East London Humanists

Opinion piece Ilford Recorder, Romford Recorder, Barking and Dagenham Post March 2025

I’ve been swearing more than usual lately. The mere mention of Trump or Thames Water is enough to set me off. So I was chuffed to discover that swearing may actually be good for you.

One experiment, replicated many times, involves the participant plunging an arm into ice cold water. Swearing, compared to using neutral words, invariably means you can keep your arm submerged for at least half as long again.

This analgesic effect is just one discovery discussed during an event this March staged by Humanists UK. Scientist and patron Emma Byrne was interviewed by broadcaster and patron Samira Ahmed. Its available on YouTube.

Humanists, being non-religious, believe we evolved as part of the natural world, rather than that we were created separately and placed here. Exploring how human idiosyncrasies developed, and the evolutionary ‘purpose’ they serve, is endlessly fascinating.

There is no language that doesn’t contain the concept of swearing. However, it is culturally specific, centring around what is taboo for any particular place or generation. Shock value here formerly took the form of religious oaths. It still does in more religious countries. Gadzooks – as Shakespeare might have said on a bad day!   Today bodily functions and sexual acts generally pack more punch.

Chimps have been recorded acting out taboos around bodily functions analogous to human swearing. Scientists conclude that one evolutionary benefit of swearing is that it provides a safer way to resolve conflict. Injury to feelings is hopefully less permanent than physical injury.

Swearing can play a part in social bonding where there is mutual give and take. But there is also a dark side, particularly swearing at or about people – used to sow division and denigrate. It is often not mutually acceptable, and there is unfairness around how swearers are judged, women often being judged more harshly than their male counterparts.

One uplifting thought is that our reaction to pain, frustration and confrontation, all potential prompts for swearing, is part of what makes us human. Emma Byrne, an expert on Artificial Intelligence, described the unbridgeable emotional gulf between us and even the most sophisticated machines.

I learned that swearing too much can diminish any benefit. However,  I still feel better knowing there are good evolutionary reasons why shouting expletives is better than kicking the TV.  

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece published Ilford Recorder and Romford Recorder March 2025

In February MPs from across the Commons backed a motion to end prayers as part of the formal business of the House. Havering Council, who still follow this archaic practice, may wish to take note.

The motion is supported by the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist group, comprising over 120 MPs and peers. It calls for the House to recognise that “…religious worship should not play any part in [its formal business]… that Parliamentary meetings should be conducted in a manner…equally welcoming to all attendees, irrespective of their personal beliefs… that Parliamentary prayers are not compatible with a society that respects the principles of freedom of and from religion…and calls on the Modernisation Committee to consider alternative arrangements.”

Prayers are the first item on the agenda of each full Havering council meeting. As with Parliament, they are almost invariably Anglican.  Havering gave an Imam the opportunity to say an Islamic prayer in 2022. It was a baby step towards recognising that council chamber business should be inclusive and representative of the electorate it serves.

The Christian box, comprising all denominations, was ticked by just 52% of Havering respondents in the 2021 census.  6% ticked the Muslim box. 31% ticked the ‘No religion’ box, making this the second largest belief group in the Borough. Many will be Humanists, that is non-religious people who aim to lead a good life. You don’t have to label yourself a Humanist to be one, any more than you have to go to church to be a Christian. 

In 2021 I was appointed Humanist chaplain to the then Mayor of Redbridge. My role included starting council meetings with a non-religious reflection. There is no evidence of a moral or spiritual vacuum in the chamber that year. My themes around mutual respect, serving the community, kindness, cooperation, being mindful of the environment and looking after the disadvantaged were simply based on decent values. All the feedback, from religious and non-religious alike, was positive.

Different faith and belief representatives address Tuesday sessions in the Scottish Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly begins formalities with two minutes of silent prayer or contemplation. The Welsh and London Assemblies have no such rituals. Whether or not we think formal moments of reflection benefit our democratic institutions, there is no case in 2025 for these to be dominated by one minority Christian sect.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists

Pieces published in Romford Recorder, East London and Docklands Advertiser, Barking and Dagenham Post and Romford Recorder February 2025

Trump is an affront to Humanist beliefs and values in many ways. Take his boast that God chose to spare him from the assassin’s bullet so he could govern the US.

