And I also point out there are a lot of decent Christians too who do a lot of good for society!When was the last time?
When was the last time?
SteveH,
In the OP of her thread: "Fortunately for me I know some very decent Christians too, like my own three girls."
Those who bring food & drink (and YES LR that includes wine) to our services, we have a mutual meal afterwards.
Just for a bit of balance:Most Christians that I know, including of course my wife.
Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Jackie Pullinger, Rowan Williams, Tony Campolo, The Salvation Army, and the thousands of ordinary Christians giving generously to charities, both in money and in time. LR is forever banging on about the nasty Christians, and they exist, but let's have a bit of balance.
Most Christians that I know, including of course my wife.That being said ...
Actually I very rarely come in contact with any of the extreme evangelical Christians who give the religion such a bad name. The vast majority I know hold very similar ethical positions to myself, albeit they are derived from different routes. But then again there is little difference between 'love thy neighbour' and the humanist golden rule.
Most Christians I know are also non-dogmatic. So although their religion might teach (for example) that homosexuality is wrong, or sex before marriage is wrong, or contraception is wrong, or abortion is wrong they stand shoulder to shoulder with me in terms of supporting the rights of individuals to be allowed to marry regardless of their sexuality, or that it is the choice of a woman alone to determine whether or not to have an abortion etc etc.
I have same experience Prof, have rarely met extremists.I suspect that extremists (of all flavours) tend to hang out with other like minded extremists so they can reinforce their extremism. nothing punctures extremist fervour more that someone challenging them or (perhaps worse) simply implying that they simply don't care.
Just for a bit of balance:
Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Jackie Pullinger, Rowan Williams, Tony Campolo, The Salvation Army, and the thousands of ordinary Christians giving generously to charities, both in money and in time. LR is forever banging on about the nasty Christians, and they exist, but let's have a bit of balance.
Hmm- shame about their attitude to gays and transIndeed - I have no time for the Salvation Army although I rather enjoy their focus on music.
I suspect that extremists (of all flavours) tend to hang out with other like minded extremists so they can reinforce their extremism. nothing punctures extremist fervour more that someone challenging them or (perhaps worse) simply implying that they simply don't care.My experience of extremists is that both of these lead them to more fervour
My experience of extremists is that both of these lead them to more fervour
This and its companion thread seem to me something you could take out the word Christian and submit almost any descriptor if some form of belief in how you should live,
NS,
That’s missing the heart of it I think. It's dogmatic belief, not just belief that's the problem. If, say, I found yoga helpful and thought other people would too so should also live their lives that way there are various things I might do: I might teach an evening class; I might start a blog about it; I might even write a book extolling its virtues. What I wouldn’t do though is to insist on seats in the legislature because of my convictions, special schools set aside in which my unqualified claims would be taught as facts, open door access to media outlets whenever they needed someone to pontificate on subjects about which I had no expertise at all. Nor would I use it to “other” groups of which I didn’t approve (those non-yoga-ists eh? Still, I’ll do my best to bring them to the true light – "hate the sin and love the sinner" and all that).
The primary issue isn’t I think about Christians who make my “skin crawl” (though many do) but rather that Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and…) make my skin crawl. “But Auntie Doreen is a god-fearing woman and she’s really nice” I don’t doubt for a minute. What I also see though is grotesque stuff that’s so commonplace, so ingrained that it’s hiding in plain sight and so goes largely unremarked. When that nice Archbishop Welby tells us he’s "struggling deeply with the issue of homosexuality" for example, then my reaction is if you’ll pardon my French is, “well fuck you then.” Who the hell does he think he is even to think that there is “an issue” at all, and how dare he give cover to those who would beat up gay men on the street. Look, it’s very simple: either you think equality is paramount or you don’t. If you do, then show some moral leadership (you know, the thing Archbishops are supposed to do) and say so loudly and clearly; if you don’t, then you’re part of the problem and not the solution. And yes I’ve heard the defence of, “but if I did the right thing bishops in Africa even more backward on this than I am would break away and that would be even worse for gay people there” but his current ambivalence also comes at a cost, and if he doesn’t show moral leadership to his own church then who will?
And so it goes. The RCs directly responsible for killing, what, hundreds of thousands every year with policies that cause unsustainably large families, the unchecked spread of AIDS, personal misery for millions for perfectly harmless (and probably healthy) sexual practices. What’s that you say, “but we’ve opened some clinics for AIDS victims, and some homes for “fallen” women”? So you bloody well should – when you cause the problem in the first place, don’t use as a defence putting a sticking plaster over it in the hope no-one notices.
Oh, and while we’re here this is what faith that thinks it knows – really knows – better than “mere” reason does. It gives these people a higher calling than the dull old secular law so if they get the word that a priest is raping children, not a problem – we’ll just move him elsewhere so he can wreck a few more lives. After all, God knows best and has a higher purpose for him right? And if the heat really gets a bit much, still not a problem – we’ll just whip him back to HQ so the local plod can’t reach him at all. Job done!
And there’s more – so much more. I know – let’s convince priests that the sanctity of the confessional is such that, even if someone tells you he’s planted a bomb in a classroom of children set to go off an hour later, you’re still not allowed to shop him. Better to have the kiddies blown to smithereens than to displease my imaginary (but ever so good, honest) god eh?
So no, I don’t admire these people at all. Not because their beliefs are palpably idiotic, but because we privilege those beliefs in public life such that they get taken seriously and so can actually matter. So for every po-faced, holier-than-though, Thought for the Day reading, “I know better than you because I have faith, and I’m am better person too”, minority hating, misogynistic, paedophile protecting, education polluting, science denying, inequality supporting, patronising cleric and their fellow travellers I say “fuck you” too. Disestablish your churches, stop taking tax payer money, re-open as private members’ clubs if you must and we can all point and laugh as we do the flat-earthers.
Until then though, yes they do make my skin crawl even though I’d happily have a cup of tea and a garibaldi with Auntie Doreen if she wanted me to.
And another thing…
And I think that misses the point entirely too. Belief itself isn't dogmatic, people are, that is we seem to be inclined to think our beliefs are absolutely true. Religion didn't do this as its a symptom not a cause, and as you have already covered it's not just religion that could do this. Your yoga example seems to me based on a mistake in that just because yoga followers haven't done that doesn't mean that they might not do so.
To take an example, you mention that you either think equality is paramount or not, well some animal activists would see anyone not completely vegan as supporting inequality and being part of the problem, and arguably many communists supporting an idea of equality thought it good to murder millions for the good of equality.
Now we could go down the route that these were wrong about their idea of equality, but we are in No True Scotsman territory here.
Belief systems that lead to dogmatism need none of the specifics of religions. It seems rather just be what we do- now I'm not arguing here that that makes it right but rather looking on religion in any sense as a special case is unfounded.
All my point was emphasising was your own position that it isn't religion that leads to dogmatism but that belief systems can be held dogmatically. Your position on this has always seemed to me based on the idea that somehow religion is 'external' which for an atheist I find odd,
You're defining "faith" as "dogmatism" in the first place, so naturally it is then beyond argument and unfalsifiable. I'm sure that's a logical fallacy - petitio principii? No true Scotsman? One of them. Or something.
SteveH,
Yes I am calling faith dogmatic - "I know I'm right because my faith tells me so" is dogmatic. What else could it be? How would you propose to argue against it?
And no, those logical fallacies don't apply.
NS,
Nope. You’re missing the key difference still – faith. “Belief itself” is dogmatic when it’s a faith. What else could it be? “But that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it, so there’s no possibility even of falsifying it, whether its object happens to be a god or leprechauns. That is, some beliefs have certainty baked in (religious ones for example) whereas others don’t (yoga for example). For the latter, yes it does mean that yoga followers might not do so because they have no unfalsifiable faith rationale to support them – inasmuch as they make objective claims of fact about the world those claims can be investigated and validated or falsified as may be. Now try that with the claim of objective fact, “God”.
Yes they may do, and those arguments can be considered on their merits or demerits too. That says nothing though to the argument under discussion, namely that Welby (in this example) either thinks equality is key or he doesn’t. He has to get to, “no it isn’t” to open the door to differential treatment (“hate the sin”), but if he does you can then populate the list of bigotries with anything you (or your “holy” texts) happen to light on.
We could, but it wouldn’t be relevant. Comparing the rights of people (ie, gay vs non-gay) is comparing apples with apples - they’re all people; comparing the rights of people with the rights of animals isn’t.
I didn’t – as I made clear. The category of “special case” is for dogmatic, certain, faith-based beliefs – religion is obviously a big example of it, but it’s by no means the only one.
You’ll need to clarify that I think. External to what? I see religion as a particularly pernicious example of dogmatic belief (because of the harm it does in the real world, snippets of which I referred to in my post). It’s not that “belief systems can be held dogmatically” though – it’s that some belief systems are dogmatic in their essence, necessarily so when their rationale is “faith”. You seem to be suggesting that beliefs are of a piece, only sometimes people choose to hold them dogmatically – a top down approach. I think it’s the other way round (ie, bottom up) – some types of belief are necessarily dogmatic because they rest fundamentally on faith, and when that’s your starting point there’s nowhere else to go. You believe them or you don’t, but there’s no epistemology involved.
But surely someone could say I believe I'm right because my faith tells me so as well?
And plenty of people who say the know they are right would not use the term faith?
NS,
Did you mean to say that? Yes, someone could say that – so what? Compare that though with, say, a mathematician who instead would say, “Here’s my working that shows me to be right. If you can find a fault in it though then I’ll be wrong”.
That’s a categorically different approach to, “I know I’m right because my faith tells me so”.
[quoteAnd plenty of people who say the know they are right would not use the term faith?
They might not use that term, but it’s binary – either they have reason, evidence, workings out etc that are investigable and testable or they have, well, faith. Whether they happen to use that term is incidental to the point.
External here means that they are not created in any sense outside of human behaviour, Religions and all belief systems are merely humans expressing how they think.
There is such thing as a belief system being dogmatic, there is only a set of behaviours of humans that is dogmatic.
Since some of those humans who have faith do not express themselves dogmatically then you faith equals dogmatism idea seems to me flawed.
…and again if you say they aren't properly 'faithful' then we are back at the NTS.
Further you seem to think that there are merits and demerits in 'ought' arguments such as how to get equality without the possibility that the axiom itself is both an article of what would in nrmal terms be called faith and isn't capable of being defined objectively.
NS,Not sure why you switched from a comment on belief systems to belief types, Certainly if we define a belief type as a belief that is held as certainly true, and one that isn't then they are different. But the thing the belief is about is not the determinant factor here, it's what the persn holding the belief thinks. So the issue you have with certainty is with people who act as if they are certain about things, not what the belief is. Further the people who are not certain and allow for the possibility of being wrong can also talk about faith and if you accept that then your faith = dogmatism idea falls unless you go down the NTS route. And that's why I mentioned that, it wasn't saying that you have used it, but unless you were to use it, you would have to move from your position on faith.
At a generic level, that’s right. Within that though there are categories – faith-based vs logic/evidence-based for example. That’s the point.
Presumably that should read, “no such thing”. And I disagree fundamentally – see above. Dogmatic and non-dogmatic belief types are fundamentally different in their approach and in their effect. It’d be rare for, say a physicist to say, “I know that I’m right no matter what”. For a cleric though, it’s a commonplace.
Why? Faith.
You’re missing the status that’s attached to the claim. If someone said, “I’m guessing A rather than B because that’s my faith” (raindrops running down a window for example) you’d have a point. What I’m talking about though is those who say, “A is certainly correct because that’s my faith”, and in particular those who say it when “A” is “God”.
I don’t say that, and nor have I implied it. See above .
No, I was merely saying that either the Archbish thinks equality is primary or he doesn’t. I happen to think that it is, but I attach no objective status to that – it’s just an ought of my own, but it’s one Welby would have to confront before he went down the inequality route. What I was saying though was that the idea that animals should be treated equally with people therefore rests on different axioms and premises, and so isn’t a like-for-like comparison.
Yes, I meant it. The mathematics example is irrelevant since we aren't comparing like with like here.
Oughts don't have right answers but people act and speak as if they do.
Some people might say that they are certain they are right, but others might admit to a lack of certainty. Both of them may well use the term faith in speaking of it. Some religious people speak as if they are certain, others don't. Some non religious people speak as if they are certain, others don't. It doesn't seem to take a particular type of idea or concept for people to be able to be certain or uncertain about it
NS,Disageeing with a comparison as being valid isn't derailing. At base your position seems to be that if someone were to say I am certain that Marmite is great, that is skin crawling. Further since there are lots of people who state that they have faith but would express doubt as to whether something is true, then the whole point you are making is based on a caricature
You’re derailing. It’s relevant because it illustrates the fundamental difference between the approaches: "I’m right because my faith tells me so" vs "I’m right because this set of calculations tells me so".
For the former, there’s nowhere to go after that – we’re in not even wrong territory; for the latter, there’s everywhere to go just by examining the calculations.
Oughts are a secondary matter. The primary one is that claim of objective fact: “There is a god, he’s my God, his rules are accurately written in a book, some of those rules concern man on man action etc” are all claims of objective fact – they’re right or they’re not.
“So you ought to do as this God says” on the other hand is what ensues, and then you’d have point. What I’m addressing though is the claims of fact bit that comes first, specifically claims of fact that rest only on personal faith.
All true (though it’d be a relatively rare theist I think who said, “there might be a god or there might not be but I’m going to guess that there is” as if he were talking about raindrops on a window) but I’m talking here specifically about those who attach the label “fact” to their faith beliefs.
I have to go out for a couple of hours by the way, but will pick this up later if that’s ok. Interesting chat though (at least for me).
I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.No they don't and I suspect you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. One of the key pillars of science is peer review - if I submit a paper for review and go a bit further than that which is justified on the basis of evidence then guess what will happen? My paper will be rejected until I reign back my conclusions to the point at which they are entirely justified by they evidence.
The Salvation ArmyDefinitely makes my skin crawl.
Definitely makes my skin crawl.What have you got against the Sally Army? N.B. - blank statements with no justifying reasons are not very helpful.
Possibly watched a 1980s documentary about an SA hostel which showed various abuses by SA staff. I remember it well & discussing it with colleagues at work the next day. However I don't believe that a few bad apples are indicative of the state of the entire organisation (same with Oxfam), & like you admire the work of the Salvation Army.I don't donate to the Salvation army - my problem is that they are a multi-faceted organisations and I cannot be sure that the money I donate is going to the elements I think to be valuable (e.g. direct support for homeless people), rather than those I'd rather choose not to support (funding religious worship) and those I actively oppose (proselytising within the context of charitable activities, campaigning against gay rights etc).
I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't bother
then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't botherAs a professional scientist I tried to explain - my post has been completely ignored by Steve - hmmm.
As a professional scientist I tried to explain - my post has been completely ignored by Steve - hmmm.surely if someone hasn't answered a post all you can tell is they haven't snswered it, not anything about completely ignoring it?
then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't botherTry me - and please drop the gratuitous unpleasantness.
I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.
Try me - and please drop the gratuitous unpleasantness.no , I don't think I will . And don't tell me what to do !
What evidence and arguments lead even in the "direction" of any sort of god?
surely if someone hasn't answered a post all you can tell is they haven't snswered it, not anything about completely ignoring it?Fair enough if he hadn't been posting replies to others in the meantime. But he has and has failed to response to my post (a direct comment on one of his). In my books that is being ignored.
no , I don't think I will . And don't tell me what to do !I didn't tell you, I asked you; and if you don't give justification for your posts, you can't expect to be taken seriously.
I don't donate to the Salvation army - my problem is that they are a multi-faceted organisations and I cannot be sure that the money I donate is going to the elements I think to be valuable (e.g. direct support for homeless people), rather than those I'd rather choose not to support (funding religious worship) and those I actively oppose (proselytising within the context of charitable activities, campaigning against gay rights etc).
Further the organisation is institutionally homophobic - openly stating that is opposes same sex relationships and bans people in gay relationships from being members. I wont support an organisation that doesn't recognise equality on the basis of gender, sexuality or race.
Finally, the availability of alternatives (i.e. other secular charities involved in the same kind of charitable work) means there is no reason to support Salvation Army. And as these secular alternatives are not multi-faceted I can be much more confident that a £ donated to them will result in £ spent on the charitable activity or admin and fund-raising to support that charitable activity. I have no idea how much of a £ donated to Salvation Army will go on charitable activity and how much on the provision of religious worship, campaigning on other topics (using anti-equality) or proselytising.
then you and many others would be wrong . In fact so wrong the explanation as to why would be wasted on you . So I won't bother
I don't agree with you Prof, the SA are not homophobic & the SA do not proselytise people they help - however we are all free to donate or not to any organisation so fair enough.OK.
Sprocket please reply to this post of Prof's, he's saying you're refusing to. i think you just haven't seen it, I only just saw it.
Sprocket please reply to this post of Prof's, he's saying you're refusing to. i think you just haven't seen it, I only just saw it.
Robbie....Me. I've only just noticed that Robbie called me that. Is it a name I've used on here before, or do I know Robbie from elsewhere? (I use "Sprocket" in various places online, because of my fondness for cycling.)
Who is 'Sprocket'?
I don't agree with you Prof, the SA are not homophobic & the SA do not proselytise people they help - however we are all free to donate or not to any organisation so fair enough.It depends on your definition of homophobic - in my world if you systematically as an institution treat individuals less favourably on the basis of their sexuality then you are homophobic - and the SA does.
OK.
I disagree with the SA's stance on homosexuality, but they are an evangelical set-up, so it's hardly surprising. I can live with it, given the good work they do. It is true that donations go to the SA as a whole - that is a basic principle of the SA, because they see evangelism and social care as all part of one mission. They were criticised in the 80s for not making that clear, but I think they do now. They get a smidgen every week from me, via payroll giving, but of course there are any number of other charities and good causes to donate to.
Oh, ok. I couldn't remember a Sprocket on this forum.
A poster from another forum. I didn't realise Robbie posted on that one too.I think I used to be "Sprocket" on here as well.
I think I used to be "Sprocket" on here as well.
I don't agree with you Prof, the SA are not homophobic & the SA do not proselytise people they help - however we are all free to donate or not to any organisation so fair enough.Hi Robbie
Steve please reply to this post of Prof's, he's saying you're refusing to. i think you just haven't seen it, I only just saw it.
Walter, you are quite rude & dismissive today.
I didn't tell you, I asked you; and if you don't give justification for your posts, you can't expect to be taken seriously.you're at it again with your smugness , don't tell me what I can or can't expect .
I too disagree with the SA views on homosexual relationships but they don't discriminate at all ...Yes they do.
I don't donate regularly, usually bung them something around Christmas but had too many things on my mind & to do last Christmas. The mention on this thread brought them to mind & I sent a belated donation last night.Are you comfortable that just 22% of that donation will go to work helping vulnerable. Don't you think your money would be better donated to an organisation that once the costs of fundraising are taken into account spends pretty well 100% of the remained on helping vulnerable people. For example Crisis, who spend 62% of the money they raise on helping vulnerable people.
Yes they do.
If you are a married heterosexual person you can become a member of the SA, if you are married homosexual person you are banned from becoming a member. That is the most obvious direct discrimination you can get.
Didn't know only 22% of donations went into the work. Still happy to bung them something once a year, they're not people I donate to regularly.I suspect very few people who are casual donors to the SA know that either. I suspect that quite a few would be rather shocked to learn this and indeed would probably not donate if it was made clear.
you're at it again with your smugness , don't tell me what I can or can't expect .Hmm, yes, I tend to agree. Bearing in mind that Snthetic Dave reads all post to me in an identical manner, the trying-to-tell-others-what-to-do still comes across I'd say.
Prof D:- The CofE does come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.
Neither of those churches have ever sent people to knock on my door for money, in my whole life!
They take a collection in church from congregants on Sundays.
Hmm, yes, I tend to agree. Bearing in mind that Snthetic Dave reads all post to me in an identical manner, the trying-to-tell-others-what-to-do still comes across I'd say.SD thank you for your agreement
Prof D:- The CofE does come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.Sorry - typo - I meant 'The CofE doesn't come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.
Neither of those churches have ever sent people to knock on my door for money, in my whole life!
They take a collection in church from congregants on Sundays.
Floo, I agree with what you said earlier about door knocking with tins! Maybe in high street, charities often have a stand and leaflets but haven't seen that for a while. Certainly no churches around where I live do door knocking.
RNLI - Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a charity that I've been told uses next to nothing for administration and all staff are volunteers. A worthy cause indeed. Tho' I don't object to staff being paid, usually charity staff are not paid particularly well compared to private sector.
Sorry - typo - I meant 'The CofE doesn't come knocking on your door to raise money to fund the cost of providing its church services, it expects its church-goers to do so. Likewise the RCC.
That was my whole point - the SA does come knocking on your door asking for donations, much of which is used for the day to day costs of providing its religious worship. It is pretty well unique in doing that - other churches don't - they expect their congregations to cough up for those costs, not the general public via donations on the doorstep or on the street.
you're at it again with your smugness , don't tell me what I can or can't expect .I think you're trying to wind me up, provoke me into a profane outburst, and get me banned. Well, I decline to be wound. Sorry.
RNLI - Royal National Lifeboat Institution is a charity that I've been told uses next to nothing for administration and all staff are volunteers. A worthy cause indeed. Tho' I don't object to staff being paid, usually charity staff are not paid particularly well compared to private sector.All charities need to fund basic administrative costs and also the costs associated with fundraising. You'd hope the former is key to the minimum necessary and the latter is used effectively, so raises far more than the costs involved.
You do not have to give money to them! Just throw away their envelope & refuse to answer the door.I don't give money to them.
The Salvation Army has never knocked on my door for a donation!Really - they do so every year around here. Their modus operandus is to know on the door with the little collection envelope. I no-one is in they leave the envelope and knock a day or so later for a donation.
Presumably money is spent on training SA soldiers. People I know who are SA officers have worked abroad in places where there is great need & in prisons over here amongst other things. They have to be salaried. I've no objection to them being salaried out of my meagre annual donation.But those costs will be in the 'Community Programmes' and/or 'Training Programmes' sections of their accounts - which together are less than 25% of their income.
I think you're trying to wind me up, provoke me into a profane outburst, and get me banned. Well, I decline to be wound. Sorry.keep calm and post on
Yes they do.
If you are a married heterosexual person you can become a member of the SA, if you are married homosexual person you are banned from becoming a member. That is the most obvious direct discrimination you can get.
Would you actually like to respond to the point I actually made which was:
The SA is classed as a religious denomination.
Their interretation of Scripture leads them to reject same-sex marriage, just as other relihious denominations (and other religions, for rhat matter) do.
In my experience working at a local level ith the SA, first as a volunteer in a joint drug rehab project in the early 1980's, (no pun intended) when I was more active in ther Iona Community, and latterly serving on a joint liason committee in my local county, I have not noted any homophobia, or lack of tolerance toward any gender or social situation. Quite the opposite: I know of a lady - a lesbian - who was weaned off drugs and alcohol through a SA rehab centre. She was never presured to make any faith committment; though the SA made no secret of their faith.
She remains an atheist.
That's exactly what i've found over the years Anchor.But you accept that as a matter of policy they do discriminate as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
We used to donate to the RLNI on a regular basis.
But you accept that as a matter of policy they do discriminate as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
But you accept that as a matter of policy they do discriminate as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
Not sure why you switched from a comment on belief systems to belief types,
Certainly if we define a belief type as a belief that is held as certainly true, and one that isn't then they are different. But the thing the belief is about is not the determinant factor here, it's what the persn holding the belief thinks. So the issue you have with certainty is with people who act as if they are certain about things, not what the belief is.
Further the people who are not certain and allow for the possibility of being wrong can also talk about faith and if you accept that then your faith = dogmatism idea falls unless you go down the NTS route. And that's why I mentioned that, it wasn't saying that you have used it, but unless you were to use it, you would have to move from your position on faith.
As to equality the vegan has a different definition and the Archbish may do too - I would suggest we all do to an extent and that in day to day conversations the differences aren't important but in the rather more complex cases, what is meant by equality
Disageeing with a comparison as being valid isn't derailing.
At base your position seems to be that if someone were to say I am certain that Marmite is great, that is skin crawling.
Further since there are lots of people who state that they have faith but would express doubt as to whether something is true, then the whole point you are making is based on a caricature
I - and many others would say that faith is going as far as you can with the evidence and arguments, and then going a bit further in the same direction with faith. Scientists need faith in that sense.
SteveH,As I said before, you are insisting that your definition of faith is the only possible one.
I find it difficult to think of something more wrong that that. Faith starts and ends with no evidence at all, makes a guess, calls that guess "God", and then worships it.
Science on the other hand starts with hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests it, and either rejects or amends the hypotheses or develops the results into theories. It cannot "go a bit further in the same direction" except as another hypothesis that itself would be subject to the same process.
Epic fail.
SteveH,But how does science help you in anyway that can't help me Hillside. I can have science without faith in scientism.
I find it difficult to think of something more wrong that that. Faith starts and ends with no evidence at all, makes a guess, calls that guess "God", and then worships it.
Science on the other hand starts with hypotheses, gathers evidence, tests it, and either rejects or amends the hypotheses or develops the results into theories. It cannot "go a bit further in the same direction" except as another hypothesis that itself would be subject to the same process.
Epic fail.
As I said before, you are insisting that your definition of faith is the only possible one.
The Sally army will offer help to anybody in distress. If you want to spit in their face, go ahead. You will be the one who looks like a bigot.
Wahey! This thread has overtaken the other one in mumber of posts! :D :) :D
Would you actually like to respond to the point I actually made which was:
'If you are a married heterosexual person you can become a member of the SA, if you are married homosexual person you are banned from becoming a member. That is the most obvious direct discrimination you can get.'
Just because they don't discriminate in all cases, doesn't mean they don't discriminate - they clearly do as you cannot become a member if you are married but in a homosexual relationship, but can if you are married but in a heterosexual relationship. That is a clear, cut and dried, case of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
The Bible teaches that God's intention for humankind is that society should be ordered on the basis of lifelong, legally sanctioned heterosexual unions. ... A disposition towards homosexuality is not in itself blameworthy nor is the disposition seen as rectifiable at will. ... Homosexual practice however, is, in the light of Scripture, clearly unacceptable. Such activity is chosen behaviour and is thus a matter of the will. It is therefore able to be directed or restrained in the same way heterosexual urges are controlled. Homosexual practice would render any person ineligible for full membership (soldiership) in the Army.[26]
Holding a belief that you disagree with is not necessarily prejudice, nor is appealing for money for good causes from people whose lifestyle you disagree with hypocritical.
The Sally army will offer help to anybody in distress. If you want to spit in their face, go ahead. You will be the one who looks like a bigot.Since when did the SA become sacrosanct - a kind of sacred cow that is not allowed to be subject to criticism.
Holding a belief is fine. It is acting on it that is the problem. Where have I heard that before? ;)But the SA do act upon their beliefs via discriminatory action and policy - namely that they will allow a married heterosexual person to become a member but they ban married homosexual people from becoming members. That is clearly discriminatory action.
Holding a belief that you disagree with is not necessarily prejudice, nor is appealing for money for good causes from people whose lifestyle you disagree with hypocritical.How about not telling the people that you are asking for donations that most of their money wont go to helping people in need.
What have you got against the Sally Army?Good question. I think it's the pseudo militaristic schtick.
N.B. - blank statements with no justifying reasons are not very helpful.I'm describing a feeling I get when thinking about the Salvation Army. I'm afraid you are going to have to just take my word for it that it happens.
Good question. I think it's the pseudo militaristic schtick.It's a metaphor, and there are two kinds of metaphor: "and" ones and "but" ones: the first says that the tenor is good, and so is the vehicle, and the second says that the tenor is bad but the vehicle is good. It can at least be argued that the SA's military imagery is of the "but" type: physical warfare is bad, but spiritual warfare is good. This is the same as Paul's imagery of the sword of the spirit, etc.
Good question. I think it's the pseudo militaristic schtick.I'm waiting for the New atheist answer to it.
I'm describing a feeling I get when thinking about the Salvation Army. I'm afraid you are going to have to just take my word for it that it happens.
It's a metaphor, and there are two kinds of metaphor: "and" ones and "but" ones: the first says that the tenor is good, and so is the vehicle, and the second says that the tenor is bad but the vehicle is good. It can at least be argued that the SA's military imagery is of the "but" type: physical warfare is bad, but spiritual warfare is good. This is the same as Paul's imagery of the sword of the spirit, etc.
It's a metaphor that makes my skin crawl. Sue me.Fine. "There's no accounting for taste", as the man said before eating 50 raw eggs. I might add that I am both an admirer of the SA and almost a pacifist.
It's a metaphor that makes my skin crawl. Sue me.The military schtick doesn't bother me that much - it's a bit odd but each to their own. What bothers me is that they discriminate against gay people (banning them from becoming members) and 'market' themselves to the public as an organisation that helps needy and vulnerable people, when those activities represent a small proportion of their overall activities and donations are as likely to be used to support their:
I thought I already responded.
The interpretation of Christian marriage which the SA espouses as a Christian church -which it is - is in accord with mainstream Christian evangelical thought.
Anchs,
Then "mainstream Christian evangelical thought" is institutionally homophobic too.
That's not a good thing by the way.
Love the sinner, hate the sin blah blah.
Rhi,Why?
["Love the sinner, hate the sin is f]or several reasons one of the most contemptible of all Christian sentiments in my (rarely humble) opinion.
Why?
SteveH,
Because:
- It treats (in this case) homosexuality being a “sin” – ie, somehow immoral - as a given;
- It then covers the tracks of that nasty little prejudice with the hypocrisy of, “but look I’m a nice guy too – I’m prepared to love those who do it nonetheless”;
- It provides intellectual cover for those who would act on it – from “conversion therapy” types to those who would beat up gay men on the street. “Well, the Church thinks it’s bad so really I’m just going a bit further in my attitudes and behaviour”.
That is ridiculous. There is a big difference between telling somebody that what they do is wrong, and beating them up in the street. Our church teaches that homosexual sex is wrong, and should be confessed to a priest. If you are not a member of our church, you do not have to live by our rules.
As I said before, you are insisting that your definition of faith is the only possible one.my skin is crawling !!!!
SteveH,You said you hated "love the sinner, hate the sin" in general, not with reference to homosexuality.
Because:
- It treats (in this case) homosexuality being a “sin” – ie, somehow immoral - as a given;
- It then covers the tracks of that nasty little prejudice with the hypocrisy of, “but look I’m a nice guy too – I’m prepared to love those who do it nonetheless”;
- It provides intellectual cover for those who would act on it – from “conversion therapy” types to those who would beat up gay men on the street. “Well, the Church thinks it’s bad so really I’m just going a bit further in my attitudes and behaviour”.
Why?
I share BHS’s opinion here, in my case because love is a universal concept, but sin is a Christian invention that has little to do with love. Feel free to hate evil; homosexual relationships do not fall into that category.I agree that loving, faithful, lifelong homosexual relationships are not evil; indeed are positively good.
Humph,
But you are affected by them – so long as we privilege the claims of clerics over just guessing (by giving them seats in the legislature, having schools set aside for their teachings, consulting them in the media on issues of morality etc) they have authority and influence they extends beyond those who would turn up on a Sunday to hear this bile.
In short, they contribute to the Zeitgeist.
I agree that loving, faithful, lifelong homosexual relationships are not evil; indeed are positively good.
I agree that loving, faithful, lifelong homosexual relationships are not evil; indeed are positively good.
I feel the same about short, fleeting relationships based on great sex.But is that lurve or lurst?
What about homosexual relationships that are not lifelong?What about heterosexual relationships that are not lifelong? Why is the sexuality of the couple involved relevant?
What about heterosexual relationships that are not lifelong? Why is the sexuality of the couple involved relevant?
It is not. Casual sex of any kind is frowned upon.Yes, I agree all sex should be black tie
Yes, I agree all sex should be black tie
It is not. Casual sex of any kind is frowned upon.In which case therefore there should be absolutely no issue with a married couple who have made a lifelong commitment, regardless of whether the couple are heterosexual or homosexual.
In which case therefore there should be absolutely no issue with a married couple who have made a lifelong commitment, regardless of whether the couple are heterosexual or homosexual.
Er, No.
We do not recognise same sex marriage. It is against our culture. If you don't like that, then do not join our church.
As you once said to me on a discussion about Yellow Boxes on junctions.....simples.
Maybe it is about time your culture was dragged into the 21st century as it is bigoted.
The whole point about our culture is that is does not change. As far as we are concerned the RCC is a heretical group that broke away from us in the eleventh century.
In doesn't say much for people who cling onto something as unpleasant as your belief system. :o
Such as our belief that murder is wrong?
Maybe it is about time your culture was dragged into the 21st century as it is bigoted.what a place to be dragged into.....The end of welfare....The vilification of charity...The return of the evil poor and the virtuousness of money...
In doesn't say much for people who cling onto something as unpleasant as your belief system. :o
NS,It's supply and demand. Clearly there is a demand in some parts of society for the religious privileges you mentioned to continue. Non-religious groups in society also seem to have extra privileges and influence - the wealthy, celebrities, people with titles and while enough people exist in society who are ok about letting those privileges and influence continue, not a lot will change.
That’s missing the heart of it I think. It's dogmatic belief, not just belief that's the problem. If, say, I found yoga helpful and thought other people would too so should also live their lives that way there are various things I might do: I might teach an evening class; I might start a blog about it; I might even write a book extolling its virtues. What I wouldn’t do though is to insist on seats in the legislature because of my convictions, special schools set aside in which my unqualified claims would be taught as facts, open door access to media outlets whenever they needed someone to pontificate on subjects about which I had no expertise at all. Nor would I use it to “other” groups of which I didn’t approve (those non-yoga-ists eh? Still, I’ll do my best to bring them to the true light – "hate the sin and love the sinner" and all that).
The primary issue isn’t I think about Christians who make my “skin crawl” (though many do) but rather that Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and…) make my skin crawl. “But Auntie Doreen is a god-fearing woman and she’s really nice” I don’t doubt for a minute. What I also see though is grotesque stuff that’s so commonplace, so ingrained that it’s hiding in plain sight and so goes largely unremarked. When that nice Archbishop Welby tells us he’s "struggling deeply with the issue of homosexuality" for example, then my reaction is if you’ll pardon my French is, “well fuck you then.” Who the hell does he think he is even to think that there is “an issue” at all, and how dare he give cover to those who would beat up gay men on the street.
Oh, and while we’re here this is what faith that thinks it knows – really knows – better than “mere” reason does. It gives these people a higher calling than the dull old secular law so if they get the word that a priest is raping children, not a problem – we’ll just move him elsewhere so he can wreck a few more lives. After all, God knows best and has a higher purpose for him right? And if the heat really gets a bit much, still not a problem – we’ll just whip him back to HQ so the local plod can’t reach him at all. Job done!
And there’s more – so much more. I know – let’s convince priests that the sanctity of the confessional is such that, even if someone tells you he’s planted a bomb in a classroom of children set to go off an hour later, you’re still not allowed to shop him. Better to have the kiddies blown to smithereens than to displease my imaginary (but ever so good, honest) god eh?
So no, I don’t admire these people at all. Not because their beliefs are palpably idiotic, but because we privilege those beliefs in public life such that they get taken seriously and so can actually matter. So for every po-faced, holier-than-though, Thought for the Day reading, “I know better than you because I have faith, and I’m am better person too”, minority hating, misogynistic, paedophile protecting, education polluting, science denying, inequality supporting, patronising cleric and their fellow travellers I say “fuck you” too. Disestablish your churches, stop taking tax payer money, re-open as private members’ clubs if you must and we can all point and laugh as we do the flat-earthers.
SteveH,Not really sure why this line of argument is only directed at faith and those religious people who "know" they are right.
Yes I am calling faith dogmatic - "I know I'm right because my faith tells me so" is dogmatic. What else could it be? How would you propose to argue against it?
SteveH,I would never say that, and nor would most of the Christians I know. I did once work for a few months with a happy-clappy whose only response to anti-religious arguments was "I don't care, I've got faith", but he was an idiot.
Yes I am calling faith dogmatic - "I know I'm right because my faith tells me so" is dogmatic. What else could it be? How would you propose to argue against it?
And no, those logical fallacies don't apply.
It's a metaphor that makes my skin crawl. Sue me.
Who did?
Sometimes that metaphor's worth the investment - he posted as a former Boy and Officer of the oldest Christian uniformed youth movement, the Boys' Brigade.
Sometimes that metaphor's worth the investment - he posted as a former Boy and Officer of the oldest Christian uniformed youth movement, the Boys' Brigade.Can you explain the whole uniformed, quasi-military religious movement thing. I've always found it a bit odd and never really understood it. Genuine question.
what a place to be dragged into.....The end of welfare....The vilification of charity...The return of the evil poor and the virtuousness of money...
modern slavery.....rising violence...
what a place to be dragged into.....The end of welfare....The vilification of charity...The return of the evil poor and the virtuousness of money...And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?
modern slavery.....rising violence...
Can you explain the whole uniformed, quasi-military religious movement thing. I've always found it a bit odd and never really understood it. Genuine question.
And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981
It's supply and demand. Clearly there is a demand in some parts of society for the religious privileges you mentioned to continue. Non-religious groups in society also seem to have extra privileges and influence - the wealthy, celebrities, people with titles and while enough people exist in society who are ok about letting those privileges and influence continue, not a lot will change.
When there is enough of a drop in the number of people wanting faith schools or when enough people want to reform the legislature etc - when the demand drops, so too will the privileges. It's a bit like Brexit - and change will probably be equally contentious. We have to abide by the outcomes of the democratic process, but thanks to free speech you are allowed to complain about it.
And while we are on the subject of free speech, you can accuse any law-abiding person who expresses any opinion you don't like of giving "intellectual cover" for a third party's criminal behaviour. Your concept of "intellectual cover" seems to be a poorly disguised attack on free speech. In which case I think it is vitally important that I and anyone else who supports free speech continue to give intellectual cover at every opportunity.
The examples you gave about the cover-up of abuse or the sanctity of confession etc can't be used to generalise about every person's faith in action. There may well be many similar examples but given the cover-up of abuse in schools, charities, UN Peacekeeping forces, Hollywood, it seems like covering-up is a human behaviour which can exist with or without religion. These examples can't be used to generalise about every single person who has faith and who is not involved in these kinds of behaviour - to do so just comes across as bigotry on your part. Not that you necessarily need to care that you come across in that way.
ETA - I too could argue that your Islam and Christianity "makes my skin crawl" line provides intellectual cover for children being bullied because they are religious.
https://www.childline.org.uk/info-advice/bullying-abuse-safety/types-bullying/faith-religious-bullying/[/quote
Not really sure why this line of argument is only directed at faith and those religious people who "know" they are right.
"I know I'm right because my morals tell me so" is equally dogmatic.
So for example how would you propose to argue against "I know I am right that equality should be paramount because my morals tell me so, and therefore my concept or interpretation of equality should be enforced by legislation"?
Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981A period in the UK that included:
Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981
Yea, that NHS coming along in 1948 was when the rot set in I reckon. If only we'd just let all those kiddies keep dying of TB we'd be so much better off now...Vlad is surely saying the NHS was part of his golden period, not arguing that it was bad?
Yea, that NHS coming along in 1948 was when the rot set in I reckon. If only we'd just let all those kiddies keep dying of TB we'd be so much better off now...
How right you are!!!!!!!!!!!!! The NHS might not be perfect, but thank goodness for it.Except bhs's post seems to misread Vlad's statement completely
Vlad is surely saying the NHS was part of his golden period, not arguing that it was bad?
Except bhs's post seems to misread Vlad's statement completely
NS,I think the context and Vlad's posting means that any ambiguity is ruled out. Whether it has any validity is another matter.
Only if the (entirely ambiguous) meaning was as you read it. The answer "Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981" to the question, "When was the golden age?" can be read either way.
If it's as you read it though, what disastrous event occurred in 1982 I wonder - the Falklands war? The release of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" perhaps?
Gabriella,No you don't. Atheism is increasing in the UK. People might learn about different religions in school or discuss different religions in the media but there is plenty of opportunity to consider switching to atheism if it has utility for you. Consumers of religion especially teenagers and adults will decide to buy if religion adds value to their lives. Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families.
No, for classical supply and demand to apply you’d need a free market. Here though we have a set of beliefs deeply embedded in public discourse (schools, legislature, media access etc) in an authority dynamic that doesn’t apply to your other examples. You’re not comparing apples with apples.
This from a paid up member of a faith that embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its “prophet”?You have a real talent for this bigot schtick. Well done. There isn't a single faith, just lots of interpretations by individuals. But you already knew that.
Not for one moment do I say that they shouldn’t be allowed to say anything they like – what I do say though is that they have an unfair (and often damaging) influence when those comments are privileged by right over those of others.It's like Brexit - you might not like it but there is currently a demand for that privilege to exist and the media generate revenue by disseminating those comments to a wider audience.
What I do say though is that in the public square privileging faith over just guessing is a bad idea, however often you point to someone who does something nice because of it. “But that’s my faith” is the same defence whether it relates to manning a soup kitchen or to flying ‘planes into buildings.At the risk of simply repeating myself - it's like Brexit - if the public want to remove the privilege, they can set that in motion by lobbying their MPs - or do something similar to Nigel Farage to bring about a referendum on the issue.
Again, you’re conflating the phenomenon of “faith” with people who happen to have it.Is that your version of love the sinner but hate the sin?
You’re also conflating beliefs with characteristics (in this case sexual orientation). You may as well argue that I’m providing intellectual cover to attack Tories if I espouse the views of Labour (or vice versa). These things can be discussed and debated. Say that Fred is “sinful” for his sexual orientation on the other hand and that’s the beginning and end of the matter.Are you arguing that you can choose your beliefs?
They’re the same thing when by “know” the latter also mean, “without admitting any possibility of being wrong”.Some people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is wrong whereas other people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is perfectly fine. Some people who claimed to "know" God exists dedicated their lives to abolishing slavery. Not seeing why religion is a special problem.
Yes it would be if that “know” was accompanied by a “no matter what”. For the most part though morality doesn’t work that way unless it has something else (like religion) to underpin it. Consider for example the remarkable progress on issues like equal marriage in just a generation or two. Now consider that attitude of most mainstream faiths to it, chained as they are t the certainty of their various “holy” texts.
Easily if that person also said, “I certainly know no matter what evidence or argument may emerge”, just as I would (and do) when the religious say the same thing.Ok so you're saying it's pretty easy to argue against someone who says "I know I am right". Again not seeing what the problem is.
I think the context and Vlad's posting means that any ambiguity is ruled out. Whether it has any validity is another matter.
NS,
Cleary I didn't, and when you drew my attention to it I conceded readily that's its perfectly possible to read it the other way too. As pretty much every social indicator has improved since then in any case though, I have no idea why he thinks there was once a golden age that's now lost.
No you don't. Atheism is increasing in the UK. People might learn about different religions in school or discuss different religions in the media but there is plenty of opportunity to consider switching to atheism if it has utility for you. Consumers of religion especially teenagers and adults will decide to buy if religion adds value to their lives. Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families.
You have a real talent for this bigot schtick. Well done. There isn't a single faith, just lots of interpretations by individuals. But you already knew that.
It's like Brexit - you might not like it but there is currently a demand for that privilege to exist and the media generate revenue by disseminating those comments to a wider audience.
At the risk of simply repeating myself - it's like Brexit - if the public want to remove the privilege, they can set that in motion by lobbying their MPs - or do something similar to Nigel Farage to bring about a referendum on the issue.
Is that your version of love the sinner but hate the sin?
Are you arguing that you can choose your beliefs?
Some people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is wrong whereas other people who claim to "know" God exists think equal marriage is perfectly fine. Some people who claimed to "know" God exists dedicated their lives to abolishing slavery. Not seeing why religion is a special problem.
Ok so you're saying it's pretty easy to argue against someone who says "I know I am right". Again not seeing what the problem is.
Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families.What a great pity it is then that they have to spend all those years believing in a system that requires 100% faith.
There isn't a single faith, just lots of interpretations by individuals.Interpretations of words written by people wwho believed they were in contact with a god of some sort.
What sense would before 1945 - 1981 make as a answer to what do you see as a golden period?
NS,
FFS! Because when asked, “And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?” he replied, “Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981” I read the attaching of the “1945 -1981” epithet to mean that’s when the thought the tide turning had occurred – ie, between those dates, so the golden age must have been before then. Had he punctuated it though, I would probably have read it as you did.
