill , but Tony Blair's Office points out that the only reason Mr Blair's tax bill would be reduced is that he will be earning less as a consequence of his gift. In any case, the publication of Mr Blair's memoirs will inevitably provoke a moral analysis of his tenure as Prime Minister.

That re-assessment begins on this week's Sunday Morning Live (10am, BBC1), when Susanna Reid asks her guests, and the public, if Tony Blair was a force for good.

How will history judge the legacy of one of Britain's most controversial political leaders? Will Tony Blair be remembered for his efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland or for his role in the Iraq war? Will he be seen as a champion of human rights and social justice who forced the international community to think seriously about climate change and the developing world, or as the Prime Minister who took Britain to war more than any of his predecessors and undermined civil liberties at home?

And what of Tony Blair's relationship with religious faith? Is he a politician driven by commitments that stem from deep personal faith, or a successful political operator skilled at compartmentalising religious and moral questions?

Lots of questions. What do you think? Tony Blair was a political whirlwind, but was he a force for good?

Mother Teresa of Calcutta was born on this day one hundred years ago. A special mass celebrating her birth, life and missionary work in India was held just a few hours ago in the city of Calcutta. A message was read out from Pope Benedict celebrating "the inestimable gift that Mother Teresa was in her lifetime". Yet Mother Teresa, who earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and was beatified by the church in 2003 -- the first stage in being declared a saint -- continues to be a controversial figure. The new atheist writer Christopher Hitchens gave evidence at the church's beatification hearings in 2003, as did the Indian doctor and writer Aroup Chatterjee. These were the only "hostile" witnesses whose evidence was heard by church authorities and both have published books setting out their moral case against Mother Teresa. On Sunday, we'll debate the legacy of the missionary who was regarded as a "living saint" but who is in danger of becoming a enduring controversy with Aroup Chatterjee, author of Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict and John Scally, author of Mother Teresa: The Irish Connection.

The Catholic Church co-operated with the British government and the police to cover-up a priest's alleged involvement in the 1972 Claudy bombing which killed nine people including an 8 year-old girl, Kathryn Eakin. Intelligence from August 1972 identified Fr James Chesney (pictured) as the Quarter Master and Director of Operations of the South Derry brigade of the Provisional IRA and subsequent intelligence implicated the priest in the Claudy atrocity and other terrorist incidents. Five Catholics and four Protestants were killed on 31 July 1972, when three car bombs were exploded in the village of Claudy, without warning, in what is widely believed to have been an IRA operation. Al Hutchinson, the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman, has just published a damning report into the original investigation. (Read the report in full here).

One of his conclusions:

"Intelligence, which the RUC obtained in the weeks and months following the Claudy bombings, presented significant investigative opportunities, which were not pursued in relation to Father James Chesney's alleged involvement in the atrocity. Rather than act on these opportunities a senior RUC Officer sought the Government's assistance in December 1972, through their engagement with senior figures of the Catholic Church, to 'render harmless a dangerous priest'. In view of the considerable Intelligence available to the RUC in respect of Father Chesney the Police Ombudsman has concluded that this was wrong and compromised the investigation."

Cardinal Sean Brady has denied that the church was involved in any cover-up. Some believe the then Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal William Conway, intervened to have Fr Chesney removed to the Republic of Ireland because of fears, expressed to him by the government, that revelations of the priest's involvement in the atrocity could have triggered attacks on Catholic churches throughout Northern Ireland.

This is my list of the top religion and ethics news stories of the week (so far). Use the thread to add your links to other stories worth noting. If they are interesting, I'll add them to the main page. We might even talk about them on this week's Sunday Sequence.

Religion news
Claudy bomb: relatives' justice call over 'IRA priest'.
Claudy Bombing report expected soon.
Strict rules for papal pilgrims.
Church calls for a BBC Religion Editor.
Religious leaders denounce 'burn a Quran Day'.
Susan Boyle to sing for Pope.
"Jesus was HIV-positive" sermon provokes controversy.
Civil partnerships in decline.
Ethical stories
No one likes a 'do-gooder', psychological study shows.
Female salaries are 57 years behind male salaries.
Homeopathy on the NHS.
Monica McWilliams to leave human rights body next year.
Dalai Lama says his successor cannot be "an ugly female".
Finding The Root Of Anti-Gay Sentiment In Uganda.

