DARTH VADER. Spot members of the Rebel Alliance by putting a question on religious affiliation in your next Imperial census. /via @mothmun
Education about beliefs "vital" for a plural society
A senior educationist has said that good quality teaching about the religions and beliefs is vital for the development of shared understandings and positive citizenship practices in a plural society.
Writing for the beliefs and values thinktank Ekklesia, Robert Jackson, who is Professor of Education at the University of Warwick and Director of Warwick Religions and Education Research Unit, says that "peaceful coexistence depends on knowledge about each other's religions and worldviews and sharing common interests as well as doing things together."
He was responding to the debate about 'multiculturalism' sparked last month by the Prime Minister.
David Cameron needs to give more attention to the views of young people, to the positive contribution religions and cultures can make to the community, and to the need for "an intellectually challenging forum in the school" on belief issues "taught by well-trained teachers", says Professor Jackson.
Referring to the findings of the European Commission Project on Religion, Education, Dialogue and Conflict (REDCo) among 14-16 year olds across eight countries, Professor Jackson points out that "students who learn about religious diversity in school are more willing to have conversations about religions/beliefs with students of other backgrounds than those who do not."
The research shows that pupils "do not want to be told what to believe... [but] they want teachers to combine expertise in the study of religions and social and cultural issues with expertise as facilitators of discussion and exchange," he explains.
Both the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have called for teaching about religions and beliefs as a fundamental part of promoting inter-cultural understanding.
But Professor Jackson says that the government is not demonstrating serious intent in this area. Teacher training numbers for religious education have been reduced by 50 per cent for 2012, training courses are closing, and RE is not being considered as an exam subject in relation to the proposed English baccalaureate - downgrading the intellectual rigour required.
Simon Barrow, co-director of Ekklesia, commented: "Literacy in the religious and non-religious worldviews shaping our world, and influencing the relations between people and culture, is crucial to promoting peaceful co-existence in a mixed society - not least among the young. Bigotry and violent extremism breed on isolation and ignorance."
He added: "Tub-thumping about 'British values' is not the way forward. We need practical steps to ensure that a dialogical, critical approach to religion and belief becomes a properly resourced and scrutinised part of the national curriculum - as educationists from a variety of backgrounds have been arguing for some time."
Thinking the unthinkable - why Asian leader spoke out on immigration
Immigrants, eh? Coming over here, taking our jobs... it's time the Government did something. That was the general gist. It's hardly newsworthy now; the kind of opinion you can hear being bandied across pub tables every night of the week.
Sometimes, though, it's not what's been said, but who has said it.You don't expect a banker to have a go at bonuses and you don't expect an Asian community leader to question the wisdom of Britain's immigration policy.
Yet last week, in the pages of this newspaper, Suleman Nagdi – spokesman for the Federation of Muslim Organisations, chairman of the Muslim Burial Council, Deputy Lieutenant of Leicestershire, MBE – did just that.
It felt like a watershed moment; an immigrant – Mr Nagdi arrived in Britain in 1976 – calling for tighter immigration controls.
To some, it was an example of towering hypocrisy; an ill-judged comment by someone who should know better, that could only blow wind into the sails of the far-right.
"People have said, 'It's okay for Suleman. He's here, he's got himself a good life. Now he wants to stop other people doing it'," says Mr Nagdi.
"The other side of it is, 'I agree with you. We don't have the resources here at this moment to deal with these people'."
Mr Nagdi made his original remarks after being asked to comment on a survey which found 39 per cent of British Asians – compared with 34 per cent of whites and 21 per cent of blacks – wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently.
Those figures were greeted with raised eyebrows, but they weren't altogether surprising, says John Benyon, a professor of political studies at the University of Leicester.
We tie the label "immigrant" to all new arrivals.
Yet what do Somali refugees have in common with Eastern Europeans or Indians who came here from Uganda and Kenya in the 1970s?
The answer, Prof Benyon points out, is not a great deal – beyond the desire to build themselves better lives.
He says: "A lot of generalisations about immigrants are made without any attempt to distinguish between the different motivations of people for wanting to come here. Some are economic migrants, some come here for security."
Mr Nagdi finesses his comments of last week, but he doesn't row back from them.
Mukesh Naker, a spokesman for Leicester pressure group British Hindu Voice, said similar things in that story. He, though, has not responded to our requests for an interview.
So, fair play to Mr Nagdi.
"I'm just being practical," he says. "Look at the situation we now find ourselves in. We are in the grip of a worldwide economic recession.
More people are losing their jobs.
"We need to look at the demands made on housing and education.
There are far-reaching consequences if you have large numbers of people coming in.
"I'm not talking about a total ban on immigration. I'm talking about more control over immigration."
The far-right is always looking to scapegoat certain groups for social and economic problems, he argues. If we don't take the issue of immigration seriously, then we run the risk of playing into their hands.
It's a point, but does the Leicester of today look so very different to one Mr Nagdi moved into in the 1970s?
We had a three-day week back then, an oil crisis, a recession and the National Front were on the march.
