by The Sub-Culture Alternatives Freedom Foundation (S.A.F.F.) July 1992

The S.A.F.F. has conducted a four year analysis into the increasing tension between differing religious faiths in the U.K. and Europe and has identified fundamentalist activity as a root cause.

Strident conversionist activity is occurring all over Europe and the Third World and its frequency is increasing pyramidically. Although all fundamentalism is provocative, leaders of Christian fundamentalism are campaigning using methods which are unfiar and unreasonable in a pluralist society.

They have developed a strategy of conversionism which is global in perspective and it is succeeding because ordinary people cannot see the long-term implications.

Most people consider that missionaries are well-meaning religious zealots whose obvious peripheral, sectarian, haphazard, even parochial scope only affects susceptibles, therefore society at large is generally immune from their activities. It is nothing of the kind. Our researches prove beyond doubt that fundamentalists have in place a conscious Global campaign to develop a theocracy and promote the Fundamentalist perspective of the Christian religion over and above other orthodoxies.

So improved and perfected is this new-wave of missionary psychology that it is succeeding in duping large sections of the populace. As such it poses a very great threat to pluralism and human rights which few seem to be taking seriously.

The S.A.F.F. has collated many case-histories of injustices against minority beliefs. Their frequency and fanaticism is increasing in ratio to the boldness of the fundamentalist's propaganda. The ensuing intolerance is exacerbating hatred and discrimination towards other non-Christian beliefs. In particular, minority religious beliefs (which are often misunderstood by the general populace) are suffering a constant war of propaganda and victimisation.

Our research shows that this is resulting in a desensitising of public tolerance towards other cultures and beliefs. The machinery designed to repair injustice within our society is 'blind' to this problem. When the S.A.F.F. has campaigned to inform agencies about religious discrimination against minorities those in positions of influence invariably seek to minimise the problem, and excuse their powerlessness ( or reluctance) to act.

When we persist we are told that we are being paranoid, conspiratorialist and over-sensitive. The influential people who could do most to stem the problem will simply not listen to the facts. 

The danger is self-evident. If those who have greatest influence over our society are by and large turning a blind eye to their responsibilities under the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and allowing misunderstood minorities to be used as a scapegoat for society, then they are, by default, re-educating themselves into making the devaluation of unpopular beliefs an acceptable institutional alternative.

This is the slippery slope to the permanent erosion of humanitarian values and it must be stopped. Rapid changes which are taking place in EEC countries coupled with the political and cultural modifications in what was the USSR, has provided fundamentalists with a ready made paranoia to exacerbate.

Ordinary people , confused with the speed of change, fear losing their national identities and cultures and are becoming increasingly irrational.

The worrying upsurge in neo-fascism in France and Germany are indicators as to how those fears are being massaged. As the UN was formed precisely to disallow such fanaticism from ever gaining a foothold again the effect of fundamentalism on existing cultural machinery and political power structures is of prime concern.

The S.A.F.F. has traced psychological, logistical and doctrinal links between the 'generals' of the Fundamentalist movement and 'generals' of neo fascist, anti-semitic and White Supremacist groups. Not all fundamentalists will admit to being fascist but when analysed their psychologies become fascist.

The S.A.F.F. has tried many times to bring the matter to the notice of government, politicians and the secular agencies often but could not obtain a serious address of the issues. Few people will listen long enough to learn about the current and future impact of fundamentalism upon society.

The matter has plagued mankind's history and is of necessity complex but to avoid the inevitable world-scale tragedies which fundamentalism causes it is necessary to persist and gain an overview. Persistence is the key but the expertise needed to gather together the information to give a proper perspective.

The S.A.F.F. is one of the few organisations which can do that succinctly and it is to bring these problems into the public arena and throw light on the hidden agendas of fundamentalism that we have prepared this paper for the U.N.A. Human Rights Committee.


Fundamentalism is gaining influence over the moral and political direction of society by infiltrating existing cultural machinery and usurping established secular power-bases. Fundamentalist literature lays down their 'spiritual battle-plans' clearly and unequivocally. They achieve their ends subversively by deliberately setting out to exaggerate existing socio-economic problems or by inventing dangers for which their doctrine provides the only antidote.