NS,who when asked for a period give the entirety before 1945 and 1981. It makes no sense and that's leaving aside Vlad's posting history and his support for Labour and what he raised as bad now which promoted Prof D to ask the question about the golden period.
FFS! Because when asked, “And when, pray tell us, was the golden age in your opinion?” he replied, “Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981” I read the attaching of the “1945 -1981” epithet to mean that’s when the thought the tide turning had occurred – ie, between those dates, so the golden age must have been before then. Had he punctuated it though, I would probably have read it as you did.
The turn of the tide IMHO begins around 1981.You probably need to address that to Prof D or bhs as all I have been saying here was it was obvious you meant 1945 - 198 as your 'golden period' as opposed to some time before 1945.
That's when things started to get worse. In my Golden period
Quantum leap developments in.
NHS
Education reform
Welfare
Full employment
Improved housing stock
Improving working conditions and employment conditions
Improved human rights
In todays golden age wither the NHS, education reform, welfare, housing, working conditions?
You probably need to address that to Prof D or bhs as all I have been saying here was it was obvious you meant 1945 - 198 as your 'golden period' as opposed to some time before 1945.Yes, you were right thanks.
The whole point about our culture is that is does not change. As far as we are concerned the RCC is a heretical group that broke away from us in the eleventh century.So you are fine with slavery.
NS,I think he meant that 1945 - 1981 was the golden age. To be fair, I only really remember the last decade of that period and it was characterised for me by strikes, power cuts and the three day week.
I read his answer ("Just before the turn of the tide 1945-1981") to mean that that was when the tide turned (ie, for the worse) but I accept that it's ambiguous so he might have meant your reading of it.
What sense would before 1945 - 1981 make as a answer to what do you see as a golden period?It was a Vlad post. Why does it need to make sense? Let's be honest, the tide turns four times a day most days and did so throughout the 20th century.
I think he meant that 1945 - 1981 was the golden age. To be fair, I only really remember the last decade of that period and it was characterised for me by strikes, power cuts and the three day week.Strikes or twenty four hour service from people who have to use foodbanks and have three jobs to subsidise higher education?
Never mind though, we did win the World Cup.
Strikes or twenty four hour service from people who have to use foodbanks and have three jobs to subsidise higher education?
The turn of the tide IMHO begins around 1981.Well, naturally - it was two years into that appalling woman's premiership. We are still, 28 years after she got booted out, feeling the bad effects of her time in office.
That's when things started to get worse.
Well, naturally - it was two years into that appalling woman's premiership. We are still, 28 years after she got booted out, feeling the bad effects of her time in office.So that would have been one Christian who DID make your skin crawl?
So that would have been one Christian who DID make your skin crawl?I suppose so - if she was a sincere Christian when the cameras weren't on her.
I suppose so - if she was a sincere Christian when the cameras weren't on her.While the 'Blessed Margaret' may have been many things, she didn't seem to be insincere, Her interpretation of the Good Samaritan seemed genuine, if a trifle materialistic
Gabriella,We're not talking about theoretical classical economics, we're talking real world where markets are not completely free and where people are influenced to consume all kinds of ideas by lots of different factors.
Yes you do. The extent to which choice is unfettered is moot, and perhaps given enough time the C of E will disestablish, faith schools will end, bishops will cease to have automatic rights to the legislature, clerics will stop having their views broadcast automatically on matters of moral import etc. My point though was that these things are harder – not impossible as you imply I think - to achieve given how heavily the dice are loaded just now.
The day that Justin Welby’s views on, say, homosexuality are afforded the same privileges as Fred McBonker’s views on a flat earth though, then you’ll have a point.Again that is up to consumers and a free press and social media to decide that they are no longer interested in Welby's pronouncements on a topic. In which case the media will stop broadcasting it. Right now, there is a perception that consumers are interested in what he has to say.
Yes, but faith itself is the common underpinning for all those interpretations. “But that’s my faith” is the beginning end of the conversation, regardless of what the interpretations might happen to be. And that’s what I was actually talking about when you accused me of attempting to close down free speech. But you already knew that.Oh I see - so your comment about me being a paid up member of faith that kills people for drawing cartoons of Prophet Mohamed was not trying to single out a particular faith and claim that killing people who draw cartoons was what every member of that faith signed up for? My mistake for thinking that was the kind of bigoted nonsensical rubbish argument you were trying to make.
It’s not like that at all. Are there special schools to teach children the certain facts of Brexitism? Guaranteed places set aside in the legislature by right for those who would promote Brexit because that’s their “faith”? How about a slot for Brexiteers every morning on Radio 4 with no right to reply and no equal time for counter-argument perhaps? Or perhaps you think that leading Brexiteers are routinely consulted and have their views broadcast on matters that have nothing to do with Brexit, but on which they choose to pontificate in any case?Except it is not a hopeless analogy but you're welcome to think it is based on your skewed interpretation.
Can you see now how hopeless that analogy is?
Not even close – see above. You seem determined (wilfully perhaps?) to ignore the argument. Brexit (or fox hunting, or funding for the NHS, or whatever) are one thing. Privileging the views of those whose only argument is, “but that’s my faith” in all sorts areas of public life on the other hand is loading the dice.As I said before, given that many people of faith have opposing views on many issues, including equal marriage, that's not their only argument. Some people's arguments hinge on whether or not they think individuals being free to live as they please is the type of society that benefits the most amount of people. It's not a difficult concept to grasp that some people do not like the way their society is changing because they feel it is in a worse state than it was before and therefore vote to limit other people's freedoms.
No.So if I said LGBT rights or Pink News or Stonewall makes my skin crawl that would also be acceptable on the basis that you saying that Islam or Christianity makes your skin crawl is not actually targeting Muslim or Christian people?
Isn’t that what you’ve been doing all along (while ignoring the actual argument about how free choice can be in a loaded game)?No - calling people consumers is not arguing that people choose their beliefs. I am arguing that people buy religion based on their personal experience and belief that it adds value.
But yes, people clearly do choose their beliefs if the remarkable changes to social attitudes to all sort of issues in the last few decades are anything to go by (equal marriage, gender rights etc). It’s mostly religions that lag behind, presumably because their supposedly inerrant “holy” texts can’t adapt.The same way lots of people of faith have looked at their holy book and decided that there could be a variety of interpretations of what's actually written in the text or what should be practised, given the circumstances and context of the time that the text was written.
Clearly, despite having it explained to you many times now. If someone thinks that an inerrant god has decided that homosexuality is a “sin” because it says so in a “holy” book, how would you propose to argue against “but that’s my faith” exactly?
It’s, “I know I’m right no matter what reasoning or evidence there may ever be” and the problem with it is, as you well know, faith. That’s a faith position and when its objects are very bad ideas, there’s no possibility ever of changing them (at least unless the person who holds them abandons his faith).So presumably, given all the reasoning and evidence presented to you, you are not holding a faith position that the conversation ends at "it's my faith". Nor are you holding the faith position that Parliamentary legislation is based on what is considered a sin from a faith perspective. Nor are you surprised that consumers who derive value from religion are hardly likely to give it up, regardless of your often repeated faith position that law-abiding religious people provide intellectual cover for religious criminals.
Why is this difficult to comprehend?
What a great pity it is then that they have to spend all those years believing in a system that requires 100% faith.You'll have to ask them if they consider it a pity or if they derived value from being part of their parents' traditions.
Interpretations of words written by people wwho believed they were in contact with a god of some sort.Yes. And yes I can see why that bothers you, given that the words have been used by people to rally armies to defend their land from invaders and also used to justify atrocities as well as benevolence.
We're not talking about theoretical classical economics, we're talking real world where markets are not completely free and where people are influenced to consume all kinds of ideas by lots of different factors.
As I said if the consumer finds value in religion, they will buy. I am not implying anything is impossible - I am saying we live in a relatively free, democratic country and while consumers exist who derive value from religion, they will keep buying and they also may or may not keep privileging religious entities if they derive value from doing so. When they stop deriving value from religion those religious privileges will be revoked. Not sure why consumer behaviour is a difficult idea for you to grasp. Yes it is influenced by prevailing culture but that holds true for most goods and services, not just religion.
Again that is up to consumers and a free press and social media to decide that they are no longer interested in Welby's pronouncements on a topic. In which case the media will stop broadcasting it. Right now, there is a perception that consumers are interested in what he has to say.
Oh I see - so your comment about me being a paid up member of faith that kills people for drawing cartoons of Prophet Mohamed was not trying to single out a particular faith and claim that killing people who draw cartoons was what every member of that faith signed up for?
My mistake for thinking that was the kind of bigoted nonsensical rubbish argument you were trying to make.
And no, your simplistic version of an imaginary conversation "it's my faith" is not the end of the conversation. Though I get that you have to keep repeating it as it's the nonsense that underpins your whole unconvincing argument.
As a consumer who derives value from a faith and therefore keeps buying, the conversation is a lot more nuanced than "it's my faith". But you already knew that because it's been explained to you by me and others many times, but you choose to ignore it, either wilfully or because it is too difficult for you to grasp.
You also already know that regardless of how many times you try to equate faith with criminal acts by religious 3rd parties, consumers are still going to keep buying religion because they derive value from it.
Except it is not a hopeless analogy but you're welcome to think it is based on your skewed interpretation.
My point about Brexit is that it reflects the democratic will of the UK population with the information they took on board as part of their decision-making process. And yes there was a lot of faith in the idea that Britain would be great again if it could free itself politically and legislatively from the EU.
As I said before, given that many people of faith have opposing views on many issues, including equal marriage, that's not their only argument. Some people's arguments hinge on whether or not they think individuals being free to live as they please is the type of society that benefits the most amount of people. It's not a difficult concept to grasp that some people do not like the way their society is changing because they feel it is in a worse state than it was before and therefore vote to limit other people's freedoms.
So if I said LGBT rights or Pink News or Stonewall makes my skin crawl that would also be acceptable on the basis that you saying that Islam or Christianity makes your skin crawl is not actually targeting Muslim or Christian people?
No - calling people consumers is not arguing that people choose their beliefs. I am arguing that people buy religion based on their personal experience and belief that it adds value.
The same way lots of people of faith have looked at their holy book and decided that there could be a variety of interpretations of what's actually written in the text or what should be practised, given the circumstances and context of the time that the text was written.
More importantly, so what if someone who regards aspects of their own behaviour as a sin also regards someone else's behaviour as a sin? Last time I checked we are not policing people's beliefs, only their behaviour. The only issue is what is legal, and given that a faith view on sin no longer determines laws in this country, the idea of sin has little impact on the workings of Parliament. This has been explained to you many times before. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend, given the evidence of equal marriage laws?
So presumably, given all the reasoning and evidence presented to you, you are not holding a faith position that the conversation ends at "it's my faith".
Nor are you holding the faith position that Parliamentary legislation is based on what is considered a sin from a faith perspective.
Nor are you surprised that consumers who derive value from religion are hardly likely to give it up, regardless of your often repeated faith position that law-abiding religious people provide intellectual cover for religious criminals.
That was a most interesting post. I noted that gabriella missed the point when responding to my short post too.
Between 12:30 and 1:0 pm. I listened to a discussion on Radio Five Live, very well chaired, between two men, one a rabbi , the other an academic and, I think, a humanist, about circumcision and the change in Icelandic law. I do not raise this in order to bring that subject up again - it has been talked of quite enough - but because the Rabbi (or whoever he was) would not see the main point about faith being his only totally based on *God's words* justification. I didn't have time to phone or e-mail my views about his bigoted arguments.
Gabriella,No - not missing the point - what I am hearing from my kids is that most of their friends can't stand assembly, including my own kids, if it includes any type of act of worship and this included when they were in year 5 and 6 in Primary School. What I am hearing about is Catholics having abortions and using contraception. So however it's "rigged" it doesn't seem to be working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset. I don't see the problem in me expecting people to be less and less influenced by the CofE.
Which still misses the point that religion is so deeply embedded (by law even non-religious schools are supposed to have a “daily act of worship” for example) that our “real world” is a heavily rigged game. “Not completely free” is significantly to understate the issue.
You’re still missing it – see above. If religious faiths were private members’ clubs (think Flat Earth Society for example) how many “consumers” would “buy” them do you think? And if, like me, you think the number would be a very small proportion of those who “buy” them just now, what does that tell you about the importance of being so deeply embedded in the machinery of the societies in which they do OK? Do you really think that if, say, the C of E were stripped of its privileges and left to fight its corner on its arguments (a la Brexiteers etc) its numbers wouldn’t dwindle even further? How about if we did away with faith schools?My experience is that I went from atheist to Muslim, without experiencing faith schools or mosques. Any influence the Church of England and acts of worship at school had on me was to push me towards atheism, along with parents wanting me to go with them to the temple. I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area. I don't think it is right to prevent a child from having choice and a chance to have a good education just because the education is provided by a faith school and you have a philosophical problem with the concept of faith.
See above. Why is there that “perception” do you think?Because the public has not sought in sufficient numbers to abolish the position of Archbishop of Canterbury
It’s simpler than that. Not only was I not trying to say it, I didn’t say that at all. By all means though if you think otherwise then try to show where I did say that "every member of that faith (had) signed up for".Stop trying to weasel your way out of it. You said "This from a paid up member of a faith that embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its “prophet”? ". If you are arguing that there is "a faith" and that the faith "embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its prophet" and I am a paid up member of a single faith, then as a "paid up member" of this faith I must be embracing killing people for drawing cartoons. You deliberately picked your words - but of course you're not a bigot. My mistake - well done you for clarifying that.
Oh, and you’ve completely missed the actual argument, namely that “faith” is the common underpinning, and that its objects and instructions are a secondary matter. Take away the “it’s inerrantly true because my faith tells me so” and only then can argument or reason have a role at all.So your point is that you have a problem with people believing in God as a matter of faith? The objects and instructions are a secondary matter. And all this time I thought you had a problem with the object and instructions and their effects on society - all that stuff you wrote about equal marriage, contraception and abortion was just a diversion
Yes it was your mistake – see above.Of course it was.
Throwing in “simplistic”, "unconvincing” etc doesn’t actually make an argument for any of those things being true. You do know that right?You are simply making the claim that religious people begin and end their argument with "it's my faith". It's up to you to justify your claim if you want your claim to be taken seriously. Given there are lots of religious people who don't make the argument "it's my faith" - I believe I pointed out to you before that Bin Laden came up with a whole list of political reasons for organising 9/11 - I don't need to address an argument if it hasn't been made.
If you believe these pejoratives to be true nonetheless, then you’d need actually to address the argument itself to make a case.
Still missing it. I don’t doubt for one moment that you do “derive value” from your faith. Good for you. That though has nothing to do with the point, namely that those who would make objective claims of fact about the world “because that’s my faith” are in not even wrong territory. You’re free to feel as warm and loved up as you like about your various beliefs – what you can’t expect though is to have the attendant claims of fact (”God is” etc) privileged over just guessing because they happen to be your faith beliefs.See above on the privilege issue and yes I can expect it, it's up to society as to whether my expectation will be met.
What “3rd parties” would they be?3rd parties would be criminals.
Anyway, as you’ve just continued with the same irrelevance as above I’ll leave it be I think.
Again just using pejoratives in the hope no-one notices that you have no arguments to validate them isn’t helping you.No it isn't. I have already covered the point about privilege above - it's not preventing the CofE losing more and more public support. The Brexiteers I have heard on LBC do claim inerrant certainty on the basis of their beliefs - they are certain they are right about all kinds of issues relating to immigration and EU laws and certain that the Remainers and experts are wrong. You claiming I haven't addressed the argument in the hope that no-one notices that you have made some unsupported claims isn't helping you.
It’s a hopeless analogy because people arguing for Brexit have none of the privileges I mentioned that religion has, and nor do Brexiteers claim inerrant certainty on the basis of their "faith" – QED.
Then it continues to be a bad point for the reasons I've explained.No it doesn't for the reasons I have explained.
First, you’re conflating the religious use of “faith” (ie, as an epistemologically valid tool) with the political one (ie, as trusting to luck when the evidence and argument cease).Nope - you are claiming that this is the way the religious use the word "faith" - I am pointing out that it isn't.
Second, yet again you’re just ignoring the massive access by right that religion has to the instruments of state and of society more generally that other polemical positions don’t have. Why do you think you have such a blind spot about this?You do realise that you calling it "a blind spot" doesn't undo the argument that any access they have isn't translated into increasing numbers flocking to the CofE, quite the opposite in fact, so there is nothing preventing the privilege being revoked by public will, much like the public revoked our EU membership.
Nope again. Of course “people of faith” will have opposing views on many issues – that’s the thing with “holy” texts: you can often take from them whatever suits you best. The point though is that what they generally have in common is the notion that personal faith is more reliable than just guessing - much more in fact as it's inerrantly correct - and that they behave accordingly.Addressed above so I won't address it again. You do realise that claiming that I am dancing around it, doesn't actually make your claim true.
Why not actually address that rather than dance around it?
It’s “acceptable” inasmuch as I’d defend your right to say it (and to say pretty much anything else), yes. I think you’d be wrong to say these things though, and I also think you should afford me the same courtesy that I show you by defending my right to say why I think you’d be wrong. (And if my right to free speech happens to be drawing a cartoon of someone you think to be a prophet by the way, then so be it).Given that I support free speech, of course you have a right to say why you think I would be wrong about anything I said or to draw cartoons.
The point though is that my skin would only crawl (for want of a better term) if you also said, “and I know beyond any possible counter-argument that I’m right about that because my faith tells me so.” Why? Because then you’d have put yourself beyond any meaningful dialogue so my only response could be, “so ****ing what?”In other words someone saying "I know God exists because my faith tells me so" makes your skin crawl. Fair enough. We're all different about what makes our skin crawl.
And its deeply embedded nature makes no difference to the buy-in rate do you think?I already covered this above.
Seriously though?
But if you think these texts are just early attempts at moral philosophy, what role is there then for “faith”?We already did this argument on any other threads. My position hasn't changed. I can only speak about the Quran, as that's what I'm familiar with. Humans interpreting text will make mistakes and the text is ambiguous in may areas rather than specific as the detail would have to be fleshed out by man-made laws and debated by each society that chooses to find meaning in the message in the Quran.
Look, you can’t have it both ways: either you think these texts to be the inerrant words of a god because that's your faith, or you think they’re reflective of the mores of the times of their authors but no more certain in their content than, say, the works of Plato.
Which is it?
Oh dear. Of course people are free to think whatever they like. If someone thinks though that, say, homosexuality is a “sin” because his faith tells him so then on what basis could he be persuaded that his God’s word on that issue is wrong? And if that person happens to be, say, a senior cleric whose views are treated seriously in the pubic square (schools, legislature, education, media etc) then how on earth do you think the added credibility that gives him doesn’t bias the public debate, the Zeitgeist if you will more than, say, the views of the head of the Flat Earth Society?I think people use intuition and emotions such as compassion and empathy as well as reasoning such as the text related to different circumstances to arrive at their conclusions.
Incidentally, the “laws in this country” are much more influenced by religion than you might think. We still have clerics taking seats by right in the House of Lords, we still have statutes that favour religion (the legal obligation for mandatory daily acts of worship in schools for example), we still have the RC church telling RC MPs how they should vote on certain issues, we still have exemptions for churches from various equality laws etc. Don’t kid yourself that this stuff is all history.Ok but how have these clerics and the act of worship in schools prevented the democratic will of the people? Any specific examples I can look at?
It’s not a “faith position”, it’s an evidence position. “But that’s my faith” is routinely used by theists as an epistemic justification for their views. What counter-argument to that even conceptually do you think there could be?Are we still talking about a belief in God? In which case who cares if someone believes something exists based on faith. If it is not about the existence of God, then as far as I am aware theists come up with more to support their view than “But that’s my faith”.
No I’m not. I’m holding an evidence position about that – see above.What evidence is there that supports your claim of "intellectual cover" provided by religious people?
First, (again) “deriving value” and making objective, “true for you too”, claims of fact about the world are not the same thing at all. We’re talking about religion here, not yoga.I was an atheist who became a Muslim so yes I think there would be buy-in if people invented religion now, despite everything we know. Lots of people find alternatives to religion in the current culture and allow those alternatives to have a huge influence and control over their lives.
Second, I’m not surprised for the reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.
Third, think of smoking as an analogy: lots of people “derive value” from it and there’s no great public attitude to outlaw it entirely. It’s still to a significant extent woven into the fabric of society and so is still substantially normalised. Now imagine there was no such thing as cigarettes, and someone invented them tomorrow. Knowing what we know now, do you really thing there’d be anything like the buy-in for them that there is just now?
No? Why not?
Now imagine too that FOREST (the smokers' lobby group) had the sort of access to every aspect of society that religion has. How many buyers would there be then do you think?
Now imagine too that we lived in a country where the arguments from ASH (the anti-smoking people) were called "blasphemous", they were locked up (or worse) etc. How many more smokers would there be then do you think?
Is any of this sinking in yet?
Anything at all?
Naughty naughty.I'm not sure why you think I would infer that - I did not catch the beginning so probably missed something.
You think that the Rabbi is worse than the Imam who wants children's genitals cut at thirteen?
That was a most interesting post. I noted that gabriella missed the point when responding to my short post too.
Between 12:30 and 1:0 pm. I listened to a discussion on Radio Five Live, very well chaired, between two men, one a rabbi , the other an academic and, I think, a humanist, about circumcision and the change in Icelandic law. I do not raise this in order to bring that subject up again - it has been talked of quite enough - but because the Rabbi (or whoever he was) would not see the main point about faith being his only totally based on *God's words* justification. I didn't have time to phone or e-mail my views about his bigoted arguments.
I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.Anecdote a go go.
Anecdote a go go.All very interesting. Do you have a link to verify that or was that an anecdote?
Guess what I know active churchgoers who choose to send their children to non-faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the faith schools in their area.
However I have never seen any actually verifiable quantitative data that indicates that faith schools are more popular than no faith schools despite the clear implication of those who use anecdotes as if it were strong evidence.
The reality is quite the reverse - it is the non faith schools that are more popular in terms of applications per place received compared to faith schools. Quite startlingly so in my area which isn't particularly unusual in any way.
So on latest application data of schools in my area:
Of the 9 secondary schools, there isn't even crossover - the 6 most popular are all non faith, the 3 least popular are faith. The non faith schools are receiving over double the number of applications per place compared to the faith schools.
Effectively the same on primary. There are 23 primary schools with non faith schools receiving double the number of applications per place compared to the faith schools. The most popular faith school is ranked 11th, the other 4 hold 4 of the 6 bottom positions.
No - not missing the point - what I am hearing from my kids is that most of their friends can't stand assembly, including my own kids, if it includes any type of act of worship and this included when they were in year 5 and 6 in Primary School. What I am hearing about is Catholics having abortions and using contraception. So however it's "rigged" it doesn't seem to be working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset. I don't see the problem in me expecting people to be less and less influenced by the CofE.
My experience is that I went from atheist to Muslim, without experiencing faith schools or mosques. Any influence the Church of England and acts of worship at school had on me was to push me towards atheism, along with parents wanting me to go with them to the temple. I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area. I don't think it is right to prevent a child from having choice and a chance to have a good education just because the education is provided by a faith school and you have a philosophical problem with the concept of faith.
Because the public has not sought in sufficient numbers to abolish the position of Archbishop of Canterbury
Stop trying to weasel your way out of it. You said "This from a paid up member of a faith that embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its “prophet”? ". If you are arguing that there is "a faith" and that the faith "embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its prophet" and I am a paid up member of a single faith, then as a "paid up member" of this faith I must be embracing killing people for drawing cartoons. You deliberately picked your words - but of course you're not a bigot. My mistake - well done you for clarifying that.
So your point is that you have a problem with people believing in God as a matter of faith? The objects and instructions are a secondary matter. And all this time I thought you had a problem with the object and instructions and their effects on society - all that stuff you wrote about equal marriage, contraception and abortion was just a diversion
Of course it was.
You are simply making the claim that religious people begin and end their argument with "it's my faith". It's up to you to justify your claim if you want your claim to be taken seriously. Given there are lots of religious people who don't make the argument "it's my faith" - I believe I pointed out to you before that Bin Laden came up with a whole list of political reasons for organising 9/11 - I don't need to address an argument if it hasn't been made.
See above on the privilege issue and yes I can expect it, it's up to society as to whether my expectation will be met.
3rd parties would be criminals.
But ok, next time you come up with your nonsensical claim of law-abiding citizens providing "intellectual cover" for extremists, we'll come back to the issue of 3rd parties.
No it isn't. I have already covered the point about privilege above - it's not preventing the CofE losing more and more public support.
The Brexiteers I have heard on LBC do claim inerrant certainty on the basis of their beliefs - they are certain they are right about all kinds of issues relating to immigration and EU laws and certain that the Remainers and experts are wrong.
You claiming I haven't addressed the argument in the hope that no-one notices that you have made some unsupported claims isn't helping you.
No it doesn't for the reasons I have explained.
Nope - you are claiming that this is the way the religious use the word "faith" - I am pointing out that it isn't.
You do realise that you calling it "a blind spot" doesn't undo the argument that any access they have isn't translated into increasing numbers flocking to the CofE, quite the opposite in fact, so there is nothing preventing the privilege being revoked by public will, much like the public revoked our EU membership.
Addressed above so I won't address it again. You do realise that claiming that I am dancing around it, doesn't actually make your claim true.
Given that I support free speech, of course you have a right to say why you think I would be wrong about anything I said or to draw cartoons.
In other words someone saying "I know God exists because my faith tells me so" makes your skin crawl. Fair enough. We're all different about what makes our skin crawl.
It doesn't make my skin crawl if someone said “and I know beyond any possible counter-argument that unicorns exist because my faith tells me so.”
I'd think they were a bit strange - the same way I thought religious people were strange to believe in God but no, it doesn't make my skin crawl.
I already covered this above.
We already did this argument on any other threads. My position hasn't changed. I can only speak about the Quran, as that's what I'm familiar with. Humans interpreting text will make mistakes and the text is ambiguous in may areas rather than specific as the detail would have to be fleshed out by man-made laws and debated by each society that chooses to find meaning in the message in the Quran.
I think people use intuition and emotions such as compassion and empathy as well as reasoning such as the text related to different circumstances to arrive at their conclusions.
Lots of factors influence the debate. Any influence a senior cleric has is easily counter-balanced by alternative arguments and the emotional pressure from people feeling empathy for the "sinner". Why don't you back up your claim by linking me to examples of how this bias is preventing change that the public wants, given the drop in religion in the UK population.
Ok but how have these clerics and the act of worship in schools prevented the democratic will of the people? Any specific examples I can look at?
Are we still talking about a belief in God? In which case who cares if someone believes something exists based on faith. If it is not about the existence of God, then as far as I am aware theists come up with more to support their view than “But that’s my faith”.
What evidence is there that supports your claim of "intellectual cover" provided by religious people?
I was an atheist who became a Muslim so yes I think there would be buy-in if people invented religion now, despite everything we know. Lots of people find alternatives to religion in the current culture and allow those alternatives to have a huge influence and control over their lives.
Who in the UK is being locked up for blasphemy for opposing religion?”
I have to say I am struggling with the analogy the religion is like smoking? Surely as covered earlier we created religion with no outside choice, it isn't like a drug, it is part of us?
NS,
It was analogous only to Gabriella's implication that finding value in something somehow related to its truth, and to the more general point that deeply embedded phenomena are more difficult for societies to shake off than would be the case if they'd been invented yesterday.
Well, naturally - it was two years into that appalling woman's premiership. We are still, 28 years after she got booted out, feeling the bad effects of her time in office.What bad effects of the Thatcher era are we still feeling?
What bad effects of the Thatcher era are we still feeling?and are we feeling any good effects?
So it's analogous in an uninteresting and pointless way to the discussion.
NS,
Well clearly I didn’t think so, which is why I said it. You are though entitled to your opinion.
Speaking of uninteresting and pointless though do you intend to continue your current stance of hair-splitting and sniping from the wings, or do you fancy contributing again something that’s neither uninteresting nor pointless? I’m long in the tooth enough to remember when you did make positive contributions to discussions here and I quite miss it.
All very interesting. Do you have a link to verify that or was that an anecdote?I suspect you don't really understand the difference between data and anecdote.
Your non answer is noted.
NS,
It's not a non answer.
Yours on the other hand...
Also, do you have any evidence that I have used an anecdote as strong evidence as opposed to using it as nothing more than an anecdote?
How could one answer a rather bizarre reply which ignored the point?
I don't really get what position I am supposed to reply to when it ignores arguments...
...and talks about your idea of how I used to respond to other arguments. So I'll leave you to your invention of a non reply
Aw! No answer and a wee personal attack. How lovely! Underlines the pointlessness of the discussion. Fare the well.
What bad effects of the Thatcher era are we still feeling?Destruction of the manufacturing sector, deregulation of the legal profession (which led to those tasteless ambulance-chasing ads we see nowadays), and probably more besides.
NS,
Fare thee well too.
Gabriella,Firstly, it looks pretty desperate when you have to piggyback off Davey's anecdote response and try to run with it. I never said anecdotes constituted data, nor was I presenting data. But if you are confused and you want to reassure yourself, yes you have correctly understood that anecdotes do not constitute data. Stunning piece of deduction on your part.
Anecdotes do not constitute data. It’s clearly the case that those immersed in religion as children are more likely to be religious adults than those who are not. Multiple sources (legislature, education, media etc) all contribute to that to varying degrees.
Again, anecdotes do not constitute data. You’re also setting up a false binary there: religious education good; secular education bad.Again I never claimed to present data. How am I setting up that binary - I'd be interested to see you quote me given that I support secular education but I don't have a problem with faith schools existing as a choice of school if they are regulated by Ofsted and if their exam results are good.
Oh, and surely “preventing a child from having a choice” is what happens when the parent insists on a faith school isn’t it? Why not wait until she’s 18 when she can make up her own mind? Would you be as sanguine about parents sending their kids to, say, Marxist-Leninist schools (if there were such a thing)? Why not?
Because…?Because they hold a different opinion from you and are not as bothered about religious privilege as you seem to be and probably have more important issues to worry about than the Archbishop.
Nice use of the non sequitur there. What I actually said was, “This from a paid up member of a faith that embraces killing people for drawing cartoons of its “prophet”?” (in response to a comment you’d made about free speech by the way). That, “then as a "paid up member" of this faith I must be embracing killing people for drawing cartoons” though is an invention all of your own.Seriously? No but seriously though - you're just embarrassing yourself by trying to weasel your way out of explaining the reason for you linking my faith to a faith that you claim embraces killing people for drawing cartoons. Still waiting for an explanation of what you meant when you said I am a paid up member of that faith? Given that my faith does not embrace killing people for drawing cartoons. No it isn't an invention of my own - but you already knew that.
You do this often by the way. I carefully refer to “some” Muslims (or whatever) and you reply with a, “so you think all Muslims…” etc. It’s your choice, but it does you no credit.No I don't by the way, and it does you no credit to pretend I do. But your choice. If someone writes "some Muslims" as opposed to generalising about Muslims or Islam then I am fine to leave it at that, especially given I have criticised some Muslims for their behaviour and when I write about Islam I say it is my personal understanding of Islam. You must be getting desperate as you appear to have resorted to making stuff up.
Oh dear. Why are you doing this to yourself? The point was that “faith” is the common underpinning to certainty, that thinking faith is an epistemically valid method is bad thinking, and that so therefore acting on it accordingly is a bad idea. What those acts happen to entail (gay rights, gender equality etc) is a secondary matter.No, what I am doing is saying that the principle worth upholding here is that people whose faith leads them to be certain that God exists and who act accordingly, are not a problem to society unless they are breaking the law of the land, in which case there are processes to deal with law-breaking. That you have a personal problem with society making room for faith just means that in a liberal democracy you are free to voice your opinions as are the people of faith.
You’re struggling with the difference between principle and content here.
Please try to keep up. When people think their actions are validated by “holy” texts then they’re acting on faith. If there was reason or logic or evidence or anything instead to support them then the faith bit would be redundant. And when those people make claims of objective fact about the world – “God is” for example – then faith is all they have. That’s why in those cases faith is the beginning and the end of the matter.I suspect you don't really understand how thoughts and morals work. People derive an ought based on a mix of emotional responses and reason - intuition, beliefs and the sub-conscious play a large part in how people act and then justify their choices and actions. But given you believe that people choose their beliefs, I'm not really surprised by your muddled thinking.
See above for my falsification of it. I might expect to be carried around in a sedan chair while Felicity Kendall feeds me grapes, but that’s not the point is it.Except you haven't falsified anything so there is nothing to see.
Again – using pejoratives like “nonsensical” with no attempt to argue them just makes you look out of your depth.Wishful thinking on your part.
When authority figures have their views privileged in the main offices of state and society, in what way do they not provide intellectual cover for those who would go just that bit further? Think of the rise of the far right in the US if that helps, emboldened as they are by their President to think, “Hey, you know what? Maybe my racism isn’t so bad after all”.Firstly, you have used your "intellectual cover" nonsense on here to describe my posts when I am arguing against your position - and I am not an authority figure.
Fancy beating up a gay man on the street tonight? Well. If those clerics I keep seeing on the telly think they’re “sinful”, an “issue” etc then maybe it’s not such a big leap to violence after all.For violent people in the habit of committing assaults, it is rarely a big leap to violence. The rest is just speculation. We'll just have to agree to disagree that Welby provides intellectual cover for gay-bashers. His right to express an opinion has not been curtailed by your speculations so not much point continuing to argue a point we are unlikely to agree on.
Possibly you missed the extreme members of your faith recently cheer led by their imams into throwing gay men off tall buildings? Would they have been quite so emboldened do you think if instead those imams had told them that those acts were despicable?What has that got to do with Welby's non-violent statements? Try and stick to the point rather than rambling off on another irrelevancy just because you can't back up your claims about Welby with any actual evidence.
So? The point rather is that it’s the best way they can think of at least to try to slow the process down. If not, why bother with religiously segregated schools for primary age children (primary age children!) at all? Not for nothing do the Jesuits say, “Give me the child until seven and I’ll give you the man.”The reason for bothering is that someone who has decided to set up a school, regulated by Ofsted, decides they want to run the school in the way that they think will achieve good outcomes for its pupils, in collaboration with those pupils' parents and the school governors. Meanwhile other people running schools, also regulated by Ofsted, have other ideas about how to run a school to provide the best outcome for pupils in the opinion of its teachers, governors and parents. You then end up with a choice of schools regulated by Ofsted, with a choice of ethos that suits the needs of diversity, which I think is a better outcome than not having a choice.
Don’t be silly. Find me one who doesn’t also say, “but if the facts or evidence changed than I’d have to change my mind”. Now find me a cleric who says that about “God”. You’re just dicking around with the ambiguity in the word “faith” here.Are you stating that such a cleric does not exist or are you admitting that it is possible that a cleric exists who had doubts and would change his mind about God but you expect me to locate him? Strangely enough I have better things to do with my time.
You’re bordering on dishonesty here. Suggest you read through what’s actually been said from both sides.Right back at you. And to be honest this is getting boring just going over the same arguments.
You’ve explained nothing. Getting you to address an argument that’s actually been made is like trying to push fog through a keyhole.
You’re not “pointing it out”, you’re asserting it – wrongly so as it happens. Take the statement “God is” – in what way is that not entirely a faith statement? What counter-arguments even conceptually could be used against it?As I said this is getting boring just going over the same arguments. Your imaginations about getting locked up for blasphemy in relation to smoking are relevant why exactly?
You do realise that that’s just the same irrelevance you tried before repeated? Why would people “not flocking” to them address the issue that they still have many more adherents and recruits than they would if they were just a private members’ club? That secular societies may be increasingly able to see through their claims doesn’t change that one jot.
Making unqualified and un-argued assertions isn’t addressing something, as I suspect deep down you know.
Given that I support free speech too, perhaps you’d be good enough to stop accusing me of trying to stifle it when I argue that sometimes the weight given to some speakers is unsupportable, and that their faith-based claims of fact are epistemically worthless.
Actually as a general principle yes it does. It’s what that certainty represents that troubles me – if you think it’s valid in one area that’s relatively harmless, how would you argue against it in areas that are anything but? It’s the privileging of faith over guessing as a general principle rather than its objects on a case-by-case basis that’s the problem.
The issue isn’t about unicorns. Or gods. It’s about faith and certainty as a general principle. For some reason I can never get you to address this; you prefer instead endlessly to dive down rabbit holes of specific examples of what that certainty might concern. Why?
See above.
No you didn’t. You just argued that it wasn’t particularly effective given the dwindling numbers. You didn’t though address the relevant issue of the difference between membership of a deeply embedded church and of a private members’ club.
Why not?
But you still (presumably) think the Quran contains inerrant facts. And presumably too you think that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of those facts. And if instead you think that all is interpretation, then what use have you for a supposed inerrant text in the first place when we’d have no way to know for sure its true meaning?
Stop avoiding. I’m asking you whether you think that authority figures whose opinions are afforded special status in all the main institutions of public discourse are likely to be more successful (or less unsuccessful, it doesn’t matter which) than they would be if they were just the heads of private members’ clubs.
It’d be good if you’d stop ducking and diving around this and just benefit us with a simple yes or no.
Wrong question. It’s not that they “prevent the democratic will of the people” at all; its that the democratic will of the people is to a significant degree determined in the first place by the influences upon it – legal, educational, media, whatever.
Actually often they don’t – they’ll quote Leviticus to validate their homophobia for example – but that’s not the point in any case. Again, you’re confusing the object of a belief (god, homosexuality = sinful etc) with the principle of faith as a rationale for it.
Would it kill you finally actually to address that?
Seriously? You want me to find a court case when the homophobic thug used as his defence, “It was that Justin Welby wot made me do it”? Seriously though? We're talking about a phenomenon here – and a well documented one when those in authority embolden the societies they influence or control. Do you think that those fanatics would have thrown gay men off buildings without religious authority, that the Germans would have become Jew-haters without the nazis in charge?
Seriously though?
If you give me your address I’ll arrange to have an, “Anecdote ≠ data” T-shirt sent to you in reverse writing so you can be reminded of it every time you clean your teeth.
And finally, your:
Was in response to my:
“Now imagine too that we lived in a country where the arguments from ASH (the anti-smoking people) were called "blasphemous", they were locked up (or worse) etc. How many more smokers would there be then do you think?” (emphasis added)
Why do you do this kind of thing?
NS,Perhaps you would like to quote me to show where I implied that. I won't hold my breath.
It was analogous only to Gabriella's implication that finding value in something somehow related to its truth,
I suspect you don't really understand the difference between data and anecdote.I suspect you realised you had no evidence to show I had presented anecdote as data and are too dishonest to admit it.
The data are the most recent and complete application data for all secondary and primary schools in my city, collected by Herts County council as they administer the whole admissions process and publish the data. As a school governor I get the data send in a nice easy database, which isn't a direct link.I suspect you know I won't take your word for it and I suspect you know that I am not going to go through this site to work it out for myself.
But should you wish to work it all out for yourself, everything you need is linked to from here:
https://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/schools-and-education/school-admissions/school-admissions-and-transport.aspx?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=top%20task%20tiles&utm_campaign=top%20task%20tracking&utm_term=school%20admissions
Gabriella,What's that got to do with evidence that I have tried to use my anecdotes as strong evidence? I'm aware that anecdotes are anecdotes and they are incorporated by many posters as part of discussions. Similarly you are no doubt aware that your claims, opinions and conclusions are also not strong evidence. Even when accompanied by "seriously? Really? Seriously though"
The evidence is that pretty much each time I make an argument of principle or about a general phenomenon you respond with a personal anecdote, presumably because you think that in some way undoes the argument. "Germans prefer to drive German cars" is not though falsified by the response, "But my friend Helmut from Hamburg drives a Toyota".
Nor incidentally does it help when you reply with the equivalent of , "So you think every single German drives a German car then".
Oh, and while I'm here nor does the equivalent of, "VW's huge publicity budget makes no difference to their levels of sales because people will make up their own minds".I think you mean VW's huge publicity budget is still resulting in falling VW sales so it doesn't seem to be having an impact on reversing the trend for people to make up their own minds and buy other cars.
I suspect you realised you had no evidence to show I had presented anecdote as data and are too dishonest to admit it.I have the data - I have provided the link - if you cannot be bothered to check it out for yourself then that's your business.
I suspect you know I won't take your word for it and I suspect you know that I am not going to go through this site to work it out for myself.
I suspect you know I won't take your word for it and I suspect you know that I am not going to go through this site to work it out for myself.Why wont you take my word for it? I've given actual numbers for 4 out of the 9 schools.
I have the data - I have provided the link - if you cannot be bothered to check it out for yourself then that's your business.If I was on a thread about the popularity of schools then I would look up your link.
Just some snippets on the secondary schools as there isn't any overlap:Do you have a problem with posters on this forum looking at data in a link before forming a conclusion rather than taking another poster's word for it that they have interpreted the data correctly?
The most popular secondary school (non-faith) received 1284 applications for its 180 places, 7.13 applications per place.
In 6th position is the least popular non faith school, receiving 680 applications for its 180 places, 3.78 applications per place.
Just below them in 7th place is the most popular faith school, receiving 490 applications for its 160 places, 3.06 applications per place.
8th ranked is the second faith school.
Bottom of the heap is the least popular school (another faith school), receiving 298 applications for its 180 places, 1.66 applications per place.
Do you really think I'm going to make this stuff up?
To note parents have to select 4 schools, so 'par' is 4 applications per place.
Prof D #215The problem is that it is nigh on impossible (or rather huge amounts of work) to get these data for the whole country. However everything I have seen (based on data not anecdote) suggests the same picture - that as a class of school, faith schools are less popular amongst parents than non faith schools, the only real way you can look at this being applications stats. However the situation in my local are, with non faith schools receiving about double the applications per place compared to faith schools, is replicated in the rest of the county albeit not so starkly, but with still far more applications per place for non faith schools compared to faith schools.
That is just so wrong, wrong, wrong, If only the NSS could knock down some of those entrenched barricades.
.. just noticed: entrenched barricades is, I suppose, a bit of an oxymoron!!
Gabriella talks about choice - well here what this means in reality rather than theory.
Again from the data (not anecdote) in my area. Remember there are 3 faith secondary schools and people apply to 4 schools.
In one of the faith schools just over half of the places were allocated to children whose parents hadn't put that school down as one of their choices.
In another of the faith schools 20% of the places were allocated to children whose parents hadn't put that school down as one of their choices.
Not a single child was offered a place at any of the 6 non faith schools who hadn't put down that school as one of their choices.
And I can confidently predict (from the data but also from anecdote from people I know offered places at the least popular school - a catholic school) that most children allocated a place at a faith school who hadn't put that school down as one of their choices would have applied to non faith schools only.
So there is choice in action - be non religious, don't want your child to go to a faith school, apply across the board to non faith schools and end up being allocated a place at a catholic faith school.
If I was on a thread about the popularity of schools then I would look up your link.The data I have is in an excel spreadsheet so I cannot provide a link to that summary spreadsheet. All the data on that spreadsheet is available via the link I have provided. Go check a few out.
If I had claimed that faith schools are more popular than non-faith schools in every area, then I would also spend the time looking up your link. Given that neither of those 2 scenarios has happened, and given that I have made no claim about whether faith schools are better than non-faith schools, at this time I have other things I would prefer to do with my time than look up your links to form an opinion or conclusion about the data.
Do you have a problem with posters on this forum looking at data in a link before forming a conclusion rather than taking another poster's word for it that they have interpreted the data correctly?
Prof,I wasn't taking sides in this debate before, but this bit of characteristic sneering nastiness from BHS has sided me with Gabriella.
Yes, but you're forgetting that Gabriella will doubtless have a friend whose daughter knew this person that this didn't happen to so, you know, all this evidencey, statisticy stuff is, well, rubbish really 'cos she can trump it with an actual anecdote.
Glad I've cleared that up for you.
Do you have a problem with posters on this forum looking at data in a link before forming a conclusion rather than taking another poster's word for it that they have interpreted the data correctly?Not at all - which is why I have provided the links in the best way possible for members of the public to access. I've explained why I have access to the data in a rather more usable form (form comparison purposes), which isn't accessible to the general public. However the data is identical, the only difference is the format in which those data are presented.
I wasn't taking sides in this debate before, but this bit of characteristic sneering nastiness from BHS has sided me with Gabriella.Here is an alternative. Rather than basing your conclusion on whether you think a poster is sneering at another poster, how about basing it on evidence, so for example the full application data on schools admissions from my local area.
