Archive for July, 2009

Swine Flu and Global Religion: Changing the Way People Worship

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Fox:-

Most seek solace in religion, but fears of swine flu are limiting contact between clergy, parishioners and canceling out some religious rites and ceremonies all together.

Soon after the H1N1 swine flu pandemic started in the spring, many U.S. Christian churches announced they would no longer require parishioners to share the “sign of peace,” which involves shaking hands with one another, nor would they offer the shared cup of wine at Masses, symbolizing the blood of Christ.

A similar movement has started overseas.

In London, Anglican priests have suspended the practice of giving wine during communion and are avoiding placing the wafer — symbolizing the body of Christ — on the tongues of worshippers. The idea is not just to stop the virus locally, but globally.

“In developing countries where people aren’t use to the flu virus this is really serious. And so by preventing the spread here we may be assisting developing countries to prevent the spread there,” said the Very Rev. Colin Slee Dean, an Anglican priest based in London.

About 100,000 people across the U.K. have been infected with swine flu.

The Muslim community is also trying to raise awareness of swine flu. Health officials in Saudi Arabia, for example, have suggested the sick and elderly avoid traveling to the Hajj this year.

In Israel, some Orthodox Jews have broken with tradition and are no longer drinking from the same glass of wine.

Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization say the worst is yet to come, some health experts believe the virus might not be as devastating as once feared.

“This time, with this virus … the swine H1N1 virus, I don’t think it’s going to go into the community and kill like the previous ones have, said Professor John Oxford, a virologist with Queen Mary College in the U.K.

Vatican concerns about how some recent decisions of the U.S. Episcopal Church will impact the search for full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity are echoed in a reflection by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Anglican leader’s concern for unity reflects Vatican concerns

By Cindy Wooden

Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Vatican concerns about how some recent decisions of the U.S. Episcopal Church will impact the search for full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity are echoed in a reflection by Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion.

Writing July 27 about the Episcopal Church’s recent general convention, Archbishop Williams repeatedly referred to the need to keep in mind the ecumenical implications of local church decisions in addition to their impact on the unity of the Anglican Communion as a whole.

In a statement July 29, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity noted Archbishop Williams’ concern for maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion through common faith and practice based on Scripture and tradition.

The Vatican office “supports the archbishop in his desire to strengthen these bonds of communion, and to articulate more fully the relationship between the local and the universal within the church,” the statement said.

“It is our prayer that the Anglican Communion, even in this difficult situation, may find a way to maintain its unity and its witness to Christ as a worldwide communion,” it added.

The Episcopal Church’s general convention adopted two resolutions that may further strain relations within the Anglican Communion and with the Catholic Church: One affirmed that all ordained ministries, including the office of bishop, are open to all the baptized, including gays and lesbians; the other called for the collection and development of theological resources for the blessing of same-sex unions.

Last year the Lambeth Conference, a gathering of leaders from around the Anglican Communion, strongly urged all members of the communion to respect moratoriums on ordaining openly gay bishops and on blessing same-sex unions.

After their general convention, the leaders of the Episcopal Church wrote to Archbishop Williams, saying that their resolutions do not signal the end of the moratoriums, but rather describe the position of the U.S. church.

Pope Benedict XVI and his top ecumenical officer have said the Episcopal Church’s position on homosexuality and its ordination of women as priests and bishops make full Anglican-Roman Catholic unity appear impossible.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, told the Lambeth Conference last year that what is at stake “is nothing other than our faithfulness to Christ himself.”

While recognizing the Episcopalians’ desire to respond to what they see as a pastoral need, he said the Catholic Church is convinced that its teaching that homosexual activity is sinful “is well-founded in the Old and in the New Testament” as well as in Christian tradition.

And, the cardinal said, the Catholic Church also believes the fact that Christ chose only men to be his apostles means the church is not authorized to ordain women.

Responding to challenges posed by modern sensitivities requires solutions that are clearly in line with the teaching of the Gospel and of Christian tradition, recognized not only by Roman Catholics, but also by the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, Cardinal Kasper had said.

In his reflection July 27, Archbishop Williams said the Anglican Communion clearly opposes prejudice against homosexual people and denounces any attempt to limit their civil liberties.