By a process of 'shepherding' (their own term for planting activists within existing voluntary bodies, charities and pseudo counselling / therapy services), they can gain credence for bizarre doctrines and subsequently promote scares about supposed 'dangers' backed by 'professional expertise' which they have themselves originated.

Posing as informed experts with an open agenda, they are given the platform by a biased media to pursue a hidden agenda. This invariably results in shock-horror allegations which lead people to conclude that society's ills are a direct result of ignoring specific moral standards and value systems which just happen to be an integral part of the fundamentalist's doctrine.

The ultimate agenda of fundamentalists is far too unreasonable and sectarian for them to open it up for public inspection; instead they divide and conquer by selecting xenophobias which exacerbate existing insecurities and suspicions about minority groupings.  

In particular these prey on basic human emotions and inadequacies related to sex, crime and violence and are usually represented by worse-scenario allegations about murder, rape and violence against children and women.  The 'Lock up your Daughters' cry was a feature of both anti-Semitism and the recent scare over so-called Satanic Abuse. By qualification this will first cause victimisation in the most unpopular and least protected minorities.

When the small fry has been made unpopular and distanced from their rights the agenda widens out to include the usual clutch of discriminations which affect large segments of the population. The S.A.F.F. has made a study of what type of society the fundamentalists are putting in place and can provide the U.N. with documentary evidence of their hidden agenda.

Using these strategies fundamentalists have easily ensconsed themselves within the social structure of Europe and the Third World. These people appear to be working for the better good but their activities develop an arrogance in host-culture conditioned people which actually diverts care from unpopular minorities.

Even respected people who have a history of humanitarian perception can easily fall into the bigotry trap; and this is the great danger. One example will illuminate the general trend. During 1989 the S.A.F.F. identified an influential movement in right-wing British politics which was lead and scoped by fundamentalist agitators. What they began to extoll went against democratic principles. In a democracy the electorate expect differing political solutions to the overall well-being of society based on universal humanitarian and social values which improve standards of living for ALL sections of the electorate. When politicians begin to include religious values as justification for political decisions those values must be universal and pluralistic in content, but that is not what is happening. The politicians are extolling sectarian principles disguised as political ones.

To illustrate: It is one thing to suggest that a spiritual upbringing of any kind will improve the relationship and care between people in a community, when gauged against a community which has no spiritual values whatsoever, and quite another to suggest that ONLY Christian spirituality can cause an improvement. This is, of course, exactly what John Patten the Education Secretary recently publicly announced; that crime is a result of rejecting non-Christian values.

The controversy over his words overshadowed the fact that many other politicians have been influenced by a new perspective of morality which is based squarely on the arrogance of Cultural Supremacism. Quite a number of powerful people are falling into the trap of jettisoning the yardstick of universal humanitarian values in favour of re-interpreting moral values through their own religious and cultural perspectives. This is a very dangerous trend for minority beliefs and is exactly what the fundamentalists want.

Patten's statements were widely reported but the general public are less informed about statements being made by politicians and influential figures in the rarified atmosphere of fundamentalism. In issue 59 of the evangelical Christian Magazine " New Life" Lord Tonypandy, former speaker and respected parliamentarian, said quite unequivocally (and without any consciousness of the harmful implications of his words):

"Politics without the refining influence of Christian teaching is a jungle of competing intrests...Democracy cannot last on any other basis. The truth is that people will learn how to live properly, in right relationships with each other, only when they accept that Christ died for all men."

Such radical interpretation of both democracy and socio-religious alternatives is not an isolated instance. This approach effectively wipes out the political volition of millions of people who are members of non-Christian minority groups and cultural groupings in the U.K.

If the Cultural Supremacism enshrined in such statements were not dangerous enough then the lack of intellectual rigour in the overall argument is clear evidence as to how easily bigotry can be institutionalised within a democracy. The inconsistencies in both John Patten and Lord Tonypandy's statements are glaring. Most criminals in this country are baptised Christians. History is shot through with instances of inhuman acts by Christians enforcing their will upon other faiths in crusades or missions. Christianity has ruled the roost in the Western world for a millennia yet crime and immorality continue to occur. Whatever it is that causes crime and immorality it becomes obvious that Christianity is not a guaranteed solution to it.