Here is an alternative. Rather than basing your conclusion on whether you think a poster is sneering at another poster, how about basing it on evidence, so for example the full application data on schools admissions from my local area.Because the actual debate is too trivial. Who, frankly, cares?
I wasn't taking sides in this debate before, but this bit of characteristic sneering nastiness from BHS has sided me with Gabriella.
Here is an alternative. Rather than basing your conclusion on whether you think a poster is sneering at another poster, how about basing it on evidence, so for example the full application data on schools admissions from my local area.
Why wont you take my word for it? I've given actual numbers for 4 out of the 9 schools.Thanks for the detailed instructions but I could not find Area on the site in order to select St Albans but did manage to find stats for application and allocation through another route. I actually ended up looking at some of the Primary school stats.
If you cannot be bothered to check them out - I've given you the link - then I think that totally devalues you not taking my word for it. I have given you and everyone else the link to prove I am wrong. Go to the site, select under 'area' St Albans, limit to 'secondary' schools - you will find those 9 and you can go to each school. Then go to the tab called 'How were school places allocated in previous years' and the numbers I've given will appear for each school.
Do you really think I'd make this stuff up.
And to note this pattern has been pretty well constant for years. The only change being that a few years ago one non faith school failed its ofsted and was re-opened as an academy. For a couple of years this school was amongst the bottom 3 with the faith schools. It has been becoming steadily more popular and has now overtaken all of the faith schools, albeit is still the least popular non faith school.If your point is that people prefer non-faith schools and are increasingly turning their back on faith schools, how does that support BHS's claim that faith schools are programming children to be religious as adults in order to not revoke the CofE's privileged place in society?
Who, frankly, cares?Are you for real - who cares about schools admissions!?!
Thanks for the detailed instructions but I could not find Area on the site in order to select St Albans but did manage to find stats for application and allocation through another route. I actually ended up looking at some of the Primary school stats.And have you checked the ones I provided - can you confirm please that I am correct.
If your point is that people prefer non-faith schools and are increasingly turning their back on faith schools, how does that support BHS's claim that faith schools are programming children to be religious as adults in order to not revoke the CofE's privileged place in society?Two separate issues.
It seems it's only a matter of time before CofE privilege is revoked if people who did not go to faith schools as children become even less interested in faith as adults. Or do you hold the view that CofE privilege will not be revoked?
Prof,Yes you've cleared up any doubts anyone had that this is more your level of discourse.
Yes, but you're forgetting that Gabriella will doubtless have a friend whose daughter knew this person that this didn't happen to so, you know, all this evidencey, statisticy stuff is, well, rubbish really 'cos she can trump it with an actual anecdote.
Glad I've cleared that up for you.
Prof,Of course I "do" evidence - I am well aware of the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, and have criticised other people for using it before now.
It's Steve - he doesn't "do" evidence.
Thanks for the detailed instructions but I could not find Area on the site in order to select St Albans but did manage to find stats for application and allocation through another route. I actually ended up looking at some of the Primary school stats.In which case no doubt you will be able to identify Maple school as the most popular, with an astonishing 304 applications for its 30 places, or 10.13 applications per place.
Of course I "do" evidence - I am well aware of the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, and have criticised other people for using it before now.And would you therefore like to base your conclusions on the non anecdotal evidence I have provided rather than the anecdotes from Gabriella.
And would you therefore like to base your conclusions on the non anecdotal evidence I have provided rather than the anecdotes from Gabriella.I don't really necessarily side with Gabriella - I can't summon up enough enthusiasm to side with anyone. I dare say your evidence is valid.
Yes you've cleared up any doubts anyone had that this is more your level of discourse.
You don't present evidence or statistics in your posts - trying to piggyback off another poster's efforts to provide stats does you no credit. Why do you keep doing this to yourself? Maybe you should go back into retirement if this is the best you can manage. Join Floo and take a break.
I don't really necessarily side with Gabriella - I can't summon up enough enthusiasm to side with anyone. I dare say your evidence is valid.But if you accept that my evidence is valid then I cannot see how you cannot come to the conclusion that faiths schools in my areas are hugely less popular than non faith schools. Now I cannot generalise to the whole country (but can to the rest of Hertfordshire), but then Gabriella's only 'evidence' of popularity of faith schools, even in her own area is a a few cherry-[picked anecdotes - which I could counter anecdote for anecdote. But I don't rely on anecdotes to make a point, I rely on evidence.
Yes you've cleared up any doubts anyone had that this is more your level of discourse.Why don't you provide the data for your area Gabriella.
You don't present evidence or statistics in your posts - trying to piggyback off another poster's efforts to provide stats does you no credit. Why do you keep doing this to yourself? Maybe you should go back into retirement if this is the best you can manage. Join Floo and take a break.
But if you accept that my evidence is valid then I cannot see how you cannot come to the conclusion that faiths schools in my areas are hugely less popular than non faith schools. Now I cannot generalise to the whole country (but can to the rest of Hertfordshire), but then Gabriella's only 'evidence' of popularity of faith schools, even in her own area is a a few cherry-[picked anecdotes - which I could counter anecdote for anecdote. But I don't rely on anecdotes to make a point, I rely on evidence.I think SteveH's remark is somewhat flippant rather than a staunch defence of Gabriella's stance.
And have you checked the ones I provided - can you confirm please that I am correct.No I haven't as I don't have time to look for the 9 schools and read the stats. I just glanced at some of the Primary school stats in one area but not in detail - I can see that a non-faith school received the most applications by far in that particular area.
Two separate issues.My view is that it depends on the area as to whether the non-faith school has better results than the faith school or if a faith school is more popular.
There are arguments on principal to oppose faith schools - BHS's is one of them.
But the repost tend to be based on 2 arguments (neither arguments on principal, but on pragmatism), namely that faith school are better and more popular than non faith schools. Neither is true - in terms of progress made by pupils faith schools are no better (as a class of school) than non faith schools. And, as I have indicated I have never seen actual evidence to support a view that faith schools are more more popular, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion.
Performance was higher on average at faith schools across all the other
headline performance indicators. However, pupil intake differs between
in faith and non-faith schools, both background characteristics (such as
free school meal eligibility) and their prior attainment, so headline
results may not give us the most meaningful comparisons. The table
below summarises a range of 2016 secondary performance data for
faith and non-faith schools and gives some background data on intake.
Pupils at faith schools were less likely to have low prior attainment when
starting secondary school, more likely to have high prior attainment and
less likely to be eligible for free school meals or be looked after by their
local authority. When the attainment 8 results are broken down by prior
attainment bands the faith/non-faith gap falls to a single percentage
point in each band
I think SteveH's remark is somewhat flippant rather than a staunch defence of Gabriella's stance.Yet he seems reluctant to 'side with me' on the basis of the data I have provided - preferring to use the old 'I can see arguments on both sides' so I'll remain neutral - just as the closet climate change denier sees arguments on both side of the 'debate' as to whether their is global warming and therefore remains neutral!
The research paper - researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06972/SN06972.pdf - seems to show on page 17 that faith and non-faith schools get broadly similar results.Yes that is correct and has been shown time and team again. Faith schools get better headline grades, but that is because they admit a different cohort of pupils, with higher prior attainment, from more affluent backgrounds and with lower levels of special needs. When the results are adjusted for intake, in other words to look at progress during their tie at that school (which surely must be the most robust measure of a good school academically) then progress scores are no meaningful differences on average between faith and non faith schools.
Of course I "do" evidence - I am well aware of the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, and have criticised other people for using it before now.
Stand easy Private…
Thanks for asking after me. I guess I just got to the point where the endless repetition of nonsense, the dishonesty, the smug complacency etc I read so often in response to cogent argument got too dull to bother with. That’s not to say that there was nothing of interest - torridon and Stranger as examples consistently posted well thought out and intellectually nourishing answers - but it is to say that I’ve given up looking here for arguments for religious belief that have anything like the same degree of content or clarity. Or indeed with anything at all that isn’t logically hopeless.
And that’s a pity I think. Cock-eyed optimist that I am I cling to the notion that there could be robust arguments for god(s), albeit that no-one here seems able or willing to make them. When theists use this mb as a drunk uses a lamppost though – for support rather than illumination – then I’ve concluded that there’s nothing to talk about.
Who knows mind – maybe one day someone will post a sure fire argument for his god that looks irrefutable and I’ll return to the fray.
Until that day, my best wishes to all here.
Yet he seems reluctant to 'side with me' on the basis of the data I have provided - preferring to use the old 'I can see arguments on both sides' so I'll remain neutral - just as the closet climate change denier sees arguments on both side of the 'debate' as to whether their is global warming and therefore remains neutral!All right, all right! I side with you! Faith schools in Herts are less popular than non-faith ones! Gordon Bennet! ::)
Yet he seems reluctant to 'side with me' on the basis of the data I have provided - preferring to use the old 'I can see arguments on both sides' so I'll remain neutral - just as the closet climate change denier sees arguments on both side of the 'debate' as to whether their is global warming and therefore remains neutral!And again it was a flippant comment based on his taste in poster, which he made clear at the time/
All right, all right! I side with you! Faith schools in Herts are less popular than non-faith ones! Gordon Bennet! ::)Thanks you - evidence always wins out in the end. ;)
Gabriella,I suggest you take your own adivce about owning your mistake and moving on.
You're floundering. That might be true or not true, but it's not relevant. I've routinely made arguments about generalised phenomena, you've routinely responded with anecdotes. It'd be idle for you to deny that - just count the number of times your response has begun with, "I", "my daughter", "my daughter's friends" etc as if that in some way was relevant.
Why not just own the mistake and move on?
My view is that it depends on the area as to whether the non-faith school has better results than the faith school or if a faith school is more popular.Do you have any actual evidence to support this, or mere assertion and anecdote.
I suggest you take your own adivce about owning your mistake and moving on.
You've routinely provided no stats to back up your generalisations, which are about as useful as anecdotes.
Your polemics about faith and intellectual cover can't really be classed as arguments - they are entertaining especially when you drift off to discussing the Nazis in relation to a point about Welby, but not in the same league as arguments backed by data.
Your generalised principle is that faith does not establish fact. I have never claimed it does nor presented any anecdotes to counter that principle.
Do you have any actual evidence to support this, or mere assertion and anecdote.I don't have access to a database of applications and allocations so can't provide any stats about which schools are the most oversubscribed in different areas.
I would accept that academically good schools (based on results, progress etc), including those rated highly by Ofsted tend to be more popular those those that are achieve less well on those measures.
However the 'faith school deficit' remains - compare a fantastic (in Ofsted and other results terms) faith school with a similarly fantastic non faith school and the non faith will get more applications. Likewise comparing middling schools or poor ones.
I mentioned the most popular faith school in my area - Loretto College - this is a catholic girls school with excellent results and rated Outstanding by Ofsted across the board - 490 applications for its 160 places, 3.06 applications per place
Best comparison is with St Albans Girls School (non faith) also with excellent results and rated Outstanding by Ofsted across the board - 958 applications for its 210 places, 4.56 applications per place
You can do any number of like for like comparisons and the non faith school alway wins by a country mile. So this in nothing about the relative academic/Ofsted merits of faith vs non faith schools in a particular area.
Gabriella,.Got any stats or data to back up your claims?
Stop digging. Seriously, stop doing this to yourself. Businesses spend huge amounts on advertising for a reason – to defend or to increase market share. Mainstream faiths have massive (and free) “advertising” inasmuch as they have open access to media outlets, faith schools set aside for their beliefs (and mandatory acts of worship even in other schools), seats by right in the legislature, countless buildings up and down the country with big signs outside them, carvings of a man being crucified etc.
Your, “but people will make up their own minds” effort is otiose unless you can come up with some argument to explain why advertising does sell Volkswagens but doesn’t sell God. Not providing statistics for how many extra sales VW's advertising budget causes doesn't moreover take away from the demonstrable fact that it does work - hence the huge investment involved.
You’re not the only one here who doesn’t understand how analogy works. The reference to nazis would have been about a specific issue, not suggesting that the Archbish was one. Take your regular resorting to, “but people derive value from their faith” when the conversation is actually about the epistemic value of the supposed facts some faiths assert. I might in reply (after several failed attempts to get you to see your problem) say something like, “that’s the “at least Hitler built the autobahn’s defence””. That wouldn’t for one moment be to suggest that you had anything in common with nazis though – it would just be using an analogy to explain the problem of addressing an argument you don’t like with an irrelevance.
One “generalised principle” is that faith does not verifiably establish facts yes, necessarily so as there’s no methodology to test the claims of fact it makes. What you have done though is to fall back on anecdote frequently (“I”, “my daughter”, “my friends” etc) when various arguments about generalised phenomena (that advertising works for example) are put to you.
Look, I get that your faith is important to you. I really do. Just throwing irrelevancies, ad homs, anecdotes etc at the the undermining of the arguments you think support you does you no credit though. Why not instead just address openly and honestly the arguments themselves and see where that takes you?
Got any stats or data to back up your claims?
Steve, take note:Oh dear, what a petty remark.
He doesn't exist so ignore him.
I don't oppose faith schools on principle - if it meets a need for sectors of the community and gets good results then I see a purpose in continuing with them.I oppose faith schools for many reasons but the most important one is that, if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true, they are being told falsehoods since all teachers should know that whatever they present as fact needs objective evidence to support it. If there is not such objective evidence then that must be designated as a don’t know.
I oppose faith schools for many reasons but the most important one is that, if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true, they are being told falsehoods since all teachers should know that whatever they present as fact needs objective evidence to support it. If there is not such objective evidence then that must be designated as a don’t know.So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?
So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?
NS,And if someone states it as a moral fact? You can't remove the intention of the person making a statement from what they say just to keep you happy.
That's a category error: "God is" is a claim of objective fact about the universe; "murder is wrong" is a moral position.
Gabriella,You seem to like to tell yourself this when people disagree with your opinions and polemics - it seems to be your coping mechanism.
You haven't understood a word have you. Not a word.
First, arguments in logic don't rely on statistics.If you know this then stop lashing out and start presenting an actual argument.
Second, on claims of fact then yes I have. So have you if you could be bothered to look. Here for example:
http://www.autonews.com/article/20161209/RETAIL03/161209824/volkswagen-group-leads-automotive-spending-on-advertising
is a link that tells you that VW Group spend $6.6 billion on advertising in 2015.
Why do you suppose they did that if advertising had no effect?
How much do you you think its advertising would cost if religions didn't get it for free in societies in which it enjoys privileges in schools, media, legislature etc?
Look, unless you're prepared to be honest here I think we're done. Lashing out and engaging are not the same thing. They're really not.
So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?
And if someone states it as a moral fact?
You can't remove the intention of the person making a statement from what they say just to keep you happy.
So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?Why add in in a motivation which you cannot substantiate? And in terms of teaching something as if it is true, and something as true, how do children tell the difference?
And
if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true
Spot the difference
NS,And? If they can't it doesn't stop them teaching it as true.
If someone did that they’d have to find a way to get from an ought to an is (as you well know). Religious faith is the typical approach (“because God says so”), but any other statement of certainty would be a faith position too.
?
Hi Susan,Except they have both presented arguments on various topics on this board. Why make it so easy to show yourself up as wrong? Why do you keep doing this to yourself?
SteveH and Robbie are the Statler and Waldorf of this mb ("Statler and Waldorf are a pair of Muppet characters known for their cantankerous opinions and shared penchant for heckling. The two elderly men first appeared in The Muppet Show in 1975, where they consistently jeered the entirety of the cast and their performances from their balcony seats".:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statler_and_Waldorf )
Nether seems interested in arguing for anything, but they cheer on anyone they see as a fellow traveller and snipe at those whose arguments they don't like. It all adds to the colour of the place I suppose.
Why add in in a motivation which you cannot substantiate? And in terms of teaching something as if it is true, and something as true, how do children tell the difference?Personally I think there is a significant difference in that teaching something is true leaves no room for argument or debate. Teaching something as if it is true leave open that debate, and indeed is often a deliberate starting point for that debate along there lines of, 'lets for the sake of argument accept that murder is wrong as if it is true', where does that lead us. Are there exceptions? Is this justifiable or verifiable? How might we argue against such an assertion? etc
Personally I think there is a significant difference in that teaching something is true leaves no room for argument or debate. Teaching something as if it is true leave open that debate, and indeed is often a deliberate starting point for that debate along there lines of, 'lets for the sake of argument accept that murder is wrong as if it is true', where does that lead us. Are there exceptions? Is this justifiable or verifiable? How might we argue against such an assertion? etc
So I do see a difference - but hey, ho, perhaps that's because I teach ethics.
Actually your example of murder is a poor one - as murder, by definition, is defined as killing that is 'wrong'. So it is a kind of circular argument.
But what I am asking is where murder is taught as true, not where a statement is made where it is being taught as if it is true,They seem to me to be distinct, one a statement of dogmatic correctness, not to be challenged. The other a well accepted teaching approach to allow issues to be probed and challenged etc.
And murder is only wrong in the sense you cover here by accepting the definition as you point out but you aren't covering the opportunity to discuss whether the definition is accepted.Actually valid point here is the distinction between that which is legal or illegal and that which is morally right or wrong. But that is a somewhat different (albeit valid point, and again one I cover in my teaching of ethics. But the point is that murder, by definition, is unlawful killing.
They seem to me to be distinct, one a statement of dogmatic correctness, not to be challenged. The other a well accepted teaching approach to allow issues to be probed and challenged etc.Yes they are distinct if they are made distinct - I asked about when they aren't
Actually valid point here is the distinction between that which is legal or illegal and that which is morally right or wrong. But that is a somewhat different (albeit valid point, and again one I cover in my teaching of ethics. But the point is that murder, by definition, is unlawful killing.
A better approach would be to use a more neutral terms e.g. killing (still a bit directed and definitionally judgemental) or better still taking a human life.
I oppose faith schools for many reasons but the most important one is that, if, at any time in the day or year, the children are told that a God is true, they are being told falsehoods since all teachers should know that whatever they present as fact needs objective evidence to support it. If there is not such objective evidence then that must be designated as a don’t know.Do you think children can't disregard "God exists" statements, especially if their family is atheist? I can't find any evidence that children at faith schools are increasing the number of practising adult CofE goers, given religious observance is in chronic decline.
Yes they are distinct if they are made distinct - I asked about when they aren'tPlease explain:
So you would oppose a teacher saying murder is wrong as if it is true?
Please explain:The teaching of something as true and as if it is true. If I just teach children that x is wrong, I;m not opening up that distinction I am teaching it as objective fac. Note the example itself doesn't matter as it's teaching something as objective fact that is the issue
What are distinct?
If you know this then stop lashing out and start presenting an actual argument.
Your dishonest claims is not the same as you putting forward an argument in logic - so if that means you think you are done here, ok.
Unless of course you can be honest enough to provide a quote to substantiate your claim that I implied that faith or utility can be used establish truth or facts.
Your claim that people like me or Welby for that matter, who have a faith, provide intellectual cover for people who commit criminal acts isn't much of an argument let alone one based on logic. Especially if you can't identify how referring to something as a sin leads to someone else voluntarily committing an assault without this voluntary act leading to a break in the chain of causation.
And your attempt to try and use an analogy referring to the Nazis while presenting absolutely no specifics about the chain of causation in your analogy nor how your analogy therefore supports your intellectual cover claim about Welby doesn't help you make an argument. If you can't show the relevance of the analogies they are worthless, a joke - like I said they are entertaining but no more valid than my anecdotes.
Your VW analogy is similarly vague and irrelevant. So what if companies spend on advertising - that does not necessarily translate into increased sales. See Superbowl adverts and sales.
http://time.com/money/4206369/super-bowl-ads-affect-sales/
And asking questions like "Why do you suppose they did that if advertising had no effect?" isn't making an argument. You do these questions a lot by the way - it's just laziness on your part not an argument.
Regardless of privilege and any advertising benefit that brings, there are falling numbers in the CofE and if this continues I see no reason why eventually their privilege might not be revoked, as people appear to be less and less inclined to stick with tradition. Not seeing the problem with it taking time for cultures to change and for people to let go of their allegiances to tradition.
Oh and by all means, feel free to believe that people can choose their beliefs but not sure why you expect your belief to be taken seriously.
For a start, I hope that the rightness or wrongness of murder would not be a subject for teaching with very young children. If a specific instance came up in their community, then specialist counsellors would be needed.The praise is used because as with god, murder isn't an objective fact. You can substitute true and have it as the same formulation as your post about god. Not sure where we have got to very young children from since your post just covered children. And if you advocate the teaching above I'm happy with that but my experience is that morality at a basic level gets taught as if there are moral facts.
And I do not know what sort of intelligence or training a teacher would have had if s/he told children that *murder is wrong as if it is true*. That phrase doesn't make sense to me anyway. Murder as a subject would be discussed in history, or humanities, or RS, and one would hope that such a discussion would come to the conclusion that murder is generally wrong, but there would be an area where uncertainty would lead to varying view points.
Do you think children can't disregard "God exists" statements, especially if their family is atheist? I can't find any evidence that children at faith schools are increasing the number of practising adult CofE goers, given religious observance is in chronic decline.That seems to be rather confused, but no matter.
I would not be against a faith school if it provides a particular ethos that meets the needs of members of the community and gets good results. I think any religious teaching can be safely ignored.And do you think all the religious teachers in those schools would casually go along with that? In my opinion, one or some of them will do their best to indoctrinate.
NSApologies missed out 'is wrong' after murder
How can 'murder' be 'true'? The act of murder takes place far too often, but murder itself is just a word for an act. murder itself cannot be true or false.
The praise is used because as with god, murder isn't an objective fact. You can substitute true and have it as the same formulation as your post about god. Not sure where we have got to very young children from since your post just covered children. And if you advocate the teaching above I'm happy with that but my experience is that morality at a basic level gets taught as if there are moral facts.Sad to say, I have been out of teaching for a long time, so I do not know how morals are discussed now, but surely there must be enough science and biology taught nowadays to ensure that a reasonably large number of children understand that moral behaviour derives from our evolutionary history?
Do you think children can't disregard "God exists" statements, especially if their family is atheist? I can't find any evidence that children at faith schools are increasing the number of practising adult CofE goers, given religious observance is in chronic decline.I think you need to ask the question in a different way.
I would not be against a faith school if it provides a particular ethos that meets the needs of members of the community and gets good results. I think any religious teaching can be safely ignored.
The teaching of something as true and as if it is true.Thanks - I see them as different - you can argue that they aren't, fair enough. I disagree and have explained why. If they are the same why is there any need to add the additional as if it is. Reason, because it subtly shifts the meaning, i.e. they aren't the same.
Thanks - I see them as different - you can argue that they aren't, fair enough. I disagree and have explained why. If they are the same why is there any need to add the additional as if it is. Reason, because it subtly shifts the meaning, i.e. they aren't the same.I think if you say that distinctly then I agree. As covered in reply to SusanDoris, I introduced the phrase as it was true because it isn't objectively.
I think if you say that distinctly then I agree. As covered in reply to SusanDoris, I introduced the phrase as it was true because it isn't objectively.I think we are arguing around in circles and the discussion isn't really going anywhere. My key points are in earlier posts. Unless there is anything startlingly new then let's leave it there.
I think if you say that distinctly then I agree. As covered in reply to SusanDoris, I introduced the phrase as it was true because it isn't objectively.
NS,Surely the position was that teaching things as facts that aren't is wrong? Does it matter what the force of the argument is to the principle.
Isn't the point though that the suffix "because God says so" does away with any possibility of doubt, of questioning, of challenge? There have been some here for example who, when challenged, have said something along the lines of, "who are you to doubt the word of God?" as if "the word of God" was axiomatic. It doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to think that teachers in faith schools would do the same thing, especially if they use the Bible as their text book.
Now you might say something like, "but young children probably wouldn't question their teachers anyway" which is true, but "I say so" and "God says so" have very different force nonetheless I think.
Surely the position was that teaching things as facts that aren't is wrong? Does it matter what the force of the argument is to the principle.
Anyway as posted to SusanDoris, I'm happy that she would oppose teaching moral statements as fact.
NS,The teacher may or may not. Certainly I had teachers who were religious in a religious school who taught doubt and atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty
When teaching it as a (supposed) fact is enabled by first building the bridgehead of an inerrant God whose thoughts are in a book, yes. It's the enabling role of "God" I was getting at, not the general principle that teaching things you can't know to be facts as facts is unsupportable. If the teacher has drunk the Kool Aid of "God", then he thinks his teachings on moral oughts are facts.
Fair enough.
The teacher may or may not. Certainly I had teachers who were religious in a religious school who taught doubt and atheists who in a non religious context taught certaintyThat is interesting - do you happen to remember any of the things the atheist taught as certainty?
That is interesting - do you happen to remember any of the things the atheist taught as certainty?That morality was objective and note I used the plural, atheists
The teacher may or may not. Certainly I had teachers who were religious in a religious school who taught doubt and atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty
NS,I didn't say that I was taught by atheists at school, My schooling was religious. Tertiary education I knew that some of those teaching me were atheists because if wide ranging discussions on the subjects
Is that true? Did you have "atheist" teachers (how did you know they were atheists by the way - did the physics master say, "By the way class, just so you know..." or some such?) who said something like, "No matter what reason or evidence may ever emerge, I'm certainly right about this"? Seems pretty unlikely to me, especially in the sciences.
How about religious teachers? Did any of them say something like, "Look, this God stuff looks ok to me but, you know, I could well be wrong about it so treat this as a working hypothesis" or similar?
Gabriella,Oh so you're not done then. It can't be that grim for you - you're still here. You must be enjoying it, regardless of your histrionics.
Using argument and logic to show you where you go wrong isn’t “lashing out”. Failing to deal with any of it and using pejorative language, ad homs, personal anecdotes etc in response on the other hand probably is.
Look, I’ll help you:
Advertising works, otherwise businesses wouldn’t spend big money on it. Do you agree or disagree?
Organised religions effectively have huge amounts of advertising for free because of the position they’re afforded in society. Do you agree or disagree?
There’s no argument (or at least none from you) to suggest that advertising sells VWs but doesn’t sell God. Do you agree or disagree?
Congratulations – I think you’ve just invented the double straw man. What’s actually happened (as I suspect you well know) is that on various occasions when I’ve talked about the epistemic worthlessness of faith you’ve responded by telling me that people derive value from it, as if deriving value in some unexplained way was relevant to the point.
You can assert that all you like but it doesn’t change anything. As you won’t address the issue direct, let's return to an analogy (yes, one of those) and I’ll take you through that too.
Trump is far more ambivalent on race issue at best than his predecessor, and is often outright racist. Do you agree or disagree?
Since his inauguration, there has been a significant rise in neo-nazi activity in the US expressly emboldened by the tacit approval of an authority figure. Do you agree of disagree?
There’s no argument (or at least none from you) to suggest that the phenomenon in the US (where Trump talks about rapist Mexicans) should not apply here too (where Welby talks about the “problem’, “sin” of homosexuality. Do you agree or disagree?
Note by the way that at no time has Trump said, “burn a cross on your lawn” any more than Welby has said, “beat up a gay man”.
They don’t need to though do they.
You’ve lost it entirely now. The “at least Hitler built the autobahns” line is just an analogy (that word again) to illustrate that posting an irrelevance (“faith is epistemically worthless”/”but people derive value from it” etc) is rhetorically hopeless.
This is getting grim. Really, VW wouldn’t spend $6 billion on advertising if it didn’t work. They might not know how many more cars exactly it sells (or how many lost sales it prevents), which bit of the $6 billion does the job most effectively, how they could change the ads to be even more effective etc) but what they do know is that it works.
What magic process in your head suggest that it doesn’t work though for the C of E? (Remember, you’re weaned off anecdote in place of argument now so, “but my local church only has three old dears in it on a Sunday so advertising can’t work” is now out of bounds.)
And right on cue…
How much quicker do you think those numbers would fall if tomorrow the church became a private members’ club and had to pay for its own advertising? Increasing sales is one measure of the effectiveness of advertising, but so is slowing sales losses. You do know that right?
Tell it to the children of religious parents. Yours might be a good place to start.
I didn't say that I was taught by atheists at school, My schooling was religious. Tertiary education I knew that some of those teaching me were atheists because if wide ranging discussions on the subjectsBut you said:
But you said:Yes, and as covered in the post I was referring to tertiary education where I didn't have a 'physics master'
'... atheists who in a non religious context taught certainty'
What was the topic (or topics) in which they were teaching certainty?
Yes, and as covered in the post I was referring to tertiary education where I didn't have a 'physics master'Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?
I think you need to ask the question in a different way.Ok - if we agree that 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parents do not go onto become religious as adults, that indicates a decline in religiosity over the generations.
So rather than ask whether kids of atheist parents in faith schools become religious (very, very few do regardless of the school they go to), you need to ask whether children brought up in a religious household are more or less likely to retain that faith if they go to a school that reinforces that faith (a faith school of the same faith) rather than a school that doesn't (largely a non faith school). Given that about 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parent remain religious as adults.
I don't know the answer to this, and I'm not sure anyone actually does but it is pretty clear that (certainly for the catholic schools, which are those I have most vision of) that there is a clear view that attendance at catholic schools is important to ensuring the promulgation of the faith generation to generation. Certainly their approach to RE is effectively to develop a new generation of catholics - the wording used is very clear that they expect pupils to have and to deepen their catholic faith.
Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?No, the 'physics master' was raised by bhs, and lead me to explain that I wasn't talking about atheists at school.
Ok - if we agree that 50% of children brought up by 2 religious parents do not go onto become religious as adults, that indicates a decline in religiosity over the generations.How can it add to a child's security if s/he finds out later that the idea htaught as truth, whether as an inerrant truth or not, has no objective evidence to back it up.
If parents want to bring their children up with certain traditions and send them to a school that supports those traditions - including religious or behavioural or moral traditions - it seems to be a matter for the family to decide, given such a large percentage of children seem to be breaking free of these traditions in adult life, but may well enjoy some security from them when younger.
How can it add to a child's security if s/he finds out later that the idea htaught as truth, whether as an inerrant truth or not, has no objective evidence to back it up.It's my understanding that a child feels security from being part of a family and its traditions and that comes from a sense of belonging and identity. I am not aware of any evidence of insecurity from a lack of objective evidence of god but happy to take a look at some stats if you have a link?
No, the 'physics master' was raised by bhs, and lead me to explain that I wasn't talking about atheists at school.Now I am really confused - was this person actually teaching you, and in their teaching were suggesting certain things they were teaching were 'certain' - in which case what were they teaching?
Now I am really confused - was this person actually teaching you, and in their teaching were suggesting certain things they were teaching were 'certain' - in which case what were they teaching?They were teaching. At tertiary education level. Not at school. And they were stating morality was objective.
Or is it that in interactions outside of the teaching environment they expressed certainty in personal communication.
BTW I have no issue with teachers teaching things as certainly based on evidence that is beyond doubt, or even self defined - so for example lots of maths and plenty of physics and chemistry or certain elements of musical theory etc. That seems fine to me. Teaching morality or more subjective topics as certain seems wrong to me.
They were teaching. At tertiary education level. Not at school. And they were stating morality was objective.I know they were teaching at tertiary level - you've already told us this. What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.
I know they were teaching at tertiary level - you've already told us this. What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.I thought the statement that they were teaching made it clear it wasn't in conversation. Amongst the subjects that it was stated that morality was objective were Criminal Law, Delict, and Constitutional Law. I've answered every question you have asked completely straight throughout this thread.
And were they stating that morality was objective to students in the context of what they were teaching (in other words as part of the delivery of the curriculum), or was this outside of their teaching role, for example in a private conversation with students.
These really aren't hard questions - it seems bizarrely difficulty to get a straight answer out of you though.
It's my understanding that a child feels security from being part of a family and its traditions and that comes from a sense of belonging and identity.Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that trustt will crumble into dust.
Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that trustt will crumble into dust.I can’t imagine it’s any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real and they presumably will figure it out quite early on about the lack of objective evidence when they encounter other beliefs and faiths. Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?
If, on the other hand the adults around a child always say this is what we believe to be true then there would, later on, be understanding.
I thought the statement that they were teaching made it clear it wasn't in conversation. Amongst the subjects that it was stated that morality was objective were Criminal Law, Delict, and Constitutional Law. I've answered every question you have asked completely straight throughout this thread.Sorry but this is (unless I missed it upthread) the first time you ever indicated that he was teaching law. As part of a specific law course, or embedded in another topic?
I can’t imagine it’s any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real and they presumably will figure it out quite early on about the lack of objective evidence when they encounter other beliefs and faiths. Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?Surely you cannot trhy to equate Father Christmas with god? Remember, there are zero adults who believe in father Christmas. There are billions who continue the 100% faith belief into adulthood.
Surely you cannot trhy to equate Father Christmas with god? Remember, there are zero adults who believe in father Christmas. There are billions who continue the 100% faith belief into adulthood.I guess I am the wrong person to ask then. It doesn't seem a big deal to me but I tell my kids it's a belief and I don't remember being disillusioned when I was a kid and realised God wasn't real so I'm not sure what my parents told me. And then I went back to being a theist after about 10 or 12 years of atheism.
I can’t imagine it’s any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real...
...and they presumably will figure it out quite early on about the lack of objective evidence when they encounter other beliefs and faiths. Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?
bluehillside #309I must admit I don't really get the point that Gabriella is trying to make.
Well said! I must remember the way you have put the uselessness of the Father Christmas comparison so that I can use it the next time the subject comes up elsewhere.
Sorry but this is (unless I missed it upthread) the first time you ever indicated that he was teaching law. As part of a specific law course, or embedded in another topic?And I answered as it was the first time you had asked about the subject. I don't understand your question in the second sentence since I've already told you three different specific law course.
Nonetheless seems rather inappropriate to indicate that morality is object. Maybe he meant that the law act as if morality is objective - in other words doesn't argue with the reasoning behind why a law is framed as it is (and the morality underlying the label basis), merely looks to apply it in practice.
And I answered as it was the first time you had asked about the subject.I actually asked 4 times what subject they were teaching you before I got an answer:
I must admit I don't really get the point that Gabriella is trying to make.No. She is saying that she doesn't know what the big deal is about trust crumbling to dust once you realise that something you believed or was taught as fact is not supported by evidence - whether that something is Father Christmas or God.
Is she implying that because kids believe in Father Christmas but don't as adults, but that some kids believe in god and some retain that belief as adults that somehow god is more real?
I don't understand your question in the second sentence since I've already told you three different specific law course.No you have told me 3 different law topics. They might have been part of a law course, or several law courses. Alternatively they could have been topics that are covered, briefly perhaps, in the context of a different subject. So for example I teach masters level course focussed on medical ethics, but in doing so I need to cover certain aspects of the law as they pertain to medical ethics. I cover law topics, but my students aren't taking a law course, let alone a law degree.
And I answered as it was the first time you had asked about the subject. I don't understand your question in the second sentence since I've already told you three different specific law course.
I find it bizarre that you have an interpretation of something that you weren't at that you appear to have made up to align with your own beliefs. It's a fabulous example of Dunning-Kruger in action
No. She is saying that she doesn't know what the big deal is about trust crumbling to dust once you realise that something you believed or was taught as fact is not supported by evidence - whether that something is Father Christmas or God.
You seem to be having real trouble reading posts at the moment (other than the ones cheering you on from your fan club). Your brain seems to read the words and then interpret them to mean something completely different from what was written, based on your preconceptions. You should correct that - must be a real handicap in academia.
I am not seeing the trauma of what Susan is describing - unless Susan has some evidence to the contrary. Susan seemed to think it would make people feel insecure if they were taught God was fact and then realised there was no evidence to support God.
I actually asked 4 times what subject they were teaching you before I got an answer:The first I read simply as topic not subject about which they were teaching was objective - and as I had just answered SusanDoris about it being objective morality referred you to the answer. The second I didn't read as asking what subject as you had got confused by my referring to the 'physics master' introduced by bhs and so I stated that as the question asked it wasn't physics. The third, I missed, for which, apologies
Reply 293 'What was the topic (or topics) in which they were teaching certainty?'
Reply 295 'Sorry may have missed this upthread - but do you mean these people were teaching you physics?'
Reply 300 '... in which case what were they teaching?'
Reply 302 'What you haven't told us is what they were teaching.'
Only in your response to my 4th attempt to get you to answer did you actually answer my question, despite actually replying (but failing to answer the question about the topic they were teaching) to the other 3 posts.
Gabriella,Very entertaining.
Say what now?
Doesn't work. For it to work you'd need a Mum (ie, you) who did believe in Father Christmas (and apparently "derived value" from that belief), separate Father Christmas schools and daily acts of worship to Father Christmas in the rest, unfettered access to the media (perhaps a Father Christmas slot on radio 4 every morning), officials of the Father Christmas faith in the House of Lords, buildings of every other street corner dedicated to praising the big guy, perhaps with carvings of his sleigh delivering presents outside, maybe too devout Father Christmas-arian both as PM and as the head of state, Father Christmas-ism as the official state faith etc.
Once you had this behemoth of nonsense hiding in plain sight, then perhaps you could tell us about the lack of any evidence causing faith to crumble into dust.
The first I read simply as topic not subject about which they were teaching was objective - and as I had just answered SusanDoris about it being objective morality referred you to the answer. The second I didn't read as asking what subject as you had got confused by my referring to the 'physics master' introduced by bhs and so I stated that as the question asked it wasn't physics. The third, I missed, for which, apologiesI think it was pretty clear that I was asking what this person was teaching. But now I have the answer so all is well.
I take it you have now dropped your interpretation of events that you weren't at?Nope - I will return to this later. There is a whole thread 'Fine details ...' that is around the veracity of comments recalled years later (I am presuming that you took these courses many years ago - if not please confirm when this was). Point being that it is very common for individuals to err in recollection, or perhaps more relevant here misinterpret what they see or here. All I was doing was asking whether you are sure this was what the person intended you to think or whether there may be other interpretations.
Very entertaining.
Unfortunately for you people still seem to derive value from the privilege of religion as the privilege has not been revoked - c'est la vie.
Susan and I were discussing trust crumbling into dust, not faith crumbling into dust.
NS,Yes, you're right it isn't Dunning Kruger, I'm not sure what it is an example of but it's very odd and strange to have someone making up stuff about something they weren't at to fit in with their beliefs.
No it isn't - that's not what the Dunning-Kruger effect entails.
So the story now is that you had "teachers" (lecturers perhaps?) in law who were also atheists and who told you that moral values were objectively true.
Is that it?
Gabriella,That wasn't an insult, it was describing my impression of what has happened recently when Davey was replying to my posts.
Leaving aside your continued reliance on insult in place of argument, you're kidding right? In the US in particular there are countless accounts of families torn apart when the child concludes that its parents' religious beliefs are a crock.
I think it was pretty clear that I was asking what this person was teaching. But now I have the answer so all is well.
Nope - I will return to this later. There is a whole thread 'Fine details ...' that is around the veracity of comments recalled years later (I am presuming that you took these courses many years ago - if not please confirm when this was). Point being that it is very common for individuals to err in recollection, or perhaps more relevant here misinterpret what they see or here. All I was doing was asking whether you are sure this was what the person intended you to think or whether there may be other interpretations.
As someone who spends a considerable amount of time teaching students I am well aware that sometimes I think I am very clear in a point, but that some students misinterpret my meaning.
Gabriella,Yes - I can see this happening in the US. They do fundamentalist religion as well as other things differently there - gun control for instance...
Turns out the evidence you weren't seeing is even called a Syndrome!
http://marlenewinell.net/religious-trauma-syndrome-its-
Valid points but why not jut ask was I sure if my recall was correct rather than invent some possible alternative to fit in with your beliefs?Now who it is who is making assumptions - perhaps you might clarify what beliefs you perceive I have that need an alternative explanation to fit.
No you have told me 3 different law topics. They might have been part of a law course, or several law courses. Alternatively they could have been topics that are covered, briefly perhaps, in the context of a different subject. So for example I teach masters level course focussed on medical ethics, but in doing so I need to cover certain aspects of the law as they pertain to medical ethics. I cover law topics, but my students aren't taking a law course, let alone a law degree.Not really sure what relevance your aeternatives have here, and you seem to be saying that you don't think topics are subjects but when you originally asked you used the word topic, and have then stated that was you asking for subject.
The point being the approach to how those topics are covered and taught may be completely different depending on context, i.e. as part of a law course and law qualification or as secondarily important material as part of a course and qualification that isn't law.
That's the reason for asking and I trusty you realise now that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for clarification on, and indeed thanks for clarifying.
Now who it is who is making assumptions - perhaps you might clarify what beliefs you perceive I have that need an alternative explanation to fit.Apologies, my post was unclear. The belief I am talking about was what you thought could have been meant, not your own position on morality.
I don't think I have proffered any 'belief' on the matter - I have said 'Nonetheless seems rather inappropriate to indicate that morality is objective.' I have never given any view as to why I think that would be inappropriate, although I'm happy to do so.
Gabriella,No, because you would need to show that the things you described in your response have a material effect on people. Got anything better than your vivid imagination and hyperbole?
Thank you. Do you not think though that it would be more honest to say something like, "yes I suppose that would need to be the case for my analogy with Father Christmas to have worked. OK, I'll withdraw it then"?
But as you now know that "deriving value" tells you sweet FA about the epistemic claims of fact of their religions we both know that that's irrelevant don't we. For sure though the private jet flying, big suited televangelists with ambitious hair-dos derive a lot of "value" from it, I'll give you that.Again very amusing. No, deriving value from religion is not irrelevant to people - I imagine that's why religion continues precisely because it is not irrelevant.
So Religious Trauma Syndrome then?Got any evidence about numbers in the UK suffering from this Syndrome? Because we wouldn't want you making generalisations based on a syndrome suffered by a tiny portion of the population. That would make you look stupid and we wouldn't want that.
Apologies, my post was unclear. The belief I am talking about was what you thought could have been meant, not your own position on morality.That makes no sense.
That wasn't an insult, it was describing my impression of what has happened recently when Davey was replying to my posts.
But leaving aside your irrelevant comments…
- though given the insults you use in place of argument (muppets ring a bell?)
… it must be nice for you to feel you are talking to a kindred spirit even if you do come across as a complete hypocrite in the process –
…we were talking about religious privilege in the UK and I was talking about my experience of religion and Father Christmas in the UK. I am not commenting on the experiences of children in the US as I have no experience of that.
That makes no sense.That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty
All I did was offer a possible alternative explanation as to what this person might have been trying to convey, that perhaps you might have misinterpreted. If that alternative interpretation is the 'belief' how is that consistent with your initial response to my comment:
'I find it bizarre that you have an interpretation of something that you weren't at that you appear to have made up to align with your own beliefs.'
You are clearly talking of the interpretation and the beliefs as different things, the former made up to align with the latter. So again I ask, what are those beliefs that you think I have that drove me to make up an alternative interpretation of your story in order to align with.
Yes - I can see this happening in the US. They do fundamentalist religion as well as other things differently there - gun control for instance...
I don't see any evidence regarding numbers involved though - this seems to relate to people who have experienced fundamentalist or extremist versions of religion, while I was talking about how mainstream religion is conducted in the UK.
Do you have some similar evidence for the UK?
Gabriella,No. Seriously.
So you think this:
“You seem to be having real trouble reading posts at the moment (other than the ones cheering you on from your fan club). Your brain seems to read the words and then interpret them to mean something completely different from what was written, based on your preconceptions. You should correct that - must be a real handicap in academia.”
Isn’t using insult in place of argument?
Seriously?
You’re confusing responding to an argument by insulting the person making it (you) with describing a character type (me).Of course - you keep telling yourself that - we'll just ignore the insulting generalisations in your posts while you try to pull other posters up on perceived insults in their posts.
Only to you Gabriella, only to you…I doubt that. But you already knew that.
First, Susan said, “Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that trustt will crumble into dust.That was in the context of faith schools in the UK. If you want to talk about the US, fine, I don't. Have a discussion with Susan about it.
If, on the other hand the adults around a child always say this is what we believe to be true then there would, later on, be understanding.”
She made no reference to meaning by that only children with British passports.
Second, trauma caused by losing parents’ religion isn’t country specific. Presumably its incidence and severity increases with the level of religiosity of the society involved, but it’s a generalised phenomenon.Got any stats? Yes there are incidents of trauma - if you want to discuss specific incidents in the UK that you are aware of, ok. It would be like discussing specific incidents of extremism. For you to generalise it you need to show how widespread it is.
