The Judiciary website has published a speech (PDF format) given by Sir Mark Potter in Israel on the rights of children to be heard. I wonder if this means that male children in that country will have a say on whether or not they are circumcised? After all, unnecessary circumcision would surely be classed as abuse if it were not shrouded by the 'legitimation' of religious delusion.

[Thanks again to Current Awareness for the link.]

Read More...

This religious madness doesn't need any further comment:

Read More...

On the day when a certain group of humanity begin to celebrate the myth that, for some reason, the god that created our species chose to favour them over his other creations, I thought it would be appropriate if I introduced a little reality. I therefore heartily recommend to all readers this article in the current edition of New Scientist. Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions should be essential reading for all. As the article states, since Darwin the case for evolution has become overwhelming - it is as firmly established a scientific fact as the roundness of the Earth, and yet most people around the world are not taught the truth about evolution, if they are taught about it at all:

"For those who have never had the opportunity to find out about biology or science, claims made by those who believe in supernatural alternatives to evolutionary theory can appear convincing. Meanwhile, even among those who accept evolution, misconceptions abound."

The article therefore sets out to put this right by debunking 24 'shared misconceptions' and 'creationist myths', such as that ""Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves"", "Accepting evolution undermines morality", "Evolutionary theory leads to racism and genocide" and that old chestnut: "Half a wing is no use to anyone". My favourite quote, however, comes from the section "Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution":

"There is no evidence of any kind of outside intervention, and no need to invoke it to explain what is known. Yes, there are many debates among biologists, geologists and cosmologists over the finer details, but these will be resolved sooner or later by new discoveries or experiments. Reality is the ultimate arbiter."

Remember, evolution is a fact, as well a theory. If you want to believe in your religion, you are of course free to do so, but you will have to find a way to make it compatible with evolution.

Read More...

My cat Muhammad was flicking through the news pages today on his laptop. Suddenly he let out a loud "tut", followed by an exasperated sigh.

"What's the matter?" I asked.

"Have you read this?" He said, pointing his paw at the screen.

""Divorce, abortion an offence to God, pope says"", I read out aloud. "Hmm, not exactly what a believer in God wants to hear just after they've been through a divorce, is it?"

"Hardly." He said, wagging his tail in annoyance. "I'll never understand why so many of you humans do believe."

"You mean cats never have believed in God?" I asked.

"Of course not." Replied Muhammad, with an indignant flick of his whiskers. "We've always known how we evolved. In fact, it's a never-ending source of amusement to us that humans only discovered evolution 150 years ago, and still many of them don't believe in it."

"Yes, we're not the sharpest pencils on the planet." I admitted. "So what are your thoughts on divorce then?" I asked, returning to the topic.

"Terrible thing." Said Muhammad. "Worse than global warming." He added, with a smile.

Read More...

It is extremely heartening to hear that the National Union of Teachers is considering calling for faith schools to be abolished and integrated within a secular state education system, in a motion to be debated at the union's annual conference. As supporters of the motion state, faith schools undermine community relations by segregating children in accordance with their parents' religious beliefs. They also indoctrinate children in those beliefs and some at least teach such nonsense as creationism and 'intelligent design' as credible alternatives to evolution and other scientific theories. The time has come for a secular state to have a secular education system.

Read More...

First we have senior members of the Catholic clergy urging Gordon Brown to allow a free vote on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Now the BBC reports that the prime minister is prepared to allow Labour MPs who oppose the bill to vote against pieces of the legislation. Do I detect the papist paw of Tony Bliar at work here?

Read More...

Regular readers of Family Lore will not be surprised that I am unimpressed by a story that somebody rose from the dead two thousand years ago, so instead of wishing a happy Easter, I wish you a Happy Spring Equinox!

[And for pedants out there: Yes, I am aware that the equinox occurred yesterday.]

Read More...

I didn't realise my cat Muhammad was awake as I scanned though the news items on the BBC website whilst eating my breakfast today. He was curled up on my lap, having just come in from his early-morning constitutional. He does, however, like to keep up with important world events, so he must have had one eye open. Then I clicked the link to this story. Have you ever heard a cat laugh out loud? Nearly made me choke on my cornflakes.

"What's the matter?" I asked, milk dribbling down my chin.

"You humans," he said, "are the funniest creatures."

"Why do you say that?"

"Marrying two monkeys in a Hindu ceremony!" Exclaimed Muhammad.

"What's wrong with that? - Perfectly reasonable."

"Well, everyone knows monkeys are Buddhists!" Replied Muhammad, giving me a sly look.

"Are they?" I asked.

Muhammad rolled over, giggling. For some reason, I sensed he was teasing me.

"You're having me on." I said.

Muhammad let out an exasperated sigh. "You humans," he said, "will never make anything of yourselves while you behave like this."

"You mean, marrying two monkeys is silly?"