But, the archbishop said, “if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the church to change its discipline.”

“In the light of the way in which the church has consistently read the Bible for the last 2,000 years,” he said, any major change in church practice must have “a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding,” as well as take into account “the teachings of ecumenical partners.”

Recognizing the authority of and particular circumstances faced by local churches, the archbishop still insisted that a local church needs “some way of including in its discernment the judgment of the wider church. Without this, it risks becoming unrecognizable to other local churches, pressing ahead with changes that render it strange to Christian sisters and brothers across the globe.”

Accepting major changes to church discipline and practice without the consensus of the entire communion, he said, “would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent ‘community of Christian communities.’”

Archbishop Williams’ reflection theorized that the future of the Anglican Communion may involve two styles of relationships: one that fully shares “a vision of how the church should be and behave,” and another less formal style of associated churches that work together in areas of common agreement.

Anglican Communion representatives to ecumenical and interfaith dialogues would be drawn only from members who fully share the communion’s vision and teachings so that the Anglicans’ ecumenical partners would know who they are talking to at the dialogue meetings, he said.

New research (OneHope) released ahead of the United Nation’s International Youth Day revealed startling statistics about the world’s youth including their views on personal salvation, virginity and attempts to commit suicide

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

By Jennifer Riley

Wed, Jul. 29 2009 03:35 PM EDT

Ministry Reveals Disturbing Statistics on World’s Youth

New research released ahead of the United Nation’s International Youth Day revealed startling statistics about the world’s youth including their views on personal salvation, virginity and attempts to commit suicide.

OneHope, a children-oriented Christian ministry, found that 91 percent of youths in Costa Rica say they do not believe they will go to heaven despite claiming to have accepted Jesus Christ.

In Spain, 74 percent of the youth say they do not want to be a virgin when they marry. And in Russia, 42 percent of the youth report having tried to commit suicide.

The above are only a few of the disturbing findings from OneHope’s comprehensive study that began in 2006. The ministry hopes the research will help organizations working with youths to more effectively customize their programs and materials to meet the needs of the children in their region.

“It isn’t enough to hear about the children in a community. To truly understand youth, we need to hear from them,” said OneHope president Rob Hoskins.

Since its founding in 1987, OneHope has tried to reach the world’s youth with the message of the Bible in a culturally sensitive way. The ministry, which this year changed its name from Book of Hope to OneHope, began its research project to find out why there is a lack of spiritual transformation in nations with high percentages of missionary activity and evangelical populations.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, OneHope noted how the Christian population is above 50 percent but many nationals continue to engage in idolatry while attending church.

“Our goal in providing this research free of charge is to allow others to benefit from its findings,” said Hoskins. “We hope this research helps other organizations to also become more effective in reaching the world’s children.”

Included in the research findings are insights on the daily lives of youths and their cultural beliefs regarding their relationships with families; behaviors and morals influencing their relationships with the opposite sex; social influences and future goals; and worldviews, beliefs and religious affiliations.

All the research findings have been made available for online to commemorate the 2009 U.N.-sanctioned International Youth Day. The findings can be viewed by country at no cost.

Though the research currently includes only 22 countries, OneHope plans to soon expand the number to 38 additional countries.

Since 1987, OneHope has worked with churches and ministries as well as the local governments and non-government organizations to reach some 600 million young people in 125 countries with the Bible through its Book of Hope publications and The GodMan animated film.

The organization changed its name from Book of Hope around March of this year “to better reflect its evolution in Bible delivery methods.”

In recent years, the ministry has expanded its delivery mechanisms to include video, web-based tools, text messaging and oral presentation strategies.

On the Web:

www.spiritualstateofthechildren.com

Head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia believes that the Orthodox civilization can make its contribution into the formation of a united Europe and the dialog between the East and the West should not be based barely on the principles of the western world

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Kyviv Post

Russian Patriarch: United Europe should accept Orthodox values

Head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia believes that the Orthodox civilization can make its contribution into the formation of a united Europe and the dialog between the East and the West should not be based barely on the principles of the western world.