Third, having had your Father Christmas analogy falsified why (once again) have you veered away into more irrelevance rather than deal with it? Consider NS just now very decently acknowledging that he mis-spoke when he referred to Dunning-Kruger. Would it really kill you to show similar decency in future?You didn't respond to my point about how material the effect was - you seem to ignore points when it suits you and instead incorrectly claim you have falsified something. If that's how you want to use this forum - ok.
That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certaintyBlimey that was hard work.
That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certaintyYou do recognise that your comment is fundamentally oxymoronic, don't you?
Blimey that was hard work.Well since it was what I was talking about, what other reason would you have to challenge it?
And on what basis do you make that assertion - when have I ever made a claim of that nature.
You do recognise that your comment is fundamentally oxymoronic, don't you?Not in context.
Well since it was what I was talking about, what other reason would you have to challenge it?No you are inferring what my beliefs are - in other words that I believe:
Gabriella,You do realise that just because you call it dodgy that doesn't make it true. It probably does seem dodgy to you that someone is challenging your statements by asking for evidence - must be very trying for your ego. But that tends to happen on a Message Board. Hope it's not too traumatic for you.
Yes. Try these articles from the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies for example:
http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS.aspx
Incidentally, you have a dodgy habit of first denying a phenomenon, then when that becomes unsupportable responding with demands for data about incidence (how many cars does advertising sell then?, how many people suffer from the syndrome? etc).
Presumably the number of people in the UK who suffer Religious Trauma Syndrome is unknowable because most keep it to themselves, but there must be significantly enough for academics write articles about it.Define "significant enough" and show why something that happens to an unknowable number of people can be generalised. Is that your idea of evidence and reasoning?
No you are inferring what my beliefs are - in other words that I believe:I don't think that. I think and stated the opposite which is where this all started. Since you challenged the case I was citing of atheists teaching certainty without merit, it seemed reasonable to assume you would have to have some reason to do so.
'That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty'
I am challenging you as to why you might think that (and by the way you are wrong).
I don't think that. I think and stated the opposite which is where this all started. Since you challenged the case I was citing of atheists teaching certainty without merit, it seemed reasonable to assume you would have to have some reason to do so.My point was entirely pedagogical (hence the relentless asking of the subject that was being taught, and whether this was directly part of curriculum delivery rather than a private conversation) - nothing whatsoever about the belief system (or lack thereof) of the educator.
Gabriella,The article you liked to here is the same as the one you linked to in #321 - it's by the same person Dr Marlene Winell.
Yes. Try these articles from the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies for example:
http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS.aspx
Incidentally, you have a dodgy habit of first denying a phenomenon, then when that becomes unsupportable responding with demands for data about incidence (how many cars does advertising sell then?, how many people suffer from the syndrome? etc).
Presumably the number of people in the UK who suffer Religious Trauma Syndrome is unknowable because most keep it to themselves, but there must be significantly enough for academics write articles about it.
My point was entirely pedagogical (hence the relentless asking of the subject that was being taught, and whether this was directly part of curriculum delivery rather than a private conversation) - nothing whatsoever about the belief system (or lack thereof) of the educator.asked what?
Perhaps if you had asked rather than jumping to conclusions and making baseless assertions then you would have understood.
GabriellaTap dancing and cheerleading.
Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.
If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect
GabriellaNot sure what the point of listening to posts is in relation to perception. Reading doesn't have a tone different from listening unless it is superimposed by the brain and that would surely apply to listening too? If you know it's a post by someone you disagree with, your brain could easily impose tone on what you listen to.
Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.
If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect
GabriellaSusan
Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.
If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect
Not sure what the point of listening to posts is in relation to perception. Reading doesn't have a tone different from listening unless it is superimposed by the brain and that would surely apply to listening too? If you know it's a post by someone you disagree with, your brain could easily impose tone on what you listen to.Yes, that is true, but listening is much slower than reading, especially if I listen several times, so that I think I am far less likely to make an instant judgement, whether I know the person's style and opinions or not.
SusanI do not come here just for entertainment – that would be a superficial and trivial attitude and that is not me.
If imagining my possible motivations and posting the above comment on this forum provides you with some mild enjoyment, ok. I post on here for mild enjoyment too.
The back and forth stuff between me and BHS is a game - as in no point in anyone taking it seriously. BHS does his style of posting when challenging posts and I do mine. Your preference of people's style of posting is up to you. I'm not looking for a cheerleader, though you seem to feel it's part of your enjoyment of this forum to provide that service for posters you agree with. But if you feel like adding to the entertainment by booing and hissing when my posts come along - ok.
I do not come here just for entertainment – that would be a superficial and trivial attitude and that is not me.You projected motives to my posts but you want me to stop projecting categories onto your posts? I'm afraid you started the ball rolling Susan.
I am so glad I found message boards when so many other activities were no longer available to me because they provided, and still provide most of the time, a stimulating intellectual hobby.
I think your last sentence is irrelevant and unnecessary. You can categorise my posts in any way you like, but I would be grateful if you would avoid projEcting your categorising ideas as mine.
asked what?To explain why I had made the comments I did in reply 306, rather than jumping to conclusions that it was something to do with an assumption that I believe that atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty.
To explain why I had made the comments I did in reply 306, rather than jumping to conclusions that it was something to do with an assumption that I believe that atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty.Do you always ask why people have made comments?
Do you always ask why people have made comments?Of course I don't always ask people to explain why they have made comments.
Of course I don't always ask people to explain why they have made comments.It's amusing to see you trying to school other posters about not jumping to conclusions when you sometimes don't ask for clarification yourself, and instead make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Consider your #189 on this very thread where you said:
But I do regularly ask for clarifications or explanation of posts where it isn't clear to me why a poster is making a particularly point.
Reply 270 on this very thread, to you, being a very good example.
That seems to be the appropriate thing to do, rather than jumping to (completely wrong) conclusions based on (incorrect) assumptions of the motivation behind the poster's post, as you did.
It's amusing to see you trying to school other posters about not jumping to conclusions when you sometimes don't ask for clarification yourself, and instead make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Consider your #189 on this very thread where you said:I suggest you re-read reply 189.
"However I have never seen any actually verifiable quantitative data that indicates that faith schools are more popular than no faith schools despite the clear implication of those who use anecdotes as if it were strong evidence."
Followed by your #218:
"I have never seen any credible data (based on all schools, not just a cherry picked one or two) that faith schools are more popular than no faith. All the actual evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
But of course the media and faith school apologist will endlessly trot out anecdotes about individual popular faith schools, usually involving non religious parents going to church to get in."
Did you ask for clarification as to whether I was using my anecdote as an anecdote or as strong evidence when I mentioned my atheist friends in Tunbridge Wells trying to get their child into a popular faith primary school ?
Did you even ask for clarification about whether I was trying to imply that generally faith schools are more popular than non-faith schools or if I was just talking about a particular area - Tunbridge Wells, given that I had made no statement about the popularity of faith schools compared to non-faith schools?
And by the way did you note that I provided the evidence you asked for about the situation in Tunbridge Wells or did you just ignore it?
If you jump to conclusions based on your assumptions about theists, you just end up looking hypocritical when you to try to lecture other posters about not jumping to conclusions.
I suggest you re-read reply 189.Of course my 'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.' is an anecdote. That is my point - it was never intended to be strong evidence.
My challenge to you was the use of anecdote, which I merely countered with a different anecdote.
The point being that anecdote isn't valuable - that data is - hence I then provided data.
If I got this wrong and:
'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.'
is in fact not an anecdote, then I apologise. But frankly I'm struggling to see how it could be interpreted as anything other than an anecdote. And, of course, I wasn't the only person challenging you on your use of anecdote, was I.
My challenge to you was nothing like NS's baseless and completely incorrect assertion as to why I had made the comment I did.
Of course my 'I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area.' is an anecdote. That is my point - it was never intended to be strong evidence.Then what was the point of mentioning your anecdote, which as I pointed out can be counted with countless other one which are equally as useless in taking any discussion forward.
Then what was the point of mentioning your anecdote, which as I pointed out can be counted with countless other one which are equally as useless in taking any discussion forward.The point of mentioning the anecdote was that it formed part of my opinion on why al faith schools do not need to be abolished as some seem to provide a good education results even for atheist parents and there is no problem with anecdotes - this forum is full of them - they are interesting parts of a discussion as it often helps explain why people hold the opinion that they do. If you consider it an offence feel free to lobby to introduce a rule banning all anecdotes - otherwise you will just have to get used to the fact that anecdotes are an integral part of the forum. You're welcome to challenge them - if people want to they can provide you evidence of the anecdote if they are able to without giving away their real identity, as I did when I provided you evidence of Tunbridge Wells. Or you are welcome to disregard anecdotes.
My challenge was clearly about your use of anecdote in discussion (which you cannot challenge as you clearly accept it to be an anecdote). And you are, sadly, as serious offender in reporting to pointless anecdote in discussions, something you have been challenged on by other posters too. Indeed including on this thread.
And i have noticed that sadly you are a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people which is why I explained how hypocritical it was for you to lecture other posters about jumping to conclusions.Examples please.
Examples please.Apart from what you have done on this thread?
Apart from what you have done on this thread?Obviously as you claim I am a serial offender.
I am not going to look for links.So you are refusing to back up your claim ... hmmm.
I remember you jumping to conclusions about me being against gay people based on me not answering how I would feel if there was a comment made in classrooms about women being inferior - I can't remember the thread but it was to do with a Scottish teacher or politician possibly using the word "sin" I think. I wanted to stick to the topic of thread and you wanted to jump to conclusions because I said your question was irrelevant to my point.Nope - rings absolutely no bells with me. I suspect you are confusing me with another poster.
Feel free to disregard my opinion about you - I am not about to go looking for strong evidence.The I will indeed disregard your opinion as it is clearly baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence (strong or otherwise) to back up your claim that I am 'a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people'.
Obviously as you claim I am a serial offender.Nope - definitely you. I had a look and there are 177 pages of posts by you so not about to go searching for that specific thread. But if you want another example - here's you on the Tim Farron thread assuming I am generalising for everyone again:
So you are refusing to back up your claim ... hmmm.
Nope - rings absolutely no bells with me. I suspect you are confusing me with another poster.
The I will indeed disregard your opinion as it is clearly baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence (strong or otherwise) to back up your claim that I am 'a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people'.
Generalising again - if is was OK for you it should be OK for everyone. I'm not talking about you, I am talking about someone else who might end up in your position within that organisation, suffering the most overt of sexual harassment and bullying, and not feel able to deal with it themselves. What about them.
And actually I disagree on the most fundamental levels - once you have an organisation that sanctions the notion that if you are bullied or harassed then the appropriate response is to take the law into your own hands and bully and harass back then we are in a precipitous race to the bottom.
Obviously as you claim I am a serial offender.Here's the thread. I Googled "scotland minister gay sin school" and found the article on Robertson and did a forum search on the word "Robertson".
So you are refusing to back up your claim ... hmmm.
Nope - rings absolutely no bells with me. I suspect you are confusing me with another poster.
The I will indeed disregard your opinion as it is clearly baseless as you have failed to provide any evidence (strong or otherwise) to back up your claim that I am 'a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people'.
Here's the thread. I Googled "scotland minister gay sin school" and found the article on Robertson and did a forum search on the word "Robertson".On which the key point was complete failure to answer a question - an entirely different matter than jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14434.150
Nope - definitely you. I had a look and there are 177 pages of posts by you so not about to go searching for that specific thread. But if you want another example - here's you on the Tim Farron thread assuming I am generalising for everyone again:But that is precisely the issue that you are so regularly challenged on - in this case self-anecdote. On that thread my point was precisely not generalising - in other words to make clear that what might have felt OK to you (in your self anecdote) cannot be assumed to be OK for everyone else.
On which the key point was complete failure to answer a question - an entirely different matter than jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people.Nope. The key point is you were saying that that my refusal to answer an irrelevant question resulted in you jumping to the following conclusions about me:
And as with the recent anecdote issue, I wasn't the only one having a go at you for your steadfast refusal to answer a simple question.
Your refusal to answer the simplest of question probably tells us far more than had you actually answered it.
Shame on you.
But that is precisely the issue that you are so regularly challenged on - in this case self-anecdote. On that thread my point was precisely not generalising - in other words to make clear that what might have felt OK to you (in your self anecdote) cannot be assumed to be OK for everyone else.You seem to have trouble comprehending posts. I didn't say you were generalising. I said you accused me of generalising when I wasn't generalising - I made a point on that thread about myself - an anecdote - as opposed to a generalising principle for everyone. You seem to have trouble spotting the difference so you jumped to the conclusion that I was generalising for everyone. Hence it's hypocritical for you to lecture other posters about jumping to conclusions rather than asking questions to clarify first.
It is effectively the same death by anecdote approach you so often use. So thanks for actually providing an example that provided more more evidence of your anecdote rather than evidence approach, and which provides no justification for your claim of jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people - indeed that was exactly what you were doing on the basis of your anecdote - namely that if it was Ok for you it should be OK for someone else.
Nope. The key point is you were saying that that my refusal to answer an irrelevant question resulted in you jumping to the following conclusions about me:Your point being? I gave you every opportunity to answer my questions and explain your position - when someone steadfastly refuses to respond to a point or answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to challenge them, including to ask them to explain why they are refusing - which I did numerous times.
"Clearly - it is not a hard question is it really.
You'd think that Gabriella is having some problems because she is appalled by the idea the children being taught that women are inferior, but recognises that if she indicates as such then she can't credibly hold the line that it's OK to teach children that gay people are sinful without being guilty of full-on double standards."
"But clearly the issue of teaching children in schools that women are inferior touches a nerve."
You seem to have trouble comprehending posts. I didn't say you were generalising. I said you accused me of generalising when I wasn't generalising - I made a point on that thread about myself - an anecdote - as opposed to a generalising principle for everyone.Sorry - not a tenable argument.
Your point being? I gave you every opportunity to answer my questions and explain your position - when someone steadfastly refuses to respond to a point or answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to challenge them, including to ask them to explain why they are refusing - which I did numerous times.My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to ask them to answer the question but not to jump to conclusions if you are then going to try and pull another poster up for jumping to conclusions, because it makes you seem hypocritical.
And anyhow you might want to go back the the very beginning of the discussion in which you once again used self anecdote:
'but as I am not really seeing the problem with someone calling me sinful, I am finding it hard to share your view.'
to which I responded - 'But it isn't just you - what about others.'
Sorry - not a tenable argument.No, that is you making assumptions again that I was saying "if it is Ok for me, it must be Ok for everyone.". I don't think that my view needs to be adopted by everyone. If I recall correctly, you seemed to be the person who was insisting that your view needs to be adopted by everyone.
On the thread about work place practice you were clearly implying that things didn't need to be different, on the basis that you didn't have a problem with your work colleagues behaviour. That is, without doubt, generalising - if it is Ok for me, it must be Ok for everyone.
My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to ask them to answer the question but not to jump to conclusions if you are then going to try and pull another poster up for jumping to conclusions, because it makes you seem hypocritical.When someone repeatedly refuses to answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to question their motives and, of course, the person challenged can set the matter straight by answering the question and addressing the challenge.
I responded that I wasn't going to answer the question because it was an irrelevant question - which is also a perfectly reasonable response. You then made assumptions about my motives for not responding. I don't have a problem with you doing that. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of you criticising NS on this thread for making assumptions about your motives, when you do the same thing.
When someone repeatedly refuses to answer a question it is perfectly reasonable to question their motives and, of course, the person challenged can set the matter straight by answering the question and addressing the challenge.I didn't answer the question because I considered it irrelevant as I stated in the thread - since the thread was about Robertson's concerns about children being indoctrinated in classrooms to a particular view on LGBT. You can question my motives all you like for not answering a question. "Shame on you" doesn't sound like a question though.
You failed to do that - it was a bit look that famous interview between Michael Howard and Jeremy Paxman.
I didn't answer the question because I considered it irrelevant as I stated in the thread - since the thread was about Robertson's concerns about children being indoctrinated in classrooms to a particular view on LGBT. You can question my motives all you like for not answering a question. "Shame on you" doesn't sound like a question though.You are correct 'shame on you' isn't a question but a comment on your refusal to address a direct question, despite being asked to (by more than one poster in a variety of ways) on perhaps half a dozen separate occasions.
You are correct 'shame on you' isn't a question but a comment on your refusal to address a direct question, despite being asked to (by more than one poster in a variety of ways) on perhaps half a dozen separate occasions.i think you’re lying. I think “Shame on you” is a comment based on your assumption about my double standards and your assumption that I was ok with lessons in schools that discriminate against LGBT.
It is perfectly reasonable to challenge posters on both the views they express but also on their failure to address direct questions. You point about irrelevant is total non-sense - I was asking a direct question that related to discriminatory behaviour in the class room using as an example a different protected characterstic (also protected in law) simply to check whether your attitudes were only to sexuality (in this case LGBT) as protected characteristic, but not to gender (women in my example) as a protected characteristic.
It was completely relevant to the issue of discrimination and protection of people on the basis of protected characteristics in the classroom.
It is, of course, a classic tactic to close down debate and to refuse to address valid point for someone to simply claim they are irrelevant. So what if you think they are irrelevant - have the guts to answer the question.
i think you’re lying. I think “Shame on you” is a comment based on your assumption about my double standards and your assumption that I was ok with lessons in schools that discriminate against LGBT.And there was me thinking you had a problem with people jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people's motives when they are posting comments.
Robertson was not trying to have children taught that LGBT people were inferior. He was expressing concern about whether they were going to be indoctrinated into a particular political view on LGBT because of the material in the lessons they were proposing to introduce. And my posts were supporting his right to air his concerns about indoctrination when he was interviewed.Which was precisely why I asked you for your position on an analagous situation, where everything is identical except for the nature of the protected characteristic - women/gender rather than LGBT/sexuality.
You are correct 'shame on you' isn't a question but a comment on your refusal to address a direct question, despite being asked to (by more than one poster in a variety of ways) on perhaps half a dozen separate occasions.
And there was me thinking you had a problem with people jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people's motives when they are posting comments.I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else making assumptions as I clearly stated. I think it happens regularly on this forum along with people, including you, posting anecdotes. My point was that you were pulling someone else up on making assumptions when you do it yourself.
Pot-kettle.
Frankly this discussion is simply going round in circles and getting no-where. I suggest time for us to stop the tit for tat and allow others to draw their own conclusion as to whether you are a serious offender in resorting to pointless anecdote in discussions (my claim) or that I am a serial offender in jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about people (your claim).
Or indeed that we are both guilty as charged or both innocent.
I don’t have a problem with you or anyone else making assumptions as I clearly stated. I think it happens regularly on this forum along with people, including you, posting anecdotes. My point was that you were pulling someone else up on making assumptions when you do it yourself.In your opinion - other opinions are available.
Yes fine we can leave it there.Agreed
Prof,Indeed - it is rather exhausting.
FYI, I've given up trying.
Which was precisely why I asked you for your position on an analagous situation, where everything is identical except for the nature of the protected characteristic - women/gender rather than LGBT/sexuality.No - what would have been analogous is if you asked me if I would support the right of Robertson to air their concerns about children being indoctrinated into a particular view about women.
Perfectly relevant to the discussion - yet you refused to answer.
No - what would have been analogous is if you asked me if I would support the right of Robertson to air their concerns about children being indoctrinated into a particular view about women.The view being that women and men should be treated equally.
The view being that women and men should be treated equally.Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor, given your tendency to dodge the point and your tenuous grasp of reading posts, not to mention how you quick you are to make erroneous assumptions.
And the use of the term indoctrination is pejorative in this case. Would you consider 'indoctrination' to be the correct term in the context of children being taught that boys and girls (and men and women) should be treated equally.
So simply by using the term you (or is it this person Robertson) is demonstrating a fundamental bias.
Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor, given your tendency to dodge the point and your tenuous grasp of reading posts, not to mention how you quick you are to make erroneous assumptions.
Gabriella,Seconded.
Wow.
Just wow.
Seconded.Ra Ra Ra B.L.U H.L.Side. Bluehillside yeeeaaaah!!!!!!!
By challenging Robertson's use of the word "indoctrination", are you saying that it is not possible for LGBT pressure groups to indoctrinate primary school children into a particular belief - are you arguing that LGBT groups have a better moral compass than everyone else and therefore will ensure that they are not biased towards a particular belief?
I'm having trouble withe whole idea of projection and insecurity when applied to either of the posters involved. The only real quibble I have with Gabriella's post is this:I think it’s possible for UK faith schools to indoctrinate children.
If you insert religious group for LGBT group where does that leave faith schools? Just wondering.
I think it’s possible for UK faith schools to indoctrinate children.
I think it’s really important that there is inspection and regulation of schools. I don’t think faith pressure groups or faith schools have a greater moral compass. They just have different traditions and beliefs - and if traditions and beliefs are part of identity and the security that comes from a shared identity with family members I would support a choice to send children to a faith school that did have values and a culture shared by the family, provided it was adequately regulated.
By the time the children become teenagers there is every chance they will question what they have been taught and go onto forge a different/ independent identity.
And just for BHS - an anecdote: I was against sending my children to an independent Muslim faith school partly because the school’s exam results were not as good as a local independent school, but also because I was worried about the risk that they would learn values that were different from our family values. I have contemplated moving my younger daughter from her current independent non-faith school to another one that gets better academic results, but students who joined her current school in Year 7 have said they picked the school because it has a reputation for a kinder school culture whereas the school I thought about making bing her to has a reputation for more cliques, drugs, alcohol-fuelled parties, boyfriends etc but yes, better results. So I decided against moving her.
Gabriella,A person who provides no evidence or data to support his generalisations and assertions is unlikely to be taken seriously when he tries to criticise other people’s arguments.
Do you not think it’s a lot more than “possible”? As primary school children don’t question the instructions of their teachers on matters non-religious, why would they do so when the “facts” happens to be a resurrection, a “prophet” etc that the teacher cannot know to be true?
We can debate the word “indoctrinate”, but it seems to me that that’s essentially what faith schools are for.
Well yes, inspection is important (and difficult to do sometimes) but that doesn’t help much with some issues. When the law itself for example requires there to be a “daily act of worship” even in secular schools what use would inspection be other than to check that they were actually doing it?
More generally, the shared identity thing is a red herring I think. What if the values are by current standards horrendous – homophobia, murdering cartoonists etc? Isn’t the more important point not the “values” themselves, but rather the notion that they’re inerrantly correct because a god decided on them and they’re written in a book? It’s the closing down of enquiry and skepticism this faith school thinking causes that's the problem I think, not the specific claims themselves.
There’s not “every chance” at all. The whole point of getting to children early is that, once embedded, losing these beliefs is far harder to do than would otherwise be the case. That’s why the main religions invest so much time and effort precisely in doing it – it’s the “give me the child until he’s seven & I’ll give you the man” thing again. We all have anecdotes(!) about people who ditch their childhood faiths, but the correlation between Christian-schooled staying Christians, Muslim-schooled staying Muslims etc is substantial. By contrast, joining (or changing) religions in later life is relatively unusual.
There’s nothing wrong with anecdotes provided they’re treated as such. The criticism came from using them as arguments – “some children in the class had flu, my child went to school and didn’t catch flu, therefore flu isn’t contagious” type of thing.
A person who provides no evidence or data to support his generalisations and assertions is unlikely to be taken seriously when he tries to criticise other people’s arguments.
Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor, given your tendency to dodge the point and your tenuous grasp of reading posts, not to mention how you quick you are to make erroneous assumptions.Maybe he's this kind (http://www.punchandjudy.org/) of professor.
Ra Ra Ra B.L.U H.L.Side. Bluehillside yeeeaaaah!!!!!!!Yes - Susan and BHS do have a cute little love fest going. I’m touched to be the one that brings them together. Must be a great feeling having Susan cheering “Go Blue go!!” from the sidelines.
Yes - Susan and BHS do have a cute little love fest going. I’m touched to be the one that brings them together. Must be a great feeling having Susan cheering “Go Blue go!!” from the sidelines.Yuk. That's not even remotey amusing.
Yes - Susan and BHS do have a cute little love fest going. I’m touched to be the one that brings them together. Must be a great feeling having Susan cheering “Go Blue go!!” from the sidelines.I'm. Afraid cheerleading gets my goat.
Gabriella,When did you last give any evidence or data? Was it the VW sales stuff. My idea of evidence and data is where someone says here is VW’s marketing budget over 5 years and here is how it translates into increased sales - please note that the year the marketing budget was cut by x% sales dropped by y% but the year the marketing budget was increased by a% sales increased by b%. Consumer behaviour for car sales is similar to consumer behaviour in relation to religious affiliation for the following reasons.
What about a person who when given evidence or data then endlessly redefines the question to mean something else so as to avoid the consequences?
I'm. Afraid cheerleading gets my goat.I get it now. I don’t blame Blue for lapping this up ;D.
Having said that . Go Gabriella Go Go Go!!!
Davey - I have to ask - are you even a professor,Yes
Maybe he's this kind (http://www.punchandjudy.org/) of professor.Wrong
When did you last give any evidence or data? Was it the VW sales stuff. My idea of evidence and data is where someone says here is VW’s marketing budget over 5 years and here is how it translates into increased sales - please note that the year the marketing budget was cut by x% sales dropped by y% but the year the marketing budget was increased by a% sales increased by b%. Consumer behaviour for car sales is similar to consumer behaviour in relation to religious affiliation for the following reasons.
Is that what you did when you tried to support your argument with data?
Endlessly redefining the question? That just sounds like a lazy excuse to not have to deal with challenges to your assertions.
Gabriella,
What about a person who when given evidence or data then endlessly redefines the question to mean something else so as to avoid the consequences?
Wrongyou should have answered; as well as . Its bloody funny ;D ;D ;D
you should have answered; as well as . Its bloody funny ;D ;D ;DActually I find Punch & Judy a bit creepy.
Gabriella,Actually what happened was that we were discussing the situation in the UK, you jumped in with your assertion about and linked to one US psychologist who had coined a new name for a trauma that she called Religious Trauma Syndrome, though her ideas had not been peer-reviewed as far as I can see - and you presented absolutely no data to show that the trauma had been diagnosed in the UK or numbers affected in order to support your generalisations about my point relating to UK faith schools. Also, since the religion described by the US psychologist was an extreme version of Christian fundamentalism, rather than mainstream Christianity, it doesn’t support your generalisation.
You’ve been corrected on this already, so why repeat your mistake? Clearly advertising works – that’s why it exists. What you’re trying to do is retrench from, “it doesn't work for religion” to, “OK, by how much exactly does it change consumer behaviour?” Let’s say just for funsies that I find some metrics from VW (or whoever) that says something like, “advertising spend X results in Y increased sales”. How would that help you with your basic assertion that it makes no difference for religion?
Endlessly redefining the question? That just sounds like a lazy excuse to not have to deal with challenges to your assertions.
No, what happened was that you just changed the question when you didn’t like the answer (“I just meant within the UK” etc.) You also failed to grasp that logic isn’t data apt. When I say, “If A > B and B > C, then A must be > C” and you say, “got any data for that?” it just makes you look stupid.
Look, it’s simple enough. Religions get shed loads of advertising for free. Advertising works – if it didn’t, there wouldn’t be advertising. If you think either that it doesn’t work at all or that it does but somehow not for religion, then you need to explain why. Demanding to know how effectively exactly it works is just a diversion from the basic principles. You can keep throwing mud in the hope it’ll go away if you like, but it’s doing you no credit when you do. Nor incidentally will the correlation of religious beliefs with education types go away either just because you ignore it.
Actually what happened was that we were discussing the situation in the UK, you jumped in with your assertion about and linked to one US psychologist who had coined a new name for a trauma that she called Religious Trauma Syndrome, though her ideas had not been peer-reviewed as far as I can see - and you presented absolutely no data to show that the trauma had been diagnosed in the UK or numbers affected in order to support your generalisations about my point relating to UK faith schools. Also, since the religion described by the US psychologist was an extreme version of Christian fundamentalism, rather than mainstream Christianity, it doesn’t support your generalisation.
Also I agreed advertising worked for brand image purposes but it doesn’t necessarily increase sales - I linked to the Super Bowl advertising effect that showed that companies that advertise during the Super Bowl, advertising space that costs firms a lot of money, don’t see an increase in sales from that advertising.
Your point was that Cof E privilege was free advertising and resulted in influencing people to not be willing to revoke that privilege. My response was a link stating Islam was the fastest growing religion, without having the privilege that you claim is so vital to the CofE.
I think Susan’s cheerleading has gone to your head and made you think you can make lazy generalisations and get away with it. Sorry but you can’t.
My other point…
…was that it should be possible for privilege to be revoked in a democracy such as the UK, when people in the UK are becoming less religious based on opinion polls and the ONS. So despite faith schools existing, the situation is that children as they became adults, or at some point before that, ware turning away from religion.
Some people Gabriella, some people. What the evidence actually tells us is that that’s much harder to do when religions have got to them young (“cradle catholics” and all that ) than it is for, say, political parties that compete for an audience whose critical faculties are better developed. That’s why we don’t have voting until 18, but bizarrely we’re quite willing it seems to “educate” kids into “Christian children”, “Muslim children” etc.That's right - you need to ask the question the right way around.
Gabriella,I have already pointed out your mistake to you in trying to pass of lazy generalisations as valid arguments. Advertising works except for all the businesses that it doesn't work for that fail:
Here’s a report from Campaign magazine of a study about the efficacy of advertising, broken down my media outlet types:
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/tv-ads-create-71-advertising-generated-profit/1450314
To quote:
“A study of over 2,000 ad campaigns has found that, pound for pound, TV advertising out-performs all other media investments.
The research commissioned by Thinkbox from Ebiquity and Gain Theory found that, all forms of advertising create profit to varying degrees. On average, advertising creates a total profit return on investment (ROI) over 3 years of £3.24 per pound spent.”
Is that enough data to demonstrate that advertising works? Cock-eyed optimist that I am I’ll assume for now that it is and that you won’t respond with a, “Ah, but by “advertising” I actually meant the small ads in the Carmarthen Bugle published every second Wednesday of the month – got any data for that then?” type reply.
OK then, so why would you think it gets people to buy in to the beliefs that VWs are better cars than Hyundais and Pantene is a better shampoo than Tesco own brand, but not to the notion that religious claims should be taken seriously?
Gabriella,One paper about the effects of extreme fundamentalist religion, by one US psychologist who appears not to have been peer-reviewed, is not evidence of a generalised phenomenon. I was talking about the UK because we were discussing faith schools in the UK. You broadened it to talk about a syndrome produced by extremism coined by one psychologist in the US.
No we weren’t. What actually happened was that you said you’d seen no evidence for something, so I found a paper that described it. You then narrowed to question to mean, “within the UK only” remember? You’ve also by the way narrowed the question a different way by focussing on the trauma aspect – the more extreme the religious belief, the more traumatic it is breaking away from it. That doesn’t though mean that it’s not just more difficult to do when it’s been fundamental to your schooling, your parents believe in it, your community and support network rely on it etc.
And I explained why you were wrong about this too. First, campaigns that backfire (you and your anecdotes eh?) tell you nothing about the overall efficacy of advertising. Second, efficacy can be just as much about slowing sales losses as about generating sales increases. That despite the huge free publicity church attendances are often in decline doesn’t mean that the free publicity isn’t there and isn’t working – to demonstrate that you’d have to show that the decline would be the same (or less) without it.I already explained why you were wrong about this. You made the claim that free advertising will prevent the CofE from losing enough support to have its privilege revoked despite more and more people in England not identifying as religious, it's up to you to justify your claim.
Some people Gabriella, some people. What the evidence actually tells us is that that’s much harder to do when religions have got to them young (“cradle catholics” and all that ) than it is for, say, political parties that compete for an audience whose critical faculties are better developed. That’s why we don’t have voting until 18, but bizarrely we’re quite willing it seems to “educate” kids into “Christian children”, “Muslim children” etc.Religions have risen and died for centuries, regardless of how young people were when they learned about them. Religion is part of a culture that children are brought up in and cultures and beliefs and institutions change over time. It's not that difficult to grasp is it? Seriously though.
Does that not seem to you to be loading the dice in favour of religiosity continuing into adulthood just a tad at least?
Seriously though?
GabriellaTry that yourself and then we'll all get the hang of it.
In my opinion, it would be nice to read a post of yours which did not contain a note of derision.
I have already pointed out your mistake to you in trying to pass of lazy generalisations as valid arguments. Advertising works except for all the businesses that it doesn't work for that fail:
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/woolworths-provides-case-study-not-manage-brand/866330
You still have not provided any evidence to show that people choose a religion the same way that they choose a car nor supplied any data on the advertising elasticity of demand for the CofE. No evidence about the effectiveness of CofE privilege or free advertising in retaining congregational numbers or public support?
The numbers are falling despite faith schools and nothing you have said so far persuades me that they won't keep falling until it reaches the point where it will become possible for the public to decide to revoke CofE privilege if that's what they wish to do. If they don't wish to do that, it may be that they feel they derive some value from retaining that privilege - even if that value is nothing more than a sense of tradition or heritage rather than an actual belief in God that adds an additional layer or perspective to their thinking.
Or possibly some people think that tradition and heritage and church community balances the growth of Islam or alternative cultures in the UK, and at the moment they may think that atheism just doesn't cut it.
And by the way, companies can figure out how advertising has impacted on sales - people are paid to figure that stuff out because it's important. Most prudent business owners will only put money into a particular advertising campaign if they know how the campaign is intended to appeal to their key demographic and have a forecast of expected returns based on historical data from advertising campaigns run by other businesses in the same industry.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/01/26/millennials-hate-ads-but-58-of-them-wouldnt-mind-if-its-from-their-favorite-digital-stars/#4294e9bb6ad7
"According to a recent study conducted by the McCarthy Group, 84% of millennials stated that did not like traditional marketing and, what’s more, they didn’t trust it.
And they really are not viewing or listening to it either. They don’t watch traditional TV, preferring instead livestreaming, video-on-demand on such platforms as Netflix and Anime. And YouTube is actually the most-viewed platform for video. In fact, another recent study from Defy showed that 85% of their Millennial respondents regularly watch YouTube. "
So church buildings and Radio 4 programmes and seats in the HofL doesn't seem like the type of advertising that will appeal to this group, which is probably why support for the CofE is falling.
One paper about the effects of extreme fundamentalist religion, by one US psychologist who appears not to have been peer-reviewed, is not evidence of a generalised phenomenon. I was talking about the UK because we were discussing faith schools in the UK. You broadened it to talk about a syndrome produced by extremism coined by one psychologist in the US.
I already explained why you were wrong about this.
You made the claim that free advertising will prevent the CofE from losing enough support to have its privilege revoked despite more and more people in England not identifying as religious, it's up to you to justify your claim.
Religions have risen and died for centuries, regardless of how young people were when they learned about them. Religion is part of a culture that children are brought up in and cultures and beliefs and institutions change over time. It's not that difficult to grasp is it? Seriously though.
GabriellaSusan
In my opinion, it would be nice to read a post of yours which did not contain a note of derision.
Susan
It would be nice to read a post of yours about my posts, that actually explained which line of my post you thought contained a note of derision. Otherwise I am none the wiser if you just generalise.
Gabriella,Your inability to grasp that it works except for all the times it doesn't work and numbers start falling is getting weird now. It's simple enough, if numbers are falling the advertising campaign is not working, unless it was the goal of the business to lose market share or lose brand loyalty. Advertising working for some businesses doesn't support your claim that free advertising works for the CofE, which is losing numbers.
Your fondness for thinking exceptions disprove the rule is getting weird now. What next, Gabriella’s disproof of the flu jab on the basis that little Timmy had it and still got flu? How about Gabriella’s, “a building in Japan fell down, therefore architecture is rubbish” for your next effort?
It’s simple enough. Businesses spend trillions worldwide on advertising for a reason – it works. That sometimes businesses who do it will fail changes that as a demonstrable, measurable phenomenon not one jot of an iota of a tad of a…
Bless. As despite your best efforts even you have to concede now I think that advertising works in principle, surely it’d be for you to tell us why the CofE would be an exception to that - a Woolworths rather than one of the 99% or whatever that do benefit. You’d also need to show by the way the free advertising isn’t at least propping up a failing brand (ie, it’s still “working”) that would collapse even more quickly without it.Bless you too. You're still trying to make lazy generalisations that don't work for your claim about the CofE's privilege and advertising. You have failed to present any evidence to support your claim that the trend in falling numbers for the CofE isn't an indication that the CofE will continue to lose public support for its brand, which may well result in its privileges being revoked.
Perhaps that will happen, perhaps it won’t. The point though is that religion as a social phenomenon has a huge leg up compared with, say, private members’ clubs because of its embeddedness in the instruments of state and of the media.Which has little effect on Millennials in terms of advertising. And you seem to be ignoring the number of children who learn their religion without attending a faith school because it is part of their parents' culture.
It’s also demonstrably the case that adults who attended faith schools are more likely to be believers in their various faiths than those who didn’t. The extent to which family vs school vs community etc play a role in that is hard to tell (because parents who send their kids to faith schools are likely to be religious themselves in any case), but it'd be otiose to suggest otherwise.It's demonstrable that adults - voters - are becoming less religious.
That’s a false binary. Atheism is just the finding that there are no good reasons to think there to be gods. It makes no claims to community etc.I am just pointing out the value that some people derive from not being an atheist.
Where did that “so” come from? Of course businesses use metrics to determine how effective their advertising is – and guess what? That’s why they keep investing in it! As for the C of E, who can say? It’s all for free so they have no great budgetary incentive to measure its effectiveness. Possibly someone there has looked at what would happen if it did compete on equal terms with commercial brands but no-one seriously suggest that massive and free PR isn’t good for their brand. Consider party political broadcasts pre elections for example – the minor parties actively fight for equal time, and you don’t see the main ones turning it down. Why? Because it changes peoples’ behaviours. Funny that.Bless - you finally admitted you don't have any evidence to back up your claims about CofE advertising. But regardless of an absence of metrics of the effect of advertisng on CofE brand loyalty, I have noticed that some of the free advertising they get comes from the publicity of them claiming they are being silenced - it creates headlines and makes their brand more visible, even if they are losing support.
Yes – and you’ve missed it again. I’m not suggesting that every child who tries to break from its parents’ and school’s religious beliefs will suffer a trauma with a syndrome attached to it. What I was saying was that it’s a spectrum – get ‘em early, get ‘em vulnerable and the faith beliefs will be much harder to shake than, say, political positions arrived at as teenagers. If you knew it would break your Mum's heart to tell her the beliefs she taught you at her knee (and that perhaps were taught as facts at the school you went to too) were a crock are you seriously suggesting that that would be as unfettered an emotional choice as would be which tiles to pick for the bathroom?Bless - so no evidence of generalised trauma then. Ok.
No I didn’t. My “claim” was just that huge free PR makes it harder or slower for religion to wither on the vine than would otherwise be the case. Whether it finally will collapse (presumably under the weight of its ludicrousness) nonetheless though is another matter.That's fine.
The point here is that your line of, “it doesn’t matter because people will make up their own minds” is clearly wrong when their minds are as susceptible to that brand’s (for free) PR as they are to any other. Do people make up their own minds to buy a VW? Well, yes to a degree. Is that decision influenced though by the branding? Clearly yes too, at least often enough to make VW’s investment in it worth doing.Actually what I said in #212 "VW's huge publicity budget is still resulting in falling VW sales so it doesn't seem to be having an impact on reversing the trend for people to make up their own minds and buy other cars."
For you, yes it seems to be. What’s so hard about grasping that brand loyalty increases by magnitude when the religions can get to them young (ideally very young)? That the great tectonic plates of competing faiths will shift over the millennia is entirely irrelevant to that simple (and unarguable) point.And that's relevant why exactly? Given what I actually said was something along the lines of you can't stop children being brought up in their parent's culture, which includes religion, and given that brand loyalty for the CofE is falling amongst adults - religious children are not reversing the trend of falling numbers for the CofE amongst adults in England, despite CofE privilege.
Good grief.
Gabriella,I think your vivid imagination deserves a round of applause. :)
They're derisive because of your fondness for inserting pejorative adjectival prefixes ("lazy" etc) in place of arguments. It just makes you look bitter and childish - dummy spitting in place of reason.
I think your vivid imagination deserves a round of applause. :)
Your inability to grasp that it works except for all the times it doesn't work and numbers start falling is getting weird now. It's simple enough, if numbers are falling the advertising campaign is not working, unless it was the goal of the business to lose market share or lose brand loyalty. Advertising working for some businesses doesn't support your claim that free advertising works for the CofE, which is losing numbers.
Bless you too. You're still trying to make lazy…
…generalisations that don't work for your claim about the CofE. You have failed to present any evidence to support your claim that the trend in falling numbers for the CofE isn't an indication that the CofE will continue to lose public support for its brand which may well result in its privileges being revoked.
Which has little effect on Millennials in terms of advertising.
It's demonstrable that adults - voters - are becoming less religious.
I am just pointing out the value that some people derive from not being an atheist.
Bless - you finally admitted you don't have any evidence to back up your claims about CofE advertising.
Bless - so no evidence of generalised trauma then. Ok.
That's fine.
Actually what I said in #212 "VW's huge publicity budget is still resulting in falling VW sales so it doesn't seem to be having an impact on reversing the trend for people to make up their own minds and buy other cars."
Before that I said in #142 "When there is enough of a drop in the number of people wanting faith schools or when enough people want to reform the legislature etc - when the demand drops, so too will the privileges."
Then I said, based on the falling numbers of religious people in the UK, in #161 "Children probably just absorb their family culture as it provides them with security and identity until they experience enough of life to want to define their own identities separate from that of their families."
And in #181 I said "We're not talking about theoretical classical economics, we're talking real world where markets are not completely free and where people are influenced to consume all kinds of ideas by lots of different factors.
As I said if the consumer finds value in religion, they will buy. I am not implying anything is impossible - I am saying we live in a relatively free, democratic country and while consumers exist who derive value from religion, they will keep buying and they also may or may not keep privileging religious entities if they derive value from doing so. When they stop deriving value from religion those religious privileges will be revoked. Not sure why consumer behaviour is a difficult idea for you to grasp. Yes it is influenced by prevailing culture but that holds true for most goods and services, not just religion."
Followed by #186 "So however it's "rigged" it doesn't seem to be working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset. I don't see the problem in me expecting people to be less and less influenced by the CofE."
And that's relevant why exactly? Given what I actually said was something along the lines of you can't stop children being brought up in their parent's culture, which includes religion, and given that brand loyalty for the CofE is falling amongst adults - religious children are not reversing the trend of falling numbers for the CofE amongst adults in England, despite CofE privilege.
If sufficient numbers of voters want faith schools, in a democracy we get faith schools, until sufficient numbers don't want faith schools.
Before you jump in with your "rigged game" mantra again - see above for #181, where we don't live in completely free markets and consumers are influenced by lots of factors and #186.
Gabriella,Briefly - you haven't established a rule that all advertising works. Some advertising campaigns are effective and therefore work and some some are ineffective and don't. To describe something as working you have to establish a metric to demonstrate it is working.
Try reading what’s actually been said here. Advertising still works – ie, has a positive effect – whether it’s increasing sales or decreasing losses. What’s hard to understand about this?
And the misplaced derision continues…
Bless again. At some point you’re going to have to make up you’re mind as you’re all over the place just now.
1. Either you think that advertising and PR as commercial phenomena work or you don’t. If you don’t though, you’ll need to tell us why you know better about that than the professionals who spend big bucks on it.
2. Either you think that exceptions (Woolworths etc) disprove the rule or you don’t. If you do though, then you’ll need to explain why the same principle doesn’t apply generally (eg little Timmy and his flu jab).
3. Either you think that metrics for advertising apply equally for increased sales as for decreased sales losses or you don't. If you think they don’t though, you’ll need to explain why you know better than the professionals about that.
4. Either you think that other brands benefit from advertising but for some unknown reason the C of E is exempt from that or you don’t. If you think it is exempt though, then you’ll need to explain why (while remembering that falling attendances don’t give you the answer).
5. Either you think that people “make up their own minds” unfettered by the deeply embedded position religion has in the legislature, the constitution, education, media etc or you don’t. If you do though, you’ll need to explain why religious beliefs are exempt from that enculturation effect whereas other beliefs (political for example) are not.
I know you don’t “do” answers, but if you insist still on prevaricating and distracting you’ll be doing so only for your private amusement.
Something you could only know to be true if you compared the religiosity of the millennials who went to faith schools, attended churches etc with those who didn’t. That millennials as a cohort find traditional advertising routes less persuasive than their parents did is just another of irrelevance.