Thinking allowed
"Smug atheism" attacked.
Reporting on Pakistan.
Faith and disability.
Harry Potter Studies at Uni?
Divine dispatches: a religion roundup.

Jack Valero (pictured), spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory, told Sunday Sequence this week that the so-called "Birmingham Three" have been ordered to stay away from their religious community because of disciplinary matters relating to the internal life of the Birmingham Oratory such as "pride, anger, disobedience, disunity, nastiness, dissension, the breakdown of charity." "Very serious things were going on inside that house," he said.

Replying to claims from Ruth Dudley Edwards that the Three have been exiled and silenced, he said, "When the [Apostolic] Visitation started in April 2009 ... the [Apostolic] vistor, Fr Felix Selden, found the community in Birmingham disintegrating. Its very existence was actually threatened. This man is not an autocrat, as he has been portrayed in the papers or on the blogs. This is a man who went in there and spent a year, from April 2009 to April 2010, trying to help them to sort themselves out privately because these were private discentions within the community, and when this wasn't working, he said, 'Well, I need to do something . . . this community is in danger.' So he thought, well, the answer is for some to absent from this community for a while. But this 'Free the Birmingham Three' campaign -- what is the meaning of this? These three men are not prisoners. They can come and go as they please, they can do pastoral work, they are priests in good standing, they can study, they can publish articles, they can visit friends, their movements are not restrained -- what does it mean?"

When I asked Jack Valero if the Birmingham Three were permitted to give interviews to the press, he said, "They cannot speak about the Visitation because it involves them and other people and the Visitation is still going on . . . and they cannot live in the Birmingham Oratory for the time being and until they are healed and the community is healed. And this involves not just them but the people there. And the idea that there is some conspiracy to silence them -- because they are orthodox or something like that -- is an insult to the people who are left there ... they are all equally orthodox .. they are all equally good. But people sometimes don't get on ... These problems of communities should be sorted out internally .. and it is really bad to speak about them in the media this way."

Jack Valero said he had spoken to one of the priests, Father Philip Cleevely, who would soon be speaking to the press. He also responded to rumours on the blogs that the Oratory's former provost, Fr Paul Chavasse, would be returning to Birmingham in time for the Pope's visit. Jack Valero said this was unlikely, and that it was most likely that Fr Chavasse and the Oratorians being disciplined would remain away from Birmingham until after the papal visit.

Listen to the interview in full on the BBC iPlayer.

That's was the poll question on yesterday's Sunday Morning Live. And the public's response was very surprising. Watch it for yourself on the BBC iPlayer. Susanna Reid also questions on whether alcoholics should be given organ transplants and whether the welfare state encourages scrounging. Sunday Morning Live is now well-established on BBC 1 on Sunday mornings as a platform for debating some of the week's big moral and religious questions. This week's studio guests are Liz Hunt from the Daily Telegraph, the broadcaster and General Synod member Christina Reese, and Hugh Cornwell of The Stranglers fame.

The Vatican has published details of Pope Benedict's state and pastoral visit to the UK. The Pope's spokesman, Fr Federico Lombardi has also spoken of the "great expectation and excitement in the lead up to the first day, which immediately sees the Pope's meeting with Her Majesty, the Queen."

Fr Lombardi points to some key moments in the four-day visit to England and Scotland:

"It is also the day when he will meet with Scotland, which is a very important part of this journey. I would like to remind people that the Pope's visit to Scotland coincides with the Feast of St. Ninian, who is the patron saint and evangeliser of Scotland. As such it is a very important day for Scottish people. We think it will be a great celebration, a very beautiful moment. Then, I would highlight the Pope's great address in Westminster Hall, his meeting with civil society, the world of culture, with all the most active and influential members of English society. This certainly will be a closely watched moment. The Pope will address, on a very broad level, the problems facing society in the United Kingdom and in the world today. Then there is the ecumenical dimension, in his meeting with the Anglican Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury: the ecumenical celebration is certainly of great significance. We also know that it is a delicate moment for Anglicanism, because of internal debates. It is also a delicate time in relations with the Catholic Church, because these debates also reflect on the relationship between Anglicans and Catholics. Then, obviously, we come to the culminating moment which takes place in two stages, if you will: the vigil in Hyde Park in London and the Beatification in Birmingham dedicated to the figure of Newman. So with this great figure, who is almost "the spiritual heart of this visit", the journey ends. We know that the Pope accepted the invitation for this visit because of the occasion of Newman's Beatification."

