An Open Letter

I recently received the following letter from the head of education at the British Humanist Association. It speaks for itself, but I'm more than happy to respond to it... enjoy:

  

Dear Sir

Thank you for attending our school speakers training event in Cardiff and for completing the post-course task.

I am writing to say that, with regret, we will not be accrediting you as a BHA School Speaker.

It is of vital importance to the BHA that we are completely confident that our school speakers understand that their role in schools is to raise young people's awareness and understanding of Humanism, and that they are not there to be critical of religion. This is essential to ensure we are invited back for repeat visits and therefore for the success of the programme.

On the training course, some of the things you said made us worried that you may on occasions feel a temptation to be critical of religions or religious beliefs and that this might occasionally override the need to show respect. It was felt by myself and a number of other people on the course that occasionally your tone crossed from respectful disagreement to less tolerant criticism, a tone that could prove unhelpful in the school environment and the situations our speakers often find themselves in. I hope you do not feel this is a criticism of your views; it is simply that we need to be 100% sure that all our speakers present an appropriate message in the classroom.

We have therefore decided not to accredit you.

We appreciate your commitment to Humanism and there are many other ways in which you can support us, which we hope you will investigate on our website.

If you would like to talk about this in more detail on the phone, I would be happy to speak to you.

Kind regards

Luke Donnellan

Head of Education, British Humanist Association

I'm going to point out to start with that I'm in no way bothered about not being offered accreditation. Accreditation by the BHA is not a statutory requirement for speaking about Humanism in schools. It merely adds an additional layer of credibility and authority, and ensures that there is a forum for the school to report on the conduct of the speaker, and content of the talk given to the children. During the course my enthusiasm for the project was destroyed, by another course attendee, who pointed out the near impossibility of getting SACRE* groups to agree to schools booking Humanist speakers. I wonder which is of more importance in this context... a person occasionally making comments against established religious ideas, or someone utterly undermining the entire project with tales of being blocked and blacklisted by the SACRE he actually belongs to?

I do have antitheistic views. That much is obvious to anyone who meets me, however, this letter directly attacks my professionalism and that is something I will not allow to go unchallenged. Nobody on the course knew me well enough to judge my approach to Humanism, or have any knowledge at all of my ability to address the subject under different conditions. 

The course was attended by a fairly substantial group, including the leader of the Swansea Humanists, and its Secretary, and the Director of the Wales Humanists (WH), a group which has just over 600 members... about 200 fewer people than who follow me on Twitter!

Another person in attendance, who is a teacher and member of the board of the WH and an ex-girlfriend of mine who visibly turned sour-faced when she realised who I was. I have no doubt that her hatred of me, spanning almost two decades, drove her to poison the well and speak ill of me (not putting lies out of the picture you understand); imagining that this wasn't a significant occurrence is a little naïve. 

I wonder how you get from seeing how a person behaves in a room full of his peers, and many much older, to translating that into how a person, who is a school governor and PTA treasurer, would act in a school? I have teachers in my family, and I know that talk in the staff room is often highly critical of parents and students, yet somehow that never seems to spill out past the staff room door. Why? Could it be that teachers are professional educators who can put their personal views to one side as and when required? Just like me!

Luke Donnelly is an ex-headmaster. He of all people should appreciate that educators are able to compartmentalise their private views away from the set spiel they deliver in the classroom, to remain 'on message'. I was an actor for almost 25 years. If anyone can play the part of the perfect Humanist school visitor, it's me.

Whether Luke reads this or not, I don't care. I'm busy with my new projects, like the Llanelli Humanists, which is an online group for the moment. It is intentionally independent, because we feel that the BHA and National Secular Society are just talking-shops in Wales, with very little presence. There are no billboards, bus posters, leaflets, wall posters, TV or radio adverts explaining what Humanism is, or what it means to be a part of a group. Everyone I've ever spoken to, outside of the movement, has asked me to explain what Humanism is... Oh, and in doing so, I've NEVER denigrated any other religions! I don't need to, because I'm explaining what something is, not comparing it to other beliefs. There is a difference that I recognise, because I'm not the blithering idiot Luke seems to think I am!

The loss is the BHA's not mine. Schools aren't going to be welcoming in strangers to talk about Humanism, when the SACREs just instruct them to send their RE teachers on courses which they direct and script. Not in this decade, or the next! The money invested in this project would be better spent addressing the need for educating parents about their rights to withdraw their children from Collective Worship, and raising the profile of WH. You can teach the kids all you want, but the legal power to remove children from the indoctrination process rests with the parents. It is they who urgently need to learn about Humanism. 

"Ad homs" and why they don't matter

We're all painfully aware of the theists' black and white attitudes to morality (however twisted) and the way they insist that a person's character somehow dictates the veracity of their arguments about the (non) existence of a god, or gods. This is known as an ad hominem fallacy and it roughly translates as "you're a bad person and so you know sod all" or "I don't have to listen to you because you say things I think are immoral... lalalala talk to the hand!"

Luckily we're also quite aware of the old saying "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me." Well, at least I hope we all are. Otherwise I might be talking to a few precious souls who think that insults and swearing matter. They don't. Get over yourself already!

This is the problem we have. Recently someone on the atheist side of the fence was tagged as being a racist, or sexist, or both, I wasn't really paying attention, and so his arguments were deemed null and void on the theist side. A classic ad hominem fallacy. We've all said things in the past which we regret, and I suspect that if half the stuff we think were to be broadcast we'd all be in the mire up to our necks, or personae non grata within our own communities. Such is the way of things. None of us are completely free of bias, or prejudice in our daily lives. How else do you size someone up?

Hopefully most of us are completely accepting of the big things, like LGBT rights, anti-racism, anti-bullying, anti-bigotry etc, and write off swearing at the moron who cut us up on the dual-carriageway as a blip in an otherwise flawless personality. But, would it matter a bit to the argument for God's existence if I were a racist arsehole? If I thought that the evidence for God's existence is insubstantial and therefore unproven, which it is, would being a "nigger-hater"* matter a jot as far as the debate goes?

No. Emphatically NO!

You see, it's time we stopped worrying about what people on the side of irrationality and nonsense think of us. They're not thinking clearly. Remember. They think a god exists. They're not being honest with themselves, so why would we consider what they think of us to be relevant?

What matters is the honesty of the discussion, not who's having it. Remember that according to legend, Socrates was convicted of a crime for which he received a death sentence, but nobody is writing off the Socratic Method of questioning as a dud are they?

Frankly the theists can say what they like about me. In fact I encourage them to defame me as much as they like. Perhaps they'll come up with something I've not heard from anyone else before... I doubt they'll come close to anything I've said of myself.

Our call to them should be a simple one... say whatever you want about us, as long as you're honest in the debate and everything will eventually work out.

As long as we remember to not make the same mistakes they do and try to avoid calling them names, or writing off their arguments as invalid just because they are paying money to institutions which may actively promote science denial, child abuse, abuse of civil and women's rights and hatred of gays.




*a hypothetical argument