Another irrelevance. We were talking about the factors that caused brand stickiness for some (education type etc) and not for others remember?
You can if you like, but it still has no relevance to the issue at hand.
Not sure why you think misrepresenting like this helps you, but ok. Ask a stupid question then when you don’t get the answer you want claim your “victory” eh? If you want for some reason to exempt just one brand from the efficacy of advertising when prima facie there’s no reason why it would be then the job is all yours to tell us why. Demanding to know with statistical data how effectively exactly the advertising is working is still a red herring, however often you repeat it.
Further evasion noted.
It’s also a correction of your misrepresentation of what I said. Why not have the decency to acknowledge that?
You’ve also said on several occasions that people will make up their own minds as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them. Doesn’t wash, any more than thinking that not reversing VW's sales meant their advertising didn’t work – falling sales were due to a huge emissions scandal, and whether the advertising minimised the fallout in terms of lost sales is the relevant metric there.
That’s very conflicted – on the one hand you’re saying, “people will make up their own minds”, while on the other you’re indulging in the whataboutism of, “OK, “prevailing culture” does affect that but other brands do it too". Which one do you want to argue for?
Except of course it’s precisely “working to recruit more children into religion or into a particular mindset”, and it works too – that’s exactly why so many of them retain
loyalty to the religious brand of their faith schools they happened to attend. Now compare that with adults who didn’t go to faith schools.
You’re all over the place here.
It’s relevant because it corrects your mistake. Big shifts in religions over long periods of time tells you nothing about the influence faith schools have in the here and now. And again, “not reversing the trend of falling numbers” still tells you sweet FA about the brand loyalty effect of faith schools.
And what influences whether and when those “sufficient numbers” will occur would you say?
As they’re both still wrong, why? Of course it’s a rigged game – when you permit by law some schools to segregate children according to their parents’ faiths in which you teach various claims as facts that the teachers cannot know to be facts before the pupils' critical faculties are sufficiently formed to know that, what on earth do you think the effect will be? That's what these schools are for - new recruits.
Good grief.
Briefly - you haven't established a rule that all advertising works. Some advertising campaigns are effective and therefore work and some some are ineffective and don't. To describe something as working you have to establish a metric to demonstrate it is working.
You repeatedly asserting that you are slowing down losses and this is down to your advertising campaign, unless someone can show that your losses would have been the same without the ad campaign is not a business strategy that would be described as working. If you have a metric to show us that losses have been slowed down, feel free to present it.
Some religious people want faith schools because they want to send their children to schools that reflect the culture and beliefs within which they bring their children up at home. That's why faith schools continue to exist.
That's why faith schools continue to exist
Could you link to where I said "that people will make up their own minds as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them"
Gabriella,So you finally admit that sometimes advertising doesn't work and you have no metrics to determine whether it works or not in the case of the CofE.
That’s because establishing “a rule that all advertising works” is a straw man entirely of your own invention. I haven’t established that all flu jabs work either, yet still lots of people have them. Why is that do you think?
Clearly advertising works (as do flu jabs) in that there’s a huge industry dedicated to it and billions spent on it by hard-nosed businesses. You’re still locked in to the (frankly bizarre) notion that finding exceptions somehow disproves the general principle, which remains perfectly sound even when there are exceptions to it.
It would be nice if you’d stop misrepresenting me. What I actually said was that increasing sales and slowing sales losses are both performance metrics for advertising. Whether the business ultimately fails for reasons no advertising could fix – a black swan event like Weinstein and Miramax for example – has no relevance at all to that.The "Maybe and if" in your answer plus a lack of metrics, results in a don't know as to whether the advertising is working or not.
That’s why your, “but C of E attendances are falling so the advertising can’t be working” is so hopeless. Maybe the brand is so compromised that no amount of free PR could save it, but if the free PR enables it to survive longer than would otherwise be the case then on that metric it is working. Jeez this is hard work.
And that’s called begging the question. What led these “some religious people (to) want faith schools because they want to send their children to schools that reflect the culture and beliefs within which they bring their children up at home” do you think? Did they just wake up one day and out of a clear sky think, “I know – faith schools” or could it instead be that they in turn had significant brand stickiness precisely because of their backgrounds and education? And once they put their children through the same process and thereby substantially increase their likelihood of them being religious (having got to them so young), what educational experiences in turn do you think those people will pick for their own children in years to come?I agree that people's backgrounds are one of the factors that influence their choices, along with information they pick up from other people's experiences and changes in current values. Without data we are just guessing at the relative influence of these different factors.
That’s very funny. Faith schools don’t continue to exist on the off-chance that people will want to send their children there. They continue to exist substantially because they’re so effective at recruitment that they ensure future customers through the generations. (They also incidentally continue to exist in some cases for academic performance reasons, though again the actual data on that narrative tells a different story as the Prof linked to before you started insulting him too).Actually I linked to the report suggesting that faith schools only perform little or no better than non-faith schools once other factors were adjusted for, and this report was disputed by the Catholic Education Service for having incorrect data. Davey linked to data that non-faith schools are more popular than faith schools in his area. He asked me for evidence of popularity in relation to my anecdote so I linked to evidence that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells.
She misquoted. You’ve said on several occasions that people will make up their own minds. The “as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them” was my comment on that, as I suspect you well knew.Ok please link to the several times I have said people will make up their own minds so I can see that comment in context.
So, you may recall that I asked you some fairly simple questions in my last post and said too that if your continued to prevaricate and distract then you’d be doing so entirely for your own amusement. I see that that’s exactly what you have done, but let’s be charitable and say you just happened to miss them so here they are again:Question 1 - already answered - some advertising works, some doesn't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
1. Either you think that advertising and PR as commercial phenomena work or you don’t. If you don’t though, you’ll need to tell us why you know better about that than the professionals who spend big bucks on it.
2. Either you think that exceptions (Woolworths etc) disprove the rule or you don’t. If you do though, then you’ll need to explain why the same principle doesn’t apply generally (eg little Timmy and his flu jab).
3. Either you think that metrics for advertising apply equally for increased sales as for decreased sales losses or you don't. If you think they don’t though, you’ll need to explain why you know better than the professionals about that.
4. Either you think that other brands benefit from advertising but for some unknown reason the C of E is exempt from that or you don’t. If you think it is exempt though, then you’ll need to explain why (while remembering that falling attendances don’t give you the answer).
5. Either you think that people “make up their own minds” unfettered by the deeply embedded position religion has in the legislature, the constitution, education, media etc or you don’t. If you do though, you’ll need to explain why religious beliefs are exempt from that enculturation effect whereas other beliefs (political for example) are not.
Would it really kill you finally at least to attempt some answers?
I cannot tell exactly because my ability to read a post is much slower, but for some time now I have had the impression that Gabriella skim-reads the post which she then responds to so quickly that she answers what she thinks has been said.Well, allow me to help you out. You're wrong!
Well, allow me to help you out. You're wrong!Mmm I know that you might necessarily know that SusanDoris is partially sighted and relies upon a screen reader, so maybe time to apologise for how much the above post sounds.
Sort out your ability to read a post properly. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for commenting on what someone else has written.
Well, allow me to help you out. You're wrong!well now, I very rarely 'play the blind card' since I neither ask for nor give quarter on message boards, but I thought you knew that I have to use Synthetic Dave to read all posts to me and my responses.
Sort out your ability to read a post properly. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for commenting on what someone else has written.
Davey linked to data that non-faith schools are more popular than faith schools in his area. He asked me for evidence of popularity in relation to my anecdote so I linked to evidence that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells.Gabriella - do not attempt to suggest there is equivalence between the data I provided and your 'evidence'.
Thanks for the correction and the data.I suspect you might want to go a little further than that since the actual data categorically disproves you statements, based on anecdote and partial data 'that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells' - they aren't.
Good to know the District is trying to address the different needs of the community with both faith and non-faith schools.I trust therefore that you are concerned that the district fails to address the following groups who aren't being offered a bespoke school aligned to their particular beliefs:
I suspect you might want to go a little further than that since the actual data categorically disproves you statements, based on anecdote and partial data 'that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells' - they aren't.Nope.
I trust therefore that you are concerned that the district fails to address the following groups who aren't being offered a bespoke school aligned to their particular beliefs:Not really - I'm fine with the state providing some faith schools based on demand and CofE heritage. There is always the option of privately funded schools if there is demand from the other groups and it does not break any laws, and provided they are inspected and regulated by Ofsted.
Jews
Muslims
Sikhs
Buhhhists
All christian groups apart from CofE and RC
Vegetarians
Vegans
Humanists
Atheists
Conservative voters
Labour voters
LibDem voters
Racists
Gay rights supporters
etc
The problem with your argument is that this really is a zero sum game - there are only a certain number of school places that can be funded - therefore providing a bespoke school to a minority group effectively reduces the choice for everyone else.What argument are you assuming I am making, without asking questions first to clarify it?
Your argument might be reasonable in a theoretical world in which every parent can be offered a place at the specific school they want. But that isn't the world we live in, where schools are necessarily limited (by infrastructure and funding) as to the number of pupils they can admit.
And even in a theoretical world there remains the objection to faith school on principle, including the principle that children should support diversity and therefore not social engineer a school system where kids are divided into schools on the basis of the religious background of their parent.
Not really - I'm fine with the state providing some faith schools based on demand and CofE heritage.What about the state funded faith schools that aren't CofE then - they cannot be justified on CofE heritage can they. For example the 1,642 RC primary schools (rather less than the number of CofE schools) and the 315 RC secondary schools (way more than the number of CofE secondary schools). How can they be justified on the basis of CofE heritage as you claim.
Nope.Regardless of your clear lack of evidence you stated in reply417 that:
I said it was an anecdote from friends.
My actual words in #186 was "I know atheists who choose to send their children to faith schools because they are good schools, compared to the non-faith schools in their area. I don't think it is right to prevent a child from having choice and a chance to have a good education just because the education is provided by a faith school and you have a philosophical problem with the concept of faith."
You jumped in at #189 calling my post an anecdote and saying I was implying it was strong evidence.
And I responded in #190 "Also, do you have any evidence that I have used an anecdote as strong evidence as opposed to using it as nothing more than an anecdote?
And what did you think I was using it as strong evidence of? The only point I made was that the existence of faith schools provide more options and choices and some atheist parents in a particular area chose to send their children to a faith school in that area because they thought it was better than the local non-faith schools."
A good example of you jumping to assumptions without asking questions first.
And then I stated in #427 above that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells and you corrected me.
But tell you what, if your ego needs something further, why don't you write something to yourself and sign it off from me.
What about the state funded faith schools that aren't CofE then - they cannot be justified on CofE heritage can they. For example the 1,642 RC primary schools (rather less than the number of CofE schools) and the 315 RC secondary schools (way more than the number of CofE secondary schools). How can they be justified on the basis of CofE heritage as you claim.Ok.
Regardless of your clear lack of evidence you stated in reply417 that:Yes - and you corrected me and provided data that despite the most over-subscribed school in Tunbridge Wells being a faith school, an analysis of all the schools show that non-faith schools are slightly more popular than faith schools. Thanks.
'Davey linked to data that non-faith schools are more popular than faith schools in his area. He asked me for evidence of popularity in relation to my anecdote so I linked to evidence that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells.'
There is no evidence to back up your claim that faith school are more popular in Tunbridge Wells - you further tried to imply an equivalence between my evidence (proper evidence that actually backs up my conclusion) and your 'evidence' (anecdote and partial information, which does actually support the reality).I didn't imply anything. But this par for the course as we know you regularly jump to conclusions or make assumptions about posts but pull other posters up for doing something similar. Tad hypocritical of you.
But this is par for the course as we know you regularly play fast and loose between proper evidence and data and anecdote and cherry picked partial information.
I am ok with etc etc etc based on demand or CofE heritage.Spot the important difference to your previous view that:
Until the public or MPs or both propose a change in legislation on state-funded faith schools.MPs haven't been willing to address this issue, but the public have. Over years there have been numerous surveys assessing public opinion on state funded faith schools. As far as I am aware all have shown very significant opposition to their continuation.
MPs haven't been willing to address this issue, but the public have. Over years there have been numerous surveys assessing public opinion on state funded faith schools. As far as I am aware all have shown very significant opposition to their continuation.Seems like their time could have been better spent opposing academisation. Oh well seems people have a deep commitment to shouting that God is a big poo.
And there are of course groups lobbying for their abolition, including the Accord Coalition (that you linked to), but is a bit like David vs Goliath when these organisations with their very limited resources come up against the hugely powerful and organised vested interests of the CofE and RCC.
Seems like their time could have been better spent opposing academisation. Oh well seems people have a deep commitment to shouting that God is a big poo.A lot of people did, including myself. That said my opposition has softened over the years, as I am now involved as a Governor with an Academy and can see significant benefits in being to have greater autonomy over decision making. We have only used it to allow us to better control finances and investment etc - we haven't made major academic changes, nor have we changed our admissions criteria (except in one respect) and are effectively still a non selective local school for local kids. Other academies have taken a different approach, and in many cases I don't agree with them and I am certainly very concerned about the effectively privatisation of the school system though major academy chains.
Spot the important difference to your previous view that:Yes - you pedantically pointed out that the "and" would not apply to Catholic schools - so to I said ok and changed it to "or". It should actually be "and/or" but there you go.
'I'm fine with the state providing some faith schools based on demand and CofE heritage.'
Which you used to bat away my question as to whether you were concerned that the district fails to address the following groups who aren't being offered a bespoke school aligned to their particular beliefs:
Jews
Muslims
Sikhs
Buhhhists
All christian groups apart from CofE and RC
Vegetarians
Vegans
Humanists
Atheists
Conservative voters
Labour voters
LibDem voters
Racists
Gay rights supporters
etc
So which is it? If 'demand and CofE heritage' then you should oppose RC schools and also this list (although you need to justify why CofE schools are OK, but not humanist schools etc).
If 'demand or CofE heritage' then you should surely support the provision of any bespoke school aligned to any particular beliefs provided there are some people who might choose it.
So which is it?
Like I said, if there was sufficient demand and it didn't break any laws and the schools were inspected and regulated I'm fine with it.So to confirm provided there is sufficient demand (let's not go into how that would be determined) you are happy for schools to be set up for all of the following beliefs:
Anecdote for you: In Sri Lanka the Anglican, Methodist and Catholic missionaries in the 1800s were responsible for running a lot of schools, especially in the North where the minority population - the Tamils - did not receive much funding for education from the British colonialists. Not that the Sinhalese majority got a lot of funding either but the Tamils were more receptive to the missionaries and got together in villages to partially fund and help build schools. The schools did an amazing job in educating children to give them a future in a professional career. A lot of Tamils got into the civil service, or became doctors, engineers, lawyers and teachers as a result of missionary-run schools. Without education, minorities would have found it very difficult to find jobs, support their extended families and give their children futures.Thanks for the history lesson - very interesting, but completely irrelevant to the current situation in the UK.
MPs haven't been willing to address this issue, but the public have. Over years there have been numerous surveys assessing public opinion on state funded faith schools. As far as I am aware all have shown very significant opposition to their continuation.Maybe MPs have a perception that this is not a high priority issue for the public - if it is a high priority issue, people need to write to their MPs and ask what questions they have raised in Parliament regarding this issue. Have any Private Members Bills been introduced in relation to abolishing faith schools, even if the government aren't putting it on their agenda of legislation to introduce?
And there are of course groups lobbying for their abolition, including the Accord Coalition (that you linked to), but is a bit like David vs Goliath when these organisations with their very limited resources come up against the hugely powerful and organised vested interests of the CofE and RCC.
So to confirm provided there is sufficient demand (let's not go into how that would be determined) you are happy for schools to be set up for all of the following beliefs:It wouldn't be pandering to the few if it was based on sufficient demand - it would be pandering to the choice of the many.
Jews
Muslims
Sikhs
Buddhists
All christian groups apart from CofE and RC
Vegetarians
Vegans
Humanists
Atheists
Conservative voters
Labour voters
LibDem voters
Racists
Gay rights supporters
etc
Despite the fact that it is a zero sum game - so every place in a Humanist school means on less place in a school that is not defined by a belief system. So in effect you end up with a situation where the non-faith, non-humanist, non-vegetarian, non-vegan, non-racist etc school places dwindled to zero.
So by pandering to support the 'choice' of the few you remove choice from the many - as most parents do not want to send their kids to a faith school or any other school defined by a belief system - they want to send their kids to a school that caters equally for all regardless of their belief, which is impossible if your ethos if defined by a specific belief system.
It wouldn't be pandering to the few if it was based on sufficient demand - it would be pandering to the choice of the many.And how do you define 'sufficient demand' then.
It wouldn't be pandering to the few if it was based on sufficient demand - it would be pandering to the choice of the many.So provided there are sufficient parents wanting a place at a school of that type, you'd be happy for a school to be set up with a racist ethos, that was based on a presumption of white supremicism and that discriminated against non white people it its admissions policies.
Thanks for the history lesson - very interesting, but completely irrelevant to the current situation in the UK.I'm just pointing out that if the public find a particular type of faith school meets their children's needs, great. If they don't then change them to non-faith schools, provided the particular type of non-faith schools achieve similar results.
Hundreds of years ago most medical provision in Britain was provided by groups linked to religious foundations - does that mean we should abolish the NHS as it is now and create 'faith' hospitals which discriminate in the provision of their medical care on the basis of the patient's religion?
And how do you define 'sufficient demand' then.Establishing demand for different types of schools should not be that difficult. People already apply to schools stating their preference of schools. So one way could be a survey in the community to see what the numbers are for demand for different types of schools, with people listing the type of school they would like their child to attend in order of preference.
The many don't want faith schools, don't want schools defined by specific faiths or beliefs - so pandering to the many would mean creating more places at schools that have an inclusive ethos, rather than an ethos based on a specific, and minority, belief system. And in the zero sum game that would, of course, mean trading off against fewer places for faith or other non-inclusive ethos schools.
So provided there are sufficient parents wanting a place at a school of that type, you'd be happy for a school to be set up with a racist ethos, that was based on a presumption of white supremicism and that discriminated against non white people it its admissions policies.If the law of the country permits that, then I wouldn't be happy but yes I guess I would abide by the rule of law even if I did not agree with it, until I could get enough support to change the law to be more in line with my particular moral beliefs. If a country's immigration procedures were set up with a racist ethos I would have to abide by them until there was sufficient public support to change them.
That would be the natural conclusion of your approach.
Your posts are very easy to understand and common sensible, Gabriella. I always enjoy reading them even if I don't agree with all you say. Just thought I'd say that. I do agree with the above post btw.Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to post that.
If the law of the country permits that, then I wouldn't be happy but yes I guess I would abide by the rule of law even if I did not agree with it, until I could get enough support to change the law to be more in line with my particular moral beliefs.But we aren't talking about whether something is illegal, but about whether it should receive state funding. They are entirely different things.
But we aren't talking about whether something is illegal, but about whether it should receive state funding. They are entirely different things.I was all for the winding down of faith schools and disestablishment of the church from politics....and then I discovered religionethics who largely represent what I fear, kick out religion and then the rabid and Stalinist new atheist dogmatists jump in.
The law allows all sorts of things to occur, under protection of freedom of speech, including having and expressing racist views (providing that doesn't extend to excitement to violence etc) but that doesn't mean that the state should be an active participant in the promulgation of those views by providing state funding.
So on schools - the state, via LEAs, has a statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places for all compulsory school aged children. It has no obligation under law to provide any particular type of school (except appropriate provision on the basis of disability/special needs). So there is no legal obligation on the state to provide faith schools, regardless of whether some parents might like them - indeed there are a number of LEA that don't provide any faith schools at secondary level. I'm not aware that there has been any legal challenge to that decision and indeed the parents in those areas seem to cope fine and well without faith school provision from the age of 11.
So regardless of the whether it is legally possible for a state funded racist school to be set up I would expect the state to refuse to provide any funding as that school would not fit with the basic obligation to align service provision with its equalities agenda, to ensure services are provided that are suitable for all regardless of protected characteristics and without discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics. Yet when it comes to faith the provision of state funded faith schools rides coach and horses through this imperative.
So you finally admit that sometimes advertising doesn't work and you have no metrics to determine whether it works or not in the case of the CofE.
The "Maybe and if" in your answer plus a lack of metrics, results in a don't know as to whether the advertising is working or not.
I agree that people's backgrounds are one of the factors that influence their choices, along with information they pick up from other people's experiences and
changes in current values. Without data we are just guessing at the relative influence of these different factors.
I think many people choose brands they are familiar with but also choose brands that they think will meet the needs of each individual child. The culture of schools probably change as each generation passes through, and Ofsted inspection, league tables and word of mouth will give parents information on how a school is performing through qualitative and quantitative KPIs. I think these KPIs and word of mouth carry significant weight in influencing parental choice.
Actually I linked to the report suggesting that faith schools only perform little or no better than non-faith schools once other factors were adjusted for, and this report was disputed by the Catholic Education Service for having incorrect data. Davey linked to data that non-faith schools are more popular than faith schools in his area. He asked me for evidence of popularity in relation to my anecdote so I linked to evidence that faith schools were more popular in Tunbridge Wells.
Ok please link to the several times I have said people will make up their own minds so I can see that comment in context.
Ok so the “as if “their own minds” are unfettered by the influencers who try to persuade them” is your own invention, which you are trying to attribute to me.
Question 1 - already answered - some advertising works, some doesn't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Question 2 - already answered - some advertising works, some doesn't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Question 3 - already answered - some advertising campaigns help decrease losses, some don't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Question 4 - already answered - some brands benefit from effective ad campaigns, while others don't. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE?
Question 5 - link to where I said about people making up their own minds so I can see it in context.
The "unfettered" is your invention.
I've said, I think lots of different factors influence choices. Got any metrics in the case of the CofE to determine what has the most influence on parents choice of schools, given that more than half the British public say they are not religious?
From my experience (yup Gabriella an anecdote) notable of RCC schooling the approach is one of a three-way mutual reinforcement of message between the parent, the school and the church - each reinforces the message in the other. The result being that the kids are expected to conclude firstly that they are catholics and secondly that catholicism is correct.This is actually backed up by the official line from the RRC on why they run schools:
Rather jaw dropping actually - nothing about providing the highest quality education to support children in their development and to help them achieve longer term aspirations etc.But that is all stuff which should be taken as read if you are going to be accepted as a school, in fact finding ways of saying it have taken up valuable time, effort and resources. A friend of mine started making money out of designing logos and slogans for a school right back in the early days of Grant Maintained Schools.
.
BHS - your premise is, of course, correct.
However I think it is very difficult to actually get the evidence to confirm the premise.
I suspect that the main value of faith schooling in the respect you are talking about is reducing the attrition of children brought up to be religious from choosing to drop that religion as adults. This is based on the evidence that a tiny number of kids brought up in non religious households become religious as adults, but a significant proportion (actually 50%) of those brought up in religious households choose not to be religious as adults.
What would be interesting would be to look at the retention of religiosity into adulthood between kids brought up in a religious household who attend a faith school and those that don't. Also, although the number of kids brought up in a non religious household who become religious as adults is tiny, they may be disproportionate tipped towards those that attended a faith school.
From my experience (yup Gabriella an anecdote) notable of RCC schooling the approach is one of a three-way mutual reinforcement of message between the parent, the school and the church - each reinforces the message in the other. The result being that the kids are expected to conclude firstly that they are catholics and secondly that catholicism is correct.
Prof D#460NSS Ra Ra Ra!
Very interesting and, if I was the sort of person who got angry, that's what I would constantly be against the power of such as the RC church. The move away from belief is far, far too slow. Thank goodness for the NSS.
But that is all stuff which should be taken as read if you are going to be accepted as a school, in fact finding ways of saying it have taken up valuable time, effort and resources.This isn't in a proposal for a specific school, this is the Church's position statement on why they provide schools. It cannot be taken as self evident that the key role of the school is 'about providing the highest quality education to support children in their development and to help them achieve longer term aspirations etc.'
And would you like to comment on the phrase 'religious formation of their children' - what on earth does that mean, and should that be an activity funded by the state?
This isn't in a proposal for a specific school, this is the Church's position statement on why they provide schools. It cannot be taken as self evident that the key role of the school is 'about providing the highest quality education to support children in their development and to help them achieve longer term aspirations etc.'RC's then evidently don't discard aiming for the highest standards in education contrary to your initial pleadings. It appears that some on this thread are knocking the RC in their aim A1.1 Assist in its mission of making Christ known to all people... and yet bumpolishing the NSS for what is presumably it's A1.1 Assist in the complete secularisation of society and making Christ unknown to all people.
And in fact they do mention, embedded somewhere in their narrative on A1.4 Be “a service to society”, namely:
'The fourth key reason why the Catholic Church provides schools is to contribute to the creation of a society that is highly educated, skilled and cultured.'
So the basic function of a school (which you claim to be self evident) is actually only briefly mention as the last of their 4 reasons for providing schools.
If you read the detail from pages 7-9 you cannot help to come to the conclusion that the RRC believe that the purpose of their schools is primarily to evangelise and to serve the needs of the church, with the added bonus that kids get an education.
And would you like to comment on the phrase 'religious formation of their children' - what on earth does that mean, and should that be an activity funded by the state?
I am not a catholic. I think the best they can hope for is that children have a sound knowledge of their cultural and familial and a respect for religion as the main formative of their society.
And would you like to comment on the phrase 'religious formation of their children' - what on earth does that mean, and should that be an activity funded by the state?
RC's then evidently don't discard aiming for the highest standards in education contrary to your initial pleadings. It appears that some on this thread are knocking the RC in their aim A1.1 Assist in its mission of making Christ known to all people... and yet bumpolishing the NSS for what is presumably it's A1.1 Assist in the complete secularisation of society and making Christ unknown to all people.Except that firstly there is no such statement from the NSS and it would be completely against the basic vision of the NSS, as stated on their web-site, namely:
RC's then evidently don't discard aiming for the highest standards in education contrary to your initial pleadings. It appears that some on this thread are knocking the RC in their aim A1.1 Assist in its mission of making Christ known to all people... and yet bumpolishing the NSS for what is presumably it's A1.1 Assist in the complete secularisation of society and making Christ unknown to all people.
This is yet another argument for ''what is bad for the Goose is Good for the Gander''.
Yet again the NSS exposed as a strange peripheral single issue group.
I notice Vlad, you still can't get your head around secularism?You are as interested in protecting religion as the farmer is protecting sheep. Why should the dog have it when I can sell it for meat?
Secularism protects your right to practice what ever religion faith, or belief however you wish to define this sort of thing, the ideas of these beliefs would be the private business of those involved and nothing to do with the state/government.
In effect Vlad, other than protecting religious people if they're persecuted/harmed in any way because of their beliefs, the state should be blind where religion is concerned, religion wouldn't be anything to do with the state/government financially or for any other reason.
It's time religion was shunted out of education for good,
You are as interested in protecting religion as the farmer is protecting sheep. Why should the dog have it when I can sell it for meat?You really don't understand what Secular means do you. To reiterate - from the NSS's vision statement:
You really don't understand what Secular means do you. To reiterate - from the NSS's vision statement:
'We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all.'
He never has (either that or he’s chosen wilfully to mis-describe it).I suspect the latter as it is hardly difficult to understand is it.
I suspect the latter as it is hardly difficult to understand is it.
You really don't understand what Secular means do you. To reiterate - from the NSS's vision statement:That's what we have at the moment. You also forget the many, many schools that were founded as a manifestation of the practical religion people had.
'We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all.'
Which remnds me about a remark someone made about Hitchens that when he was on the left his interest in the working class was the equivalent of Marie Antoinette's interest in sheep......Her care of which apparently involved dressing up like bo peep,
The reference to sheep though reminds me of Christopher Hitchens’ remark about the aptness of the religious talking about their “flocks” when it implies fleecing them then killing them, possibly with some dodgy sexual activity between the two events ::)
That's what we have at the moment. You also forget the many, many schools that were founded as a manifestation of the practical religion people had.
Short of letting this fade naturally or not since the state has decided to maintain some level of religious involvement any secularist success in the field of education would seem to involve an overnight overruling of the status quo in a display of macho trouserhugging secularism that would not reflect popular will or the actual support for a wee group like the secularist. I can't think of one major party that would wish to go down that route.
Conversely I don't see much evidence that education is particularly part of any outpouring of modern British secularism as I see no particular secularist effort to establish anything educational apart from Graylings university which seems to have sunk into irrelevance.
What I am afraid of is the sometimes wilful caricaturing of what faith practice is and my fears that secularists consider faith to be something that can go on unadvertised behind closed doors something that is undoubtedly Stalinist. I highly expect also that in an ideal NSS world people would be able to trumpet their new atheism anywhere,at anybody,anytime.
That's what we have at the moment.Your point being?
You also forget the many, many schools that were founded as a manifestation of the practical religion people had.I am not forgetting that at all - I am well aware of this.
Short of letting this fade naturally or not since the state has decided to maintain some level of religious involvement any secularist success in the field of education would seem to involve an overnight overruling of the status quo in a display of macho trouserhugging secularism that would not reflect popular will or the actual support for a wee group like the secularist. I can't think of one major party that would wish to go down that route.It would indeed require a change in the status of a significant number of schools - so what, that happens regularly. In the past few years both the schools that my children attend have changed status from Community Schools to Academies (effectively driven by a government agenda). Were the government to decide that schools would no longer be permitted to have faith ethos that would be very straightforward.
Is it too early to start nominations for 2018's Bonkers Post of the Year?No, I've nominated several of yours already.
I am not forgetting that at all - I am well aware of this.I see no party committed to their removal. If you think it's on then I would challenge you and the little wizards of national secularism to effect. The tories won't do it because they know they will need the church to make up for the shortfall in their schemes. Labour look to local involvement and the days when an elite middle class collective such as the NSS could centrally dictate policy are over.
It would indeed require a change in the status of a significant number of schools - so what, that happens regularly. In the past few years both the schools that my children attend have changed status from Community Schools to Academies (effectively driven by a government agenda). Were the government to decide that schools would no longer be permitted to have faith ethos that would be very straightforward.
And on the point of popular will - you are of course totally wrong - faith schools are unpopular - survey after survey suggests that about 60-70% of the population do not support them. Removing them would be a popular move in overall terms. The opposition would come from a minority of the population and the powerful vested interests of the CofE and RCC, which between them cont only about 2 million people as members, or about 3% of the population.
I see no party committed to their removal. If you think it's on then I would challenge you and the little wizards of national secularism to effect. The tories won't do it because they know they will need the church to make up for the shortfall in their schemes. Labour look to local involvement and the days when an elite middle class collective such as the NSS could centrally dictate policy are over.
On the NSS they will never be satisfied with any formulation which leaves religion with a public presence being a single issue movement.
I see no party committed to their removal.You are correct - our political parties are terrified of upsetting religious lobbies and of course the lobbying power of the RCC and CofE are huge.
You are correct - our political parties are terrified of upsetting religious lobbies and of course the lobbying power of the RCC and CofE are huge.But then that is special pleading a certain ethos isn't it. Since you have got to this point what is your reason for specifically excluding this class of ethos? I'm afraid your New Atheist slip is showing on that one.
But we aren't talking about political will, but whether abolishing faith schools is the right thing to do (I believe it is for principled and pragmatic reasons), whether it would be popular (all surveys suggest a strong majority of the public would be in favour) and whether it is feasible (it would require a very limited change in educational policy for example simply abolishing VC and VA as categories of school, requiring them to become academies and indicating than no academy can have a faith ethos).
But then that is special pleading a certain ethos isn't it.No it isn't. What ethos am I special pleading for pray tell.
No it isn't. What ethos am I special pleading for pray tell.You are specially pleading against religion. Singling it out.
You are as interested in protecting religion as the farmer is protecting sheep. Why should the dog have it when I can sell it for meat?
What are your principles with which you are arguing an end to faith schools.The most significant one being that public services should be offered in an equal manner regardless of protected characteristics, in this case faith or belief. Hence we don't have 'faith' hospitals, nor 'faith' GPs, nor 'faith' leisure centres etc, etc and we should not have state funded faith schools.
You are specially pleading against religion.
Even Our Lord On High RICHARD DORKINS believes in secularism Vlad, Our Lord would be mortified if people like your good self were persecuted in any way from practising your belief, even if someone was trying to do you physical harm to try to prevent you, and you have to agree with Our Lord the Great R D On High.Nobody has been forced to convert to Christianity for several centuries in this country although I understand that employment in the UK's capitalist history has sometimes stipulated church attendance, but certainly not in my lifetime.
Regards ippy
P S Seriously I really don't see why you can't understand the aims of secularism, it's quite straight forward, their's even a large following of the aims secularism among/within the religious believing fraternity?
Regards ippy
In which using facts and reason to argue that faith schools are a bad idea somehow becomes “specially pleading against religion” in the hall of mirrors mind of Vladdo.Indeed - I have no issue with people choosing to be religious, nor practicing their religion, indeed I have no problem with churches setting up schools (provided they are registered and inspected) providing that doesn't involve state funding.
Oh well.
In which using facts and reason to argue that faith schools are a bad idea somehow becomes “specially pleading against religion” in the hall of mirrors mind of Vladdo.What other type of sponsor would he disallow from running schools?
Oh well.
Indeed - I have no issue with people choosing to be religious, nor practicing their religion, indeed I have no problem with churches setting up schools (provided they are registered and inspected) providing that doesn't involve state funding.Fair enough.
My issue is state funded faith schools - and there is no special pleading because I just as opposed..............to state funded White supremicist schools.
Fair enough.Why have you removed all the others - are you in favour of state funded Conservative schools, with an ethos aligned to the Conservative party. And who are allowed to have their own special politics curriculum, with their own inspectors (cos ordinary Ofsted inspectors wont understand), with a clear 'evangelical' mission such that success means churning out little Tory voters. And who expect you to be a Tory party member in order to have a chance of getting in, with proof needed that you vote Tory.
What other type of sponsor would he disallow from running schools?
He is in trouble because if he or you ever did outline any you would be laughed at on the grounds of swivel eyed paranoid nonsense.
What other type of sponsor would he disallow from running schools?In what way is the RCC or the CofE a 'sponsor' - to my mind that implies a requirement to provide funding. There is no requirement for the CofE or RCC to provide a penny toward the running of a state faith school.
In what way is the RCC or the CofE a 'sponsor' - to my mind that implies a requirement to provide funding. There is no requirement for the CofE or RCC to provide a penny toward the running of a state faith school.https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sponsor-an-academy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_aided_schoolI am well aware of the nature of VA and VC schools and the distinction between them. What exactly is your point?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_controlled_school
I am well aware of the nature of VA and VC schools and the distinction between them. What exactly is your point?I felt you minimised to the point of denying any stake of the churches in church schools.
I felt you minimised to the point of denying any stake of the churches in church schools.I suggest you may want to actually read what I said and then actually learn about the financial rules/obligations for the various types of school, the most relevant here being VA schools.
I suggest you may want to actually read what I said and then actually learn about the financial rules/obligations for the various types of school, the most relevant here being VA schools.Yes the running but the infrastructure costs are partly born by the church. What governing bodies provide that 10% and who actually provides that? and church schools have foundation governers connected with the governing body so it is misleading to say the church has no stake similarly your point makes an uninformed distinction between the community and the RCC church where the community are the church.
I said:
'There is no requirement for the CofE or RCC to provide a penny toward the running of a state faith school.'
And that is 100% correct.
There is a requirement (although it isn't actually met or enforced) for VA schools to contribute 10% toward certain capital expenditure. However that obligation rests with the Governing body, not with the church - so their is no obligation on the church to provide a penny. And that obligation on the Governing body is met in exactly that same way as every other school's fund-raising. Basically via their PTA and their parents. So the cash comes from the parents, not the church.
And in terms of the actual amount it is tiny. The RCC claims that its community contributes £20million toward its schools - note first the careful wording, not the church, but its community, which means parents at its schools or through other self generated fund raising, so renting halls or sport facilities etc. But the funding to those schools equates to approx. £3.5 billion, so that money is about 0.5% of the cost of running the school. And that is basically the same regardless of the type of school. All schools fundraise and all have a proportion of their expenditure based on those funds raised themselves.
When you put it in terms of children - it equates to perhaps £20 per child per year. If a school is only raising that through its PTA etc then it is a pretty poor PTA or fund raising operation. Looking at the schools in my area the rough figure of self generated income per pupil is about £700 per annum. £20 is in the noise and effectively an irrelevance in terms of any meaningful obligation.
Yes the running but the infrastructure costs are partly born by the church. What governing bodies provide that 10% and who actually provides that? and church schools have foundation governers connected with the governing body so it is misleading to say the church has no stake similarly your point makes an uninformed distinction between the community and the RCC church where the community are the church.Did you actually bother to read my post.
Did you actually bother to read my post.But who built the buildings and who owns the land on which those buildings stand. certainly not the state. Primary schools are largely a church foundation.
The obligation is on the Governing body, not the church and the monies are raising in the normal manner. And as I have pointed out this nominal 10% (which is only on certain types of capital expenditure) equates to about 0.5% of the total expenditure of the school.
And yes that's what governing bodies are ensuring up and down the country as we speak in all types of school - I should know I am a governor. In the current climate you have to bid for capital funding and you have a virtually zero chance of getting it unless you provide a degree of 'matched funding', i.e. the school coughs up a proportion. I'd be delighted if my school was able to get away with just 10%. Our current standard proportional match is 20%. That has to be raised, just as the nominal 10% has to be raised in VA schools - and it doesn't come from the church.
The most significant one being that public services should be offered in an equal manner regardless of protected characteristics, in this case faith or belief. Hence we don't have 'faith' hospitals, nor 'faith' GPs, nor 'faith' leisure centres etc, etc and we should not have state funded faith schools.
Also on the principle of social cohesion - that kids should be educated alongside other kids whose make up best reflects that of their local communities. To do something else - i.e segregating kids by religion is social engineering at its worst and acts against social cohesion of communities.
Also fairness - that all parents should have a similar opportunity to gain a place at a school of their choice regardless of their religion. Currently religious parents have a greatly enhanced chances - being favoured for places at faith schools, but having equal chance at non faith schools.
Thanks Proff D, for saving me the trouble of telling Vlad about level playing fields, if you're reading this Vlad try to take it in, not just a particular part, take in all of it!Admissions policy could change. In any case given the extent of belief there are going to be less religious families anyway.
Regards ippy
Plenty of independent schools are very generous with scholarships and bursaries (used to be even more generous in the days of assisted places but they stopped years ago) - & don't care what religion, if any, the pupils follow. That applies to independent schools which have a sort of religious basis or history (eg Eltham College which Eric Liddell attended); they give their free or partly free places with no bias towards a Christian family. A pupil's ability is what counts.I sure you can find reasons for independent schools based on means to pay, or gender specific schools, or grammar schools. But if you do you have no recourse to argue that faith schools need to be removed for social cohesion purposes. Given that the primary system is based on church foundation then a church presence is unsurprising.
Thanks Proff D, for saving me the trouble of telling Vlad about level playing fields, if you're reading this Vlad try to take it in, not just a particular part, take in all of it!But Ippy it's a bit nonsensical to talk about level playing field in a secular society. It will never be a level playing field on account that religion can never have equal power in a secular environment.
Regards ippy
But Ippy it's a bit nonsensical to talk about level playing field in a secular society. It will never be a level playing field on account that religion can never have equal power in a secular environment.
Plenty of independent schools are very generous with scholarships and bursaries (used to be even more generous in the days of assisted places but they stopped years ago) - & don't care what religion, if any, the pupils follow. That applies to independent schools which have a sort of religious basis or history (eg Eltham College which Eric Liddell attended); they give their free or partly free places with no bias towards a Christian family. A pupil's ability is what counts.
Equal power with what?Secular authorities of course.
Equal power with what?
Maeght,what better argument could there be to demonstrate the invalidity of NSS arguments concerning church privilege in the UK than the one here that invites us to imagine we are hard done by atheists in another country and forget about the concessions that are allowed in our secular society.
Equal with the unwarranted “power” it enjoys just now presumably. You see this quite often – religionists complaining about the supposed attacks on them from the secular state when in fact what secularism entails is the separation of religiosity from the offices of state while at the same time protecting the rights of people to hold and practice whatever religious beliefs they like. I caught a bit of Ricky Gervais the other day making an analogous point about the Republican right in the US complaining about the reduction in their rights from empowerment of ethnic minorities, women, LBGT people etc when in fact what’s happening is that the privileges they’ve enjoyed for decades are just being realigned and they don’t like it.
The point here is that religious “power” in a 21st century state is something they shouldn’t have at all – it’s a legacy from more authoritarian times – but suggesting that removing its bony fingers from access by right to the legislature, to education, to the media is painted as an attack on their fundamental rights whereas it’s actually an attack on their unwarranted privilege.
what better argument could there be to demonstrate the invalidity of NSS arguments concerning church privilege in the UK than the one here that invites us to imagine we are hard done by atheists in another country and forget about the concessions that are allowed in our secular society.
Thank you Hillside.
And the downward spiral into rhetorical gibberish continues.Arse clenching gervaisist NSS cock and bull. IMHO.
Anyways, as I was saying - it's the attack on unwarranted privilege the unwarrantedly privileged don't like, whether that unwarranted privilege happens to be religious or anything else.
QEDLet me remind you Hillside that supporting any segregation of pupils for any reason disqualifies that person from making an argument based on privilege.
Let me remind you Hillside that supporting any segregation of pupils for any reason disqualifies that person from making an argument based on privilege.
what better argument could there be to demonstrate the invalidity of NSS arguments concerning church privilege in the UK than the one here that invites us to imagine we are hard done by atheists in another country and forget about the concessions that are allowed in our secular society.
Thank you Hillside.
Don't really see it that way, but anyway, can I ask again, equal power with what?
Don't really see it that way, but anyway, can I ask again, equal power with what?Secular authorities.
Secular authorities.
Secular authorities.
The people who actually get voted for rather than those who think they're entitled to be embedded in the offices of state because of centuries old privilege. Boo! Hiss!The bishops are as voted for as anyone else in the House of Lords.
Which are?It's silly mind game time again!
Which are?
Maeght,Yes religious are part of the electorate as well and the Lords spiritual comprise 3.3 % of the total number of Lords, religious people are community charge payers also and the percentage of religious representation is far outweighed by secular representation also.
Parliament, county councils, local councils, that kind of thing. See Reply 526.
Yes religious are part of the electorate as well and the Lords spiritual comprise 3.3 % of the total number of Lords, religious people are community charge payers also and the percentage of religious representation is far outweighed by secular representation also.
In which bluehillside lets Vladdo try to work out for himself where he’s gone wrong again.Let's see Oh yes I outlined what the response in the country has been to the bizarre claims of the NSS that somehow religion is overrepresented.
In which bluehillside lets Vladdo try to work out for himself where he’s gone wrong again.Yes and 96.3% of the House of Lords are there on the basis that they are secular. They even have a title Hillside, the Lords temporal.
Clue: most of us are part of the electorate, but only one unelected special interest group enjoys privileged access to the legislature, to education, to the media etc.
Yes and 96.3% of the House of Lords are there on the basis that they are secular.
Secular authorities of course.
You don't even realise how little you know about secularism Vlad, it's for certain you haven't even got the beginnings of any kind of understanding it.And I will say it one more time Ippy. How can religious ideas be put forward on an equal basis with secular ideas in a secular society? They can't and they aren't Ippy.
Try this Vlad, see if you can get it? Secularists and secularism isn't looking to push out religious belief or put secularism out in front of religious believers, secularism seeks to have both religious and secularist ideas put forward on an equal basis, ie., no special privileges for religious beliefs, nor does secularism want any special privileged place for itself.
I really can't see why the penny hasn't dropped yet Vlad, their's enough religious believers that also want secularism, secularist ideas put into place.
No religious schools we all mix with each other we're all brought up together we all play various sports together, Ding Ding Vlad, come on it's the healthiest lets all get on with each other policy, it'd be good to see more intermarriage as well and that would be more likely with mixing at non-religious schools at the earliest possible starting point of everybody's education, ie., SECULARISM.
Wakey Wakey Vlad at least try to get it!!
And I will say it one more time Ippy. How can religious ideas be put forward on an equal basis with secular ideas in a secular society? They can't and they aren't Ippy.
And what the NSS don't tell you is that the House of Lords is designed to represent secular ideas as opposed to religious ones. The House of Lords is divided into the Lords spiritual 3.3% and the Lords temporal( another term for secular ) at present at 96.7%.
Such secular over representation is written into the constitution.
There is therefore no case for the NSS.
It's silly mind game time again!