“We – the people originating from the baptismal font of Kyiv have a great deal to say to the world. We have come through a unique experience. Nobody has had such an experience,” he said during a special program broadcast life on the Inter TV Channel on Tuesday night.

The primate of the Russian Orthodox Church believes that the orthodox civilization should participate in the dialog with the western world as an equal.

Patriarch Kirill expressed regret that the integration into Europe is currently driven not by spiritual but by material interests, the desire to “fill stomachs and pockets.”

He said that the Orthodox civilization project is not intended to be guided but to generate the ideas. “Which is currently happening,” the patriarch said.

The task of the Orthodox civilization is to make world-view challenges to others. “We have a potential for developing of a true dialog between the East and the west. Not the dialog of a horseman with a horse, but the dialog of equal partners. Only such a dialog will lead to the formation of a united Europe,” Kirill stressed.

Scientists are stunned to discover that a ten-year-old German girl’s brain has rewired itself to allow her to see out of one eye as though she has two, even though half of her brain tissue was entirely missing from birth

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

An argument against abortion for ‘defective’ babies?

By Hilary White

July 28, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Scientists are stunned to discover that a ten-year-old German girl’s brain has rewired itself to allow her to see out of one eye as though she has two, even though half of her brain tissue was entirely missing from birth. In a report published this week in the online version of the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Lars Muckli, a neuroscientist at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, said, “Despite lacking one hemisphere, she’s capable of living a normal life.”

The girl, called AH in the study, was born with only one cerebral hemisphere after the right side of her brain stopped developing at seven weeks gestation. She was also missing most of her right eye. Neurological researchers are astonished that an fMRI revealed her retinal ganglion-cells “changed their predetermined crossing pattern” and re-mapped in her brain to create nearly normal bi-scopic vision.

“The human cerebral cortex,” the report says, “contains continuous topographic
maps” that help the person process visual, auditory and other sensory information. “It is believed that these maps result from a self-organizing process that is supported by complex interactions between molecular cues and neuronal activity.” The fact that AH’s vision was nearly normal, “suggested a drastic reorganization” of her sensory or receptor neurons, “from the normal left eye to the intact left hemisphere.”

AH, described by the researchers as a “unique” case, lives a normal life, attending school with other children her own age and participating in sports. She has a history of seizures in early childhood and suffers only a slight weakness on her left side.

Dr. Muckli said, “This study has revealed the surprising flexibility of the brain when it comes to self-organising mechanisms for forming visual maps.

“The brain has amazing plasticity but we were quite astonished to see just how well the single hemisphere of the brain in this girl has adapted to compensate for the missing half.”

Muckli added, “Despite lacking one hemisphere, the girl has normal psychological function and is perfectly capable of living a normal and fulfilling life. She is witty, charming and intelligent.”

The discovery may help to rekindle a debate on eugenic abortion that was recently sparked by comments from US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who said that abortion could help eradicate unwanted sections of the population. “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” Ginsburg told Emily Bazelon of the New York Times.

Increasingly abortion, coupled with in-utero diagnosis, is being called into question by disability rights campaigners, who have criticised it as a deadly form of prenatal discrimination.

Most countries that allow abortion include permission to kill a child deemed to be defective in the womb. The legislation in the UK allows abortion “when there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.” In Britain, a diagnosis of possible “abnormalities” – such as those suffered by AH – means the child can be killed without a legal gestational time limit, up to the stage of full development.

“Two-fold” Anglican Church Envisioned, One in Favor of Homosexuality and One Christian: Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

By Hilary White

CANTERBURY, UK, July 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Suggesting a “two-track” model for the Anglican Church, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a statement released Monday that the crisis over the acceptance of homosexuality in the Global Communion could be resolved by acknowledging “two styles of being Anglican.” Williams was responding to the decision earlier this month by the US Episcopal Church to continue to ordain active homosexual clergy and bishops and “bless” same-sex partnerings.

In one “track,” said the archbishop, the mainstream of Anglicanism would continue to hold to Christian beliefs of sex and marriage, and the other could continue to support homosexuality as a legitimate “lifestyle choice.” This model, he said, could form “two ways of witnessing to the Anglican heritage.”