Yet Mr Nagdi, like so many others who had little luggage and a lot of ambition, made a go of things. He worked hard, he set up his own business and, along with many others, he helped reinvigorate this city's spluttering economy.
"There are some major success stories relating to minority communities," says Mr Nagdi, seemingly trampling on his own argument. "If you look at Leicester, some of the richest people in this city are from minority communities. They have contributed to the wealth of this city."
The Asian immigrant success story has been told so often it teeters on the brink of cliche.
Manjula Sood, Leicester's first Indian lady mayor and first woman chairman of the city's council of faiths, came to Leicester on December 18, 1970.
Home, back in India, had been a 25-room house with servants. She swapped that for a one-bedroom place in Highfields with no carpets or central heating.
Manjula wanted to go back to India, but her grandfather told her to stick it out with her new husband. She did, and the rest, as they say, is history.
"This city gave me the support to bring up my children and live with dignity," says Manjula.
It is a debt Manjula has undoubtedly paid back with interest – just as today's new arrivals will do, she believes.
When Manjula sees Eastern Europeans cleaning cars, opening shops and working on building sites for the minimum wage, she sees the same determination to succeed she saw in Indian immigrants 30 and 40 years ago.
Lazy people don't cross continents. If someone leaves their country, they do it because they want to build themselves a better life.
Given time, they too will be part of Leicester's establishment, says Manjula. You can't pull the shutters down on immigration. Try to do that and society stagnates.
That's not to say she doesn't understand people's concerns, particularly in the Indian community.
People mortgaged their lives to buy into the British dream, and now, they can see it evaporating before their eyes.
Is it any wonder if people have concerns about new arrivals, she asks. The recent English Defence League rally brought back unhappy memories for lots of people.
There is a fear that minority communities could bear the brunt of any backlash if immigration concerns are not addressed.
"I can stand on a rooftop saying I'm British, but others don't see me as that. It's not what I say, it's what others think," says Mr Nagdi.
There is a fear in the Asian community, says Manjula, that they "could be the first targeted if anything goes wrong".
"Go into the communities and you will find this is the talk at the moment."
Such concerns are perfectly understandable, says Prof Benyon. People who come to a country for a better life are often less likely to take that life for granted.
There is another factor at work, too, he says.
"Immigrants are often fiercely proud and loyal of their new country, much more so sometimes than people who have been here for generations," says Prof Benyon.
As far as Mr Nagdi is concerned, he's not saying the unsayable. We have to talk about such things, he believes.
"Immigration is a debate we all should be having," he says. "I'm the first one to say I don't have all the answers.
"If you had asked me about this 20 years ago, my answer may have been different. I think more about being a British citizen than an Asian citizen. My focus has changed."
A Jain family lives in the UK and has a toddler in the house. Their household is infested with pests - mice in paticular, which can be dangerous for the baby. What should the famiy do? How do they get rid of the mice? Would it be any different if there ws no baby in the house or if it was infested with ants rather than mice?
Since Jains believe in reincarnation and the transimgration of souls, you might be killing your grandmother if you were to kill the mice; or in the next life, it might be you going into that mousetrap.
One should do one's best to do the right thing, but still one has to be pragmatic.
Some present describe how they've dealt with similar problems and consider how what they did might match up to the demands of Jainism.
Even the idea of moving away and leaving the problem to the next occupiers of the house would not be in accord with the law of ahimsa, since all you'd be doing would be to pass on responsibility to others for the harm that will be done.
There's some discussion about the relative worth of different kinds of life - for example, the need from other cultural and spiritual perspectives to eradicate disease and eliminate bacteria, viruses etc. there's no time to go into that tonight, but the potential for longer and deeper discussion is recognised.
The most extreme form of the question immediatly above arose in one of the groups where it was mentioned that a scientist had recently published a paper claiming to have identified fossil microbes in meteorites. NASA and other scientific and astronomical agencies are investigating this claim. If this were to be proved and it were to become commonly accepted that meteorites could carry this basic form of life around the solar system - and a large one was found to be on a collision course with Earth, would a firm Jain position prohibit us from attempting to avert this collision as it might destroy the microbes, while risking the death of countless creatures on earth, perhaps even risking human extinction?
Many Jains are known to work in medicine; how does ahimsa impinge upon following that sort of career or study path? Would a Jain doctor, nurse or consultant seek to work in a particular field that doesn't involve the destruction of other organisms in order to improve the health of patients?
As a closing note, Smita tells us that the sincerity of penitence for having to do harm to other creatures in a situation like this has, of itself, led to the liberation and enlightenment of individuals, through ego-less empathy with the suffering of another creature.
Mordecai Richler, the Canadian novelist who died 10 years ago at the age of 70, worked for many years in Britain writing screenplays and contributing to our literary life. He wrote a series of hilarious, partly autobiographical novels about Montreal's Jewish community, two of which – The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz and Joshua Then and Now – he adapted for the cinema. His books are quite close to those of the Canadian-born Saul Bellow, though funnier and less self-regarding; the last one, the characteristically sprawling Barney's Version, has now been filmed with a wonderful central performance from Paul Giamatti.