Maeght,
Parliament, county councils, local councils, that kind of thing. See Reply 526.
Yes religious are part of the electorate as well and the Lords spiritual comprise 3.3 % of the total number of Lords, religious people are community charge payers also and the percentage of religious representation is far outweighed by secular representation also.
In which Vladdo continues to display his desperate failure to grasp (or wilful misrepresentation of) what "secularism" actually means and entails.Nonsense. The terms Lords temporal means secular Lords.
People of religion can be elected of course, but just because they are religious shouldn't mean they get any favoured route to power and influence.They are not as favoured as people going in on a secular ticket from the House of Lords down
They are not as favoured as people going in on a secular ticket from the House of Lords down
In what way are people who support secularism favoured?I didn't say secularism I said secular ticket.
Nonsense. The terms Lords temporal means secular Lords.
What then can the basis be for a complaint about the status quo be other than antireligious?
Same for boiling down the humanist UK objections in which they practically own up to not taking the option to start their own schools in order not to queer the pitch for their moan about religious privilege, some nonsense which imho sleights schools about objective teaching of RE leaving the reader with the notion that religion is intrinsically a bad thing is what it's really all about
I didn't say secularism I said secular ticket.
Ok.So what do you mean by that?
And I will say it one more time Ippy. How can religious ideas be put forward on an equal basis with secular ideas in a secular society? They can't and they aren't Ippy.
And what the NSS don't tell you is that the House of Lords is designed to represent secular ideas as opposed to religious ones. The House of Lords is divided into the Lords spiritual 3.3% and the Lords temporal( another term for secular ) at present at 96.7%.
Such secular over representation is written into the constitution.
There is therefore no case for the NSS.
Go somewhere and take any counselling you can get.If I went to a counsellor because I disagreed with the NSS.....I'd need counselling.
Much needed Kind regards Vald, ippy
If I went to a counsellor because I disagreed with the NSS.....I'd need counselling.
Maeght,
What he means by it is the lie that secularism means "antireligious" rather than its actual meaning of anti-special privileges for the religious. The irony of that by the way is that secular societies are far better guarantors of religious freedoms than theocracies are because the latter routinely set about killing off faiths other than their own.
I'd prefer it if you let him answer please.
Maeght,
He can't.
I'd prefer it if you let him answer please.He's not going to. The best you'll get is some non sequitur dressed up in words he doesn't understand.
I want to know what he means by what he says.So does Vlad.
So does Vlad.
Actually, scratch that, I don't think he cares what he means.
If I went to a counsellor because I disagreed with the NSS.....I'd need counselling.
This page reads like happy hour for New Atheists.
I have written more than enough saying what my position is and why it is. All it remains for me to say is that in the wider world the NSS campaign is recognised for what it is namely something that definitely does not require society to "snap to". I'm not against secularism I just feel there's enough.
Can you say what you meant by the secular ticket?Yes. Non religious motive, aegis, sponsorship or backing thereof.
Yes. Non religious motive, aegis, sponsorship or backing thereof.
Yes. Non religious motive, aegis, sponsorship or backing thereof.
As a matter of interest Vlad, when in the public sphere should religion always be put on to the front foot or should secularism always be on the front foot, or should everone be equally represented? I e., no privilleges for anyone?If there were no privileges for anyone then in anything there would be 50% secular involvement and 50% religious involvement.
The answer seems obvious to me.
Regards ippy
If there were no privileges for anyone then in anything there would be 50% secular involvement and 50% religious involvement.
That seems like a false dichotomy, Vlad.Only a seems Gordon? Sounds like you are making progress.
As a matter of interest Vlad, when in the public sphere should religion always be put on to the front foot or should secularism always be on the front foot, or should everone be equally represented? I e., no privilleges for anyone?The humanists UK campaign have stated that once any religious involvement was removed they would be satisfied with the education system. Of course they would since the secular would be 100% privileged.
The answer seems obvious to me.
Regards ippy
Don't you want to prove the doubters wrong Private Fraser and give a clear, cogent explanation of your position?1. The secular religious divide in the House of Lords is recognised in its official title which includes the Lords temporal or secular Lords and the Lords spiritual.
Only a seems Gordon? Sounds like you are making progress.
'Seems', Vlad, because I'm not clear on how you've arrived at these percentages, and since I'm struggling to understand why 'religion' gets 50% since here in Scotland that would be over-representation.I was just responding to Ippy's request for equal representation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40467084
I was just responding to Ippy's request for equal representation.But the Lords temporal may also be religious - indeed I suspect a large proportion are religious. There is no equivalent of the Lords spiritual - which would be Lords automatically appointed specifically because of their position in high office of another organisation. All other Lords are appointed on their individual merit, albeit nominated by others. The Lords spiritual get their places automatically when appointed as Bishops (or when they become a long enough time serving bishop.
Yours is a representation per head model.
Applied to the House of Lords that makes
96.7% lords temporal
3.3% lords spiritual
That seems like a false dichotomy, Vlad.Indeed it is - secularism is the playing field, not the team.
1. The secular religious divide in the House of Lords is recognised in its official title which includes the Lords temporal or secular Lords and the Lords spiritual.
2. The current division is 96.7% secular lords to3.3% Bishops.
3. The notion of religion being somehow privileged above the secular here does not stack up
4. In terms of schools Humanist UK and NSS have right to found schools
5. Many schools are church foundations
6. The church has therefore no privilege in the right to found schools.
7. Objective teaching of religion already exists in schools
8. Any further religious obligation is on all schools and is not necessarily interpreted by the religious.
9. The NSS is unreliable in its descriptions concerning religious broadcasting which is minimal and unreflective of the number of religious licence payers or the BBC mission to inform and entertain.
10. The wider secular world considers NSS and humanist U.K. Unreasonable in some respects concerning the presence of religion in society and takes no action or action to equalise by providing rights to secularists rather than indulging the secularists tendency to demand elimination. Vis allowing them to found state schools or free schools.
But the Lords temporal may also be religious - indeed I suspect a large proportion are religious. There is no equivalent of the Lords spiritual - which would be Lords automatically appointed specifically because of their position in high office of another organisation. All other Lords are appointed on their individual merit, albeit nominated by others. The Lords spiritual get their places automatically when appointed as Bishops (or when they become a long enough time serving bishop.So what. They are there on a secular ticket. They are the Lords temporal after all.
Indeed it is - secularism is the playing field, not the team.I am just outlining what a level playing field would have to look like. It was Ippy's idea.
Vlad is suggesting that a 'fair' football match should be 50% football pitch and 50% Manchester United - it makes no sense whatsoever.
Thanks for your reply.My last point deals with how wider society, which is secular responds to the demand of new atheists, NSS and Humanist UK. To date it seems it does not want to indulge their demands for an out and out final excision or removal of religion from the public forum.
I think you are, as others have said, creating a false dichotomy. Its not that Lords Temporal are non religious nor that they are in the House of Lords to somehow represent secularism but rather that they are ot specifically Lords Spiritual or holder sof ecclesiastical positions. Its just a term to indicate they are not Lords Spiritual surely.
I've not commented on school funding etc so won't comment here either.
I don't know what the NSS description is. I see no problem with some religious broadcasting.
No, lost me there I'm afraid.
Can you say where you think secularist get favoured treatment, remebering that secularism does not equate to no religion or anti religion?
So what. They are there on a secular ticket. They are the Lords temporal after all.
You have underestimated the capacity of an atheist prime minister to influence church appointments.
My last point deals with how wider society, which is secular responds to the demand of new atheists, NSS and Humanist UK. To date it seems it does not want to indulge their demands for an out and out final excision or removal of religion from the public forum.
Again you've referred to a secular ticket but not really explained what you mean. lords temporal can be religious and not secularists - they just aren't appointed for reasons of religion.Non religious ticket.
Non religious ticket.
If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.
Non religious ticket.Oh ffs!
If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.
If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.
Secularism doesn't exclude the religious.The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.
If there were no privileges for anyone then in anything there would be 50% secular involvement and 50% religious involvement.
The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.
Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops
Rather than taking up the option of founding humanist schools they want religion removed from schools to make schools acceptable to Humanists.....to win, in short.
The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.
Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops
Rather than taking up the option of founding humanist schools they want religion removed from schools to make schools acceptable to Humanists.....to win, in short.
Actually it goes further - not only does it say, “believe anything you like” but it can also say, “the state will protect your right to believe anything you like” (as the NSS makes plain) – ...That is clearly not true.
Indeed it is - secularism is the playing field, not the team.
Vlad is suggesting that a 'fair' football match should be 50% football pitch and 50% Manchester United - it makes no sense whatsoever.
That is clearly not true.
Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website (http://www.christian.org.uk/) when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.
Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.
That is clearly not true.Good post.
Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website (http://www.christian.org.uk/) when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.
Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.
Sword, you have every right to hold your pov about same sex marriage, as long as you don't try to inflict this pov of yours on others, and if you look into the cases where, as you say where, 'Christians have been discriminated against', it's 99 times out of a hundred, the Christians haven't been persecuted, they're usually being denied a privilege, which I suppose people like yourself have become and are privilege blind.Ippy's learnt a new disguise for antitheism. Removing privileges.
It's usually because of history where the religious once held power now that power has largely passed by and you like all of the others will have to get used to these changes, and there's a lot more changes for you and yours on the way too, no doubt you will be seeing loss of unwarranted privileges as persecution for a while yet, I hope you get used to it in the end because the secularists are unlikely to give up ridding our public places of unfair privileges from any quarter.
Regards ippy
Sword, you have every right to hold your pov about same sex marriage, as long as you don't try to inflict this pov of yours on others,Ippy let me give you a lesson in how not to be intellectually totalitarian.
They are.
That's because kids need to be taught about religion, rather than told that one religion (or atheism or humanism) is true.
That is clearly not true.
Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.
Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.
SotS,Pretty meaningless. How does the state know what you believe? It still leaves it open for the state to allow belief but ban expression.
Wow – that’s a pretty major league non sequitur you’ve attempted there. Now try reading what was actually said about secularism protecting the rights of people to believe whatever they like
Good post.
Usual flannel from BHS. The state will protect what is inside your head as long as it doesn't reach your mouth or is expressed in anyway. Stalinist thinking if ever their was. I'm afraid it isn't good enough
Note his subtle placement of NSS and the state. I suppose that had to be done to detract from the fact that the state does not back the NSS or Humanist UK in the areas of discussion.
In which Vladdo persists in his category error despite having it spelled out to him in simple words. Just for funsies, he's now thrown in a flat out lie about the state not protecting your right to say whatever you like ("as long as it doesn't reach your mouth or is expressed in anyway"). The state only steps in rarely to issues of censorship - for example when it's an incitement to racial violence (in sharp contrast by the way to theocracies with their obsessions with blasphemy laws and the like). If you want to express your views while in the paid employment of the state though (for example by being a registrar who wants to tell same sex marriage partners they'll go to hell) then they'll be in breach of contract.Nope.......I have said repeatedly that the state is separate from the NSS and Humanist UK and the wider secular society does not support the views of NSS and Humanist UK vis a vis the house of Lords and schools because effecting gags on manifestations of christian charity and an opinion from an angle other than material concerns, as advocated by NSS/Humanist UK, is exactly tantamount to a kind of antitheocracy.
It's simple enough I'd have though, even for the house droll.
Pretty meaningless. How does the state know what you believe? It still leaves it open for the state to allow belief but ban expression.
Does Secularism seek to protect religious expression?
In which Vladdo still fails to grasp (or just lies about) the fact that "the state" doesn't need to know what you believe. It doesn't care. What the secular state does do though is to protect your right to believe whatever it happens to be.I think we can all agree on point 1. Although I don't think a new atheist would ever admit to sailing close to that line.
In which Vladdo tries some disingenuousness when he knows perfectly well that that's what the secular state does (and the NSS expressly says it supports). People can express any religious views that like, provided:
1. They don't incite racial or similar violence; and
2. They don't try to do it while on the state's time.
Nope.......I have said repeatedly that the state is separate from the NSS and Humanist UK and the wider secular society does not support the views of NSS and Humanist UK vis a vis the house of Lords and schools because effecting gags on manifestations of christian charity and an opinion from an angle other than material concerns as advocated by NSS/Humanist UK is exactly tantamount to a kind of antitheocracy.
Ippy's learnt a new disguise for antitheism. Removing privileges.
Clueless!!
Clueless!!Oh come on now. The NSS is a single issue movement committed to the elimination of religion from the public forum. The house of Lords is privilege 'r' us so a focus on religion does seem a little monomaniac.
ippy
Oh come on now. The NSS is a single issue movement committed to the elimination of religion from the public forum.
In which Vladdo hopes that if he tells the same lie often enough it'll stop being a lie. What the NSS actually does is to campaign for the removal of special privileges for the religious from the instruments and offices of the state.It would be nice to believe it ends there but examination of their (NSS) pronouncements on the coverage of religion in broadcast media belies your portrait of innocence. Better, more precise and accurate counsels prevailed at the BBC.
It would be nice to believe it ends there but examination of their (NSS) pronouncements on the coverage of religion in broadcast media belies your portrait of innocence. Better, more precise and accurate counsels prevailed at the BBC.
Ippy and bluehilside
I did think of attempting a reply to SotS's post, but preferred to wait for your much better ones! :)
In which Vladdo just ignores being caught out in his latest lie and instead dissembles to mysterious "examination of pronouncements" without bothering to tell us what those "examinations" or "pronouncements" might actually be.First of all any single issue approach begins to smack of humbug and is prone to ridicule i.e. complaining about religious privilege in what is effectively the House of Privilege.
Funny that.
Anyways, as it's just been ignored again here's the re-cap: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God") etc; secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.
I am just outlining what a level playing field would have to look like.A level playing field would be secular.
The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.That's called being secular. No religious organisations would get special privileges. At the moment, there are twenty six special seats that can only be filled by high ranking members of the Church of England. Why? Members of other religions don't get special seats neither do atheists. In fact even christians not in the Church of England get allocated seats in the parliament of the United Kingdom.
Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops
Rather than taking up the option of founding humanist schools they want religion removed from schools to make schools acceptable to Humanists.....to win, in short.They want schools not to privilege the propaganda of one particular faction of one particular religion.
That is clearly not true.But that's false. For several years people of the same sex have been able to get married.
Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female.
A level playing field would be secular.Secular for the NSS equals atheism.
Secular doesn't mean anti religion, it means no special privileges for religions.
Secular for the NSS equals atheism.
Freedom from religion does not equate with freedom of religion
This is blatant dishonesty - the NSS supports both. From the NSS Our Vision (http://www.secularism.org.uk/our-vision.html) page: "We believe religion should be separated from the state and individuals should have freedom of and from religion."I have put a case.....You are just parroting platitudes.
You have misrepresented the NSS due to your paranoia about secularism. You were asked whether you thought it right that there were a number of seats in the Lords set aside for bishops. Do you, and if so why?See 615 and 619.
See 615 and 619.
I do not considered I have misrepresented the NSS who IMV and the view of others have resorted to hyperbole over religion in the media.
Yes, I believe that it is better having 3.3% Lords spiritual and that being C of E bishops than 100% Lords temporal.
Because if you acknowledge the secular then you acknowledge the alternative and that is spiritual.
100% representation of the secular is effectively totalitarian and completely unrepresentive.
See 615 and 619.But secular is about fairness - that there are no special privileges provided nor discrimination against (the two being two sides of the same coin) individuals on the basis of their religion or lack of religion.
I do not considered I have misrepresented the NSS who IMV and the view of others have resorted to hyperbole over religion in the media.
Yes, I believe that it is better having 3.3% Lords spiritual and that being C of E bishops than 100% Lords temporal.
Because if you acknowledge the secular then you acknowledge the alternative and that is spiritual.
100% representation of the secular is effectively totalitarian and completely unrepresentive.
But secular is about fairness - that there are no special privileges provided nor discrimination against (the two being two sides of the same coin) individuals on the basis of their religion or lack of religion.I just have to point you back to my previous posts.
Reserving places in the HoLs for representatives of a single religion is completely incompatible with secularism. That requires that all members of the HoLs are appointed using processes that are completely neutral with regard to the religion, or lack of religion of that individual.
The implication that the Lords temporal is somehow unfair towards religion is bonkers as many (perhaps most) of the Lords temporal are themselves religious. It would only be unfair if people who were religious were banned from becoming a member of the Lords in the Lords temporal category - but they aren't and nor would the NSS ever suggest that as it would be completely against their basic mission.
I just have to point you back to my previous posts.No 0% specifically reserved for people of a specific religion is entirely right. As is 0% reserved for people who are non religious.
There is the secular and the spiritual therefore real fairness involves both being represented.
A 3.3% stake is considered reasonable at present.0% stake is unreasonable.
The 3.3% acts as an advisory to the 96.7%. A view from a different angle.In what way is is a 'view from a different angle', given that many of the 96.7% are also practicing members of the CofE too.
I make no such implication as I have said that The wider secular world has not seen fit to indulge two key campaigns of the NSS/Humanist UK alliance/axis/canoodle.
The implication that the Lords temporal is somehow unfair towards religion is bonkers as many (perhaps most) of the Lords temporal are themselves religious.
The wider secular world has not seen fit to indulge two key campaigns of the NSS/Humanist UK alliance/axis/canoodle.And which two campaigns would that be Vlad?
No 0% specifically reserved for people of a specific religion is entirely right. As is 0% reserved for people who are non religious.There are a lot of should bes about the HOL MrDavey. To single out religion is monomania, However if you are wanting the term Secular then the opposite is the spiritual. If you are campaigning for 100% secular then you are by definition a totalitarian. Fortunately, the wider secular society and its chosen structures does not agree with you.
100% of the members of HoLs should be appointed using processes that neither require them to be of a specific religion, nor require them to be non religious.
In what way is is a 'view from a different angle', given that many of the 96.7% are also practicing members of the CofE too.
And which two campaigns would that be Vlad?House of Lords and education.
House of Lords and education.Thanks - then, as so often, you are completely wrong.
Are you confusing secular with secularist here?
House of Lords and education.
Are you confusing secular with secularist here?
Thanks - then, as so often, you are completely wrong.
In broader UK society there is a significant majority who oppose both faith schools and also the presence of bishops in the HoLs. So on Bishops a recent survey found that 62% agreed that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats.
Similar proportions oppose state funded faith schools.
However if you are wanting the term Secular then the opposite is the spiritual.The opposite of football pitch is Manchester United.
If you are campaigning for 100% secular then you are by definition a totalitarian.By campaigning for a level playing field you are therefore being unfair.
Fortunately, the wider secular society and its chosen structures does not agree with you.Wrong - wider society very clearly agrees with me with strong majorities opposing both the presence of Bishops in the HoLs and state funded faith schools.
Thanks - then, as so often, you are completely wrong.But then those wanting more money for the NHS and a massive tax cut are probably in a majority.
In broader UK society there is a significant majority who oppose both faith schools and also the presence of bishops in the HoLs. So on Bishops a recent survey found that 62% agreed that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats.
Similar proportions oppose state funded faith schools.
- a secular society, by definition, is the opposite to totalitarianismWhat rubbish.
Secular for the NSS equals atheism.
That is clearly not true.I've looked at the Christian Institute website from your link, and they appear to be a bunch of right-wing, narrow-minded, curtain-twitching busy-bodies. You talk of "Christians being discriminated against because of what they believe", but when what they believe is itself discriminatory, the more their beliefs are accommodated, the more others are discriminated. We saw that in the C of E, with the "Backward in Bigotry" misogynists demanding ever more outrageous concessions to their prejudice, and the more churches where women are not allowed as vicars, the less equal women priests are. The same applies to gays, etc. Incidentally, the Christian Institute certainly doesn't speak for all, or even, I suspect, a majority, of Christians - it emphatically doesn't speak for me. Right-wing evangelicals do have the very bad habit of referring to themselves as "Christians" without qualification, as though their joyless (per)version of the faith represents all of Christianity.
Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website (http://www.christian.org.uk/) when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.
Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.
Incidentally, the Christian Institute certainly doesn't speak for all, or even, I suspect, a majority, of Christians - it emphatically doesn't speak for me. Right-wing evangelicals do have the very bad habit of referring to themselves as "Christians" without qualification, as though their joyless (per)version of the faith represents all of Christianity.Well said. I didn't look at the link - from what you say, they sound like an unpleasant, narrow-minded, bigoted lot.
Allowing people to believe what they like isn't enough. People should be able to express it in the highest halls Hillside.
They're in different epistemic categories, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses in a heap. A fair society is allows anyone to believe anything they like; an unfair one gives special privileges to one special interest group.
Allowing people to believe what they like isn't enough. People should be able to express it in the highest halls Hillside.
an unfair one gives special privileges to one special interest group.As if that only applies in the case of the spiritual....and it doesn't give it there since 96.3% outweighs 3.3% by a factor of about 30.
In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that people are "able to express it in the highest halls" in just the same way that I can express my leprechaunism "in the highest halls" if I want to, a right the NSS in particular would defend by the way. What the NSS and others argue for though is that no one special interest group should have specially privileged access by right to certain "halls" - the the legislature, in education, in the media etc.The NSS monomaniacally focuses on religion in what is a house of privilege. Therefore they are not really antiprivilege but antireligion.
As if that only applies in the case of the spiritual....and it doesn't give it there since 96.3% outweighs 3.3% by a factor of about 30.
In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that people are "able to express it in the highest halls" in just the same way that I can express my leprechaunism "in the highest halls" if I want to, a right the NSS in particular would defend by the way. What the NSS and others argue for though is that no one special interest group should have specially privileged access by right to certain "halls" - the the legislature, in education, in the media etc.Humanists and secularists and probably atheists too are allowed to found freeschools Hillside.
As Vladdo's still not getting it, here it is again: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God" etc); secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.Did you have cucumber for lunch or something?
That is, they're in different epistemic categories, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses. A fair society allows anyone to believe anything they like; an unfair one gives special privileges differentially between special interest groups.
The NSS monomaniacally focuses on religion in what is a house of privilege. Therefore they are not really antiprivilege but antireligion.
As Vladdo's still not getting it, here it is again: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God" etc); secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims. .Arrogate? Arrogate is in Yorkshire Hillside. you should address that to Walter.
But we aren't talking about whether something is illegal, but about whether it should receive state funding. They are entirely different things.If it was sufficiently important to the voting public to abolish faith schools, they would get involved in politics to influence political parties to try to do so. The Tory party appears to support faith schools. Labour's policy does not seem to have changed much since Labour's Tristram Hunt said in 2015:
The law allows all sorts of things to occur, under protection of freedom of speech, including having and expressing racist views (providing that doesn't extend to excitement to violence etc) but that doesn't mean that the state should be an active participant in the promulgation of those views by providing state funding.
So on schools - the state, via LEAs, has a statutory obligation to provide sufficient school places for all compulsory school aged children. It has no obligation under law to provide any particular type of school (except appropriate provision on the basis of disability/special needs). So there is no legal obligation on the state to provide faith schools, regardless of whether some parents might like them - indeed there are a number of LEA that don't provide any faith schools at secondary level. I'm not aware that there has been any legal challenge to that decision and indeed the parents in those areas seem to cope fine and well without faith school provision from the age of 11.
So regardless of the whether it is legally possible for a state funded racist school to be set up I would expect the state to refuse to provide any funding as that school would not fit with the basic obligation to align service provision with its equalities agenda, to ensure services are provided that are suitable for all regardless of protected characteristics and without discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics. Yet when it comes to faith the provision of state funded faith schools rides coach and horses through this imperative.
I want religion out of it, I don't understand any of it, I want it removed but it's not as though I'm antireligious or anything.
To be "antireligion" secualrism (and the NSS) would have to take a position on the content of religious claims.
Gabriella,Blue - why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? I have already corrected you on the fact that a company requires metrics to show the advertising works and hasn't in fact lost them business.
So you finally admit that sometimes the flu jab doesn’t work and you have no metrics to determine whether or not it works for left-handed ginger people?
Why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? You came up with a straw man (that the premise “advertising works” only applies when you add “all” before it) that I corrected you on, in response to which you’ve just ignored the correction and snuck in the absence of data on how effectively it works for the C of E specifically as if that in some way undoes the premise.
Again:
Premise 1: Advertising plainly works otherwise it wouldn’t exist. Exceptions don’t invalidate the premise.
Premise 2: There’s no reason arbitrarily to exclude the C of E from Premise 1. The only way to know how much religions’ huge and free PR builds their inter-generational brand loyalty would be to remove it from one faith and then to compare results several generations later. That no-one has done that doesn’t though invalidate the premise.
More wrongness. I was correcting your odd notion that slowing falling sales isn’t also metric for advertising. The “maybe and if” clearly were there to show you only that there can reasons for business failures that no advertising could fix.
Whether something causes brand loyalty and by how much it causes brand loyalty are different matters, no matter how much you’ve been trying to conflate the two as if in some way insufficient data for the latter somehow invalidates the premise of the former.
To some degree, but the incidence of Christian-educated parents sending their children to Muslim faith schools and vice versa is vanishingly small. That’s the point you keep missing (or avoiding) here. Religions are substantially silos, and the more their specialist schools feed fresh converts into the hopper at the top the more that will continue. Why would it be otherwise?
The Prof has put you right on this already so I won’t.
You’ve done it frequently and regularly – only recently from memory in respect of adolescents.
First how about an apology for misquoting me?
Second, I’m not “trying to attribute” it to you – it’s your thesis! Mine is that faith beliefs taught as facts in early years are exceptionally difficult to lose later on (which is why religions invest so much effort in primary-age faith schools); yours is that later on people can make up their own minds in any case. That is, you don’t seem to think the early years bit makes any difference to the adult choices whereas the data regarding the correlation of faith-schooled children to faith-holding adults (and almost always the same faith to boot) falsifies you.
Not answered before or here. I wasn’t asking you about specific ad campaigns – I was asking whether you accept that as a general business practice advertising works. As it’d be idle to say “no” (ie, WPP should close their doors immediately) I’ll take your avoidance as a “yes”.
Not answered before or here. I was asking you whether you thought the exceptions (eg Woolworth’s) somehow invalidated the basic premise that advertising as a general business practice works.
I’ll take your avoidance as a “no”.
Not answered before or here. I was asking you whether you now accept that slowing losses is a legitimate metric for advertising despite your previous odd claims that falling C of E attendances invalidated the role of their free PR.
I’ll take your avoidance as a “yes”.
Not answered before or here. I was actually asking whether you could think of a reason for the C of E in particular to be exempt from the general premises established so far.
I’ll take your avoidance as a “no”.
You’ve said it over and over. You can look up the various times you did it for yourself.
That’s another of your misquotes – a very bad habit by the way. What I actually said (and you removed) was “as if” unfettered – which is your argument when you tell me that people will make up their own minds, presumably faith-schooled educated or not.
Lots – the metrics are the correlative statistics about the incidence of Christian faith school children who become Christian adults, Muslim faith school children who become Muslim adults, Jewish….etc.
We can get to the specifics in due course but, for now, no matter how much you throw sand at it your “got any data?” is still entirely irrelevant to the principle. Either you think that the huge and free PR religions enjoy in our society (faith schools included) will influence their brand loyalty or you don’t. It’s binary – either “yes” or “no”.
I suspect that, deep down, even you can’t suggest “no” with a straight face, which is why you’ve ducked and dived so much in response. So now (presumably) we have a “yes of course it makes a difference” now – but only now – does the data issue become relevant. What that’ll tell us is by how much catching ‘em young creates brand loyalty, the basic principle that it clearly does at least to some degree having now been agreed tacitly at least.
I want religion out of it, I don't understand any of it, I want it removed but it's not as though I'm antireligious or anything.I totally agree with your first 6 words.
I totally agree with your first 6 words.And that's what makes you a neutral secularist Walter Ha Ha Ha.
And that's what makes you a neutral secularist Walter Ha Ha Ha.far from neutral PF, the NSS are far too wishy- washy to my liking. They need a back bone
far from neutral PF, the NSS are far too wishy- washy to my liking. They need a back boneSssshhhhhh I don't think people like you are supposed to exist according to the ''sssecularisssm isss your fffffriend'' brigade.
I just have to point you back to my previous posts.
There is the secular and the spiritual therefore real fairness involves both being represented.
A 3.3% stake is considered reasonable at present.0% stake is unreasonable.
The 3.3% acts as an advisory to the 96.7%. A view from a different angle.
I wonder if you are driven by anti religious rage.
Secular is not the opposite of spiritual!It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.
It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.No it isn't.
No it isn't.Look up the meaning of temporal Davey.
To use an analogy - on my school governing body there are 3 classes of governor - staff (elected by other staff members), parent (elected by other parents) and community (appointed by the governing body on the basis of specific skills and expertise). It would be bonkers to talk about staff being the opposite of community (for example). It is equally bonkers to talk about spiritual being the opposite of secular in any context - even less so in HoLs where there is no category called Lords Secular - you are making that up.
It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .
I'm all for fulltime atheists, rabbis, imams, Gurus, etc being in the HOL.
being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .You cannot be serious?
You cannot be serious?have you got a problem with that , because I don't .?
have you got a problem with that , because I don't .?Wow, next you'll be telling us you are antireligious.
have you got a problem with that , because I don't .?No I think you might be just the mirror I would want to hold up in front of the secularist.
I want religion out of it, I don't understand any of it, I want it removed but it's not as though I'm antireligious or anything.
No I think you might be just the mirror I would want to hold up in front of the secularist.don't try it , I'm not the loveable Labrador I'm the Rottweiler with a cracker up it's arse .
You cannot be serious?Since this is the position you have dishonestly been saying is that of the NSS, this post oy yours is just writing 'I am a lying liar who lies'
don't try it , I'm not the loveable Labrador I'm the Rottweiler with a cracker up it's arse .I think you are doing a perfectly good job of discrediting atheism and secularism yourself.
Blue - why are you doing this to yourself when it only makes you look foolish? I have already corrected you on the fact that a company requires metrics to show the advertising works and hasn't in fact lost them business.
I sincerely hope you don't run a business or advise anyone who does. I can just imagine the conversation:
Ad agency: Advertising works - everyone knows that. Ask Volkswagen. What do you know that they don't? Unless you can show us evidence the ad campaign we ran did not work just pay our invoice and we'll run the same campaign for you next year and the year after.
Blue: Yes I see the logic of that. I've just made the bank transfer. I'll just set it up to pay annually shall I - saves us having this conversation next year.
BY the way, I see you have posted no evidence of what you claimed I had said about "making up their own minds", despite me asking for a link or a quote. No exactly a difficult request but yet you are unwilling to substantiate what you claimed. An honest person would back up such claims with actual evidence or admit they got it wrong, but then that's not really you. We've experienced this a few times with you - you make claims and then duck out when asked to produce evidence.
Since this is the position you have dishonestly been saying is that of the NSS, this post oy yours is just writing 'I am a lying liar who lies'How do youaccount for the NSS position on religious programming? I think that is about as far as I went.
How do youaccount for the NSS position on religious programming? I think that is about as far as I went.
Certainly there is evidence that the NSS wants religion out of the public sphere. Walter certainly does.
Since you seem to have put yourself in the position of savaging me rather than Walter and Walter is making veiled threat while portraying himself as a deranged Rottweiler, I'm afraid I'm at that point where I don't want to put up with his shit or this.
How do youaccount for the NSS position on religious programming? I think that is about as far as I went.I make my position clear , no veil required . Sadly I am just one individual and the law is on your side (for now)
Certainly there is evidence that the NSS wants religion out of the public sphere. Walter certainly does.
Since you seem to have put yourself in the position of savaging me rather than Walter and Walter is making veiled threat while portraying himself as a deranged Rottweiler, I'm afraid I'm at that point where I don't want to put up with his shit or this.
being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .and off to fstdt with your quote
It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.
I'm all for fulltime atheists, rabbis, imams, Gurus, etc being in the HOL.
Here is the official title of the HOL from Wikipedia.
Officially, the full name of the house is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
and off to fstdt with your quotedon't understand that ?
don't understand that ?
Walter,Aww thanks Blue , I thought I was up for an award or something .
I think it's "Fundies Say The Darndest Things".
Aww thanks Blue , I thought I was up for an award or something .
Here is the official title of the HOL from Wikipedia.http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lords-spiritual-and-temporal/
Officially, the full name of the house is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lords-spiritual-and-temporal/Look up the word temporal Davey.
How strange - no mention of secular at all.
And your argument is completely punctured by the fact that, until recently, there was a 3rd category of Lords, namely the Law Lords.
Walter,Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?
Well in a way... ;)
being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .
Gabriella,Feeling embarrassed must be something you are used to by now considering your inane posts on here. You spend more time grandstanding than posting any actual evidence about the CofE to back up your claims.
What’s curious about your efforts here is that on the one hand you seem to be able to construct a coherent sentence, yet on the other you can post such spectacular drivel that I actually feel quite embarrassed for you. Actually I do advise businesses (though not on advertising strategies) and successfully so.
Here’s how the conversation would actually go: “So you’re concerned that sales are declining or not growing as fast as you’d like and want to try advertising to change that? Fine – here’s how you’ll know either it’s working or not: comparables. We can compare before and after, we can compare advertised vs non-advertised markets, we can compare other variables. And when those comparisons show that consumer behaviour has changed, then you can be pretty sure that the advertising has worked - ie, done the job is was intended to do. That “the job” may turn out just to be extending the date on which your business ultimately goes bust has of course bugger all to do with that”.
Not sure why I have to keep explaining this to you, but there it is anyway.
Oh, and your entire thesis has been that people will make up their own minds. Now you seem to have stopped doctoring what I actually said in response why not just look it up for yourself? There’s plenty of it after all.
Can't agree with that. Why do you think that?' I hold evidence in my hands but in my heart I have beliefs'
' I hold evidence in my hands but in my heart I have beliefs'any oughts are simply beliefs
would you trust them ? I wouldn't .
Can't agree with that. Why do you think that?
gabriellaDo you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?
Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.
If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.
Feeling embarrassed must be something you are used to by now considering your inane posts on here. You spend more time grandstanding than posting any actual evidence about the CofE to back up your claims.
This isn't the first time you've made some ludicrous claim about the effects of religion in the UK but not been able to substantiate it. It's curious how you can spare the time to preach about your beliefs but can't spare the time to back them up with evidence.
Let me help you. You made some claims in relation to the idea that "people make up their own minds" that you attributed to me. It should be fairly simple for you to point out for a start all the posts that you think I said that in and in what context I said it.
What's even more curious than your beliefs is that my posting history has been pretty consistently saying that I think people are influenced by many factors - their families, their upbringing, their culture, their level of education, TV, social media, their friends, goals, personality traits, the geo-political situation in their particular area etc.
Maeght,
It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?
OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.
How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?
And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?
gabriella
Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.
If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.
ETA And having now read your latest post, I will add to my last sentence: ... and you would not have to add the derisive, verging on sneering, comments.'
Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?I have no idea why you are asking this question!
Maeght,Yes it is a straightforward question because it was ab absolute. Any belief in an ought can be taken to an extreme so the 'logic' of your post is no one should.
It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?
OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.
How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?
And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?
Maeght,Do you support Walter IMHO you do.
It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?
OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.
How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?
And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?
I have no idea why you are asking this question!Its a straightforward question.
Maeght,In which Hillside reveals he has the James Bond 007 Boxset.
It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?
any oughts are simply beliefswhere do 'ought's' come into this ? who mentioned aught?
where do 'ought's' come into this ? who mentioned aught?You are covering what should be done in politics. Those are oughts. So it was you that mentioned them
Do you support Walter IMHO you do.have you learned nothing from your experience on this MB
And then there's Peter Singer and dear old Sam Harris.
Perhaps we should turn things on there head. Can we trust someone who thinks morality is the equivalent of liking marmite and not liking marmite.
Don't forget the wider secular world does not share your views Hillside.
Yes, you judge individuals on their suitability for office, rsther than ruling out anyone who is religious.
Maeght,Is that relevant to saying that all people with religious beliefs shouldn't hold public office?
But what if their religious beliefs are themselves pertinent to that - praying for guidance for example re whether or not to go to war?
Yes it is a straightforward question because it was ab absolute. Any belief in an ought can be taken to an extreme so the 'logic' of your post is no one should.
Is that relevant to saying that all people with religious beliefs shouldn't hold public office?
NS,So the answer to the actual statement/question is no but you want tolie about it.
OK, I'll re-phrase - the question may be straightforward but the answer isn't. And no that's not the logic at all - there are plenty of people who believe in various gods but who leave those beliefs at the door for practical purposes (re taking contraception for example). Others though don't - those who would pray for guidance on matters of national importance for example. Do I think it's a bad idea for the latter group to hold public office? Yes, and for fairly obvious reasons I'd have thought.
NS,Walter,
Who has said that?
So the answer to the actual statement/question is no but you want tolie about it.
Walter,
When he wrote
being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office
Which is what the discussion here was about.
gabriellaThat's very sweet of you Susan. It's always interesting when people come on here and feel safe enough to share their beliefs.
Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.
If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.
ETA And having now read your latest post, I will add to my last sentence: ... and you would not have to add the derisive, verging on sneering, comments.'
Maeght,
But what if their religious beliefs are themselves pertinent to that - praying for guidance for example re whether or not to go to war?
NS,
So not me then.
Judge the individual.
Gabriella,Some evidence would be useful....
Savlon half price at Boots this week. Just thought you'd like to know.
NS,
Well that's weird. What I actually said was pretty clear I'd have thought - sometimes the religious beliefs (and practices) will themselves make the people who hold them unfit for public office in my opinion, sometimes they won't (essentially because they ignore them). How you draw the line between them is the difficult bit.
Incidentally, as you're fond of admonishing people for accusing others of lying you really need to be more careful about doing it yourself, especially when there's no evidence for it.
Maeght,Since you don't want religious beliefs , as you have shown here, how could one tell?
When someone in public office says she'd pray for guidance on very serious issues are we judging her or her religious beliefs?
Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?Of course religious people should be able to hold public office - and that should include from top to bottom of religious organisations. So, for example, priests should be able to stand for election and if successful should hold public office in exactly the same manner as anyone else.
Maeght,Atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot did not pray for guidance and look what they got up to.
When someone in public office says she'd pray for guidance on very serious issues are we judging her or her religious beliefs?
Of course religious people should be able to hold public office - and that should include from top to bottom of religious organisations. So, for example, priests should be able to stand for election and if successful should hold public office in exactly the same manner as anyone else.Practically though all the roles available only take the secular into account. In other words unless there are positions based on spirituality as there are say for LGBTQ issues in local government only atheist, materialistic interests will be served.
However the appointment or election process should be the same for everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof and all positions should be open to those of any religion and those of none. There cannot be special places reserved for religious people only and likewise there shouldn't be places reserved for non religious people only.
Practically though all the roles available only take the secular into account. In other words unless there are positions based on spirituality as there are say for LGBTQ issues in local government only atheist, materialistic interests will be served.
Dear Whatever,
A question, why should I not pray for guidance on very serious issues?
Gonnagle.
Dear Whatever,If you can be inwardly still enough for the answer, why not?
A question, why should I not pray for guidance on very serious issues?
Gonnagle.
If you can be inwardly still enough for the answer, why not?
Practically though all the roles available only take the secular into account. In other words unless there are positions based on spirituality as there are say for LGBTQ issues in local government only atheist, materialistic interests will be served.But that is a different question - whether a priest might find the role (for example local councillor) attractive and important, rather than whether they should be permitted to hold that public office.
ekim,Then they are not inwardly still until the voices subside.
Erm, because people who listen to the voices in their heads are not known for obtaining better or more reliable answers than those who listen to people who know what they're talking about.
Dear Blue,
How are you old son, I hope and pray that you and yours are thriving and in good health
Voices in my head!! You never listen to voices in your head, I think we all do that.
But that is a different question - whether a priest might find the role (for example local councillor) attractive and important, rather than whether they should be permitted to hold that public office.oh dear , can you not see the conflict ? Laws won't eliminate that
That said, I'm struggling to see why serving the public in the role of a councillor wouldn't be appropriate or relevant to a priest - indeed many of the skills and roles necessary are rather similar to that of a local priest - interactions with and supporting a community, which in the case of a councillor would just be somewhat wider than in the case of the role of priest.
And I can't see how the primary functions of the council - e.g. housing, social care, planning, service delivery wouldn't be seen as important and relevant to a priest.
And by the way I doubt you will find a portfolio holder function for LGBT issues most local councils - there certainly isn't on mine -
http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/Images/FINAL%20AGREED%20Portfolio%20Grid%20July%20onwards%202017-18_tcm15-54142.pdf
It is true that the council needs to take account of its legal obligations on equality and diversity, and has a section on its website for this:
http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/equalities-diversity/
In which all protected characteristics are covered, with none are given any more prominence than another:
'The Council is committed to promoting equality and diversity and meeting its duties as a community leader, service provider and local employer.
Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 replaced a large number of previous equality laws with a single Act. This has helped to simplify the law, remove inconsistencies and make it a lot easier for organisations and individuals to understand. It strengthens the law tacking discrimination and inequality across all of the ‘protected characteristics’ set out in the Act.
The Council must have due regard to the need to:
Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act.
Improve equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.
Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.
Protected Characteristics
The ‘protected characteristics’ set out in the Act are:
age
disability
gender reassignment
pregnancy and maternity
race – this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality
religion or belief – this includes lack of belief
sex (men, women, boys, girls and transgender)
sexual orientation
The duty applies to marriage and civil partnership too, but only in relation to the first aim (to eliminate unlawful discrimination).'
So religion is just as important and prominent in the equality and diversity agenda as sexuality.
oh dear , can you not see the conflict ? Laws won't eliminate thatNot really, please explain.
Hi Gonners,on a hospital visit to see a very close friend (from boyhood) who had MS and was very poorly , I was disgusted by the attitude of one of the nurses who was looking after him . In a private conversation with her she told me ' God is looking after him and will do what is necessary '
Very well my friend, and I hope the same for you and yours. Always a pleasure to hear from you.
Voices in your head? Well, you know the old saying: one man hears voices in his head and it’s madness; a hundred people hear voices in their heads and it’s a religion…
I don’t know whether being a doctor counts as public office, but I just remembered a story. Decades ago my then girlfriend (now my wife) had a scare that she might be pregnant long before we could have provided for a baby as we’d wish. She went to our GP to ask about the options and was given a lecture on the sanctity of life and some leaflets for adoption agencies by the (as it turned out) staunch RC doctor.
To my mind this was completely inappropriate. The doctor was there to give professional medical advice, not to try to browbeat someone into her ethical position. As it happened the scare was a false alarm but I’ve occasionally wondered how often she did that with others and what the consequences were.
Not really, please explain.you seem to be projecting your undeniable integrity onto others . Not everyone would act as you do .
When in a role you need to function appropriately according to the requirements of that role. When I am functioning as a Governor I have to meet the obligations under the law of that role. If I don't feel that I can, in conscience, fulfil that role, then it isn't the role for me. What I cannot do it take the role but not take the obligations and responsibilities.
However I'm struggling to see why most priests or vicars would have the slightest problem with those local government obligations, which effectively just mean acting within the law. There will be some on the more extreme evangelical side who would struggle, but no one is forcing them to hold this public office if is doesn't feel right to them. What I am talking about is whether a priest should be permitted to hold such office - I think they should on the understanding that their appointment or election is the same as for anyone else and that they are required to uphold the obligations of that office just like anyone else.
ekim,I feel you are building up another ''oi nutter'' argument here.
Erm, because people who listen to the voices in their heads are not known for obtaining better or more reliable answers than those who listen to people who know what they're talking about.
There's none so blind as those that don't want to see Vlad.Even a great, reasonable, consiliatory atheist like Julian Baggini cannot haul himself away from the atheist paradigm that dominates secularism at this time. There is even in his scheme of things the neutrality he recommends which IMHO is not good enough since he insists on an atheistic language framework for it. In other words even for Baggini atheist ignorance is what has to be pandered to. When secularism worked sensibly, what was recognised was a bit of plurality and respect that people come from things in a different way. What Dawkins introduced was notions of atheist purity, a one size fits all caricature of what he wanted us to see now as the opposition, and disrespect to those not holding his vision of atheist purity.
You're determined to not understand and reject secularism, no matter how even handed or fair minded the secular approach, after this set of posts even the thickest among us would have got it by now, you're not that thick so it must be some kind of misguided determination you have driving you to reject secularism, just put up your hands and admit secularism is an ideal, it would be putting everyone on a level pegging as you must know by now, secularism has been fully explained to you.
