Mogambo - You say: "Of course, I probably got it all backwards". Too true. Discrimination in itself is neither good nor bad: a discriminating mind is one that can make fine distinctions of taste or argument. It is bad when it is prejudiced, unfair or unjustified. It is illegal when based on religion or belief, race, etc and certain legal criteria are met. Religious groups enjoy wide exemptions from the laws against unfair discrimination based on religion or belief and on sexuality. Many of these exemptions, which may be legally based on no more than the "strong feelings" (including the sheerest bigotry and homophobia) of enough of their followers, are highly contestable (and arguably contrary to governing EU directives).

Secularists, who include many religious believers (the word does not mean 'atheist'!), oppose some but not all of these legal exemptions (e,g, the church must be allowed to appoint only Christians as clergy, the British Humanist Association only a humanist to key posts). We want no religion or belief (including non-religious beliefs such as atheism or Humanism) to be privileged in society: religion at large and Christianity in particular are now highly privileged, with 26 bishops in Parliament, huge handouts specifically for faith communities and sustained Government pressure on local authorities to hand over public service contracts to religious groups, complete with their rights to discriminate in employment and service delivery (this, extraordinarily, is in the new Equality Act!).

Moreover, secularists welcome the engagement of everyone, religious or not, in the public sphere. What we do contend, however, is that purely religious (theology-based) arguments should count for nothing in debate about public policy: such arguments mean nothing to non- or other-believers and basing laws on them is tantamount to theocratic violence. Nor should the churches use religious sanctions to drive their followers to follow a church line in policy, as when (to take an extreme case) the Vatican threatens politicians with excommunication. But the religious (like humanists) will inevitably be motivated by their beliefs and are fully entitled use other arguments for the same ends if they will: for example, Christians may urge against assisted dying for the terminally ill the risks of pressure from greedy relatives or of a creeping devaluation of human life, since these are arguments all can understand and argue about, but they should not argue on the (theological) ground of the sacredness of life and the Bible injunction not to kill - and if they do they should be told that their arguments count for nothing.

Finally, let me put on record again and emphatically that Evan Harris was among the most principled, intelligent and hard-working MPs in the last House of Commons. Lunchtime O’Pitcher’s ravings against him are either yellow journalism or religious mania.

It is amazing that pages have been written about Evan Harris' loss without a single mention of Ms Blackwood, the woman who defeated him. The election was not about Christian/Athiest, or religion/secularism, in fact these issues almost never arose on the campaign trail. In fact Dr Harris lost because he was not a particularily good MP: he was, perhaps, en excellent ideologue, but one who did little or nothing for his constituents. He was passionately for the Northern gateway, then when it became unpopular, passionately against it. He alienated many people by prowling the student bars promising free tuition to everyone, when even his own party leader stated this was fiscally impossible. He lost to a better candidate, one who didnt just preach human rights but who had a record of acting on them, in the Uk and in third world countries.

This is not to say Dr Harris was a terrible person or a terrible MP, he was neither, but he was aclear second choice to the eventual winner, which is why the conservative swing in Oxford/ Abingdon was 3 points higher than the national average. The astonishing lack of class he demonstrated upon his loss certainly didnt endear him to anyone either...

John Gaunt - You may be right, Ms Blackwood might present herself as the best constituency MP, but a "good constituency MP", however honest, loyal and hard-working, can never adequately represent their constituents, for the simple reason that it is impossible to serve two masters. As an outsider, in the Edmund Burke classic formulation of the MP's duty, Evan Harris seemed to be one of the best MPs around.

Besides, the point was not really the merits of Blackwood v Harris, but rather the "un-Christian" actions of certain Christians including George Pitcher.

@WanderingMinstrel

Dr Harris did the right thing by exposing the fraud an corrupt individual that wakefield is.

Wandering Minstrel - far too late people in the profession are beginning to stand up against Harris and Deer's monstrous and tenuous claims:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/340/apr15_2/c1127#235073

They didn't think the GMC were going to find on this and they woke up far too late. This episode is a political and scientific disgrace.