In a statement that has been blasted as a barefaced attempt to “paper over” the growing schism in his Church, Williams said that although there is no “consensus” in the Anglican Communion on homosexuality, for those “whose vision of the Communion is different, there is no threat of being cast into outer darkness.”

Nevertheless, Williams wrote, active homosexuals “should not be ordained priests, and especially not bishops.” A person living in “such a union” is in the same situation as a “heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond” whose “chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions.”

“So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle.”

Williams, the titular head of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, said, however, that there is “at least the possibility” of a “twofold ecclesial reality in view in the middle distance.” One would function as a fully “covenanted” body of the Anglican Communion and the other would exist in “less formal ways” and “with fewer formal expectations” but associated “in various kinds of mutual partnership” with the mainstream church.

While Williams praised ECUSA’s “eagerness” to maintain its ties to the Anglican Communion, he said that “a realistic assessment” of ECUSA’s decisions “does not suggest that it will repair the broken bridges into the life of other Anglican provinces.”

Other observers have been more blunt, saying that ECUSA’s recent decisions are the final straw for orthodox Anglican Christians.

The Rt. Rev. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, wrote to the Times of London saying that ECUSA’s vote makes a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion. “In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether,” he wrote.

“Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing,” Wright continued. “They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other ‘instruments of communion’ that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops.”

A well-connected Rome source reports that Forward in Faith, the umbrella group for conservative Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England, is talking to the Vatican about corporate union

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

ENGLAND: Forward in Faith ‘in talks with Vatican’

By Damian Thompson
The Telegraph
July 28th, 2009

A well-connected Rome source reports that Forward in Faith, the umbrella group for conservative Anglo-Catholics in the C of E, is talking to the Vatican about corporate union. Here’s the odd thing about the rumour: it claims that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna is meeting with Bishop John Broadhurst of Fulham at the suggestion of the Holy Father.

The model for the move to Rome could be the proposed reception of the Traditional Anglican Communion into the Catholic Church. But Broadhurst has very firmly denied that Forward in Faith is throwing in its lot with the TAC, a rebel Anglican group that has already submitted to the Magisterium.

Now, if there’s one thing I know about Bishop Broadhurst is that he’s a wily old fox. He blows hot and cold on the subject of Rome, perhaps because he was baptised a Roman Catholic. I’m sure he wouldn’t dream of joining the TAC in any shape or form – but he’ll be jolly interested in the details of any deal it does with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But why involve the Archbishop of Vienna, Count Christoph Maria Michael Hugo Damian Peter Adalbert von Schönborn? (OK, so he doesn’t use his aristocratic title, but what a cool name.) I don’t know. Perhaps it was just a suggestion that Vienna and Fulham should meet. But my source is close enough to high-level figures in the curia for me to be sure that there’s something significant going on.

As there should be. For crying out loud, there is no future at all for theologically literate Anglo-Catholic opponents of women bishops in the Church of England. Some of the gutless ones can stick their fingers in their ears and pretend not to hear the resounding, overwhelming support for women bishops coming from the Church’s ruling elite; they can build their own Wendy House “jurisdiction” that allows them to keep on claiming their stipend inside a liberal Protestant denomination.

The more honest ones face a simple choice: where do they go next? If they can’t stand Catholics, they can become Eastern Orthodox. They can found or join an independent20Anglican Church (there are hundreds out there). Or they can seek union with the See of Peter, reasonably confident that the power of the trad-hating RC “Magic Circle” is waning and that the Pope is on their side.

Camp faithless: Is Britain’s first atheist summer camp harmless fun or should we be worried?

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Mail By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 2:10 AM on 29th July 2009

You might have been forgiven for thinking the BBC was introducing a new presenter of one of its ‘yoof’ shows. Small, mousey-haired, personable Samantha Stein was given prominent airtime right across the BBC network yesterday to talk about a children’s summer camp with a difference that she has set up in Britain.

For Ms Stein has an axe – a very big one – to grind. She is an atheist who believes that traditional faith-based summer camps are bad for young minds. So she has set up her own version, where children are encouraged to reject traditional religious teachings.