He said this on Martin Luther King Day, a US public holiday held to mark the birthday of an outstanding campaigner for justice and dignity for all people. King was only 39 when he was gunned down in 1968. He had just made his famous ‘Mountaintop’ speech, imbued with Christian symbolism. Why was he not spared?

In January I spoke at my local Holocaust Memorial Day event as the Humanist representative. The event is an annual reminder of the danger of unbridled hatred and bigotry. Victims included Jews, Roma, homosexuals, the disabled and political opponents. Where was God when they were murdered? I have yet to hear a person of faith convincingly explain God’s selective response to heart-felt prayers.

Primo Levi, an atheist Jew, Auschwitz survivor, and Humanist,  wrote movingly of his experience and gave this warning: “It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”

The claim to rule by divine authority is dangerous. Like many, I’ve always had a Humanist outlook. What prompted me to get organised was realisation that the forward march of reason and compassion is not a given. My ‘epiphany’ was Blair and Bush praying together and concluding their war on Iraq had God’s blessing. It was a milestone in the breakdown of a rules-based world order. Why bother following rules or listening to experts if God is on your side?

This is not to have a go at those of faith. Religious precepts of acting justly, living humbly, and loving mercifully are values we can share and aspire to whether religious or not. But Trump draws support from a fundamentalist tradition with beliefs and values way past their sell-by date. Vengefulness, the demeaning of women, intolerance of homosexuality. The long-expunged verse: ‘The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate’ finds new life in his vision of a world where inequality is ordained by God.

It is disheartening to see politicians and media suck up as Trump flexes his muscles and rolls back rights.  This was once called appeasement.

Paul Kaufman, Chairperson East London Humanists

My Humanist beliefs drive me to face down Trump and so much he and his supporters stand for. His boast that God spared him from the assassin’s bullet is a telling example.

He said this on Martin Luther King Day, a US public holiday held to mark the birthday of an outstanding campaigner for justice and dignity for all people. King was only 39 when he was gunned down in 1968. He had just made his famous ‘Mountaintop’ speech, imbued with Christian symbolism. Why was he not spared, along with countless other innocent victims of injustice, intolerance, disease and disaster?

Whether or not Trump is genuinely religious, he acts as though gifted with divine authority.  The ‘epiphany’ which led me to become an organised Humanist was Blair and Bush praying together and concluding their war on Iraq had God’s blessing. It was a milestone in the breakdown of a rules-based world order. Why bother following rules or listening to experts when you claim God is on your side?

Building a fairer, greener and kinder world requires human cooperation and a degree of mutual respect. Given the diversity of interests, it is remarkable what has been achieved: The United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Paris Climate Accords, and so on. Human progress has been painfully slow, and no institution is perfect. But throw it all in the woodchipper, to use Musk’s phrase, and everything turns to dust. The world steps back to an age of barbarism where might is right, self-interest comes first, and the meek and powerless come last.

Humanists share religious notions of acting justly, living humbly, and loving mercifully. But Trump draws support from a fundamentalist religious tradition with beliefs and values way past their sell-by date. Vengefulness; the demeaning of women; intolerance of difference. The long-expunged verse: ‘The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate’ finds new life in his vision of a world where inequality is ordained by God. And his Old Testament view of mankind’s God-given dominion over nature is a recipe for nature’s ongoing decline and our own destruction.

We need to call out the politicians and others who suck up while Trump rips up the rule books, tramples on rights and aspirations and doubles down on trashing the environment.  This was once called appeasement.

Paul Kaufman, Chairperson East London Humanists

Published Romford Recorder, Barking and Dagenham Post and Ilford Recorder January 2025

Could medieval Barking have been a hotbed of feminism? The thought had not occurred to me until my recent visit to an exhibition at the British Library. The “Medieval Women” exhibition is fascinating. It also holds important lessons for today.

Barking Abbey was built in the 7^th Century for St. Ethelburga, a woman of royal ancestry. There followed a succession of notable abbesses until the Abbey was dissolved by Henry VIII in 1539. They included several saints, former queens, and the daughters of kings.