What amused me most about mr Pitcher's little tantrum was this quote:
but his true love was the National Secular Society
I assume that mr Pitcher is equally strident in condemning any Christian in the Commons for not being sufficiently subservient to Parliament and Party.

Of course, I'd prefer if mr Pitcher's hatred of ideologues extended to the lords where far too many unelected members have the CofE as their true love. I'm sure mr Pitcher joins me in being annoyed with such undemocratic representation given how overjoyed he is with the power held by 176 voters.

I'm surprised that mr Pitcher is so upset that his little piece received so much notice. Most people are happy to see their work advertised in the 'new media'. One would think that a writer for a major newspaper would see the benefit of free publicity. If mr Pitcher's words were only meant for the elect, I cannot quite understand why he saw fit to make them publicly available.

Oh, and I have not been summoned by Twitter. I'm oldfashioned enough to settle for blogs.

Go away, troll.

It is a sad day when you see that the Established Churches through the media still have the power to destroy a politician just because he is an atheist. It is a sad day when it become evident that, instead of progressing towards reason and secularism, we , as a society seemed to go the other way, that is backwards.
And it will be a sad day indeed when as in America today, a politician will have no chance of ever be elected if he declares his atheism. And who knows? did that play a role in the very disappointing vote for Clegg? difficult to know but it is a possibility.
But thanks for this article Sholto, which shows impartiality and fairness of mind on your part.

"Sweeping religion from the public sphere": that sounds like a noble and heroic cause to me! I wish I had been able to vote for him.. and I am not even a libDem voter!
And GP calls him "an irrational ideologue". Call him what you like but surely not that!
Someone who wants to get rid of irrational arguments and motives in public life can't possibly be labelled "irrational". That is a bizarre insult for a man who believes in reason rather than superstition and sky gods.
I personally would prefer electing people who do not talk to imaginary beings. You never know what that God voice could tell them to do! Like go to Irak and bomb the hell out of that country!
When asked, if honest, they could say: "God told me to do this!" or " I was only obeying orders". Scary!

Rev Pitcher,

When you write things sometimes people are going to disagree with you. Whilst you might rejoice in a secularist being removed from his seat in the Commons, many others have no issue with Dr Evans or what he stands for.

You label these people "attack-puppies" just because they disagree with your sentiments.

All your writing on this matter presumes that secularism (or promoting atheist principles) has no place in our democracy. It reads like all opinions other than your own don't count.

Yes Dr Evans supports euthanasia etc and so what? Many people agree with him. There are others like you who don't agree with him - and I think that's a healthy thing.

Please don't be so resolute in your opinions and try to be understanding that others will criticse your position just as you criticise theirs. No need to label these reasonable people.

Thanks.

The grand majority of people, even in middle class seats, maybe even in university seats, are not culturally liberal to this extreme.

Perhaps if the Liberals were not influenced by Orange Book philosophy, perhaps if they were not so Blairite, if they believed in social justice, if they supported renationalising the railways, if they backed the weakened unions, if they backed British workers threatened with unemployment ... then they would have done better.

But a left-libertarian party is doomed to destruction. It has no social base.

Was Harris standing up for freedom of speech when he seconded the EDM censuring LBC journalist Jeni Barnett for expressing her distaste for the authoritarian culture surrounding MMR? And didn't he just prove her right?

UK Editor, AgeofAutism.com

Rev. Pitcher struggles to find a "contender for better news" than Evan Harris's defeat. Strange that the resounding failure of Nick Griffin and the BNP didn't come to his mind.

I am a voter in Oxford West & Abingdon. Dr Harris lost because he came across as disinterested in those that gave him his position as an MP. He seemed to think that he represented Oxford West. The '& Abingdon' part of the job was forgotten.

The only time I heard from this MP communicating with his voters was when I lived within the City of Oxford. He was good at leafleting and door to door canvassing. Cross the City limits into the Vale of White Horse and he was simply a name.

He seemed to know where he needed to court votes - Oxford City and the Students. Unfortunately the Student voting base was transferred to Oxford East.

Since 2003 I have received only four leaflets from Dr Harris. Two of these were received in the final week of the 2005 Election. The other two were received in the final week of the 2010 Election. I am lucky as many near neighbours have not received anything from him since the 2001 Election.