Regards ippy
you seem to be projecting your undeniable integrity onto others . Not everyone would act as you do .I'm not saying all people would. But plenty will and if they don't meet their obligations within public office they can be removed.
I'm not saying all people would. But plenty will and if they don't meet their obligations within public office they can be removed.danger lay in that kind of liberal thinking . You are far more accepting of people than I.
But I don't think there is any reason to suspect that religious people (as a group) nor people holding religious offices (e.g. a priest) would be less likely to uphold the requirements for public office than non religious people. Certain individuals might (just as we often see in the christian martyr type cases brought by the christian institute) but these cases are very few and far between. We should not tar the majority on the basis of a minority.
Even a great, reasonable, consiliatory atheist like Julian Baggini cannot haul himself away from the atheist paradigm that dominates secularism at this time. There is even in his scheme of things the neutrality he recommends which IMHO is not good enough since he insists on an atheistic language framework for it. In other words even for Baggini atheist ignorance is what has to be pandered to. When secularism worked sensibly, what was recognised was a bit of plurality and respect that people come from things in a different way. What Dawkins introduced was notions of atheist purity, a one size fits all caricature of what he wanted us to see now as the opposition, and disrespect to those not holding his vision of atheist purity.
danger lay in that kind of liberal thinking . You are far more accepting of people than I.But the point about public office/roles is that they are usually massively constrained by rules etc as to what an individual can and cannot do. So if someone looks to be going beyond that which is consistent with their role then that will readily be seen. And there are always others there for checks and balances.
Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of our differing careers . I made a living in an atmosphere of 'trust no one 'No idea - my career is quite closely linked to public sector roles and public offices, so perhaps my experience is more relevant. My experiences is that the kind of people to put themselves forward for such public office tend to have integrity - I may disagree on politics etc, but I rarely have concerns regarding their integrity and their commitment to the obligations of the role.
My experiences is that the kind of people to put themselves forward for such public office tend to have integrity - I may disagree on politics etc, but I rarely have concerns regarding their integrity and their commitment to the obligations of the role.
Yes I've got that, don't really know what you're getting on about, anyway none of that lot's got anthing to do with the post I made to you this morning?If you really got that you might have some inkling on why I am not happy with contemporary secularism. Because the language of secularism is atheist. It also rejects previous definitions and understanding of what secularism actually meant and that this rejection is being done by the atheists who have hijacked the agenda.
How about telling me that finally you've got it you now understand how secularism is support for all points of view and no privileges for any one school of thought whoever they might be?
Regards ippy
If you can be inwardly still enough for the answer, why not?
Isn't this just a different way of saying that you need to take time to pause and reflect on the issue at hand so that you give yourself an even chance of making a sound and equitable judgement as far as you are able?It certainly brings upthe question of the experience of prayer.
Or, does it mean that you are asking for guidance from some sort of outside agency which you have already decided may make its presence felt when you pray when you are 'inwardly still', and that you will be prepared to act on the answer that comes to you without necessarily taking into account any other reasoning? If so, this seems to me to be a decidedly hit or miss approach.
If you really got that you might have some inkling on why I am not happy with contemporary secularism. Because the language of secularism is atheist. It also rejects previous definitions and understanding of what secularism actually meant and that this rejection is being done by the atheists who have hijacked the agenda.your mixed-up and confused thinking is very evident in that post . Why don't you step back for a while and try to understand some very basic principles . Atheists (I don't like that term) are human too you know .
To give Baggini his due he does hark back to a time when nobody saw a real problem with the HOL either because there was an extravagant/underwhelming 3.3% of Lords spiritual or say the labour party ''not doing religion'' as that was taken as read.
To me that there are Lords spiritual at parliament could remind us that we are more than just a number, an elector, an acquisitive materialist demographic. That is why we should be getting more world viewers of a different stripe into the lords spiritual rather than abolish it.
your mixed-up and confused thinking is very evident in that post . Why don't you step back for a while and try to understand some very basic principles . Atheists (I don't like that term) are human too you know .And as I've said full time atheists should be in the Lords spiritual.
And as I've said full time atheists should be in the Lords spiritual.what, as apposed to part time atheists?
what, as apposed to part time atheists?Oh yes, Copson and Keith and Terry definitely...or their representatives.
Dear enki,
Outside agency???
Gonnagle.
If you really got that you might have some inkling on why I am not happy with contemporary secularism. Because the language of secularism is atheist. It also rejects previous definitions and understanding of what secularism actually meant and that this rejection is being done by the atheists who have hijacked the agenda.
To give Baggini his due he does hark back to a time when nobody saw a real problem with the HOL either because there was an extravagant/underwhelming 3.3% of Lords spiritual or say the labour party ''not doing religion'' as that was taken as read.
To me that there are Lords spiritual at parliament could remind us that we are more than just a number, an elector, an acquisitive materialist demographic. That is why we should be getting more world viewers of a different stripe into the lords spiritual rather than abolish it.
Outside agency in that one thinks they are praying to some sort of a god which is taken as an entity which is not just their subjective imagination.
No I don't see why you say "I am not happy with contemporary secularism. Because the language of secularism is atheist. It also rejects previous definitions and understanding of what secularism actually meant and that this rejection is being done by the atheists who have hijacked the agenda", because secularism is as near to neutral as you'll ever get in anything organised by humans, secularism doesn't have an agenda other than, 'fair shares for all and no privilege for anyone'.The British political system does not have 26 bishops and 1300 odd people who aren't in the HOL or HOC on a religious ticket in order to maintain a theocracy Ippy.
The trouble is, religious organisations have so many privileges they've gained over the years and still have, then people like yourself have got so used to the many privileges the religions have you don't see them as privileges any more, then when someone points out one of the many privileges religions have, to people like yourself the next thing we hear from you is persecution.
Generally I don't mind people having these religious beliefs, I think religious people are either gullible or they have been indoctrinated when very young, what other reason would there be to take up religious beliefs? Especially when there is as near to zero viable evidence around to be found that might of backed up any of the main religious beliefs.
Where religious belief makes me see red is the way the religious believers make a point of getting their grubby hands on the pre seven year old children in one way or another, seven year old children as the religious are well aware this is the age where, on average, youngsters acquire the ability to challenge, talk about the religious dirty tricks department.
Apart from that last lot just above this, I feel sad for people that hold these beliefs but don't look on them as enemies, it's the privileges that will have to go no matter who has them, in other words as a system secularism has to be the one, it's pro everybody and fair play for all, their's no way around fair play for all Vlad, if you say anything different you must be talking from the other end, without engaging the brain, try to not make an even bigger fool of yourself, put your hands up admit it, you've got it wrong.
Regards ippy
Dear enki,Why use one word when ten will do?
Oh right, thank you for the clarification.
Dear Vlad,
Stop passing out those pills, enki has went all Vladish :o :o
Gonnagle.
The British political system does not have 26 bishops and 1300 odd people who aren't in the HOL or HOC on a religious ticket in order to maintain a theocracy Ippy.I have taken hundreds of photos of sunsets as reminders of how wonderful they make me feel . Does that make me spiritual ?
The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human. That is the basis of the division in the house of Lords.
As I have said the HOL is a house of privilege, there are inherited peers, public service, commerce, theatricals, community there is the privilege of age and experience. There should also be a small voice representing the spiritual nature and interests of humanity. If not then we are being badly served at the highest levels.
Why use one word when ten will do?
What I use on words I save on grammar.
I have taken hundreds of photos of sunsets as reminders of how wonderful they make me feel . Does that make me spiritual ?Yep, I suppose it does.
Yep, I suppose it does.a spiritual atheist then. But with no concept of any gods .
The British political system does not have 26 bishops and 1300 odd people who aren't in the HOL or HOC on a religious ticket in order to maintain a theocracy Ippy.
The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human. That is the basis of the division in the house of Lords.
As I have said the HOL is a house of privilege, there are inherited peers, public service, commerce, theatricals, community there is the privilege of age and experience. There should also be a small voice representing the spiritual nature and interests of humanity. If not then we are being b
As far as I know the MPs and the lords etc have a few believers amongst them, well I'm pretty sure they do?
Just a statement of fact : if you add as of right any kind of group, to either house, that have a particular, common to the group, shared interest, that is a privilege.
Regards ippy
The British political system does not have 26 bishops and 1300 odd people who aren't in the HOL or HOC on a religious ticket in order to maintain a theocracy Ippy.
The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human. That is the basis of the division in the house of Lords.
As I have said the HOL is a house of privilege, there are inherited peers, public service, commerce, theatricals, community there is the privilege of age and experience. There should also be a small voice representing the spiritual nature and interests of humanity. If not then we are being badly served at the highest levels.
Isn't this just a different way of saying that you need to take time to pause and reflect on the issue at hand so that you give yourself an even chance of making a sound and equitable judgement as far as you are able?When I replied to Gonnagle, I was commenting in the context of him being a Christian and that this is a Christian topic, but to answer your first question, inner stillness can be a helpful stance in those circumstances. When engrossed in an intellectual pursuit, I suspect that is when the Eureka moment occurs, and when surrounded by emotional turmoil, with practise a peaceful centre can be found from which to act or not act. In answer to your second question, I would have to give a 'Jesus' approach to prayer (asking) rather than a Christian one i.e. 'God knows your requirements before you ask' which I believe means the requirement of release from deviating self centredness (sin) and union with God centredness, in a phrase, the Kingdom of Heaven within.
Or, does it mean that you are asking for guidance from some sort of outside agency which you have already decided may make its presence felt when you pray when you are 'inwardly still', and that you will be prepared to act on the answer that comes to you without necessarily taking into account any other reasoning? If so, this seems to me to be a decidedly hit or miss approach.
Since the majority of the Lords Temporal will have religious beliefs then there will be people who can speak regarding spiritual issues whether we have Lords Spiritual or not.And that includes a number of former Bishops. Indeed there are currently two former Archbishops of Canterbury who are Lords Temporal, having transferred from being Lords Spiritual when they stepped down from their ABofC role.
Regarding Lords who can speak regarding public service, commerce etc are there specific number of seats guaranteed for people who can represent these areas?Exaclty
The British political system does not have 26 bishops and 1300 odd people who aren't in the HOL or HOC on a religious ticket in order to maintain a theocracy Ippy.There was no adding on of the lords spiritual. They were part and parcel of the constitution of the House of Lords which reflects a view that life comprises of the day to day, and the material aspects and the spiritual which in past times has been the preserve of the church and that that view applies to all.
The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human. That is the basis of the division in the house of Lords.
As I have said the HOL is a house of privilege, there are inherited peers, public service, commerce, theatricals, community there is the privilege of age and experience. There should also be a small voice representing the spiritual nature and interests of humanity. If not then we are being b
As far as I know the MPs and the lords etc have a few believers amongst them, well I'm pretty sure they do?
Just a statement of fact : if you add as of right any kind of group, to either house, that have a particular, common to the group, shared interest, that is a privilege.
Regards ippy
Now that is a model which has survived and one that is not intrinsically wrong. So I disagree with you there.
Secondly given that the HOL is a house of privilage, who else is represented? Well Land, Money, civil and public service as well as the spiritual. To single out one group as having special privilege is nonsense on stilts, in fact there is a case that spiritual lords are the only lords who can represent some peoples interests.
Finally you are trying to introduce a definition of secular that is quite modern atheist and having been redefined by atheism.
In the new definition. The atheist represents the ideal citizen therefore,as Baggini points out, the religious have to talk like atheists in order to have a voice because as Baggini says the atheist does not understand religion or religious ways of putting things. This is why talk of level playing fields is mischievious playing the victim nonsense from people who are,in fact, more than adequately represented everywhere.
Yes there could be an overhaul of the Lords spiritual but to remove them just leaves Land, Money, civil and public service covered. How represented would we be then?
And that includes a number of former Bishops. Indeed there are currently two former Archbishops of Canterbury who are Lords Temporal, having transferred from being Lords Spiritual when they stepped down from their ABofC role.Obviously some nuts need to be tightened but the principle of the Lords spiritual is sound.
Exaclty
There was no adding on of the lords spiritual. They were part and parcel of the constitution of the House of Lords which reflects a view that life comprises of the day to day, and the material aspects and the spiritual which in past times has been the preserve of the church and that that view applies to all.
Now that is a model which has survived and one that is not intrinsically wrong. So I disagree with you there.
Secondly given that the HOL is a house of privilage, who else is represented? Well Land, Money, civil and public service as well as the spiritual. To single out one group as having special privilege is nonsense on stilts, in fact there is a case that spiritual lords are the only lords who can represent some peoples interests.
Finally you are trying to introduce a definition of secular that is quite modern atheist and having been redefined by atheism.
In the new definition. The atheist represents the ideal citizen therefore,as Baggini points out, the religious have to talk like atheists in order to have a voice because as Baggini says the atheist does not understand religion or religious ways of putting things. This is why talk of level playing fields is mischievious playing the victim nonsense from people who are,in fact, more than adequately represented everywhere.
Yes there could be an overhaul of the Lords spiritual but to remove them just leaves Land, Money, civil and public service covered. How represented would we be then?
Yes there could be an overhaul of the Lords spiritual but to remove them just leaves Land, Money, civil and public service covered. How represented would we be then?So what are these current members of the Lords Temporal doing then (as examples):
The spiritual would be represented in the same way as land, money, etcWould they though who really represents the poor or the estates for instance.
So what are these current members of the Lords Temporal doing then (as examples):Since the church is established they were in high management in public and charitable service and presumably that's why they are there.
George Carey
Rowan Williams
David Hope
Richard Chartres
Somehow I suspect they aren't focusing on Land, Money, civil and public service, given their backgrounds.
Since the church is established they were in high management in public and charitable service and presumably that's why they are there.I am actually not arguing that Bishops may not be suitable members of the HoLs. And indeed (unlike some) I think that priests etc should be able to hold public office, including major appointed and elected roles.
Would they though who really represents the poor or the estates for instance.
You seem to be side stepping any criticism of modern secularism namely it's basic assumptions.
1. That the model citizen is atheist
2. That everybody must meet on an atheists understanding
3. That it is ok to focus on removing religious privileges
4. That religion is uniquely or especially oppressive or dangerous.
Look at the list of prominent secularists in Wikipedia. All atheists to a man. That's because they have hijacked the term.
Since the church is established they were in high management in public and charitable service and presumably that's why they are there.
If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!
If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!You see Vlad it isn't just your bogeyman 'atheist secularists' who object to automatic places for CofE bishops - opposition also comes from plenty of religious sources too who recognise the unfairness of the whole approach.
There was no adding on of the lords spiritual. They were part and parcel of the constitution of the House of Lords which reflects a view that life comprises of the day to day, and the material aspects and the spiritual which in past times has been the preserve of the church and that that view applies to all.
Now that is a model which has survived and one that is not intrinsically wrong. So I disagree with you there.
Secondly given that the HOL is a house of privilage, who else is represented? Well Land, Money, civil and public service as well as the spiritual. To single out one group as having special privilege is nonsense on stilts, in fact there is a case that spiritual lords are the only lords who can represent some peoples interests.
Finally you are trying to introduce a definition of secular that is quite modern atheist and having been redefined by atheism.
In the new definition. The atheist represents the ideal citizen therefore,as Baggini points out, the religious have to talk like atheists in order to have a voice because as Baggini says the atheist does not understand religion or religious ways of putting things. This is why talk of level playing fields is mischievious playing the victim nonsense from people who are,in fact, more than adequately represented everywhere.
Yes there could be an overhaul of the Lords spiritual but to remove them just leaves Land, Money, civil and public service covered. How represented would we be then?
You see Vlad it isn't just your bogeyman 'atheist secularists' who object to automatic places for CofE bishops - opposition also comes from plenty of religious sources too who recognise the unfairness of the whole approach.
Scrap the automatic places for CofE bishops and allow religious leaders to be considered along with everyone else for membership on a level playing field.
Would they though who really represents the poor or the estates for instance.
You seem to be side stepping any criticism of modern secularism namely it's basic assumptions.
1. That the model citizen is atheist
2. That everybody must meet on an atheists understanding
3. That it is ok to focus on removing religious privileges
4. That religion is uniquely or especially oppressive or dangerous.
Look at the list of prominent secularists in Wikipedia. All atheists to a man. That's because they have hijacked the term.
If the only reason the 'lords spiritual' are there is because of the anachronistic absurdity of the Englich established Church, why don't they take a vowe to vote only on issues connected with tthe legal establishment of their denomination, and keep their noses out of things which are beyond their sphere? Several voiced opposition to the Scotland Act 1999. Why, Vlad? What did that have to do with them, their denomination or their parliament? Even their co-religionists in the Scottish Episcopal Church (Anglicans) told them to shut up and mind their own business!
You see Vlad it isn't just your bogeyman 'atheist secularists' who object to automatic places for CofE bishops - opposition also comes from plenty of religious sources too who recognise the unfairness of the whole approach.Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.
Scrap the automatic places for CofE bishops and allow religious leaders to be considered along with everyone else for membership on a level playing field.
Come off it. The "lords spiritual" is guff, plain and simple. Dress it up in high tones if you like, but all it is is a ridiculous hangover from tghe English parliament and Henry VIII's desire to get his leg over with Ann Boleyn. It has no place whatsoever in a so-called 'UK' parliament; there is no 'UK' established church, nor should there be. The only Kirm minister still active in ministrey when given the dubious insult of the peerage was George McLeod - founder of the Iona Community - and he only accepted the peerage after he had confirmed to presbytery that he was now ruling himself out as a candidate for parish ministry. Other denominations and religions get on quite well without becoming vermin in ermine; isn't it about time the CofE joined them?I don't think it's anything to do with Henry the Eighth.
Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.and what's wrong with that ? seems reasonable to me .
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/history-of-the-lords/How very interesting, and how completely irrelevant.
Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.No it doesn't - it creates a level playing field.
and what's wrong with that ? seems reasonable to me .Well it's like this if i'm not allowed to be a secularist then you've blown your argument about fair play, privilege and level playing fields which I think you probably did when saying that the religious should have no public office.
Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/lords-history/history-of-the-lords/
No it doesn't - it creates a level playing field.Of course it does since it's model of the governed human being is materialistic and totally described in terms of money, celebrity and law in other words your type of secularism homoncularises people. I think you'll find the whole of your exercise is to make everybody over in the humanist UK mold. Fuck them I say.
How very interesting, and how completely irrelevant.
You will note that in the past 60 years we have:
Created the notion of life peers
Removed hereditary peers from the Lords
Removed the law Lords
So we can readily remove the Bishops. That they have been around since the 14thC is irrelevant - so had the hereditories.
Well it's like this if i'm not allowed to be a secularist then you've blown your argument about fair play, privilege and level playing fields which I think you probably did when saying that the religious should have no public office.
You'll have to ask your fellow secularists who are trying to persuade people like me that modern secularism isn't just a front for the swivel eyed non believer who can moan about special privilege and suggest the complete exclusion of the religious.
Of course it does since it's model of the governed human being is materialistic and totally described in terms of money, celebrity and law in other words your type of secularism homoncularises people. I think you'll find the whole of your exercise is to make everybody over in the humanist UK mold. Fuck them I say.
Any secularism that excludes the likes of me is not worthy of the title.
The HOL needs overhaul yes. What is needed, what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level. And not a constitutional procrustean view of the human inevitably designed to make people conform.
Oh, look; a link.
Come on, Vlad; you should see the absurdity of one denomination of one r4eligion having automatic rights to plant their bums in the coffin dodgers waiting room and vote on stuff which simply does not affect them or their parishoners.
The absurd anachronism of a part of this so-called UK' having an established chuch and the rest of us having to accept their right to vote on our future because a royal idiot wanted his leg over in England years ago should offend anyone with a sense of democracy.
Even I'm against it just being C of E bishops as I have already said, I'm just against making everyone a Lord Temporal since it panders more to a materialist atheist secularism.
Why not just bin the HoL and be done with it: all of it.That is more by way of tackling privilege.
The HOL needs overhaul yes. What is needed, what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level. And not a constitutional procrustean view of the human inevitably designed to make people conform.
Any secularism that excludes the likes of me is not worthy of the title.
That's not going to happen anytime soon, I think the model of humanity as a secular and spiritual animal is sound, I am happy that many in other faith communities feel secure that any hostile secularism of an antitheist stripe is at least partly offset by the presence of the Bishops and finally I would put my pluralism against exclusion.
The HOL is diddly squat to to with the UK, Vlad, and you know it.
Like the other shower, it's simply the pre union English parliamernt with lip service to the other nations. It isn't british in constitution; it's English and always has been. It isn't due for reform; it's due for abolition.
In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that secularism would both include and protect the rights of even a swivel-eyed paranoiac such as himself.I hope you're not including yourself there Blue.
In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that secularism would both include and protect the rights of even a swivel-eyed paranoiac such as himself.
It's not what you know it's who you know SP.
That's not going to happen anytime soon, I think the model of humanity as a secular and spiritual animal is sound, I am happy that many in other faith communities feel secure that any hostile secularism of an antitheist stripe is at least partly offset by the presence of the Bishops and finally I would put my pluralism against exclusion.
So religious people get into the House of Lords. Who or what would they be representing. Cue some atheistic response.
VladYes I see that. But as Michael Caine would say ''They're still bleedin' Bishops ain't they?''
These are Church of England bishops: so presumably (as a fellow Scot by birth, as you once confessed iirc) you can see that those of us who aren't English (never mind whether we are theists or not) might see this as being an unacceptable special privilege?
Yes I see that. But as Michael Caine would say ''They're still bleedin' Bishops ain't they?''
When I replied to Gonnagle, I was commenting in the context of him being a Christian and that this is a Christian topic, but to answer your first question, inner stillness can be a helpful stance in those circumstances. When engrossed in an intellectual pursuit, I suspect that is when the Eureka moment occurs, and when surrounded by emotional turmoil, with practise a peaceful centre can be found from which to act or not act. In answer to your second question, I would have to give a 'Jesus' approach to prayer (asking) rather than a Christian one i.e. 'God knows your requirements before you ask' which I believe means the requirement of release from deviating self centredness (sin) and union with God centredness, in a phrase, the Kingdom of Heaven within.
He might: but then they are unelected and they represent a minority organisation, and some of us are concerned that they get to interfere in political governance affecting the rest of us - as far as I'm aware they have no mandate here in Scotland.There's only 26 of them agin 724 Lords temporal and there can be any number of Lords temporal,
So we need to bin them (along with their 'Lords Temporal' colleagues).
There's only 26 of them agin 724 Lords temporal and there can be any number of Lords temporal,
Scottish representation is a Lords Temporal issue. Therefore if there is some shortfall that would need to be redressed there.
/To demand abolition of the HOL is a true demand for removal of privilege but, like getting Conservatives out of Scotland it is not going to happen.
What is needed, what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level.And the Lords Spiritual really help to ensure that the make up of the Lords is more representative of the demographic of society ;)
I suspect it would if we got Scotland out of the UK: can't see a role for the CofE in an independent Scotland - but what we are addressing currently is religious privilege in the UK political arena, and while CofE involvement may have fitted the 16th century England political climate it doesn't really fly in UK terms 5 centuries later.As part of a holistic view of representation and the represented I think it is a great model given a few provisos. I think in every generation it has a place and a constituency aside from it being a great notion.
And the Lords Spiritual really helps to ensure that the make up of the Lords is more representative of the demographic of society ;)Apparently the first Lady Spiritual has taken office so that's one thing you've got wrong.
We, of course, need more male, white, straight, middle class, private school and Oxbridge educated Anglicans in the Lords to make it more representative, don't we.
Apparently the first Lady Spiritual has taken office so that's one thing you've got wrong.Apparently a touch over 50% of the population are female, so one out of 26 isn't really demographically representative is it.
Apparently a touch over 50% of the population are female, so one out of 26 isn't really demographically representative is it.But they are Bishops and religious which for a Lord spiritual trumps other attributes. Presumably the demographic will change with time. If you are saying No Bishop has ever been Gay I would doubt that.
Nor is the fact that just one is from an ethnic minority.
Nor that the vast majority are private school educated, Oxbridge educated or both.
Nor than not one is gay.
Yes I see that. But as Michael Caine would say ''They're still bleedin' Bishops ain't they?''
He might: but then they are unelected and they represent a minority organisation, and some of us are concerned that they get to interfere in political governance affecting the rest of us - as far as I'm aware they have no mandate here in Scotland.
So we need to bin them (along with their 'Lords Temporal' colleagues).
But they are Bishops and religious which for a Lord spiritual trumps other attributes. Presumably the demographic will change with time. If you are saying No Bishop has ever been Gay I would doubt that.So you accept that the presence of the Lords Spiritual makes the Lords even less representative of society in pretty well every respect.
So you accept that the presence of the Lords Spiritual makes the Lords even less representative of society in pretty well every respect.No you are just putting up a selected list of attributes:
What can I say Anch's?.........Y'all fucked up and trusted Cameron?
They have no mandate in Scotland - the Scottish Episcopal Church...Anglicanisim in Scotland - is not established.
That still doesn't stop them voting on issues affecting Scotland in the HOL, though.
As part of a holistic view of representation and the represented I think it is a great model given a few provisos. I think in every generation it has a place and a constituency aside from it being a great notion.
Today I would say that constituency are those who are frightened their view of humanity will be swamped by a reduced view of humanity as a political particle, held by what has been referred to as the tyranny of the majority. Therefore to reduce this minority from 3.3% (Bob Hope) to zero (No hope) seems to be nothing more than a piece of OCD from those who want it so.
What the heck does the unlamented Cameron have to do with unelected bishops voting on areas for which they have no pastoral or ecclesiastical oversight?You could have done away with all of that had the vote taken full account of what the Conservative party were like.
You could have done away with all of that had the vote taken full account of what the Conservative party were like.
Anyway, what power can they actually have?
The 'model' isn't representative though: if these 'Lords Spiritual' are intended to represent Christianity then one obvious problem is that they are irrelevant to Christianity in Scotland, and as such they can't be seen to represent Christianity in Scotland, and neither do they represent other strands of Christianity or non-Christian theism. Why Christianity should be specially represented at all is the underling issue.Why is it only you that can leap over the secularism thing and get to a full throated rejection of privilege? To single out a privilege in the House of privileges seems daft.
The 'Lords Spiritual' are an anachronism too far, but then so is the HoL - bin the lot of them say I.
Why is it only you that can leap over the secularism thing and get to a full throated rejection of privilege? To single out a privilege in the House of privileges seems daft.
However to have a model which includes spirituality is notionally a good thing but as I see it the deal is designed so the spiritual has a voice in parliament but no actual power. Maybe that's how things should be.
No you are just putting up a selected list of attributes:You were the one who raised the issue of the Lords being representative of society:
Does the prospective Lord possess a Hector or not?
And where does he put Hector?
And what is his/her skin colour?
What school and university were attended?
It's very er, biological for someone who is going to be a Lord spiritual don't you think?
What bit of my proposal that we bin the House ofand when that democratic system allows more and more Muslim candidates to be elected into parliament does not the influence of the 'spiritual' become increasingly more significant in ways 'we' are not used to ?PrivilegesLords are you not getting?
Don't be silly: the 'spiritual' are perfectly free to present themselves for election where in their manifestos they can set out their specifically spiritual political agenda and compete alongside non-spiritual candidates for election: I understand this approach is known as democracy.
and when that democratic system allows more and more Muslim candidates to be elected into parliament does not the influence of the 'spiritual' become increasingly more significant in ways 'we' are not used to ?Not really. Could you point to any decision in the House of Commons where 'you' see this?
What bit of my proposal that we bin the House ofFirst paragraph. I'm actually paying you a complement. The only reasonable attack on privilege is an attack on all privilege in an organisation. That is the NSS dilemma.PrivilegesLords are you not getting?
Don't be silly: the 'spiritual' are perfectly free to present themselves for election where in their manifestos they can set out their specifically spiritual political agenda and compete alongside non-spiritual candidates for election: I understand this approach is known as democracy.
Not really. Could you point to any decision in the House of Commons where 'you' see this?what do you mean 'not really' ? what about in 10 , 15 ,20 years time when the Muslim population in Britain has significantly expanded and topics like sharia law is voted on in parliament , for instance . And Muslim schools become the norm.
You were the one who raised the issue of the Lords being representative of society:Bishops represent ultimately their parishes.
'what is optimal is the representation of peoples lives at the highest level.' (your quote)
What I have used are the standard demographic measures, which are routinely used to determine whether one group might be representative of broader society, namely:
Gender (over 90% male)
Race (over 90% white)
Sexuality (100% heterosexual)
Religion (100% CofE)
Measure of elitism/privilege (vast majority private school and/or Oxbridge educated)
I haven't include the other 2 standard ones, namely:
Age (Bishops are a hugely narrow demographic, all are in late 50s/early mid 60s)
Disability (no idea)
The Lords Spiritual do not 'look' like broader society, they do not represent broader society (they don't even represent broader christian society) and broader society doesn't want them there.
what do you mean 'not really' ? what about in 10 , 15 ,20 years time when the Muslim population in Britain has significantly expanded and topics like sharia law is voted on in parliament , for instance . And Muslim schools become the norm.So to protect democracy you want to destroy it - I note that you didn't answer the question but indulged in a little swivel eyed paranoia.
The teaching of evolution becomes a debate, and so on ... That's what I see .
Tell me I'm wrong .... PLEASE
Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The move should be away from all religious faiths, not a greater influence of one which would take us back into far greater restrictions on human rights, civil liberties, etc; that is in my, strongly held, opinion.
I shal not be alive to see such an event, but I hope my granddaughters and their future families will not have to see such a step back.
ETA Posted before reading Walter's post above.
Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The move should be away from all religious faiths, not a greater influence of one which would take us back into far greater restrictions on human rights, civil liberties, etc; that is in my, strongly held, opinion.
I shal not be alive to see such an event, but I hope my granddaughters and their future families will not have to see such a step back.
ETA Posted before reading Walter's post above.
First paragraph. I'm actually paying you a complement. The only reasonable attack on privilege is an attack on all privilege in an organisation. That is the NSS dilemma.How does it restrict the role of religion in parliament when those who can participate in all positions are religious and some positions cannot be for the non religious?
Of course the religious who wish to enter the commons have to stand for election and would have at most the same chance as any independent or minor party in our system.
They cannot enter the House of Lords on a spiritual ticket because there are only 26 and therefore can only get in on a secular ticket. I think we can already see that the current system looks set up to restrict the role of religion in parliament.
The House of Lords at present is set up to preserve what they call ''independence of thought'' from party politics and the Bishops provide part of that. As a check on government excess that is a good thing. Under your totally elected parliament ''independence of thought'' would be subsumed under FPTP and the party system. Independent groups and individuals of sufficient power and influence to fend off party political influence help to maintain ''independence of thought''.
Finally a full secularism these days means atheist paradigm secularism. This is how organisations like NSS have to work by trying to lobby wider secular society in order to reinforce atheist secularism.
Oh yes, they really wielded their total theocratic power there didn't they!
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/7-june/news/uk/bishops-gather-in-lords-to-vote-against-gay-marriage-bill
So to protect democracy you want to destroy it - I note that you didn't answer the question but indulged in a little swivel eyed paranoia.I think you'll find , even though my eyes may swivel, as you call it , at least they are open . Why do 'you' not see what I see ? perhaps your eyes are blinded by 'snowflakes' .
Oh yes, they really wielded their total theocratic power there didn't they!Who has said it's a theocracy - oh that's right no one. Stop lying
I think you'll find , even though my eyes may swivel, as you call it , at least they are open . Why do 'you' not see what I see ? perhaps your eyes are blinded by 'snowflakes' .More ranting and avoiding the question. This is the same stuff that was used about RCs and atheists.
Perhaps in a hundred years time the historians (the ones who are free to write the truth) will be writing about how our own democracy was complicit in it's own downfall
please explain why I'm wrong ,I really hope I am
How does it restrict the role of religion in parliament when those who can participate in all positions are religious and some positions cannot be for the non religious?Because in a secular society religious parties are always going to be minority parties and minority parties in our system have no hope of power. As Alistair Campbell put it mainly concerning the labour party .''We don't do religion''
Not really. Could you point to any decision in the House of Commons where 'you' see this?No, because I'm not privy to all that goes on .
First paragraph. I'm actually paying you a complement. The only reasonable attack on privilege is an attack on all privilege in an organisation. That is the NSS dilemma.
Of course the religious who wish to enter the commons have to stand for election and would have at most the same chance as any independent or minor party in our system.
They cannot enter the House of Lords on a spiritual ticket because there are only 26 and therefore can only get in on a secular ticket. I think we can already see that the current system looks set up to restrict the role of religion in parliament.
The House of Lords at present is set up to preserve what they call ''independence of thought'' from party politics and the Bishops provide part of that. As a check on government excess that is a good thing. Under your totally elected parliament ''independence of thought'' would be subsumed under FPTP and the party system. Independent groups and individuals of sufficient power and influence to fend off party political influence help to maintain ''independence of thought''.
Finally a full secularism these days means atheist paradigm secularism. This is how organisations like NSS have to work by trying to lobby wider secular society in order to reinforce atheist secularism.
NS
I added the 'in my opinion' because I knew you would respond as you did.
I am neither going to follow the link nor respond.
Because in a secular society religious parties are always going to be minority parties and minority parties in our system have no hope of power. As Alistair Campbell put it mainly concerning the labour party .''We don't do religion''
The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religion.
Bishops represent ultimately their parishes.Bishops do not represent anyone who isn't a member of the CofE. The Bishop in my local area doesn't represent me as I am not a member of his organisation. You cannot unilaterally dictate that you represent someone unless that individual agrees to that representation in some manner.
What is your evidence for your last paragraph please?The language of secularism is atheist, The secularism which is pursued is that of the prominent secularists who are atheist to a man.
Because in a secular society religious parties are always going to be minority parties and minority parties in our system have no hope of power. As Alistair Campbell put it mainly concerning the labour party .''We don't do religion''
The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religion.
I genuinely see no real difference between the idea of taking time to pause and reflect and inner stillness when trying to resolve a serious issue. Both descriptions suggest the same thing surely, i.e. that we should try to take an important decision separate from any undue emotional overtones, so that a balanced decision has the best chance possible of being achieved.As regards your first comment, the descriptions 'pause and reflect' and 'inner stillness with awareness' do suggest the same thing. The only difference might be the length of the pause and how quickly the awareness gets absorbed in the reflection. As regards your second comment, yes, it is likely that the motive of prayer is going to be self centred rather than self surrender. It was something Jesus faced in his depressed state before the final curtain and prayed, which I would paraphrase, this way:O God, if it is possible, let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will. If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so.
The alternative of praying, as I see it, has the possible unfortunate consequence of relying on whatever you think God is supposed to want. Indeed, the very act of praying may arouse all sorts of emotions, some of which may be helpful, but just as easily may be counterproductive.
The language of secularism is atheist,
The secularism which is pursued is that of the prominent secularists who are atheist to a man.
Of the two the former is most important since there is an increasing acceptance that an understanding of religious viewpoints should wither. Many prominent secularists actively encourage ignorance of religion.
Atheist secularism, modern secularism talks atheist and seeks to make people think atheist.
No, because I'm not privy to all that goes on .So you ask if I am worried about some Muslims being elected now, and when I say not really and ask you to provide evidence of what is happening in the H0C to back you up, you have no evidence,
there, I've answered your question . It has no bearing on future proceedings
Bishops do not represent anyone who isn't a member of the CofE. The Bishop in my local area doesn't represent me as I am not a member of his organisation. You cannot unilaterally dictate that you represent someone unless that individual agrees to that representation in some manner.The bishops represent the spiritual, the contemplation of what it's all about. I have no objection to ''Lord'' Keith being in that number.
You could just as easily claim that Keith Porteous Wood represents you Vlad, as he is the President of a National organisation, so therefore must represent everyone in the nation.
The language of secularism is atheist...
Evidence lease.Refer to Julian Baggini's articles on secularism in the Guardian and the commentaries.
Evidence please.
Evidence please.
Evidence please.
Didn't say anything about religious parties. Please reread the question and answer what was asked not some other non existent question.Parties, individuals it doesn't matter since independent candidates do not fair any better than minority parties.
The bishops represent the spiritual ...But a moment ago you claimed that:
In which Vladdo presumably hopes that telling the same lie often enough will eventually make it true.How can secularism be indifferent to atheism when it speaks in the language of atheism and as you frequently demonstrate antitheism?
Secularism of course is entirely indifferent to the arguments of theism, of atheism or of any other -ism (except perhaps separation-of-church-and-state-ism).
But a moment ago you claimed that:Are people not spiritual?
'Bishops represent ultimately their parishes'
You do seem terribly confused.
The NSS is dually working to reinforce this system and excising the last vestige of religious privilege.
Regards ippy
Refer to Julian Baggini's articles on secularism in the Guardian and the commentaries.
How can secularism be indifferent to atheism when it speaks in the language of atheism and as you frequently demonstrate antitheism?
How can secularism be indifferent to atheism when it speaks in the language of atheism and as you frequently demonstrate antitheism?
Links please.I believe i've already provide them on this thread.
I believe i've already provide them on this thread.
So you ask if I am worried about some Muslims being elected now, and when I say not really and ask you to provide evidence of what is happening in the H0C to back you up, you have no evidence,you are deliberately misunderstanding my point for some reason not known to me .
you are deliberately misunderstanding my point for some reason not known to me .No, I think your point is merely a set of prejudices with no real evidence, which is based on an illogical position of denying democracy to support democracy.
It is very childish and annoying
PS I'm on on iPhone 4 at the moment in a lay-by so can't really engage as I would like
Are people not spiritual?I have no idea what the term means, it's all a bit raindrops on Moses, and whiskers on mittens.
So not only in support of religious privilege but closed minded to the effects. ; The vast majority of what people post here is in their opinion so we should on the basis of you position not actually have any discussionIf the long-time members of this forum, after all this time, think I am someone with a closed mind, well, theree's not much I can do about it! Just in case, though, I will point out that I do not have a closed mind.
No, I think your point is merely a set of prejudices with no real evidence, which is based on an illogical position of denying democracy to support democracy.you call it prejudices , I call it awareness
Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
you call it prejudices , I call it awareness
You say illogical position , I say hiding your head in the sand denial
The current special status of the CofE predates more recent social trends involving non-Christian religious affiliations, and as far as I can see having 26 'Lords Spiritual' is an irrelevance in terms of countering any supposed influences from other religions and especially since, it seems to me the CofE, are more interested in protecting and maintaining their own special status and getting to put crowns on the heads of equally useless monarchs every now and then. Moreover, the special status of the CofE is already 'broke' since they sit in a UK as opposed to exclusively English parliament and are therefore irrelevant to those of us in Scotland, in that the main Scottish protestant organisation (the Church of Scotland) isn't affiliated to the CofE.
I can't see why the CofE can't operate on the same basis as the CofS does, and if the CofE are seen to represent Christians who are members of the CofE (or denominations affiliated to the CofE) then I can't see that they can be said to represent Christians of other denominations or any non-Christians - so they are now are representing a declining constituency but have a disproportionate influence in UK political governance arrangements. That needs fixing.
I have n idea what the term means, it's all a bit raindrops on Moses, and whiskers on mittens.Quite, and just because many people consider themselves to be spiritual (but certainly not all) that doesn't mean that the CofE somehow represents them. If their 'spirituality' aligned with that of the CofE then surely they'd choose to become members of the CofE, i.e. on their so-called electoral roll. But over 98% of people in the UK, whether spiritual or not, have chosen not to be included on the CofE electoral roll. So how on earth can it be claimed that CofE Bishops 'represent' them when they have taken the decision not to be part of that organisation.
If the long-time members of this forum, after all this time, think I am someone with a closed mind, well, theree's not much I can do about it! Just in case, though, I will point out that I do not have a closed mind.Which is not exactly evidenced by refusal to look at links or discuss thngs
I agree with nearly all that you say, but since things are not going to happen as straightforwardly and securely as you propose, I'll take the status quo rather than any kind of a vacuum or not fully evaluated steps into too much uncertainty.
Sometimes though it needs revolution and not evolution to change things, and especially where the status quo seems to be justified only by fallacious arguments from authority and tradition: the status quo is undemocratic and anachronistic and in my view the best approach would be to simply bin the HoL and the monarchy, since the positions of the 'Lords Spiritual', the established status of the CofE and the monarchy are all intertwined.Okay, so what is your thought out, practical, available for immediate setting up, plan - which of course would have to be readily accepted by all?
Okay, so what is your thought out, practical, available for immediate setting up, plan - which of course would have to be readily accepted by all?
There isn't one, is there?! :)
Say that last sentence with stress on isn't and is
Have read the Baggini articles and they seem pretty reasonable to me. There are certainly extremists who go beyond true secularism, but that doesn't mean the extreme voice is the vouce of secularism. As I said earlier it is important not to view secularism as atheism or antitheism. Sounds a similar argument to people saying religious extremists don't represent the true voice of the religion doesn't it.The very fact that Baggini has to write them indicates that there is a problem over what he terms as neutrality.
The articles don't really give any evidence that secularism is atheistic,and nor have you. I amsure you can gind dome examples but where is theevidence that this is the main stream view?
Just checking in again to see whether Vladdo has worked out yet his category error problem of comparing theism (a set of beliefs and practices) with secularism (the separation of those beliefs and practices from access by right to the offices of state).Well me.
Ah, and that’s a “no” then. It’s getting weirder now though – if, say, enough RCs (or leprechaunists for that matter) stood in an election and won the majority of seats there’s nothing about secularism that would stop them from forming the majority party in the House of Commons. And if they stayed there long enough there’s nothing to stop them from eventually nominating so many co-religionists for the HoL that they would form the majority there too.
The NSS is of course doing no such thing – to the contrary it expressly protects the rights of those with any religion as well as those with none. What the NSS does do though is to campaign against special privileges being given to any of them by right in the offices and instruments of state.
And who could argue with that?
Well me.Why?
Every apparently innocuous statement above would be undone if the NSS were to be successful in the separation of church from state as defined by people like yoursel' Hillside.
Okay, so what is your thought out, practical, available for immediate setting up, plan - which of course would have to be readily accepted by all?
There isn't one, is there?! :)
Say that last sentence with stress on isn't and is
Why?Because the term state means public forum and the word church is the religious.
Well me.
Every apparently innocuous statement above would be undone if the NSS were to be successful in the separation of ''church'' from ''state'' as defined by people like yoursel' Hillside.
Because the term state means public forum and the word church is the religious.
If you have different interpretations of those words lets here them now since you seem to be in denial over any problems with the interpretation of the term neutrality which I think deserves more attention than a ''pull yourselves together, religionists''.
No idea: it would be a major change that is clearly beyond my competence to determine.I'd don't think you have no idea, I think you would just have elected representatives where a majority party could rule unencumbered or unscrutinised.
However, I'd argue that it should be within the wit of our elected representatives to consult and come up with a set of proposals that would revise current political governance arrangements that will include: the removal of the HoL, the removal of the special status of the CofE and the abandonment of monarchy - where the presumption would be that any new arrangements will involve democratic elections for all governance positions, where this may also provide the opportunity to consider replacing the FPP electoral system with an alternative.
Things can change though: Brexit is the obvious example of fairly rapid and significant political change, as was the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 (where elections to it use a form of proportional representation).
And whammo he goes straight in with the next lie. "Public forum and "offices of state" are clearly not the same thing at all.You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious. So for him then separation of church and state means exclusion of religious people from the state.
In which Vladdo fails to grasp that the "problem" is that he's just making up his own meanings again.
You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious. So for him then separation of church and state means exclusion of religious people from the state.What a ridiculous statement.
Sometimes though it needs revolution and not evolution to change things, and especially where the status quo seems to be justified only by fallacious arguments from authority and tradition: the status quo is undemocratic and anachronistic and in my view the best approach would be to simply bin the HoL and the monarchy, since the positions of the 'Lords Spiritual', the established status of the CofE and the monarchy are all intertwined.
So now all Vladdo has to explain is why on earth he thinks that. As many theists actively support the secular state it's hard to imagine why he feels excluded from the same position.Do they know what you have in mind though Hillside?
Because the term state means public forum and the word church is the religious.That reads once again as if you are answering a completely different question. That said I would suggest your odd and bizarre definitions are unhelpful.
If you have different interpretations of those words lets here them now since you seem to be in denial over any problems with the interpretation of the term neutrality which I think deserves more attention than a ''pull yourselves together, religionists''.
You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious.
So for him then separation of church and state means exclusion of religious people from the state.
Another thing…
…we have to challenge this wolfinsheepsclothingism on is where he gets offices of state from. Is he equating the state with the offices thereof? What does Mr Wolf consider the offices of state are?