Muhammad licked his tail thoughtfully. "Well," he said, "I suppose there could be some business in it for you." He purred.

My eyes lit up. "You're right." I said. "When they divorce!"

Read More...

After comparing notes on our new beards, I enjoyed another interview with Charon QC this morning, this time discussing the furore surrounding the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments upon Sharia law, and the McCartney/Mills divorce settlement, due for hearing this week. The podcast can be found here.

For an insight into the daunting task that Heather Mills is potentially facing representing herself, see this excellent post by Marilyn Stowe.

Read More...

Jacqui Gilliatt on the Family Law Week blog puts the asinine spoutings of the Archbishop of Canterbury into perspective when she quotes an American commentator: "What do you expect from someone that believes in a giant invisible being that lives in the sky, knows everything, created everything, and talks to humans in their language. Give me a break." Wise words. If you should come across anyone suffering from the same sort of delusion as Rowan Williams, refer them to The God Faq, which contains all the information they require.

Read More...

Oh dear. I see that the Archbishop of Canterbury has weighed in to the debate on Sharia law, and is suggesting that adopting parts of Sharia law, such as dealing with marital disputes, could 'help social cohesion'. He states that it's "a bit of a danger" to say that "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts". Sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Its logical conclusion would mean that you should be able to pick and choose what decisions of the court to respect, based upon your 'loyalty or allegiance' and, ultimately, that all 'loyalties and allegiances' must be adopted by the legal system. After all, we can't discriminate against some belief systems but not others - if we did, what would the Pastafarians have to say about it?[For another view of Rowan Williams and his ideas, see this post at Head of Legal.]

Read More...

In the comments to this post I discussed the Jewish form of divorce, the 'Get', and its special status in English law (something that has not escaped the notice of the Islamic community). I explained that the Get does not replace a civil divorce (which is still required to legally dissolve the marriage) and said:

The Get is only needed so that the divorce is recognised by the Jewish community. Without a Get any sexual relationship by the wife with another man will be regarded as adultery under Jewish law, even if she has a civil divorce. Further, if the wife conceives a child by another man then that child and all its descendants will be a 'mamzer' (i.e. religiously illegitimate) for all time, and will not normally be able to marry another Jew. The only special status that the Get has in English law is that one party (normally the wife) can apply to the court for the decree absolute to be stayed until the court is satisfied that the marriage is also dissolved in accordance with Jewish law.

I've been giving this further thought, and it seriously concerns me that a religious form of divorce has been given special status under English law. I can see the rationale - to ensure that the wife is not seriously disadvantaged within her own community - but isn't this approaching the problem from the wrong angle? Surely, instead of kowtowing to the sort of religious nonsense set out above, the law should prevent discrimination against anyone on the basis of whether or not they (or, worse still, their parents) have been through a process that has no basis in the law of the land?

Read More...

I have just watched Divorce Sharia Style on Channel 4, the programme referred to in the Telegraph article mentioned in this post.

The programme emphasised that many of the people who use Sharia courts in this country seek clarification from the residing sheiks as to what is Islamic Law and what is 'merely' culture. There certainly seems a lot of confusion amongst the Muslim community as to where the dividing line lies. The problem, of course, is that the sheiks have to interpret Islamic Law. Now, this isn't the same as a judge interpreting the law of the land. A judge has a set of rules set out specifically to codify the laws, whereas religious laws are gathered from religious texts dating from antiquity, and are notoriously subject to conflicting interpretations. To suggest that such a system should be used in a modern democracy is utter nonsense.

I don't want to comment upon the specifics of Sharia Law, as that has been done elsewhere, although I did notice with concern that in 'extreme cases' three sheiks have the power to dissolve a marriage without even hearing from the other party.

What concerns me most of all though is whether there is a thinly hidden agenda in the calls for Sharia Law to be adopted in this country. Its proponents talk of 'making the government's burden lighter' and turning this country into a 'haven of peace', but go on to threaten that we will need even more prisons if Sharia, with its strict rules and punishments such as flogging, stoning and amputation, is not accepted. If that prospect were not abhorrent enough, one of the sheiks featured in the programme has been secretly filmed declaring that Sharia will turn this country into a Muslim state, which will then launch jihad against the 'infidels', or unbelievers. Hardly any reasonable person's idea of a 'haven of peace'.

Read More...

Further to my post on Monday, if anyone is still in any doubt about whether adopting sharia law in this country is a good idea, consider the Saudi case of Fatima and Mansour al-Timani.

The couple were married after Mansour had obtained Fatima's father's permission to marry her, in accordance with Saudi tradition. They have since had two children. However, a few months after the wedding several of Fatima's relatives persuaded her father to give them power of attorney to apply for the marriage to be annulled on the grounds that she had married beneath her, thereby lowering the extended family's status. The marriage was subsequently annulled in absentia. The couple, aware that they could no longer live together under Saudi Arabia's strict segregation rules, fled from Riyadh to the western seaside city of Jeddah, where they hoped to live in anonymity. However, the police found them and they were imprisoned for living together illegally. An appeal by Mansour against the annulment was rejected by the court and the couple remain apart. Fatima is said now to be considering suicide.