Around Ms Stein, 23, was a scene redolent of a Scout or Guide camp. In a lush, green corner of Somerset, Army-style tents were scattered in a clearing among trees. In the middle, makeshift log benches surrounded the compulsory, rock-ringed camp fire where, in the evening, the flames would play a merry dance across the circle of young faces.

This is not a modern take on Swallows And Amazons. Kumbaya is not sung here and the closest there is to a game is Hunt The Unicorn, of which more later. No, here at Camp Quest the hymn of choice is John Lennon’s Imagine, with its opening line: ‘Imagine there’s no heaven.’

Welcome to Britain’s first atheist summer camp for children aged between eight and 17.

Camp Quest – which stands for ‘Question, Understand, Explore, Search and Test’ – is supported by some of Britain’s leading atheists. Not surprisingly, the nation’s most prominent unbeliever, Richard Dawkins, a former professor for the public understanding of science at Oxford University, is among them.

The organisers insist that the week-long course at the Mill on the Brue outdoor activity centre will encourage youngsters to develop an open mind and their own belief system.

But others fear that it is little more than an attempt to indocrinate children with atheist views, closing their minds to all forms of organised religion.

Billed as ‘the first residential summer camp for the children of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and all those who embrace a naturalistic rather than supernatural world view’, Camp Quest UK this week opened its tent flaps to 24 children.

With the motto ‘It’s Beyond belief’, its organisers hope to provide an alternative to traditional faith-based breaks, such as those run by the Scouts and local church groups. Parents are paying £275 for their children to attend the event.

And to help get it rolling, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science has made a donation of £500 to fund a ‘philosophy for children’ counsellor at the retreat.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, the atheists’ ‘bible’, says: ‘Camp Quest encourages children to think for themselves, sceptically and rationally. There is no indoctrination, just encouragement to be open-minded, while having fun.’

Ms Stein, the camp director, and new darling of the BBC, is more explicit. She says: ‘I think that people are possibly getting tired of the influence that religion has in society, possibly an unearned influence, and trying to come up with alternative things that will instil values that they want to transmit to their children.

‘We are not prepared to just be quiet and shut up. We want to have our own point of view and have something for our own children.’

Ms Stein is doing a Masters degree in religion and contemporary society at King’s College, London. Born and raised in Buckinghamshire, she is the daughter of a non-practising Lutheran mother and a father who is a non-practising Jew. As Stein explains it, she was raised to ‘make up my own mind’.

The Camp Quest concept originated in the U.S. and Stein first read about it in the footnotes of Dawkins’s book The God Delusion while studying psychology at York University. She was so intrigued that she organised a private visit to a Camp Quest in Michigan two years ago, where she was inspired to set up an affiliated ‘mission’ in the UK.

She insists that the British camp will not take part in ‘Bible-bashing’. It will simply be a way of encouraging children to think for themselves.

But she admits that part of that process involves ‘encouraging the children to ask questions about beliefs’.

The British camp has, however, imported one prominent element from the original concept: a mind game centred on imaginary unicorns. The children are told to imagine that the camp is surrounded by unicorns which cannot be seen or touched, but which are there because there has to be ‘faith’ that they exist.

They are then encouraged to develop rational arguments to prove that the unicorns cannot and do not exist, with anyone who manages it awarded a prize – a £10 note signed by Richard Dawkins.

It does not take a genius to work out that the ‘unicorns’ are, of course, an unsubtle metaphor for any ‘invisible’ deity, whether Christian, Muslim or otherwise, though Ms Stein denies this is the case.

‘The unicorns are not necessarily a metaphor for God,’ she says. ‘They are to show kids how to think critically. We are not trying to bash religion, but it encourages people to believe in a lot of things for which there is no evidence.’

For example, the children will also study astronomy, ‘pseudo-science’ such as tarot cards, and question why horoscopes are so popular.

An expert from the Natural History Museum in London will give a talk on fossils, and a musician will perform ‘sceptical scientific songs’. A debate on ‘Can you believe what you see?’ will look at optical illusions. There are also physical activities such as river rafting and an assault course.