Such Cultural Misdirection is gaining in popularity because Cultural Supremacism is built upon the ignorance of arrogance and few people, regardless of their brilliance or past record of social responsibility, have the capacity to be objective about it. Cultural Supremacism is not a unique feature of Christian Fundamentalism, all fundamentalists think this way. The problem today is that Christian fundamentalists are intent upon restructuring our political and social system to reflect these attitudes; and they have the influence and cultural advantage to succeed.

The effects of Cultural Supremacism are clear to see. Nominal Christians are being educated to believe that people from Moslem, Sikh, Jewish, Shinto, Agnostic and Humanist cultures are liable to be more criminal, more immoral and more anti-social than those from Christian backgrounds.  This is simply the religious discrimination equivalent of the racist contention that blacks are more likely to commit crimes or spawn delinquency.  Yet because of the sensitivity with regard to race MPs would immediately and publicly censure and reject any racist statements of that kind as being horrid and evil. However when the same psychology is applied to religious discrimination many of the same MPs feel not only morally free to take a leading part in the bigotry, but judge it to be their duty to do so.

The degree to which racism is often bound up with religious discrimination is abundantly clear yet because no-one of influence has seen the universal dangers and taken a lead in pointing the problem out, fundamentalists and Cultural Supremacists are able to continue their disguised racism with impunity. Worse, their opinions become a matter of debate. A debate which can only work to provide disguised racists with a platform to incite hatred against other cultures.

The ability of humans to act inhumanly is assisted when the individual is conditioned to identify with a stereotype which promotes supremacy. Concomitant in this psychology is a doctrinal justification which de-humanises and de-values other cultures and beliefs, making their adherents worth-less. This mechanic can clearly be seen throughout History. The uprooting and enforced transportation of Negro Slaves; the virtual extinction of Maories in New Zealand by white head-hunters; the Nazi Holocaust; Extermination of Gypsies; disenfranchising of Tibetans, Christian Vs Moslem militias in Beirut. All these and more are examples of the insidious effect of Cultural Supremacism.


Cultural Supremacism results from a narrow self-identity which sees all difference as deleterious. Man maketh his gods in his own image. Having done so he then takes upon himself authority for divine action (priestly castes). The power-platform obtained is reinforced by promoting the supremacist image within all aspects of the created culture at the expense of alternative perspectives which are by qualification, out-castes.

Particularly so is this the case in education where White children are shown pictures of Jesus as being white, and black children are taught that they are not white. History indoctrinates the masses with the successes and power of Christian civilisations; and in the process demeans or ignores achievements by Great civilisations which were not Christian. Old gods become new devils and generations of people are brought up , whether religiously inclined or not, to subconsciously acknowledge a pre-programmed perspective which embodies Cultural Supremacism at the expense of their own cultural traditions.

The second vital psychological component of Cultural Supremacism is the exclusivity of its religious doctrine. The development and interpretation of a doctrine which places that religion before all others and by qualification discredits all other religions as impostures and therefore profane.

The third and final component is its prophetic authority or biblical writ. This final aspect triangulates the other two and develops the insularity which produces bigotry. Prophetic authority, offers the carrot of personal salvation to adherents providing they adhere to control mechanisms which restrict originality and spontaneity making the religion proof against interrogation from within and competition from without.


Due to the cultural conditioning inherent in host cultures even 'free-thinkers' who consider themselves objective will subconsciously identify with cultural self-images which have been imprinted since birth. These institutionalised prejudices bypass objective discriminatory processes for they are accepted as 'normal' or ambient. Many of us therefore subconsciously accept Cultural Supremacism because of tradition, inferiority or out of habit. Yet when one stands back to view the effect objectively the traditions and habits which reign supreme, can be seen as being highly selective and artificial.

The 1988 Education Act is a classic example of Cultural Supremacism and its effect directly infringes the U.N. Bill of Human Rights. A short analysis of this will reveal to the committee just how deep seated and serious the discrimination is and what dangers it poses for the future.

Parliament agreed that there should be a predominantly Christian Religious Instruction in schools and this is now law. Even in schools which have a large Jewish or Hindu or Moslem attendences the same rules apply; that religious instruction should be mandatory and predominate Christian values and teachings. There is a continuing debate (fueled by the discriminatory interpretation of the act by evangelicals and fundamentalists) about whether there is a legal requirement for children to learn about religion or learn from religion.