Read the full itinerary of Pope Benedict's visit below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry

The campaign to "free" the Birmingham Three is gathering pace. Supporters of Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry have now launched their own website, which includes a ticking clock counting the period of their "exile" in days, hours, minutes and seconds. The three members of the Oratory founded by John Henry Newman (pictured) have been ordered to "spend time in prayer at three separate monasteries hundreds of miles apart, indefinitely and with no public explanation".

Their case has been taken up by the journalist and author Ruth Dudley Edwards, who was a close friend of one of the priests, Fr Dermot Fenlon, in their student days at University College Dublin and then at Cambridge, and has launched a Free the Birmingham Oratory Three blog. Writing in the current edition of Standpoint magazine, she pledges to address "the scandalous way in which these men have been treated, and of the apparent inability of the Catholic Church to learn the downside of secrecy and authoritarianism" in the next edition. "But for now", she writes, "I'm just putting it on the record that, in a lengthy interview with me, the ubiquitous Jack Valero of Opus Dei, spokesman for the Newman canonisation cause and the Birmingham Oratory, has confirmed unequivocally that the Three are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever."

Which begs the question: Why have these three Oratorians been "exiled" and "silenced"? If, indeed, that is what has happened. There have been rumours of trouble at the Birmingham Oratory since last year, when Fr Felix Selden, the Pope's Apostolic Visitor, asked the then Provost, Fr Paul Chavasse (pictured, left), to leave his position and take on a fundraising role in the United States. Fr Chavasse was replaced by Fr Richard Duffield -- both as Provost of the Birmingham Oratory and as "Actor for the Cause of Newman's Canonisation" -- on 2 February, just seven months before he would have officially welcomed Pope Benedict XVI to vespers at the Oratory. It was subsequently announced that "three members of the Birmingham Oratory have been ordered to go on retreat after disagreements with the rest of the community . . . and to spend time in prayer for an indefinite period by Fr Felix Selden." These departures leave just five members of the Birmingham Oratory community in place to welcome Pope Benedict.

There are rumours that Fr Chavasse is to return to Birmingham in time for the papal visit, but these remain officially unconfirmed. But if he is permitted to return to the Oratory while his erstwhile brothers remain separated on three different continents, some will inevitably ask if their exile was intended to protect their former provost.

In July, Oratory parishioners published an open letter to the Apostolic Visitor, Fr Felix Felden, in which they appeal for the return of these "good pastors who are innocent of any wrong doing (as we have been assured is the case with these three)." (Read their correspondence.)

We learned this week that one of the Three, Brother Lewis Berry, is about to be sent to the Oratory in Port Elizabeth in South Africa for "a period of at least one year". I understand that Fr Dermot Fenlon (pictured, right) is currently in Canada.

To the supporters of the Three, their plight is a draconian injustice of medieval proportions. Is it appropriate, they ask, that three brothers should be ordered to leave their spiritual home and commanded to remain in prayer, to refuse all media requests for interviews, and to make no efforts to communicate with each other? Is this how the church should behave in the 21st century? They wonder, aloud, if these brothers have been exiled to avoid any embarrassment to Pope Benedict when he visits the Oratory next month. Ironically, if that was the motivation for this disciplinary measure, it may prove counter-productive.

On Sunday, we will try to make some sense of what is going on at the Birmingham Oratory and why three Oratorians who are "innocent of any wrong doing" have been "silenced and exiled" in what their supporters are describing as the ecclesiastical equivalent of "extraordinary rendition". Ruth Dudley Edwards and Jack Valero will be my guests on Sunday morning.

This is my of the top religion and ethics news stories of the week (so far). Use the thread to add your links to other stories worth noting. If they are interesting, I'll add them to the main page.