To add insult to his avowed silence with his non-Oxford voters ~ his leaflets only addressed the NHS and scrapping Student Tuition Fees! The second issue is hardly of burning importance to his non-Oxford City voters.

In contrast Nicola Blackwood has been sending out quarterly newsletters to her potential voters. This has been going on for at least 2 whole years. I know what she thinks about Radley Lakes, Regenerating Abingdon Town Centre, Public Transport, the NHS, Education, Planning, the Green Belt, Crime, Employment.

In other words Dr Harris deserved to lose the election on the grounds of being disinterested in his voters.

Politicians censuring journalists for the legitimate expression of their views is pretty ugly politics and I was dismayed to see so many Lib-Dems sign up to it, though not Nick Clegg, Norman Baker or our own excellent MP, Lynne Featherstone.

Rational people ought to be wary of "science lobby" intimidation - they can only defend themselves by citation of an evidence base that doesn't exist. It was shameful incident.

Frankly, the whole exercise is about intmidation parents, doctors, the journalistic profession and the polticians themselves into silence over vaccine damage. Try and speak up about it and you will become public enemy number one - if you are professional your career will be threatened or destroyed. That is the message. Thanks Evan (and thanks Ben)!

John Stone said
"Was Harris standing up for freedom of speech when he seconded the EDM censuring LBC journalist Jeni Barnett"

The EDM appears to be this one:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=37811

I see nothing there to suggest an attack on anyone's freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.

Sholto

Thank you for your defence.

I should point out that my views are even more moderate than you believe. I don't support "euthanasia", rather assisted dying for the terminally ill who are in pain, have capacity and are not coerced. This might be called voluntary euthanasia but I oppose non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Polls show that a majority of religious people support the legalisation of assisted dying for the terminally ill.

In addition I don't campaign "against faith schools" rather - as your link set out - the discrimination against staff and pupils on the grounds of religion that some state-funded faith schools are allowed to engage in.

George Pitcher defends his personalised rant on the initial assertion, that I have sought "to have people of faith – any faith – swept from the public sphere." (in his second post this is retreated to an equally fallacious "aim of sweeping religion from the public sphere") This is not the case and if it was Mr Pitcher should be able cite several quotes or paragraphs where I have said this. Since most of my speeches are captured in Hansard I challenge Mr Pitcher to provide a reference to speech or writing that substantiates that wild assertion or to withdraw it. Will he?

He also considers that all I campaign for is secularism, which suggests that he unaware of the work I have done on science, health, human rights, torture & rendition, human trafficking, organ donation, parliamentary reform, libel reform, higher education, loan sharks, asylum rights and so on. Not really a one trick anything.

Shouldn't Mr Pitcher justify his assertions rather than complain when people point out his errors and exaggerations, rather than complaining about the criticism or insulting those who comment. That is at least debate even if it still not journalism.

Dr Evan Harris betrays children. Harris gave the children the Judas kiss and then scuttled away. Judas betrayed autistic children with undiagnosed bowel disease.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-03-15.128.0&s=wakefield+s...

Evan Harris represents betrayal.

If Evan Harris ran his campaign in the way he argues on the internet I am not surprised he lost. Public discussion tends to grind to a halt with tedious request for citations and references.

Let's pin Evan down on something we know he did say (unless we have a faker posting above under his name ...): "... I don't campaign "against faith schools" rather - as your link set out - the discrimination against staff and pupils on the grounds of religion that some state-funded faith schools are allowed to engage in."

Discrimination is fine, according to Harris, so long as it is done on the basis of secular belief. For example, parliamentary parties can discriminate with impunity on belief: a Tory MP isn't allowed to join the Parliamentary Labour Party. Religious groups won't enjoy the same freedom of conscience - if Evan gets his way. Yet (and this is significant), one can choose one's religion in the same way one choose a political party to stand for in an election. You see, there's no moral difference between secular and religious belief, and yet the secularist claims the right to freedom for should be given to him alone. If this isn't trying to impose secularism as the only ethic of public life, what is?

Of course, I probably got it all backwards and misquoted the good Dr for which I await a jolly good whipping ;-)