Yet the whole event is part of a growing trend that has seen prominent atheists become increasingly vocal – some would say, zealous – in their determination to spread their belief that there is no God.

Most notably, they funded a high-profile advertising campaign at the beginning of the year which saw posters on buses bearing the slogan: ‘There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’

The campaign – backed by the British Humanist Association – was the brainchild of a 28-year-old comedy writer named Ariane Sherine, who wrote a blog on the Guardian’s website criticising Christian adverts she had seen on London buses. As part of her blog, she suggested that readers could send in £5 donations to help fund an atheists’ counter-campaign.

It wasn’t long before the proposal caught the eye of Professor Dawkins, who pledged to match any public donations up to a maximum of £5,500. In the end, there was no need for his guarantee: the fundraising campaign far exceeded expectations, raising a total of £136,000 from donations, which has since been used to pay for atheist adverts on London public transport and on buses across the UK, as well as for two giant digital billboards.

The question remains: why do atheists feel the need to resort to such high-profile tactics at all? After all, with campaigns, fundraising endeavours, a ‘High Priest’ in the form of Richard Dawkins and now holiday camps for children, aren’t they simply turning into a parody of the organised religions they so sneer at?

This is a point not lost on the Church of England, which accuses Dawkins and his followers of aping religious traditions, in particular with regards to the children’s camp.

‘We would defend the right for anyone to set up an event like this, as long as the young people are happy to attend,’ says a Church of England spokesman.

‘But in his imitation of the type of youth events that religious groups have been running for years, Dawkins makes atheism look even more like the thing he is rallying against.’

So just where did Camp Quest originate? And does it encourage children to stick two fingers up at religion?

It was the brainchild of an American, Edwin Kagin, 68, who with his wife, Helen, held the first Camp Quest in 1996. An atheist lawyer from Kentucky, Kagin was angry about a case involving the Scouts, who had denied admission to a child on the basis that he was an atheist.

‘The Scouts have been taken over in the U.S. by fundamentalist Christians, specifically the Mormons,’ said Kagin. ‘I wanted to give non-believers a chance.’

Kagin says his most uplifting moment in running the camps – which take place at six sites across the U.S. – was when an 11-year-old girl told him that she had learned ‘it is OK not to believe in God’.

‘I found that so moving,’ he said. ‘She had never before known that. It strengthens these children. This is the first time they’ve been able to talk about not believing. Some are so relieved they cry.’

So, back in Somerset, what of the young people attending the camp?

Among them are India Jago, 12, and her brother, Peter, 11, from Basingstoke, Hampshire.

They have previously been on Scout and Guide camping trips, and their father, Crispian Jago, an IT consultant, believes the experience will enrich his children.

He says: ‘I’m very keen on not indoctrinating them with religion or creeds. I would rather equip them with the tools to learn how to think, not what to think. I want my children to be open-minded, but not so open-minded their brains fall out.

‘I would be equally happy to send them on a general summer camp purely for the physical activities – as long as I knew there was no hidden religious agenda.

‘If we lived in a world where ancient myths were not afforded such reverence, then I would concede that specific non-religious camps would not be needed. Sadly we do not yet live in such a world.’

Mr Jago also hopes his children will learn some ‘basic logical philosophy and critical thinking skills – of which I have seen little evidence in their school work’.

For his part, Richard Dawkins is adamant he does not wish to force atheism on children, and points out he has not played a significant role in the camp beyond making a modest financial contribution.

He says: ‘One of my dominant motivations is an abhorrence of childhood indoctrination, of atheism just as much as of religion.’

Nevertheless, the camp is already proving controversial, not least in its implicit criticism of other faith-based children’s camps.

Jim Hammett, chief executive of Christian Camping International, says 50,000 young people a year enjoy a Christian summer camp.

‘Despite comments to the contrary, they are not indoctrinated,’ he says. ‘They are presented with Biblical material that they can make their own minds up about and decide whether it is something they wish to consider further.

‘There is no brainwashing. Those who don’t want to hear about a loving, caring God can choose to go to an atheist camp if they wish.’

For the Jago children, such debate remains somewhat academic. They are more interested in the prospect of spending five nights under the stars. Their father says: ‘India and Peter are not particularly interested in atheism, they are primarily interested in the fun of camping, and in getting away from us.’