A clue to what may have then attracted women to a nunnery lies in the story of Saint Wulfhilda. She became Abbess of Barking during the 10th century.  King Edgar ‘the Peaceful’ fell in love with the young Wulfhilda, but she spurned his advances, presents and offers of marriage. Eventually Edgar laid a trap.  On arriving she “found his fervour so alarming that she fled, leaving her sleeve in his hand, and escaping through the drains”.

In short, in those deeply religious times, a nunnery probably offered the only way out for women wanting to escape a lifetime of domestic drudgery, and possibly much worse. Within the relatively safe confines of a nunnery women were able to thrive.

The exhibition features many examples of women from the medieval period whose works and achievements have been unfairly overlooked.  Scholars, printers, artists, doctors and writers on medicine, musicians, prolific letter writers, and much beside. There is a cornucopia of beautiful, illuminated manuscripts.

One exhibit that caught my eye was the account kept by the cellaress of Barking in the 15^th century recording the nuns’ food and money allowances. Another was the mortuary roll (1225-30) which paid tribute to Lucy, the first Prioress of Castle Hedingham. Messengers took the roll to 122 religious houses, including Barking, each of which added their message in Lucy’s memory.

The road to women’s equal opportunity has been long and rocky. The US has recently seen the reverse of hard-won rights. The situation for women in Afghanistan is desperate. The actions of the new regime in Syria are awaited with apprehension.

For me the exhibition underlined the tragedy of the countless people who have been thwarted from achieving their potential through unreason and prejudice, whether based on sex, colour, or whatever.

The exhibition closes on 2 March.

Paul Kaufman.
Chairperson East London Humanists.

Opinion piece Romford Recorder and Ilford Recorder December 2024

It’s been a dismal year for peace, the planet, and much else besides. But the festive season is a time to celebrate. So please forgive some self-indulgence as I wax lyrical about the phenomenon that is Parkrun. For me it is a metaphor for so much that is good about life, and about people.

I last wrote about Parkrun in 2018 after completing my 250^th run. Covid played havoc with progress, but this Christmas I will complete my 500^th. Importantly, for me at any rate, I also win the chance to wear the special milestone shirt!

The first Parkrun was held in Bushey Park, West London, on 2 October 2004. 13 runners took part. Its roaring success was recorded in the headlines this October marking the 20^th anniversary. There are now over 10 million runners registered. There are hundreds of Parkruns, and they are in over two dozen countries.  East London is well-served. There is a lovely run at Raphael Park, in Romford, and another at Harrow Lodge in Hornchurch.

There are many things that make Parkrun special, and so popular. It is one of the most inclusive forms of communal activity. It costs nothing. It is run entirely by volunteers.  No special equipment is needed. Everyone is made to feel welcome. You just turn up.  It is possibly the only organised ‘sport’ which rejoices in declining average results, as these demonstrate increasing participation by less able people. The course can be walked or run as fast or as slow as you like. It’s not a race. Many courses are wheelchair friendly. Anyone with impaired vision can be led around.

The inclusivity draws a diverse crowd each Saturday morning. Young and old, of various colours, shapes and sizes, from all faiths and none, all out in nature connecting with each other through a common purpose.

Christmas is of course also a time to think of those less fortunate. But phenomena like Parkrun give hope in a depressing world. An example of human nature at its best, celebrating kinship, working in harmony rather than competing, sharing a zest for life with friends, family and complete strangers. For me, as someone who is not religious, this too is the spirit of Christmas.

The big question now is whether I will make it to my 1000 run shirt!

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece East London Advertiser 21 November 2024

An Australian relative recently told me how grateful a close friend had been for assisted dying laws. They operate in most Australian states. The story is a powerful counter to those who want to deny this right here.

His friend was riddled with terminal cancer. Australia’s palliative care provision is good. But even the best care could not make her pain bearable. Robust procedures were followed.  An approved ‘death doula’ was on hand with medication she had requested. This had been prescribed to induce sleep and a pain-free death. She was of sound mind throughout.  Unwilling to face another night of torment, she requested and took the drugs herself. She died peacefully in her own home at a time she chose with her nearest and dearest by her side.

It came as a bombshell when Stepney born MP Wes Streeting, now Secretary of State for Health, did a U turn and said he will vote against reform. He represents one of the most religiously conservative constituencies in the country, which he won by a narrow margin, and is a staunch Christian.  But he cites poor palliative care in the UK as his key reason for changing his mind.   Opposing assisted dying on this ground doesn’t withstand rational scrutiny.