Religion news
Vatican published full itinerary of papal visit to UK.
Lombardi: Great Expectations for Pope's UK Trip.
Billy Graham's son says Obama was born a Muslim.
Is America islamophobic?
Law chief urges Scots courts: consult the Bible in judgments.
Discord at St Anne's Cathedral over choir job.
Tyrone priest steps aside during child welfare inquiry.
The Ground Zero mosque debate continues.
Registrars investigated after they refuse to officiate at same-sex ceremonies.
A papal holiday.
Behold the skateboarding priest.
Christian convert loses discrimination case.
Analysis: How Obama uses the Bible in political speeches.
Dawkins speaks out in defense of RE in faith schools.
Catholic charity's appeal over gay adoption fails.
Church of England gay priest to marry boyfriend.
Peter Hitchins on his brother Christopher's illness.
Saudi judge asks hospital to break a man's spine as a punishment.

Ethical stories
Scottish justice minister defends decision to release Lockerbie Bomber.
Are disabled people using state benefits to pay for prostitutes?
HIV, sex and informed consent.
Who owns plundered art?
Russian dairy to sack women who have abortions.
BBC Presenter's Killing Claim 'Wasted Time'.

Thinking allowed
Was Warfield really a Darwinian?
Religion Lite: Eat, pray and self indulge.
The case for the sacred.
Why Catholics should thank anti-Catholic bigots.
The Pope wears Prada.
A secular meaning of life?
Darwin's Edinburgh.

Whether Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) was a supporter of Darwin's ideas is a matter of some debate amongst conservative evangelicals. Warfield was one of the theologians who helped to shape the intellectual identity of modern evangelical (and fundamentalist) thought. He provided the most widely distributed arguments for the inerrancy of the scriptures, which became a defining commitment of conservative Protestant theology in the late nineteenth century. And yet it is this same defender of the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible who steps forward to offer his support to Charles Darwin. That is the claim made by the historians David Livingstone and Mark Noll in their collection of Warfield's writings on Evolution, Science and Scripture. Livingstone and Noll regard Warfield's defense of evolution as "one of the best kept secrets of American intellectual history." The fact that a theologian who held such a high view of scripture could marry this view with a commitment to evolution is taken by many as evidence that Darwin's ideas are entirely consistent with biblical theology and pose no threat to any significant Christian doctrine. Warfield, by these lights, becomes a key figure in the history of theistic evolution -- indeed, of biblical Darwinism.

But not everyone agrees that Warfield was in fact a Darwinian. Fred G. Zaspel, writing in the current edition of the evangelical magazine Themelios, writes: "This much is clear: although at times speaking with allowance of the possibility of evolution (carefully defined), Warfield never expressly affirmed it. Rather, he affirmed that he had rejected it sometime about age thirty and that he remained unconvinced. The Livingstone-Noll thesis does not reflect the evidence, and the prevailing understanding of Warfield as an evolutionist must be rejected."

We can expect quite a few books and articles to follow in pursuit of this question. I note that one intelligent design theorist has already claimed Warfield for his movement avant la lettre.

One of Ireland's best-known clerical abuse survivors says she is considering leaving the Roman Catholic Church as a consequence of the Pope's decision to decline the resignations of two Irish bishops who were named in the Murphy Report into abuse in the archdiocese of Dublin. On yesterday's Sunday Sequence, Marie Collins expressed anger at Pope Benedict's decision to reinstate Bishop Eamonn Walsh and Bishop Raymond Field. Since these bishops were part of the governance system in Dublin when abuse by priests was covered up by the system, their reinstatement is an insult to victims and survivors, she said.

She continued:

"The message it sends out is 'No Change'. Victims are treated as second class. Personally, it's basically the end of me.. I cannot see the Catholic Church changing in any way. I had hoped that there could be change, but I think that this indicates that ... clericalism has too big a grasp and there's not going to be any change from the top. If there's to be any change in the Catholic Church, it will have to come from the grass roots. But for me, personally, its the end of any hope that my church is going to change or be the church I wanted it to be. And I've got to think now about whether I want to be a part of it at all. You can only hold out hop for a certain length of time. But . . . one action after another shows you that these men just don't get it and never will get it.

Some predicted this turn of events, but many will nevertheless be surprised by it. Pope Benedict has refused to accept the resignations of two Irish bishops who were mentioned in the Murphy Report. Bishop Eamonn Walsh and Bishop Raymond Field announced that they had tendered their resignations as auxiliary bishops of Dublin at Christmas. At the time, many priests in Dublin were said to be angry with their archbishop for failing to support bishops who were merely mentioned, without any specific criticisms, in the Report. The Pope's decision to decline their resignations will be read by many of them as a less-than-veiled criticism of the archbishop.