There is also continuous pressure from evangelical teachers and fundamentalist organisations to reinterpret the act to apply to non-Christian pupils. Fundamentalists realised the immense power of educational conditioning at an early stage and have without any shadow of doubt targeted non-Christian children for indoctrination within the school environment using the Act to force the issue.

The S.A.F.F. has a file of information relating to fundamentalist 'modification' of education and their aim to imprint Christian and non-Christian children with Cultural Supremacist mind-sets.

The fundamentalists have been very busy in many ways especially within the Anglican church. The Synod committee which looked into the CofE's response to the 'opportunities' in the Act was steered by Rev Gavin Reid, an evangelical activist who happens also to be one of three advisors to the Church of England on promoting the Decade of Evangelism.

Reid is the Consultant Missionary of the Church Pastoral Aid Society and was the king-pin organiser of Billy Graham's 1984 revivalist tour of the U.K. The outcome of the committee's recommendations (which were accepted by the Synod without amendment) was that a missionary effort be made within schools.

When challenged at length in protracted correspondence by the S.A.F.F. the Synod's Board of Education admitted that they intended to offer extra-curricular club/entertainment activities to non-Christian children without their parent's knowledge and without informing the children of the intent of the exercise beforehand.

What is this but subversive manipulation of the human rights of children and parents? The General Secretary of the Synod's Board of Education wrote in another letter on 14 January 1990:

 "There is evidence of widespread ignorance about the Christian Faith and the Church of England cannot be apologetic about addressing such ignorance and presenting Christianity as an option for people of this land , not least its children."

Note that this does not say that the CofE intends to reinforce the beliefs of marginal Christians. They clearly state that the Anglican Church has targeted ALL people; Christian and non-Christian alike.

The fundamentalists have spent years setting up this most important gambit. The Association of Christian Teachers has over 700 activists countrywide. That's 700 teachers already active within an educational environment who seek to convert and missionise their pupils through education. The ACT publishes a propaganda newsletter which goes out to 5,000 other evangelicals who have some connection with education.

Many of their contacts and activists are extremely influential and have positions in steering committees which advise the government on educational matters. In their July 1991 newsletter alongside a picture of an 8 year old child they advertised for people to visit schools by promising:

 " You will be stretched and challenged. You will have a chance to share your faith with Christians and non Christians in school Christian groups."

In a letter claiming that evangelical children were brighter than others (published in the Daily Telegraph 25 November 1991) the General Secretary of the A.C.T. [Richard Wilkins] attempted to gain a professional advantage for his association's sectarian proselytising by saying:

 "It seems that children perform better in certain subjects if their families regard the teachings of a holy book as central to living in this world"

Yet in another letter to the Telegraph on 15 January 1992 he was a little less professional and more to the point.

 "The ACT receives frequent complaints from parents about school books where witchcraft is perceived to be a major theme. Today's parents are conscious of a steadily growing occult sub-culture, in particular they are worried by the inroads this movement is making through officially approved children's books. "

This might seem to appear to be a valid viewpoint until you realise that it is a thin-end of the wedge for other 'modifications' of what is taught in schools. Another serious aim of the ACT is to suppress and discredit Darwin's Theory of Evolution, replacing it with Crationism philosophy. In effect destroying the scientific foundation of humanism and creating a no-alternative option to the Christian world-view for future pupils.

In allowing the A.C.T. to discriminate against paganism by perpetuating the evil idea of Witchcraft onlookers agree precedences which will eventually prove deleterious.

A further example of the sway which Cultural Supremacism has gained over minority rights to education can clearly be seen in exchanges in the House of Lords between the Bishop of Ripon and Lady Blatch the education minister during June 1992. David Young complained that the Bradford School Syllabus did not concentrate enough upon Christianity. The fact that most Bradford Schools have a high or even predominant Asian attendance seemed irrelevant to the Bishop.

He complained that the Education Act was being flouted and that Bradford Schools 'tried to deal with too many religious traditions at once'.