There is no evidence that denying the right to choose will lead to an improvement in palliative care. There is no evidence that passing a law on assisted dying has adversely affected the provision of palliative care in any of the countries which have done so. If anything, the opposite is true. Critically, as the above story shows, even the best palliative care cannot relieve the pain suffered by every terminally ill patient. In those cases, lack of provision is a non-existent, irrelevant factor. Using it as a reason for denying the right to choose simply leads to protracting unbearable pain, and a horrific death.  We wouldn’t treat animals like that.

Another big objection to reform is risk of coercion. The Bill details stringent safeguards which answer these concerns.

No safeguards or provision will ever persuade some people that the terminally ill should have a choice on assisted dying. They are a minority. Opinion polls show a large majority, including of the religious and the disabled, want the right to choose. It is unreasonable for that minority to stand in our way.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece published Ilford Recorder and Newham Recorder November 2024

An Australian relative recently told me over dinner how a close friend had benefitted from assisted dying laws which now operate in most Australian states. The story is a powerful counter to those who want to deny this right here.

His friend was riddled with terminal cancer. Even the best palliative care could not make her pain bearable. Robust procedures were followed.  An officially approved ‘death doula’ was on hand with drugs prescribed to bring on sleep and a pain-free death. Unwilling to face another night of torment, she requested and took them. She died peacefully in her own home at a time she chose and with her nearest and dearest by her side.

As a vote in our Parliament looms, big names in the religious hierarchy have cautioned against reform. Cardinal Nichols, the UK’s most senior Catholic, asserted that ‘life is a gift from our Creator.’  Senior figures in the Islamic community express similar objections. The Archbishop of Canterbury, who no doubt shares this view, has instead focussed on the risk of coercion. He calls legalisation ‘dangerous.’

Some disability activists also warn that they are especially vulnerable to pressure and being told they are ‘better off dead.’ Such concerns should be front and centre of any debate. And they can be addressed. There is nothing novel about making critical decisions around safeguarding the vulnerable. For example courts have long had to determine whether Powers of Attorney have been made through undue influence, or whether to turn off life support machines.

Dr Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, recently expressed support for assisted dying as an act of compassion in tune with his religious values. He pointed out (Daily Express 16.10.24) that his view is supported by most churchgoers. This is borne out by the largest poll ever on assisted dying, published in March by campaigning organisation Dignity in Dying. It showed two thirds of respondents with faith supported a change in the law, as did 78% of disabled respondents, and an overwhelming majority of the public at large.

Some religious fundamentalists and campaigners will always oppose assisted dying, whatever the safeguards. It is cruel and unreasonable for them to insist others like my Australian example must endure excruciating, unrelievable pain because of their beliefs.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson East London Humanists

Opinion piece published East London Advertiser and Barking & Dagenham Post October 2024

Constitutional reform isn’t the sexiest of subjects. But three facts about the House of Lords might grab your attention.

First, it has over 800 members, more than any other second chamber apart from China, whose population is 20 times higher than ours. This is also the only country with a second chamber larger than the lower linked chamber. Last, but not least, this is one of only two countries where clergymen are automatically entitled to sit in the second chamber and decide on our laws. The other is the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Labour’s manifesto included a pledge to modernise the Lords, starting with the abolition of hereditary peerage, which it described as ‘indefensible.’ A Bill was placed before Parliament last month to deliver this. Humanists say the privileged role of Bishops is just as indefensible, and for similar reasons.

During a separate debate in September (concerned with prioritising female Bishops) Lord Birt, a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group, described the automatic right of 26 bishops to sit in the Lords as a ‘feudal legacy, embedded centuries before the notion of democracy gathered pace.’ He went on to praise the expertise, perspective, experience and goodness of leaders he had met from many faiths. He said he would hope and expect to see faith leaders of every kind represented in a reformed house but, crucially, ‘appointed on individual merit.’

The Bishop of Chelmsford, whose diocese includes East London, is a good example of the qualities described by Lord Birt.  Faith leaders of her calibre should have the opportunity to sit in the House of Lords. But the Church of England is just one of several Christian denominations, and Christianity is just one of many faiths and non-religious beliefs in modern Britain.