A few weeks before offering his resignation, in a letter to priests in Dublin dated 17 December 2009, Eamonn Walsh offered a sustained defence of his role as an auxiliary bishop and challenged the claim that he was guilty "by association". His letter pointedly makes reference to the Archbishop of Dublin. The clear implication is that Dr Martin had misjudged his auxiliaries.

"I would like to draw your attention to the references to me as outlined in the Report
by Judge Yvonne Murphy and her Team, and I would ask you to read them for
yourself: 4.50; 7.22; 7.45- 47; 10.11; 11.13; 24.27; 35.32; 41.34; 43.5. The question of resignation has been raised on the grounds of 'guilt by association'. However, guilt by association only arises where someone is complicit in a decision or action, or is silent when to speak would have made a difference. Present in a room or proximity to a decision-maker of itself is not guilt by association. If anyone attributes such guilt to me, he or she does so without foundation, and against the findings of the Dublin Report.

"In order for me to minister within the area and to support the priests and people, I
must enjoy your confidence. One can only work with people where there is mutual
trust. At a meeting with priests in Citywest, on Saturday, 12th December, Archbishop
Martin confirmed publicly that he had confidence in his Dublin Auxiliary Bishops.
I hope that the above information will help you to reach your own conclusion in
relation to my role and posts held in the diocese."

Evidently Pope Benedict has reached his own conclusion too. On this week's Sunday Sequence, I'll explore the implications of the Pope's decision with the victims campaigner Marie Collins and Patsy McGarry of the Irish Times.

David Quinn offers a strident defence of the Pope's decision. He writes:

"Why didn't the Pope accept the resignations of Auxiliary Bishops Walsh and Field? The answer is that in the case of Bishop Field it wasn't justified, and in the case of Bishop Walsh it was a 50/50 call."

Human beings are naturally religious animals and have a prima facie natural right to freely exercise their religion, which should not simply to be equated with the right to free speech. That's according to a new report from Theos, the public theology think tank.Free to Believe? Religious Freedom in a Liberal Society is authored by the distinguished philosopher Roger Trigg, who is a committed Christian.

Trigg argues that 'Current public policy in the United Kingdom marginalises religion, making its exercise more difficult . . . Many, for all kinds of reasons, are only too pleased to muzzle religious views which they may find challenging, and even offensive. [But a] free society should never be in the business of muzzling religious voices, let alone in the name of democracy or feigned neutrality.' The irony, he says, is that moral terms like 'freedom', 'equality' and 'human dignity' were first given 'persuasive power' by Christians, but British society now risks losing the moral resonance of those terms by an official or quasi-official policy of distancing ourselves from religion in general, and Christianity in particular.

Trigg's argument rises to this conclusion: 'Everyone must be free to come to a personal decision about their commitment, or lack of one, to a religion. Precisely because of the centrality of religion for human nature, it is a crucial mark of individual liberty to be free to decide which religion to adhere to, or to reject all religion. If individuals matter, and Christian teaching says they do, that liberty should be respected. It is also crucial that, as far as possible, we are able to put our religious (and equivalent) beliefs into practice. Yet influential voices in our society, including some sections of the media, are all too ready to treat religion as something of only private concern. They see the demands of religion as ones that can be subordinated to whatever are the pressing social concerns of the moment. The pursuit of "equality" is rated more highly than religious freedom. Yet we dare not give up a burning desire to protect such freedom, since it lies at the heart of all freedom.'

For an entirely different perspective on religious rights in the UK, here's a piece by Johann Hari, who argues thus:

'As their dusty Churches crumble because nobody wants to go there, the few remaining Christians in Britain will only become more angry and uncomprehending. Let them. We can't let this hysterical toy-tossing stop us from turning our country into a secular democracy where everyone has the same rights, and nobody is granted special rights just because they claim their ideas come from an invisible supernatural being.'

This is my of the top religion and ethics news stories of the week (so far). Use the thread to add your links to other stories worth noting. If they are interesting, I'll add them to the main page.