In responding to this bold piece of sectarian Cultural Supremacism Lady Blatch said:

"If the Bradford syllabus is as you described then it does not reflect that Christianity should be given greater prominence and I shall certainly look into it."

This is not, of course, what the Education Act required.

The Department of Education have clearly interpreted the majority Christianity rule with regard to universal values and philosophies which are non-exclusive. Lady Blatch seems unaware of the finer points of those arguments. 

The effect of the 'predominantly Christian' ruling has been to provide a platform for Cultural Supremacists to disenfranchise other beliefs.  Parliament (made up of a majority of people who have chosen or been imprinted with the Christian Cultural Image) thought it quite in order to bias the school system to favour Christianity and in the process provide a fallow field for child indoctrination which could, in the case of devout Muslim, Jewish, Hindu or Sikh children, cause deep psychological abuse.

Why did parliament do this? The reality of the situation is that only 8% of people in this country choose to regularly attend Christian church. Even less adhere to the full biblical tenets of Christianity (source: U.K. Christian Handbook). If parents were so keen on a religious education for their children then they would already be attending their local churches, yet attendences at Church have been declining rapidly over the last 50 years.

Those who have not made a Christian commitment obviously do not wish to be active church-going Christians. There must now be at least as many full time atheists in Britain as their are full-time Christians, yet the Cultural Supremacism factor ensures they can impose their political will upon the rest.

The indigenous religious heritage of Britain is Paganism, not Christianity. There is no historical precedence for Christian supremacy. These are just some of the realities and the statistics don't add up. Eight percent of the people have succeeded in forcing their religion onto the other 92% because of the effects of Cultural Supremacism. This is obviously not a fair way of doing things, yet no-one in power batted an eyelid when the law was passed. They acted as though the Christian minority had a right to claim precedence. They have the power, but they don't have the right.

Much was made of the benefits of 'Christian Values' in education. The debate entirely overlooked the fact that such values are not exclusive to Christianity. Counterpart moral values can be seen in ALL religions. The claimed advantage was bogus and is in itself discriminatory. By common-consent and the terms of the U.N. Bill of Human Rights it is the parent's prerogative as to what type and scope of religious teaching their offspring obtains. The State cannot dictate this but has done so in Britain.

This part of the Education Act is entirely superfluous for religious indoctrination is not the prerogative of schools. If parents are devoutly religious then they will already have regular attendance with their children at their own choice of church, synagogue, mosque, temple etc. The speciality of priests is to teach religion; the speciality of teachers is to educate. Nothing which a school curriculum can offer will be able to improve on the religious teachings which a child will experience within the communal worship of his/her church.

The only valid intervention by the State in relation to religious education would be a curriculum which promotes pluralism and tolerance of all religious and cultural beliefs. The Education Act does exactly the reverse.   As grant-aid is obtainable for the support of religious schools, parents can therefore exercise their religious preferences for their children, in line with the U.N. Bill of Human Rights easily and autonomously.

Compulsory intervention by the state to advantage one sect is wholly unnecessary and unfair. An understanding of these points will show that the aim of this part of the Education Act was not to improve children's understanding of Christianity, nor to increase their social responsibility. The act is a clear attempt to reinforce Cultural Supremacism and ensure that that non-Christian children either convert to Christianity or come to subconsciously accept their cultural 'inferiority'. The S.A.F.F. sees such an approach as being not only discriminatory with regard to religion, but a component part of indirect racism.


Instances of Cultural Supremacism such as the 1988 Education Act are not isolated ones. The S.A.F.F. has considerable evidence to show that the people who helped scope the Act were influenced by fundamentalism and that this was just one part of a complex hydra-headed missionary push involving Interfaith centres in inner-cities which prey upon disenfranchised young people from minority cultures who are having difficulty in bridging the gap between first generation culture and Western society. 

(c) world copyright holders: The Sub-culture Alternatives Freedom Foundation (S.A.F.F.) Leeds, Yorkshire, U.K.
The Full Text of This SAFF paper can be had on application to the SAFF

We want this website to represent a fair cross-section of opinion. Would you like to add more Information, Observations, Personal Experience, Criticisms or Corrections to SAFF files and publications?
Then please click here to go to our Feedback Forum - You can leave a message anonymously or just read what others have to say.