Read More...

For the last couple of days I've been resisting the temptation to post about this article that appeared in the Telegraph on Saturday (since updated), but it seems that everywhere I look I am reminded of it - I even got an email from MBL Seminars this morning advertising, inter alia, a seminar entitled 'Islamic Family Law - The Practicalities'! So, now I can resist the temptation no longer.

I have posted previously about sharia law. As I said there: "Increased use of Sharia law is bound to give rise to calls for its decisions to be recognised by English law - something which is obviously wrong, but which may be increasingly difficult to resist, especially in these politically correct times." Well, it seems my little prediction is coming true. According to the article, the number of British Muslims using sharia courts is increasing, and now we are getting calls for sharia to be given legal authority.

I do not intend to go through the reasons why we should not adopt sharia law in this country, whether for divorce or anything else, as they should be self evident to any reasonable person. Even if it were accepted to be a perfectly fair system, which it patently is not, you obviously cannot have two different systems of law working alongside one another.

By way of example of the problems that could ensue, take the following scenario. A Muslim woman wants to divorce. She wants to use the English divorce system, as she knows that she will achieve a more favourable settlement. However, her Muslim husband has already instigated a divorce under sharia law (perhaps by text message). If sharia law has legal force then presumably she must submit to it, unless she renounces Islam. However, one of the particularly nasty features of the Islamic form of religious delusion is its treatment of apostates. As the article mentions, even in Britain 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that a Muslim who converted to another religion (or, presumably, simply renounces Islam) should be "punished by death". Would she risk her life just to obtain a better financial settlement?

Read More...

Following on perfectly from my last post, the Telegraph reports today that Baroness Royall has hinted that the Government may revive proposals to give fertility clinics the power to produce foetuses from cells other than eggs and sperm, which could create children with no biological father. I'm normally in favour of the use of scientific advances in this field, but I have to say that I have serious reservations about denying a child a biological father. Isn't it basic that a child should have a mother and a father, or am I just being old-fashioned?

[Thanks to Current Awareness for the link to the Telegraph story.]

Read More...

Today we celebrate the birthday of one of history's truly great men, a man who changed forever the way we view our universe. So, join with me and celebrate the birthday of...

...Sir Isaac Newton!

[With thanks to Richard Dawkins, the New Statesman, RichardDawkins.net and Head of Legal, in that order!]

Read More...

Nutter.

***

Blair: Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I took my country to war on a completely false premise.
Priest: Never mind my son, a couple of Hail Marys will sort that out.

Etc.

Read More...

Here's another piece of unnecessary suffering caused by religion. In India, Hinduism frowns on widows remarrying, with the result that "a woman can quickly lose her dignity, even her basic rights, when she loses her husband". Many find themselves destitute, relying on charity or even begging and many "are dumped by their relatives in religious towns". India has an astonishing 33 million widows, some of whom are very young. The Indian government has outlined plans to help them, but it seems to me that the best solution to the problem would be to outlaw this appalling religious discrimination, although I realise that such nonsense can be so deeply ingrained in the minds of those who know no better (encouraged by religious leaders with a vested interest in perpetuating it) that this is easier said than done.

Read More...

I was horrified to read this article in last Sunday's Observer, which I found via RichardDawkins.net. I was already aware of the appalling 'Creation Museum' in Kentucky, USA, where you can see such nonsense as scenes depicting prehistoric children playing alongside dinosaurs, but I hoped we would never see the like in England. Well, it seems that the AH Trust have other ideas. They want to build a 'Christian Theme Park' and television studio in Lancashire that "will champion the book of Genesis and make a multi-media case that God created the world in seven days".

Look, if you don't believe in the theory of evolution that's fine, but to teach children to believe myths such as that the world was created 6000 years ago in seven (or even six) days is just plain wrong. To teach them to believe in any theory for which there is no evidence, such as creationism, is also wrong. Fine, tell them about these stories, even tell them that some people believe they are true, but don't tell them that they are true. Don't also tell them, as the AH Trust does on their website, that evolution is a 'falsehood', when it supported by such an enormous body of evidence. On the other hand, please do teach them to be critical when considering any theory - and that certainly includes the theory of evolution.

OK, rant over. To end this post on a lighter note, I was amused when I read that the AH Trust "believe that this unique project will influence an end to binge drinking" in our young people. Yes, I can really see our youth giving up drink to stay at home and watch a bit of Christian TV!

[For a superb report upon the Creation Museum, and the delights that may soon be available to Lancastrians, see here.]

Read More...