Religion news
Economist report: the fate of Catholic Europe.
Cardinal launches attack on US 'arrogance'.
Civil partnerships permitted on religious premises.
Ramadan begins.
Sham marriages: more clergy arrested.
Lib Dems to support gay marriage.
Government cuts a threat to the poor.
First Communion at 7 years old?
Dawkins and the Burka.
Should atheists come out to their kids?
Sermons cause clergy stress.
Vatican immunity: US case gets dropped.
Baha'i leaders jailed in Iran.
Christians under attack in China.
Mormon founder's Bible sells for $1.5m
Online apologetics library launched.
Priest's viral video on pope lands him in trouble.
Paxman challenges students to read the Bible.
Widdecombe defends creationist zoo.
Church Collection: Should Conscientious Catholics Stop Giving?
New shrine for John Henry Newman.

Ethical stories
New Theos report: Religious rights in a liberal society.
Gay-row philosopher gets St Andrews job.
Free abortions offered as "job perks".
The Spirit Level: In defence of equality.
The moral basis of humour.
Bin Laden: should we negotiate?
WikiLeaks and the ethics of whistle-blowing.
A GCSE in parenting?

Thinking allowed
Tony Judt: the final interview.
Philosophers who believe.
Who speaks for the 'Birmingham Three'?
Terry Eagleton on Newman.
Hiroshima: 65 years on.
Oldest signs of tool-making found.
The slow, whiny death of British Christianity.

Anne Rice's decision to walk away from organised religion is still headline news in the US. In July, Rice explained gave her reasons for abandoning the church on her Facebook profile. Since then, she has given a number of high-profile interviews, some of which I've linked to below.

Her Facebook update on 28 July read: "For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else." That update was "liked" by 2, 427 followers and produced 793 comments.

A few minutes later, Rice added a clarification comment: "I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen." This comment was liked by 3,505 followers and produced 1,522 comments.

Since those postings, the story of Rice's walk-away from Christianity has become a global story. This is not unexpected, given Rice's enormous following as a writer. To date, she has sold more than 100 million books, and is one of the most widely-read writers of the modern age. Cynics will say that this new controversy will not harm the sales of her new book, Of Love and Evil, which goes on sale in November, or her current book, Angel Time, which is currently on sale. But Rice is such a prolific writer that she always has a new book, and she is such a successful writer that, to be fair, she doesn't need a news story to help her sell them.

Judge for yourself. Here's an interview she gave to CNN explaining why she has abandoned organised religion.

Here's Anne Rice's interview with the LA Times, and a radio interview with NPR in which she discusses her decision to quit Christianity.

It is the season for weddings. But are today's weddings a danger to the couples getting all the attention on The Big Day? Giles Fraser's warmed to that theme in a Thought for the Day this week, and, judging by the media coverage his piece has received, he struck a nerve. (Read his entire Thought here.)

Money quote: "I'm delighted for Chelsea Clinton and her new husband Mark. But judging by some press reports, the most important thing about the wedding was her two Vera Wang dresses. And yes, I blame the media here, not the happy couple. For the pervasive influence of the media on the look and feel of weddings - not least those weddings that are featured in celebrity magazines - has encouraged an atmosphere of narcissism and self-promotion to work its way into the very fabric of the modern wedding celebration. Little wonder that, at their worst, some weddings can feel like an overblown vanity project, all justified by foot-stomping references to "my special day".

I've heard some clergy wonder if the excessive costs of some weddings today might constitute a "sinful" excess, though thankfully they resisted the urge to reflect on that theological point during their sermon at the nuptials. Even if you are uncomfortable with religious labels such as "sin", most people would accept that seriously excessive expenditure on a party is difficult to defend in a world where millions are starving and in need of shelter or clean water. The philosopher Peter Singer, who has done more than most to articulate the ethical challenge of living in an affluent world, says the same moral questions are raised by all expenditure. The difficulty arises, in the case of weddings, when we try to draw the line. When do wedding costs become morally indefensible? How much is too much?

You may think it's just a matter of looking up the date in the calendar, but fixing the date for the beginning of the Islamic month of fasting is much more complicated than that.

The exact date cannot be determined in advance, due to the nature of the Islamic lunar calendar. Instead, estimates are based on the expected visibility of the waxing crescent moon (Hilāl, Arabic) following a new moon and may vary according to location. The need to precisely predict the appearance of the waxing crescent moon is said to have prompted Muslim scholars to study astronomy and, on the way, to make some very significant contributions to the history of the discipline.