He plays Barney Panofsky (Richler probably borrowed the surname from Erwin Panofsky, the art historian who pioneered the study of iconography), a Montreal entrepreneur who starts out in the 1970s supporting his bohemian friends in Rome as a dealer in olive oil before returning home to work as a Jewish fundraiser and the producer of a popular but terrible TV series through his company Totally Unnecessary Productions. Along the way, he has three failed marriages to very different Jewish women, though the third one is extremely happy until he manages through his drinking to screw everything up.
It's an immensely engaging picture about a flawed mensch, with strong supporting performances from, among others, Dustin Hoffman as Barney's father, and walk-on roles for Canadian film‑makers David Cronenberg, Denys Arcand and Atom Egoyan.
Leicester Secular Society refuses to leave God out of campaign
By Peter Reeve
Leicester Secular Society today vowed to continue its poster campaign on census responses to religion – despite warnings the wording could be offensive.
Buses in Leicester have been carrying the society's posters with the slogan: "If you're not religious, for God's sake say so."
The society wants non-believers to tick the "no religion" box on this year's census.
But the British Humanist Association (BHA), which had planned to use the same slogan for a national poster campaign, said it had been forced to change the wording.
It was told by the Committee of Advertising Practice that the original wording had the potential to cause widespread and serious offence.
As a result, the British Humanist Society posters – which will be displayed on more than 200 buses in London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham, Cardiff and Exeter – will now carry the slogan: "Not religious? In this year's census, say so."
Dr Emma Chung, president of the Leicester Secular Society, said they would be continuing with their poster campaign, despite the CAP's recommendation.
The society also intends handing out British Humanist Society leaflets with the original "for God's sake" slogan on them.
Dr Chung said: "Buses in Leicester have been carrying these ads for nearly two weeks with no complaints from the public.
"Our advertisements are intended to be a humorous way of drawing people's attention to a serious issue.
"Leicester has a well-earned reputation for tolerance and I am sure that apart from a few zealots, the majority of religious people have a sense of humour."
Dr Chung says that during the 2001 census, many people felt compelled to answer "Christian" when it came to their religious belief, either out of habit or because they felt they ought to.
But she says doing so leads to inaccurate figures, which are then used to justify policies that "do not reflect the real demographics of our society".
Andrew Copson, BHA chief executive, said: "This censorship of a legitimate advert is frustrating and ridiculous.
"The blasphemy laws in England have been abolished but we are seeing the same principle being enforced nonetheless."
But the CAP insisted it had not banned the British Humanist Association from using the "for God's sake" slogan, merely given it advice.
A spokesman said: "Leicester Secular Society, just like the British Humanist Association, are not duty-bound to take our advice.
"We may or may not investigate if we get any complaints about Leicester Secular Society's poster campaign, but at this stage we have not received any complaints."
The British Humanist Association is a national charity which champions atheists and agnostics.
Its work is based on improving human welfare, happiness and fulfilment.
The National Secular Society is a pressure group which fights for the rights of atheists and agnostics.
Humanist census posters banned from railway stations
The posters, which encourage people to tick the "No religion" box if they do not believe in God, were judged too likely to offend
By Alan Travis
Three posters appealing to people who are not religious to declare themselves as such in this year's census have been banned from appearing in railway stations.
The posters, bearing the slogan "If you're not religious, for God's sake say so", have been refused by the companies that own the advertising space, which say they are likely to cause offence.
The British Humanist Association (BHA), which published the posters, said it was astonished that such an everyday phrase should be deemed too contentious for public display. "It is a little tongue-in-cheek," said the BHA chief executive, Andrew Copson, "but in the same way that saying 'bless you' has no religious implication for many, 'for God's sake' is used to express urgency and not to invoke a deity.
"This censorship of a legitimate advert is frustrating and ridiculous: the blasphemy laws in England have been abolished but we are seeing the same principle being enforced nonetheless."
The posters ask those who are not religious to tick the "no religion" box when they fill in forms for the 2011 census.
"We used to tick 'Christian' but we're not really religious. We'll tick 'No Religion' this time. We're sick of hearing politicians say this is a religious country and giving millions to religious organisations and the pope's state visit. Money like that should go where it is needed," says one of the banned posters.
The ban followed advice from the Advertising Standards Authority's committee of advertising practice that the advert had the potential to cause widespread and serious offence.
The poster display company involved also said it did not want to take adverts relating to religion.
The British Humanist Association has amended the campaign slogan on the adverts to read simply: "Not religious? In this year's census say so." The posters are being displayed from this weekend on 200 buses in London, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham, Cardiff and Exeter.
The Humanist Association says that those who profess to have no religion rose from 31% in 1983 to 51% in 2009 and believes that many who ticked "Christian" in the 2001 census did so for cultural rather than religious reasons.
The organisation argues that unless this year's census gives a more accurate picture of the non-religious population, the data will be used to justify increased state-funding for faith schools and other religious organisations.
The Advertising Standards Authority says that in 2009 the Christian Party's "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life" became the most complained-about non-broadcast ad ever, attracting 1,204 complaints. The ad was a riposte to the British Humanist Association's "There is probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life", which attracted 391 complaints.