There is, however, one final irony. Camp Quest founder Edwin Kagin has a son who not only grew up to reject his father’s philosophy, but has become a Born Again Christian minister. He has banned his own eight-year-old son from attending any of the Camp Quest gatherings.

A salutary lesson, perhaps, for any British parents wishing to impose their own views on their children.

Ed Balls received a letter this week from 26 of the country’s leading scientists – including Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, John Sulston – warning of their concerns that the proposed new primary school science curriculum does not even mention evolution

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Oh I must be part of the 15% minority that believes that God created everything pretty much as we see it today….doh!

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 July 2009 21.30 BST Michael Reiss

On the origin of education

To deny the importance of teaching evolution is to fail to grasp a basic truth about children

Ed Balls received a letter this week from 26 of the country’s leading scientists – including Richard Dawkins, Harry Kroto, John Sulston – warning of their concerns that the proposed new primary school science curriculum does not even mention evolution.

I was happy to add my name to the signatories. To omit evolution from the education of five- to 11-year-olds would be to miss a great opportunity. Children are often fascinated by fossils and wildlife. While many are too young to appreciate the concepts of “deep time” – that the Earth is some 4.6 thousand million years old – and the logical rigour of natural selection, they have powers of observation and a capacity to be engaged by the names and structures of organisms that put many adults to shame.

Some will be suspicious because the letter to the secretary of state for children, schools and families was organised through the offices of the British Humanist Association. And it’s a coincidence (I think) that news of it emerged at the same time as many of us were being regaled by a breakfast TV clip of what are becoming known as “Richard Dawkins’s atheist summer camps” – but I am strongly in favour of children being taught about evolution in school whether or not they or their parents have a religious faith.

The great majority of people with a religious faith successfully combine it with an acceptance of evolution, as I do. Nevertheless, there is a substantial minority – perhaps about 15% of people in the UK – who are creationists. The views of such people can be respected without us failing to teach evolution in schools. We do not want to go down the path followed by many schools in the US, where evolution doesn’t get a look in.

This year is Darwin200, the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, his magnum opus and the most important biology book ever written. What many people don’t realise is that the sorts of observations that led Darwin to accept evolution and come up with the theory of natural selection are just those that can be made by schoolchildren.

Indeed, the Wellcome Trust has funded some wonderful Darwin-related activities being undertaken this year by hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of children. Kew has sent a treasure chest of activities to every state primary school as part of The Great Plant Hunt, and there are activities for secondary students, too.

Why do I feel so strongly that evolution should be a part of every child’s education? In large measure it is because Darwin enables us to see ourselves in a new light. For all that we are the most special of species – with our unrivalled capacity for language, for thought, for morality and for reason – we are not wholly distinct from the rest of creation. We share a common ancestor with every mammal, with every animal; indeed, with every organism.

There doesn’t have to be a link between an appreciation of this web of life and our behaviour towards our fellow creatures, but, thankfully, there often is. By now it’s a truism that we live at a time of almost unparalleled species extinction. Seeing ourselves in an evolutionary light may yet help us slow this terrible trend.

And then an evolutionary perspective on life can help us more rigorously assess our strengths and our weaknesses. We are the product of a mechanism that puts us first – that’s what natural selection is all about – but we also have the evolved capacities to seek after truth, beauty and goodness: that’s what being human is all about. This should start in the primary classroom.

Patriarch Kirill isn’t doing Russia’s bidding in Ukraine. What he wants is a unified, independent Orthodox church

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

Adrian Pabst

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 28 July 2009 18.00 BST

This week’s visit by Russia’s Orthodox patriarch, Kirill, to neighbouring Ukraine has been the subject of some controversy. Many suspect that Kirill is the Kremlin’s cleric, intent on advancing a pro-Russian agenda. The accusation is that his presence will precipitate the looming schism among rival Ukrainian Orthodox churches.

However, one of the key priorities of Kirill’s patriarchal reign is to improve relations among Orthodox churches weakened by divisions and conflict. These divisions have a long history, but tensions flared up in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union collapsed and was replaced by newly independent states that sought to bolster their autocephalous national churches, with their own patriarchs and full jurisdictional authority.