And your plan to maintain religious privilege isn't readily acceptable to all, is it?That's rubbish - probably one of those non sequiturs.
Nor was getting rid of slavery, so on the basis of your position above you would have opposed getting rid of that.
That's rubbish - probably one of those non sequiturs.
Could we perhaps have a face palm emoji added to this mb? What kind of church would it be that isn’t religious I wonder? They’re synonymous FFS!I don't think it makes sense to say church/religious are synonymous. Is Rhiannon's paganism - church?
What a ridiculous statement.I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.
An analogy:
I equate football teams with football supporters. So if I think that there should be a separation of Manchester United and the state, does that mean exclusion of Manchester United fans (let alone football supporters) from the state.
And of course the vast majority of people who claim to be religious aren't members of the CofE.
I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.Does he?
Could we perhaps have a face palm emoji added to this mb? What kind of church would it be that isn’t religious I wonder? They’re synonymous FFS!Hopefully everyone has seen through this right?
And the lies keep on coming…
…lest anyone be taken in by Vladdo’s latest mendacity what secularism actually entails is just the removal of access by right of the religious to the offices of state. Billy Graham could preach on the street corner or fill Wembley stadium as much as he liked (public fora). What he couldn’t do though was to determine by right the content of school science curricula, the guidelines of the NHS on issues like abortion etc.
And that's secularism.
In which Vladdo fails to grasp that he can’t have “another thing” when his attempt at a first thing has just collapsed so abjectly.
NURSE! HE’S DOING IT AGAIN! NURSE!!!!!
Does he?Ask him.
Ask him.
Ask him.You made the claim.
I don't think it makes sense to say church/religious are synonymous. Is Rhiannon's paganism - church?
What he couldn’t do though was to determine by right the content of school science curricula, the guidelines of the NHS on issues like abortion etc.How can 26 Lords do that?
I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.
In which Vladdo continues his old practice of quote doctoring - in this case by conveniently removing the "by right" at the end.BHS - apparently it is my job to ask you (heaven knows why).
NS,Don't see where that addresses the issue that there are religious people for which none of that fits. Church is surely about institution as opposed to what an individual is?
Is it religious? C’mon now, for the purpose of Vlad’s latest ludicrousness (“You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious”) of course there’s no problem with equating the two. If “synonymous” is insufficiently precise to deal with exceptions, “equated” with is unarguable I’d have thought.
Here’s the first online definition of “church” I found:
noun
1.a building for public Christian worship.
2.public worship of God or a religious service in such a building: to attend church regularly.
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) the whole body of Christian believers; Christendom.
4.(sometimes initial capital letter) any division of this body professing the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority; a Christian denomination:
the Methodist Church.
5.that part of the whole Christian body, or of a particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation, etc.
6.a body of Christians worshipping in a particular building or constituting one congregation: She is a member of this church.
7.ecclesiastical organization, power, and affairs, as distinguished from the state:separation of church and state; The missionary went wherever the church sent him.
Does he?
BHS - apparently it is my job to ask you (heaven knows why).
So perhaps you could confirm please:
Do you think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office?
I suspect a single word answer will suffice (maybe even just 2 letters).
It's your statement that he has said it. Where?Reply #693
Ask him.I have.
I have.Bollocks!
He has indicated clearly that he doesn't think that being religious should disqualify someone from holding public office.
I suggest you owe him the courtesy of an apology and for you to retract your assertion.
Reply #693No he didn't.
Reply #693
Don't see where that addresses the issue that there are religious people for which none of that fits. Church is surely about institution as opposed to what an individual is?
One mo' time........... He is quite clear on the grounds he would exclude religious people from public office.
You mean this - that doesn't say that
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15210.675
One mo' time........... He is quite clear on the grounds he would exclude religious people from public office.No, he isn't - he raises that there are questions, some of which I disagree with, but it doesn't make that categorical statement that religious people should be excluded from office
NS,No, that's nonsensical if two things are not synonymous, and in this case it isn't, you are merely falling into Vlad's incorrect definition.
It addresses it because, as I said, “synonymous” is wrong in certain cases but for the purpose of the point he was attempting (“You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious”) of course there’s no problem with “equating church with the religious”. Why? Because that’s what “church” entails.
If you have a church that isn’t religious, then it’s not a church.
No, he isn't - he raises that there are questions, some of which I disagree with, but it doesn't make that categorical statement that religious people should be excluded from officeI'm sorry but he does say this and I quote
I think Hillside has made it quite clear on the grounds he thinks disqualify religious people from holding public office.
I'm sorry but he does say this and I quoteWhich doesn't make the statement that religious people should be prevented from holding office as a blanket statement. nor that it is a ban on religion but on beliefs. If was your religious belief that you should be able to have sex with a 6 year old child, I would want you banned from being a teacher, just the same as if someone had a non religious belief on that
''OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs.''
Vladdo,Do you think that anybody who prays for guidance should be prime minister?
So where in Reply 693 do I say that?
Are you trying to say that I think there are some roles in public office that people with some some religious views shouldn't hold?
Damn right I do - the end of times enthusiast nuclear button officer being one of them. And so I presume do you.
At no time though have I even suggested that religious people in general should be barred from public office in general, as you well know.
No, that's nonsensical if two things are not synonymous, and in this case it isn't, you are merely falling into Vlad's incorrect definition.
One mo' time........... He is quite clear on the grounds he would exclude religious people from public office.He doesn't - even if he thought in those specific circumstance that those individual religious people were not suited to hold public office, that doesn't mean that he thinks all religious people should be excluded from public office.
Do you think that anybody who prays for guidance should be prime minister?
Which doesn't make the statement that religious people should be prevented from holding office as a blanket statement. nor that it is a ban on religion but on beliefs. If was your religious belief that you should be able to have sex with a 6 year old child, I would want you banned from being a teacher, just the same as if someone had a non religious belief on thatHillside's potential banees include evangelicals who look forward to the end times and people who seek guidance in prayer. He even challenges people to disagree that these people be excluded from public office. All within the context of excluding people who are religious.
Hillside's potential banees include evangelicals who look forward to the end times and people who seek guidance in prayer. He even challenges people to disagree that these people be excluded from public office. All within the context of excluding people who are religious.
You see this is what secularism is these days....a council of atheists deciding what's acceptible and what isn't.
You are getting horribly confused,you are making a pigs ear of your argument. I represent the status quo and it's up to you guys to pursuade me that change works.
Susan Doris has expressed concern at partly thought through arguments and the unintended consequences of change.
I've said all I want to on this.
Hillside's potential banees include evangelicals who look forward to the end times and people who seek guidance in prayer. He even challenges people to disagree that these people be excluded from public office. All within the context of excluding people who are religious.And yet again this seems to answer some different point to what was made,, and ignore the one that was made. I note that you represent privilege and want to support it, and to enshrine the homophobia of the bishops. The status quo argument doesn't work because it's a position that needs to be justified as ell, As pointed out to SusanDoris, it would have worked to keep slavery - and unless you would have voted for the status quo there ypur use of the argument here is logically inconsistent
You see this is what secularism is these days....a council of atheists deciding what's acceptible and what isn't.
You are getting horribly confused,you are making a pigs ear of your argument. I represent the status quo and it's up to you guys to pursuade me that change works.
Susan Doris has expressed concern at partly thought through arguments and the unintended consequences of change.
I've said all I want to on this.
And the lies keep on coming. I actually suggested "banees" only from certain jobs (pressing the nuclear button for example), not from public office in general.Surely though is the statement was made that you support religious people being banned from public office and you were asked your position, then your answer would be Yes, in certain circumstances? Not ON as you stated earlier.
So about that apology?
And the lies keep on coming. I actually suggested "banees" only from certain jobs (pressing the nuclear button for example), not from public office in general.I apologise if I gave the impression that you would not consider redeploying people to lower more menial roles in public office as you made clear in your original essay.
So about that apology?
Surely though is the statement was made that you support religious people being banned from public office and you were asked your position, then your answer would be Yes, in certain circumstances? Not ON as you stated earlier.
I apologise if I gave the impression that you would not consider redeploying people to lower more menial roles in public office as you made clear in your original essay.
Surely though is the statement was made that you support religious people being banned from public office and you were asked your position, then your answer would be Yes, in certain circumstances? Not ON as you stated earlier.He was responding to me - the question being:
Do you think that anybody who prays for guidance should be prime minister?certainly not . No
certainly not . NoWhat public jobs should the religious be allowed?
What public jobs should the religious be allowed?can't think of one . I'll get back to you .
can't think of one . I'll get back to you .That's Jolly D of you.
NS,The problem is that you seem t be making it about the religious belief rather just the belief, i.e the second part of my example of paedophilia is not about religion,
First, the statement was made that I’d said something I hadn’t said at all. That was the initial misrepresentation part (something he does a lot by the way, along with quote doctoring, straw man knitting etc). That's a stand alone issue.
Second, if the question then becomes: “OK so that’s not what you said at all but what do you think anyway?” then I’d be happy to answer. The answer is, "no of course I don’t support the banning of religious people in general from public office in general. What I actually support is the banning of people with certain religious beliefs from certain public sector jobs.
If Vlad actually thought about it (yeah I know, but hey) so does he. He wouldn’t for example permit the Mullah who heads up ISIS to be a fighter pilot in the RAF and nor, to take your example, would he permit the person who thinks sex with a children is a religious obligation to be a teacher.
What public jobs should the religious be allowed?
That's Jolly D of you.ah! I've got one ;
I suppose it's more than we can hope for to get a list from you.
The actual question is, “which religious beliefs and which public office job combinations should be kept apart?”
ah! I've got one ;Master has been kind to Dobby, Master has allowed Dobby Christmas!!!
Putting up the towns Christmas decorations in December . Oh , and taking them down again in January.
I suppose it's more than we can hope for to get a list from you.As I raised and you answered some different issue though there are certain beliefs that yu would surely believe cause issues with certain appointments, such as the right to have sex with 5 year olds for a primary school teacher?
Walter has offered the first contribution to what I'm sure will be the great opus of the atheist paradigm in secularism.
As I raised and you answered some different issue though there are certain beliefs that yu would surely believe cause issues with certain appointments, such as the right to have sex with 5 year olds for a primary school teacher?Ive just censored my response to that....... but it was bloody funny
The problem is that you seem t be making it about the religious belief rather just the belief, i.e the second part of my example of paedophilia is not about religion,
The very fact that Baggini has to write them indicates that there is a problem over what he terms as neutrality.
I am perhaps a bit more read on Baggini but in an item where he quotes Rawls on the language of secularism, Baggini suggests IMV that eventually everyone has to settle on the same language and that is not religious. Baggini IMV supports this by saying that the majority are not religious so that dictates the language of secularism. That is rot since for secularism to work we cannot remain lazily ignorant of the different views or languages of those views because we are waiting for the other party to make their views comprehensible to us. I cannot afford the time to wade back through Baggini so any links are going to have to wait.
NS,This seems to be a different set of questions. The point surely is that the holding of certain beliefs and stating them openly would preclude someone from holding certain positions in the opinion of both you and Vlad? Given that concentrating on them being religious and whether or not someone says you should respect them because of religion, or in the case of non religious beliefs because they are right, seems irrelevant,
But it could be, and the issue is about religious beliefs specifically. If a would-be teacher is just a flat our paedophile then there’s no discussion. If though he said, “it’s an article of my faith that paedophilia is an obligation I must follow and you must privilege that belief because it’s religious” then the only answer would be, “no chance son”.
But then what? Should the state be in the business of deciding which religions are ok and which beyond the pale, or should it just say that no religious special interest group should have access by right (ie, the critical bit Vlad keeps doctoring out) to the offices of state and be done with it?
This seems to be a different set of questions. The point surely is that the holding of certain beliefs and stating them openly would preclude someone from holding certain positions in the opinion of both you and Vlad? Given that concentrating on them being religious and whether or not someone says you should respect them because of religion, or in the case of non religious beliefs because they are right, seems irrelevant,
NS,But you were stating that due to certain religious beliefs you think people should excluded from certain roles, and that is the question I am discussing with you. Again I think you and Vlad would agree that certain beliefs are problematic, whether they are religious or not, and that it makes more sense to talk about those beliefs without the qualification of religious, unless you are actually advocating that the state precisely intervenes because of the religious beliefs that you think should preclude people from holding certain offices.
Not only is it not irrelevant, it’s the whole point. If someone thinks that religious special interest groups should have privileged access by right to the offices of state then the content of those beliefs doesn’t matter – the entry ticket is just, “That’s my religious belief” and they’re in.
That leaves the state with two options: either to embark on the shifting sands of which religious beliefs are ok and which aren’t, or to say that no religious special interest group (whether CofE or any other) should have this privileged access by right – ie, secularism.
Look, let's stop beating about the Bush.Leaving aside your continued misuse of agnostic, your logic means that since some religious people murder people for being gay, what the theism is all about is murdering gay people.
Hillside would forbid everyone who prays to another authority than appealing to their own brain or say, a Matt Dillahunty from being prime minister.
That leaves Atheists in charge since presumably agnostics might sneak in a prayer on the off chance. We thus arrive at what this is about. The Atheocracy.
Leaving aside your continued misuse of agnostic, your logic means that since some religious people murder people for being gay, what the theism is all about is murdering gay people.Does it I don't recall having you in mind. Did I mention you? I have never said all atheists want an Atheocracy but evidently, some do. Therefore the destination of some atheists on this thread is the atheocracy.
Does it I don't recall having you in mind. Did I mention you? I have never said all atheists want an Atheocracy but evidently, some do. Therefore the destination of some atheists on this thread is the atheocracy.
Does it I don't recall having you in mind. Did I mention you? I have never said all atheists want an Atheocracy but evidently, some do. Therefore the destination of some atheists on this thread is the atheocracy.You are using the term in such a general way that that is the clear implication. And I take it you are accepting that you have been continually misusing agnostic?
But you were stating that due to certain religious beliefs you think people should excluded from certain roles, and that is the question I am discussing with you. Again I think you and Vlad would agree that certain beliefs are problematic, whether they are religious or not, and that it makes more sense to talk about those beliefs without the qualification of religious, unless you are actually advocating that the state precisely intervenes because of the religious beliefs that you think should preclude people from holding certain offices.
To take an example it would appear that because my old sainted mother prays, you wouldn't want her to be allowed to be Prime Minister.
NS,
No, this is the same mistake Vlad keeps making: conflating the content of the religious claim with the privileged status given to such claims as a package (in this case the “package” being the suite of CofE beliefs mostly).
Think of it as akin to diplomatic immunity. You and I get fined for parking on a double yellow, the ambassador for Nowherestan doesn’t because his behaviours are afforded special privileges – ie, protected status. That’s the point – to take the earlier example, if Joe Bloggs the paedophile wants to be a teacher there’s no chance; if the Very Rev Joe Bloggs wants to promote his views, to have special schools for them, to have open access to the media then come right on in. In other words, once his beliefs are wrapped in a box and sealed he gets to use them from a privileged position that by right wouldn’t be afforded to someone else. (Yes I know of course that would never happen if the belief happened to be as extreme as paedophilia but it’s the principle I’m after here. That said, diplomatic immunity for the Vatican for example seems to do an effective job of keeping pederast priests from the law.)
To be frank, I really don’t know. Was it Ronald or Nancy Reagan who invited fortune tellers the White House? WTF? How about Mike Pence reportedly thinking he hears Jesus tell him what to do?
How do you sort the (no doubt entirely benign and delightful) NS’s Mum from the fruit loops for this purpose?
A: Do you hear voices in your head?
B: Yes.
A: Next!
A: Do you head voices in your head?
B: Yes, but I’m part of a religion.
A: What colour would you like the Oval Office?
Dear Thread,The word exists.
Atheocracy, that's a new word, I will watch, see how it develops, but I doubt it will enter the Oxford!
Gonnagle.
The word exists.
And in a manner I am glad Vlad has used the term - mainly because it allows us to put clear blue water between Vlad's vision of a totalitarian state that is anti religion, which would be an atheocracy on the one hand, and a secular state which is none of those things on the other. Vlad seem to think that a secular state is an atheocracy - it isn't. Indeed an atheocracy is just as much anathema to a secular state as a theocracy is.
Umpty dumpty dumpteen posts and he still can't or refuses to get it, looks like a waste of time to me.Indeed - but at least we now have a word for what Vlad thinks (wrongly) a secular state is.
Regards ippy
The word exists.Professor Davey cannot, it seems to me grasp that there are fellow atheist who would not allow theists to hold executive positions in Government. That is de facto atheocracy, unless of course they elevate the blessed agnostics to some kind of priestly ruling caste.
And in a manner I am glad Vlad has used the term - mainly because it allows us to put clear blue water between Vlad's vision of a totalitarian state that is anti religion, which would be an atheocracy on the one hand, and a secular state which is none of those things on the other. Vlad seem to think that a secular state is an atheocracy - it isn't. Indeed an atheocracy is just as much anathema to a secular state as a theocracy is.
Professor Davey cannot, it seems to me grasp that there are fellow atheist who would not allow theists to hold executive positions in Government. That is de facto atheocracy, unless of course they elevate the blessed agnostics to some kind of priestly ruling caste.
We already have a secular state.
Professor Davey cannot, it seems to me grasp that there are fellow atheist who would not allow theists to hold executive positions in Government. That is de facto atheocracy, unless of course they elevate the blessed agnostics to some kind of priestly ruling caste.
We already have a secular state.
Without resorting to google or wiki, what’s an agnostic?What John Humphrys identifies as. Part of which I understand is "failed atheist".
What John Humphrys identifies as. Part of which I understand is "failed atheist".
But what do you think it means?I mentioned it half jokingly to show how Atheocrats might justify that belief and rebuff criticism.
I mentioned it half jokingly to show how Atheocrats might justify that belief and rebuff criticism.
No they might say. It wouldn't be an atheocracy because agnostics could rule too and anyway since we are agnostic atheists we can never be guilty of wanting an atheocracy. What we want hasn't got a name and we can talk our way out of criticism so theists shouldn't be put in ruling positions.
And yes I am lampooning atheocratic argument.
But what do you think it means?What John Humphrys thinks it is.
What John Humphrys thinks it is.
Which is?Neither an atheist or a theist
Neither an atheist or a theist
Ah right, so neither you or John Humphries undersrand what agnistic means then.Oh go on then, not that it matters since anyone wanting theists out of ruling office is an atheocrat.
Neither an atheist or a theistWrong - I am both an atheist and agnostic, as I suspect are many others here. There will also be plenty of theist agnostics here too.
Wrong - I am both an atheist and agnostic, as I suspect are many others here. There will also be plenty of theist agnostics here too.You may well be that Dave, but what about agnostics who do not identify as atheist? Tell me that.
You may well be that Dave, but what about agnostics who do not identify as atheist? Tell me that.They exist too, but that is irrelevant.
You may well be that Dave, but what about agnostics who do not identify as atheist? Tell me that.
It really isn't making the sane mistake as Vlad because at no point have I argued treating beliefs differently if they are religious beliefs vs non religious beliefs.
I am afraid that from the opposite viewpoint from Vlad, it's youwho mirror him.
That's the reason why I am arguing with both of you here because you each want to privilege a set of beliefs, simply because they are religious versus non religious.
Well at least you have me thinking, just been on the NSS web site.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2018/02/sturgeons-praise-for-catholic-schools-will-exacerbate-scotlands-tribal-divisions
But their head line got me me thinking "150 YEARS OF CHALLENGING RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE" that long, wow!! ( that's a sarcastic wow by the way )
Oh go on then, not that it matters since anyone wanting theists out of ruling office is an atheocrat.
Seriously, we’re back to terminology again?Oh supersecularscientismicexpiatheocrat
I’m an atheist because I’ve never seen an argument for god(s) that isn’t broken, so I have no reason to think they exist.
I’m an agnostic because the claim “God” seems to me to be unknowable.
I’m an ignostic because I have no idea what the people who assert “God” mean by it (and nor it seems have they).
I’m an anti-theist because, whether true or not, it seems to me that more bad things than good happen when people do believe in god(s) and act on those beliefs (essentially because “faith” tends to create polarised and absolutist positions).
So what?
Is there anyi point in trying once again to explain it to you? You've never listened to or understood the explanation before so why would it beany different this time?What has this to do with the much vaunted atheocracy?
What has this to do with the much vaunted atheocracy?
As I've said before you can't go far wrong with Wikipedia.
In which Vladdo fails to recall that he consistently "goes wrong with Wikipedia" when he cites it and it actually contradicts the personal definitions of the terms he attempts.I think people can read Wikipedia and my posts for themselves thank you Hillside.
Sooo funny.
I think people can read Wikipedia and my posts for themselves thank you Hillside.
In which Vladdo fails to grasp that that that's his problem ;DIn which British Home Stores trots out his increasingly tiresome "In which..." line again, under the false belief that it's witty.
In which British Home Stores trots out his increasingly tiresome "In which..." line again, under the false belief that it's witty.
You're unable to differentiate between loss of privilege and persecution Vlad, they actually do differ.In terms of the HOL it depends on how you are represented. Most people are a bit confused here by electoral representation and the House of Lords.
Be as religious as you like but don't expect any privileges purely given to those of us that chose to believe in one or the other of the religions, nor should anyone else be awarded any privileges, in my book that amounts to a level playing field.
If you wish to add anything else to that such as my dislike of religious belief an loathing of those that teach religion to our very youngest children, feel free to do so but don't forget my personal views on and about religion, bear no relation to my secular views, they are two separate things.
You are entitled to have your religious views just I'm entitled to have mine, secularism puts both kinds of view on an equal footing, I really do think if you're unable to see this, counselling should be your next step, because it's you that have the problem not the rest of the posters that are trying, unsuccessfully, to enlighten you to the mutual benefits of having and living in a secular world.
Regards ippy
In terms of the HOL it depends on how you are represented. Most people are a bit confused here by electoral representation and the House of Lords.
In other words in the House of Lords other aspects of life are represented. If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.
If the spiritual aspect of our culture is not represented than that is de facto an atheist base on which we are governed.
If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO ...That is an assertion rather than a fact.
... THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.And why exactly is that not being represented by the, no doubt, numerous members of the Lords who are religious. There is no evidence , whatsoever, that religious people are under-represented in the Lords. What we are talking about is special automatic places for a the most senior members of just one religion. All sorts of other aspects of life should be represented in the Lords - however none are provided with automatic places.
NS,Ad in terms of the discussion I am having with you about your position on excluding people with certain religious views from certain offices, the privileging of religious views isn't relevant since we aren't disagreeing on that,
I haven’t suggested that you have, and it’s not relevant in any case. What I’m saying is that the content of a belief isn’t the issue – rather it’s the privileged status given to suites of religious beliefs in particular (for example the CofE ones) in civil society.
That’s not it at all. We all “mirror him” to the extent that we all think there are certain beliefs (and behaviours that follow) that we think shouldn’t be permissible. Sometimes those beliefs have no religious connotations (paedophile wanting to be a teacher), sometimes they do (ISIS Mullah wanting to joint the RAF). The point though concerns what happens when a society decides that those with one status (ie, the religious ones) should have special, privileged treatment over the others (ie, the non-religious ones).
That’s simply not true. What set of beliefs do you think I want to privilege given that every post I’ve made argues for removing them?
That is an assertion rather than a fact.I think you are dressing up an abolish the HOL argument as an antitheist argument which weirdly singles out spirituality.
And why exactly is that not being represented by the, no doubt, numerous members of the Lords who are religious. There is no evidence , whatsoever, that religious people are under-represented in the Lords. What we are talking about is special automatic places for a the most senior members of just one religion. All sorts of other aspects of life should be represented in the Lords - however none are provided with automatic places.
If you think that need to be represented equates to automatic places, then we need
Automatic guaranteed places for women
Automatic guaranteed places for every racial group
Automatic guaranteed places for LGBT
Automatic guaranteed places for every religion and non religious belief system
Automatic guaranteed places for vegetarians
Automatic guaranteed places for vegans
Automatic guaranteed places for flat-earthers
Automatic guaranteed places for climate change deniers
Automatic guaranteed places for environmentalists
Automatic guaranteed places for trade unions
Automatic guaranteed places for racists
etc, etc, etc
And (in the same manner as the Bishops) those automatic places should simply be allocated to leading members of completely separate organisations on the basis of their position within that organisation.
Problem is that rather than becoming more representative, the Lords would become less representative, as most of us do not feel we are defined by 'memberism' - i.e. the organisations we choose to become members of. And indeed many of the population (maybe most) aren't members of any of these organisations.
What you seem to be arguing is the equivalent that all other appointments are open to people of all races,including whites, but you want some set aside especially for white people that no one else can be appointed too because white people are what is representative of 'what it is that makes them fully human'Any number of people can be appointed to the House of Lords.
ETA The last part Is quote from Vlad's post reply756
'The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human.'
I think you are dressing up an abolish the HOL argument as an antitheist argument which weirdly singles out spirituality.The Bishops single themselves out as they are the only Lords appointed using a different system and the only ones appointed automatically on the basis of holding a role in a completely different organisation.
The hol does not represent you electorally Dave.
Any number of people can be appointed to the House of Lords.I see you avoided the point entirely. Just to reiterate this is what you are arguing;
Conceivably they could make everyone who wasn't a theist a Lord.
What privilege did you say you were lacking?
The Bishops single themselves out as they are the only Lords appointed using a different system and the only ones appointed automatically on the basis of holding a role in a completely different organisation.https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/27/house-of-lords-10-tips-entry-exclusive-club-honours-list
I do not think that Bishops should be banned from being members of the Lords - I simply think that they should be appointed using the same rules as everyone else.
I see you avoided the point entirely. Just to reiterate this is what you are arguing;I don't agree with your verdict of equivalence? All people are spiritual and secular therefore if the spiritual is unrepresented in the minute way it is then The HOL loses whatever claim to be representative.
'What you seem to be arguing is the equivalent that all other appointments are open to people of all races, including whites, but you want some set aside especially for white people that no one else can be appointed too because white people are what is representative of 'what it is that makes them fully human'
The last part Is quote from Vlad's post reply756
'The model of governed humanity which is represented in our system is that people have secular or temporal interests that are separate from their spirituality namely what it is that makes them fully human.'
Reread it and try and reply to it rather than avoid it.
I don't agree with your verdict of equivalence? All people are spiritual and secular therefore if the spiritual is unrepresented in the minute way it is then The HOL loses whatever claim to be representative.Not only does this again ignore the point but it's gibberish. You haven't addressed the issue just written something that says that all people are spiritual but if the spiritual people aren't represented specifically then they aren't represented - that's logical tripe on top of the avoidance
And we all just move closer to becoming a new human species ''Homo elect us''
In terms of the HOL it depends on how you are represented. Most people are a bit confused here by electoral representation and the House of Lords.
In other words in the House of Lords other aspects of life are represented. If we have a spiritual side and I THINK WE DO THEN THERE IS NO CASE FOR THAT NOT TO BE REPRESENTED in the House of Lords considering what is represented.
If the spiritual aspect of our culture is not represented than that is de facto an atheist base on which we are governed.
Ad in terms of the discussion I am having with you about your position on excluding people with certain religious views from certain offices, the privileging of religious views isn't relevant since we aren't disagreeing on that,
You have missed the point about ;mirroring' here. That you me and Vlad, I presume since he hasn't actually made any statement on it but evaded answering, would agree that believing that having sex with a 6 year old child is something that would preclude you from being a school teacher is not mirroring, It's just agreement.
The mirroring is that you seem to want to treat religious beliefs as some form of separate set which carry with it a stigma as opposed to Vlad's thinking they are about what it is to be fully human, and carrying a bonus
NS,I think it's a lot easier when one drops the 'religious' bit. If we go back to the person that believes they should be able to sleep with 5 year old children, it seems to me relatively easy to say, you aren't getting to be a primary school teacher - and then it doesn't matter if that belief is religious or not.
OK, then we were at cross purposes. My point was about not privileging religious beliefs and practices by right, on which I think we agree.
Necessarily excluding people from public office because they have religious beliefs is another matter, and not one to which there’s a straightforward answer (in my view). Clearly sometimes those beliefs will be anathema, sometimes they’ll make no difference. How you’d devise a policy to sort one from the other is anyone’s guess – extreme cases are easy, but what if someone in high office thinks he hears Jesus (or Zeus, or any other deity) telling him what to do? Well frankly yes – if I was king for a day I probably would bar them from that office. On the other hand if someone let it be known that he had religious faith but showed no sign of letting it override his evidence-based decision making, or if he couldn't do much harm either way then I’d probably be ok with it.
Yes I see what you’re saying now. They’re separate discussions though. Should special privileges be given because of religious affiliations? No they shouldn’t in my view, which makes me a secularist (an actual secularist, not Vlad's bogeyman version).
Should religious beliefs bar people from certain positions on the other hand? Not religious beliefs per se no in my view, but I think they sometimes should. When those “sometimes” should apply though is the hard bit – it depends on the harmfulness of the belief and the practical damage acting on it could do.
I see Vlad, you still don't get it; giving seats as of right to any section of the U K community, is a privilege, that's not my opinion it's a plain fact.All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?
Now as for representation, there's no ban on anyone here in the U K having or holding a religious belief, so those either elected or selected to sit in either of our two houses of parliament are vetted to see if they have a religious belief or not and there has to be a number of religious believers, non-believers and all of the shades in between, that being so there are representatives of the various religions around in both of the houses.
Why any of us here on this forum should need to explain these facts to you I don't know?
There can only be one of two reasons you're not getting it, is because : one you're as thick as two short planks, or, two, you're quite simply, I think, refusing to listen to reason no matter how well the reason is put to you.
Regards ippy
All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?
All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?
I think it's a lot easier when one drops the 'religious' bit. If we go back to the person that believes they should be able to sleep with 5 year old children, it seems to me relatively easy to say, you aren't getting to be a primary school teacher - and then it doesn't matter if that belief is religious or not.
That's where I see a problem with specifying 'religious; views because then it's about a classification that isn't as you note in itself important but in doing so it looks as if you are saying there is something significant about them being religious views.
I think you are dressing up an abolish the HOL argument as an antitheist argument which weirdly singles out spirituality.
The hol does not represent you electorally Dave.
All seats in the House of Lords are given Ippy. They are given to Lords temporal (as many as the PTB like) and lords spiritual (26). Therefore where is the privilege?Because white people can sit in all of them but not all non whites can in the equivalence you want to avoid in your support for apartheid.
Are you actually serious?yes, If the lords represent the temporal and spiritual then that is complete representation is it not. Take the spiritual away and you homoncularise society.
That's an indeterminate amount of seats given without any bias as far as religion goes and 26 that are given exclusively to one denomination of one religion - and you're asking where the privilege is?
Watch (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSvJaYxRoB4)
Secularism isn't antitheism. This is a secular argument not an antitheiost argument!Here's another one
Because white people can sit in all of them but not all non whites can in the equivalence you want to avoid in your support for apartheid.Nope all people are spiritual and deserve to be represented from a spiritual angle by people who are on a full time spiritual gig and have no interest other than spirituality. I think people recognise this. Why can't the National secularists?
Here's another one
725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.
Here's another one
725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.
751 seats available to members of the CofE, 725 available to everybody else.26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.
26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.
And still Vladdo can't grasp that there being no bar on people who call themselves "spiritual" (whatever that's supposed to mean) means they're already "represented" without needing to carve out specially reserved seats for them. There are countless other constituences, so what makes the "spiritual" one so special that it needs privileged rights the others don't have?Its not that they have religion or not Hillside. Its whether they are there as full time spiritual people representing spirituality. They provide what the house itself calls independence of thought against the Lords temporal who in turn represent secular interest and independent thought against the lords spiritual.
About that face palm emoji...
NS,
But isn’t the point that sometimes the person concerned will justify his belief and practice with, “because that’s my faith” as if that in some way validates it or makes it unarguable? As you know I’m all for a “so fucking what?” response to that, but there is I think a qualitative difference between someone who has an opinion on something and someone who believes it as an article of faith.
Treating them equally regardless of whether the people concerned attach the label “religious” to their beliefs is all too fine by me, but sometimes “I belong to X faith” is a short cut to knowing what their beliefs are – I’m not sure I’d want a JW in charge of the organ transplant or the blood donation service for example unless I knew for sure that he’d leave his religious beliefs at the door.
26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.
751 seats to those appointed not to reflect leprechaunology, 0 seats to those appointed to reflect leprechaunology.Are you talking about the Irish parliament?
Something should be done!
Will someone let me know please if ever it sinks in that they actually "represent" people, not special interest groups. Ta.
Nobody is appointed "not to reflect spirituality".Alright........ not appointed to reflect spirituality.
26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.No, all the seats can represent the 'spirituall' whatever that may be but 256 are specifically for the spiritual/white people who represent what it is to be fully human in your apartheid
Alright........ not appointed to reflect spirituality.Which means that those appointed to reflect what it is to be fully human in your apartheid state are privileged
Nobody is appointed "not to reflect spirituality".I'd be cool with that, they would have to be full time antitheists unless you see an issue with a basic capability to represent the spiritual nature of humanity, people like Keith and Terry, Indeed why not change the composition yearly, Goddodgers one year, Botherers the next
If you can't see the simple, simple, plain, obvious fact that reserving a number of seats for just one special interest group (in this case the CofE) represents a privilege for that group, I really don't see how to make it more plain.
What would you be saying if 26 seats were reserved for antitheists and none for any other view of religion?
Which means that those appointed to reflect what it is to be fully human in your apartheid state are privilegedNo because those appointed to represent the remainder are there as well.....so where's the privilege?
26 seats to those appointed to reflect spirituality 725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.
No because those appointed to represent the remainder are there as well.....so where's the privilege?Because there are certain seats just for the white's who represent what is fully human in your apartheid state
No, all the seats can represent the 'spirituall' whatever that may be but 256 are specifically for the spiritual/white people who represent what it is to be fully human in your apartheidPresumably though those are/were not fulltime clergy/priests and are appointed for other secular skills and attributes,
Presumably though those are/were not fulltime clergy/priests and are appointed for other secular skills and attributes,Which is fine - because those people can represent everyone - it's just those who you want specially privileged because they are
Which is fine - because those people can represent everyone - it's just those who you want specially privileged because they areI have not even mentioned race or superior race.whitespiritual and represent thesuperior racepeople who represent what it is to be fully human that are exercising that extra privilege in your apartheid state
I have not even mentioned race or superior race.You mean pointing out that you think that a set of people who if we talked about them being white as an equivalence, one that you haven't managed to even present an argument against. and are superior for you as you presented as representing what it is to be fully human, as opposed to all the rest is the same equivalence in the apartheid state that you think is fair?
I think i'm out of here if these shenanigans are being pulled.
I think treating the belief as if it is different plays into that idea that it is something different. In the case of the person wanting to have sex with 5 year olds applying for the job, I don't care what the reason is and they aren't getting hired.
I agree that if a JW applied for head of blood transfusion I would ask questions but just because it's obvious it doesn't mean that it should be treated any differently
ANd I may be wrong but I get the impression that what you might see as obvious or at least an alert isn't the same as me. I don't have any issue with someone saying they pray for guidance
Here's another one
725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.
I have not even mentioned race or superior race.
I think i'm out of here if these shenanigans are being pulled.
Secular for the NSS equals atheism.
Freedom from religion does not equate with freedom of religionYes it does.
The House of Lords is a house of privilege. So it is not reasonable to talk about religion having special privilege. That is a nonsense tautological meme which you have allowed in, I'm afraid.Is it nonsense or is it tautological. It can't be both.
I understand that many of my fellow religionists feel secure enough about secularism to want to go fully secular in terms of parliament. They underestimate what and who drives the NSS these days namely the idea that any majority of the non religious validates the large scale dismantling of religion from public forum as demonstrated by their claims about religious coverage on the BBC.You seem obsessed with the National Secular Society. I think you overestimate their influence.
725 appointed not to reflect spirituality.
Here's another one
725 secular Lords against 26 spiritual ones.
So you wouldn’t object to every other post being filled by non believers?I would insist that if they are non believers they are professional non believers.
I would insist that if they are non believers they are professional non believers.
As I have said already I wouldn't mind full time antitheists in place. I would insist though that they were styledLords Spiritual and did not have the power to dissolve themselves.
If it was only one bishop the principle is exactly similar, no group or any one person should be having a privileged position there in the house, including those of us that are all for the secular standpoint, ie., no privileges for any person or group of people no matter what they happen to believe.There is no privilege in terms of having Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. That should be blindingly obvious. That's the way it is constituted. whether the composition of the Lords Spiritual is within the original spirit of the establishment is I grant you less clear.
In which Vladdo fails to notice that only if there were "antitheists" in place by right in the HofL would his previous hundred-odd posts make any sense.Lords temporal are there by right too Hillside in that the HOL is the Lords spiritual and temporal.
As that's not the case though, they don't.
Lords temporal are there by right too Hillside in that the HOL is the Lords spiritual and temporal.Yes the Lords of every race including white people in the equivalence are there but they have their special seats available only to them in your apartheid state
There is no privilege in terms of having Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. That should be blindingly obvious. That's the way it is constituted. whether the composition of the Lords Spiritual is within the original spirit of the establishment is I grant you less clear.
It is a house of privilege in that Lords are recommended and appointed in different ways. We know there is a bias towards certain groups in the Lords Temporal and I have already posted a link which outlines where privilege exists in the Lords Temporal.
Given that the HOL is not electoral representation. We cannot argue about it along electoral representational lines.
As it happens many aspects of temporal life are not represented. I have therefore no representation from the many Lords who are ex civil servants or theatrical Lords similarly someone with an apprenticeship is hardly represented by academic lords.
The house of Lords positively notionally represents aspects of our national lives and is a notionally oversight and advisory organisation.
Practically the Lords spiritual only comprises 3.3% of total Lords. Easily overruled and leaves a mere suggestive voice.
Given all of that the nature of the HOL is overwhelmingly secular and any further demands are IMV a manifestation of OCD.
It should be 100% secular. Note this does not mean 100% atheist or antitheist or non religious. It means no seats guaranteed for those from certain religious offices.That then states that people do not have/should not have a spiritual life beyond what is of material interest and that spiritual life should have no expression in our system of government.
NS,
Yup.
But that is being treated differently isn’t it?
If I applied you’d want to know about my experience etc. If a JW applied you’d want to know about his experience etc plus whether he’d leave his religious beliefs at the door. At that point he may well have said nothing on the subject, but as soon as you saw the “JW” label you’d apply a different process (as would I).
Of course it is – one man’s “obvious” is another man’s “meh”. Who’s to say who’s right though, and when?
On praying for example if the candidate was applying to be a lollipop lady I’d be a “meh”; if she was applying to be minister of defence though then damn right I’d have a concern.
Wouldn’t you?
On praying for example if the candidate was applying to be a lollipop lady I’d be a “meh”; if she was applying to be minister of defence though then damn right I’d have a concern.
Lords temporal are there by right too Hillside in that the HOL is the Lords spiritual and temporal.
We really, really need a face palm emoji here…
.-'---`-.
,' `.
| \
| \
\ _ \
,\ _ ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
`._,) -',-')
\/ ''/
) / /
/ ,'-'
.-'---`-.
,' `.
|
|
_
, _ ,'-,/-)
( * ,' ,' ,'-)
`._,) -',-')
/ ''/
) / /
/ ,'-'
Reminds me of Sooty whispering to Harry Corbett.
.-'---`-.
,' `.
| \
| \
\ _ \
,\ _ ,'-,/-)\
( * \ \,' ,' ,'-)
`._,) -',-')
\/ ''/
) / /
/ ,'-'
How about just scrapping the HoL? Second best - replace it with an entirely directly elected second chamber, BUT members are elected until a fixed retirement age (80?), unless they resign or are ejected for misbehaviour. That way, they won't have to worry about re-election, and will be able to do what they really think is for the good of the country, not what will appeal to hoi-polloi.I remember many years ago, during the Blair government there was lots of discussion about Lords reforms and I went to a public meeting about it. One of the speaker (I can't remember who it was) made, what I thought was a key point. He said that the focus was always on how we select the members (appointed, elected, term length etc), but that this should be secondary to deciding what the second chamber should do.
No, the belief, isn't treated differently, it's just that you know more about the belief from the declaration. If someone applied for the job and stated on the application 'I don't think blood transfusions should be give' then that belief should be treated exactly the same.
As to the question of the minister of defence, no, it wouldn't bother me. I know people who pray all the time, and they don't seem to do anything different to me in terms of making decisions.
As a return question, if you know a candidate for the minister of defence practices a religion, does that weigh against them in your consideration?
There is no privilege in terms of having Lords spiritual and Lords temporal. That should be blindingly obvious. That's the way it is constituted. whether the composition of the Lords Spiritual is within the original spirit of the establishment is I grant you less clear.
It is a house of privilege in that Lords are recommended and appointed in different ways. We know there is a bias towards certain groups in the Lords Temporal and I have already posted a link which outlines where privilege exists in the Lords Temporal.
Given that the HOL is not electoral representation. We cannot argue about it along electoral representational lines.
As it happens many aspects of temporal life are not represented. I have therefore no representation from the many Lords who are ex civil servants or theatrical Lords similarly someone with an apprenticeship is hardly represented by academic lords.
The house of Lords positively notionally represents aspects of our national lives and is a notionally oversight and advisory organisation.
Practically the Lords spiritual only comprises 3.3% of total Lords. Easily overruled and leaves a mere suggestive voice.
Given all of that the nature of the HOL is overwhelmingly secular and any further demands are IMV a manifestation of OCD.
I remember many years ago, during the Blair government there was lots of discussion about Lords reforms and I went to a public meeting about it. One of the speaker (I can't remember who it was) made, what I thought was a key point. He said that the focus was always on how we select the members (appointed, elected, term length etc), but that this should be secondary to deciding what the second chamber should do.Fair point and part of that would be to look at it's foundational purposes were, how it has evolved, how it works, what it stands for now.
Once the key question of its role is agreed, then you can come onto discussing the most appropriate way to populate the chamber to ensure it is best equipped to fulfil that role.
Can you please put that into words for me?!
.-'---`-.
,' `.
|
|
_
, _ ,'-,/-)
( * ,' ,' ,'-)
`._,) -',-')
/ ''/
) / /
/ ,'-'
Can you please put that into words for me?!
That then states that people do not have/should not have a spiritual life beyond what is of material interest and that spiritual life should have no expression in our system of government.
That makes government an atheist proposition and you have taken us directly into a totalitarian atheocracy.
No it does not at all. It simply menas that people from certain religious offices are not guaranteed seats in the Lords. Nothing more than that. The Lords can and will contain people of faith and people with spiritual views.
I and others have said this so many times on here. Do you not actually read people's posts? You may not agree with them but your posts suggest no knowledge that your points have been responded to before.
Do you accept that without Lords Spiritual there will be Members of the House of Lords who are religious and or spiritual or do you imagine that all Lords Temporal are atheists?
No it does not at all. It simply menas that people from certain religious offices are not guaranteed seats in the Lords. Nothing more than that. The Lords can and will contain people of faith and people with spiritual views.I probably wont be posting much more on this topic since I feel I have made my point.
I and others have said this so many times on here. Do you not actually read people's posts? You may not agree with them but your posts suggest no knowledge that your points have been responded to before.
Do you accept that without Lords Spiritual there will be Members of the House of Lords who are religious and or spiritual or do you imagine that all Lords Temporal are atheists?
I probably wont be posting much more on this topic since I feel I have made my point.
To complain singularly of religious privilege of 3.3% of the house as opposed to 96.4% of secular lords drawn from privileged groups hereditary, politics, commerce is vaguely ridiculous and therefore I side with those who look to abolition or reform rather than the special pleaders other than that the secularisers have got all sorts of assumptions wrong IMV.
In view of that I choose to tackle your assumptions.
If it can be guaranteed that there will be spiritual consideration and the spiritual worldviewpoint is enshrined rather than just saying that oh well some have been baptised or bat mitzvah'd etc that'll be good enough, in the business of the HOL or any future and that a secularism of a more plural nature is the order of the day I'm open to proposal.
Fair point and part of that would be to look at it's foundational purposes were, how it has evolved, how it works, what it stands for now.That all sounds terribly backward looking. I think we need to focus on what it should do in the future and then determine the best mechanism to get the most appropriate membership to support that function going forward.
going forward.AAAAAAARGH! >:( >:( >:(
AAAAAAARGH! >:( >:( >:(Sorry ... strategically to align with medium and long range challenges ;)