Some might say this fuss is overblown. They should reflect on how they would react if, say, I was automatically given a peerage simply because of my role in the local Humanist group! After all, around half the population now have no religion, and many share a Humanist outlook.

It is about time that every individual who enjoys the privilege and power that comes with being a member of the Lords is chosen both on merit and to reflect Britain’s diversity.

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists

Opinion piece published Barking & Dagenham Post, Ilford Recorder and Docklands & East London Advertiser September 2024.

Parents, pupils and teachers are gearing up for the new school year.  So too are volunteer Humanist school speakers like me. Visits are on the up now that Humanism features on the Barking and Dagenham agreed Religious Education syllabus. It would be great if every school recognised the benefits of this free service.

Children generally find our views fascinating, even if they don’t agree with them. Talks, assemblies and Q&A’s encourage their curiosity about different perspectives on the so-called ‘Big Questions,’ such as how the world began, what’s the purpose of life, if any, and what happens when we die.

One of the biggest questions is ‘How do we decide what is true?’  Its importance was spotlighted by the spate of misinformation on social media which helped sparked the recent riots.

Of course, there is nothing novel about having multiple information streams with different views and facts to choose from. I grew up in the last century. Like many, my understanding was informed by printed material, TV, radio and what I heard from my family and community. The telephone was used only to speak to other people. It sat on a table with an annoying wire that got tangled up. I wonder how many children born this century have even used one.

What we now call mobile phones are something else altogether. For many young people, talking is the last thing they do on them.  Adults clearly find it hard enough to distinguish truth from untruth online. How on earth can we help children navigate the torrent of stuff they access through their phones, often for hours a day, on top of all the other sources. Its barely regulated, and often one-sided or deliberately misleading.

There is no easy answer. But a helpful start is to inculcate children with the importance of questioning and looking for evidence which can be weighed up and tested, and assessing the reliability of sources – the ‘scientific method’ which underpins a humanist world view.

Humanists UK school speakers are accredited and have a strict code of conduct. Its about explaining what we believe, not proselytising or knocking other beliefs.  Around half the population of this country have no religious belief. It is fundamental to a rounded education that children with or without a faith understand the principles and the validity of our ethical non-religious outlook.

Paul Kaufman. Chairperson East London Humanists

Its official. The UK has elected the most openly non-religious House of Commons in history.

Roughly 40% of MPs chose to take the secular affirmation instead of a religious oath during their swearing-in ceremony last week. That’s up from 24% after the 2019 election. They include the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, half the Cabinet and all four Green MPs.

Humanists welcome the House more closely reflecting the faith profile of the UK.  According to the British Social Attitudes Survey (2021) over half the population have no religion. We have come a long way since the election of the first openly atheist MP, Charles Bradlaugh, in 1880. His refusal to take the religious oath led to his arrest and imprisonment. He only finally took his seat in 1888 following a change in the law.

Starmer is the seventh non-religious Prime Minister, so far as we can tell. The first was a Liberal, Lloyd George. Ramsay Macdonald (Labour) was the first PM to take the non-religious oath – exactly 100 years ago in 1924. He was active in the Union of Ethical Societies, the forerunner of Humanists UK. Next were two Conservatives, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. The latter, an agnostic, regarded religion as superstition. When contemplating death, he told his doctor he ‘did not believe in another world, only black velvet– eternal sleep.’ 

Following WWII PM Clement Atlee (Labour) put his humanism into practice, establishing the NHS alongside other sweeping reforms.  James Callaghan is believed to have abandoned his Baptist faith. He was PM from 1976-79, over 50 years before Starmer.

Labour pledged in their manifesto to modernise parliament. The pointless relic of different oaths for different religions and beliefs is itself ripe for reform. This matters. A 2023 academic study showed that jurors who took a religious oath were more likely to convict a suspect who took a non-religious oath. Humanists will be pressing the new ministers in the Ministry of Justice to act on this. Having just one oath puts everyone on an equal footing.

Another archaism is the right of Christian MPs to book a seat ahead of debates using their prayer card. This systematically discriminates against non-religious MPs in a commons chamber without enough seats to go round. Just a couple of examples of change needed to make institutions and practices across the board fit for a modern, plural democracy. 

Paul Kaufman
Chairperson, East London Humanists