Since then, Ukrainian Orthodoxy has been split between those who pledge loyalty to the Moscow patriarchate and those who seek to establish a fully independent body under the aegis of the Kiev patriarchate, which is considered schismatic by the Russian Orthodox church. Kirill’s visit in the Ukraine seeks to avoid a full-blown schism.

The Ukrainian scenario encapsulates a wider problem across the Orthodox world – tensions between the Moscow patriarchate that accounts for almost half of around 270 million Orthodox faithful and the other national churches. Some, like the Kiev patriarchate, refuse any links with the Russian church and lack any external recognition. Others look to Constantinople – the cradle of Orthodoxy – and its ecumenical patriarch who enjoys the status of “first among equals” (primus inter pares) within the Orthodox episcopate.

Yet others accept the Moscow patriarchate’s traditional claim to pre-eminence over the other Orthodox churches. Since the demise of the Byzantine empire, Moscow has often arrogated to itself the dubious title of “Third Rome” – the sole legitimate successor to the legacy of Roman empire in the west and the Byzantine empire in the east. Pointing to the proximity between the Moscow patriarch and the Kremlin in the post-Soviet era, critics say that this sort of messianic faith fuels both Russian religious supremacism and political imperialism.

The trouble is that in modern times most, if not all, Orthodox churches are predominantly national communities that support and serve the sovereign state – a marked difference with the transnational Roman Catholic church led by an independent pope who does not owe his authority to any secular power. For complex historical reasons, the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople (now Istanbul) has to be a Turkish citizen resident in Turkey, giving the republic’s strongly secular influence over internal church affairs.

By forging closer links with other Orthodox churches, Kirill is determined to reassert the trans-national character of Orthodoxy. On his first visit as patriarch in Constantinople at the beginning of this month, he appealed to the common theological tradition that binds together the Orthodox sister churches. Crucially, he also described the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople as the new Rome that safeguards the unity of all local communities across the Orthodox world.

As the head of the single largest Orthodox church, Kirill’s desire to defend the special contribution of the Moscow patriarchate “to the common Orthodox witness before the modern world which is losing its spiritual and moral guidelines” is not reactionary nostalgia. Rather, it underscores his continued commitment to a shared supranational Orthodox identity.

Nor is it accurate to brand him as a Russian neo-imperialist dressed in the clothes of religious piety. Like his predecessor Patriarch Alexy II, under whom he served as metropolitan in charge of ecumenical relations, Kirill has already improved ties with other Orthodox churches. Last summer, he opposed the creation of a new patriarchate in Georgia’s breakaway region of South Ossetia, arguing that political independence is no reason for the South Ossetian Orthodox church to cut ties with the Georgian patriarchate. (Both the Moscow and the Georgian patriarchs spoke out publicly against the military conflict). Kirill’s visit to the Ukraine is of a piece with the logic of Orthodox unity rather than an ill-conceived exercise in pro-Russian PR.

Key to a stronger pan-Orthodox identity is greater church autonomy from the state – Kirill’s other key priority. In a sermon during his enthronement service attended by both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, he criticised the Russian government’s response to the current economic downturn, enjoining the president to take bolder action and inveighing against the authorities for violating the standards of justice and righteousness.

Moreover, only a fortnight ago Kirill obtained guarantees from Russian politicians that the Moscow patriarchate would be allowed to preview all legislation considered in the State Duma, Russia‘s lower house of parliament. This extraordinary agreement enables the church to examine proposed legislation and influence its outcome. Staunch secularists and atheists will be up in arms, but this is potentially a stunning reversal of the widely perceived subordination of the Orthodox church to the Russian state.

None of the patriarch’s initiatives are uncontroversial, but the charge that he is the Kremlin’s cleric simply doesn’t wash. At 62, Kirill is relatively young and his patriarchal rule could last for a generation. Together with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople and others, he will seek to strengthen Orthodoxy against the forces of aggressive secularism and atheism and to affirm the autonomy of the church vis-à-vis the state without divorcing religion from politics.

Switch to our mobile site