So it is appropriate that the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich have published a guide to the new moon and its likely visibility. They've also linked to some interesting sites about the history of Islamic astronomy. And it all adds up to this: Ramadan 2010 begins next Wednesday, 11 August. That's if you are in the UK and if you trust the astronomical dating of Ramadan, which permits sightings of the moon using binoculars and telesopes; older religious traditions require sightings by the naked eye (see here for a treasure trove of information on the theology of moonsightings).

Why is the date important for Muslims? Because the first verses of the Qur'an are believed to have been revealed to the Prophet Muhammad during the ninth month, the month of Ramadan. According to the Qur'an, "The month of Ramadan is that in which the Quran was revealed, a guidance to men and clear proofs of the guidance and the Criterion. So whoever of you is present in the month, he shall fast therein, and whoever is sick or on a journey, (he shall fast) a (like) number of other days. Allah desires ease for you, and He desires not hardship for you, and (He desires) that you should complete the number and that you should exalt the greatness of Allah for having guided you and that you may give thanks." (Qur'an 2:185)

Here's an Idiot's Guide to Ramadan.

A round-up of some of the top religion and ethics news stories of the week. Use the thread to add your links to other stories worth noting. If they are interesting, I'll add them to the main page.

Pakistan floods: 2.5m now affected in worst flooding for 80 years.
The science of the crescent moon: When does Ramadan begin?
Pope's UK trip merchandise goes on sale.
Are these the bones of John the Baptist?
MP asks Catholic Church for files on Claudy bomb.
British Muslims urged to boycott Israeli dates during Ramadan.
Channel 4 gaves platform to anti-gay preacher.
Meat of cloned cow offspring in UK food chain, FSA says.
One thousand girls on Pill at 11: Huge rise in contraceptive prescription for pre-teens without parents knowing.
Mosque near Ground Zero site gets go-ahead.
Rowan Williams praises TV Rev.
HFEA to be axed: what will it mean for ethical oversight of assisted reproduction?
US Orthodox rabbis sign statement supporting gays.
Anne Rice quits organised religion.
Vicar tells churchgoers to swear more.
Baroness Warsi: 'burka wearing women can engage in everyday life'.
Shock at French immigrant eviction video.
Naomi Campbell and the blood diamonds.
Judge overturns gay marriage ban in California.
The Talibanisation of British childhood by hardline parents.

The rise of "new atheism" produced a counter-offensive in the rise of "new theism", though from a philosophical perspective neither was particularly new. Now, we hail the arrival of "new agnosticism", those who wish to avoid 'the certitudes of both theism and atheism'. Ron Rosenbaum argues that atheism is a kind of theism ; both are faith-based perspectives, he says. Agnosticism and atheism appear to be philosophically distinct positions, though they are intellectual neighbours in a semi-detached house rather than occupying separate estates. They are psychologically distinct too: part of the difference between atheists and agnostics may simply be that they are different kinds of personality types. The same may also be true of liberal and conservative religious believers.

How would you distinguish between atheists and agnostics? Are agnostics merely weak-tea atheists or is there a more substantial difference between these positions?

Picture: Thomas Huxley, the originator of the term "agnostic". This is how he describes the coining of that neologism: 'When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis," -- had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.'

My guests on today's Sunday Sequence gave us their book picks for the Summer. We asked them to select two recently published books and one classic book.

Fr Eugene O'Neill chose Moral Combat: A History of the World War II by Michael Burleigh (HarperPress), All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer (John Wiley & Sons), and The Secret History by Donna Tartt (Penguin).

Dr Paul Bailie chose Bad Laws: An Explosive Analysis of Britain's Petty Rules, Health and Safety Lunacies and Madcap Laws by Philip Johnston (Constable), Dead Aid: Why aid is not working and how there is another way for Africa by Dambisa Moyo (Penguin), and Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad (Penguin).

Dr Gail McConnell chose Red Dust Road by Jackie Kay (Picador), An Autumn Wind by Derek Mahon (Gallery Press), and Maus by Art Spiegelman (Penguin).

If you've read any of these, or are moved to do so, you can comment on them here. Or feel free to make your own recommendations for summer reading -- both contemporary and classic texts -- and tell us why you enjoyed your book picks so much.