Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 06, 2022, 05:34:37 PM
-
In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.
Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.
When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.
-
In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.
Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.
When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.
Pish
-
Pish
Your posts are the equivalent of Japanese knotweed.
Any way I'm off.
-
Your posts are the equivalent of Japanese knotweed.
Any way I'm off.
Mince
-
Any way I'm off.
Indefinitely?
-
Indefinitely?
Since i'm gone, your not going to know.
-
In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.
Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.
When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.
It doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to join these two anachronistic and biased systems if you disagree with them. As soon as you do so, you would then rightly be labelled a hypocrite. Perhaps those supporting such systems want to get humanist organizations on side, so to speak, in order to tar them with the same brush as they themselves are tarred with and, hence, obviate any criticism from that quarter.
-
It doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to join these two anachronistic and biased systems if you disagree with them. As soon as you do so, you would then rightly be labelled a hypocrite. Perhaps those supporting such systems want to get humanist organizations on side, so to speak, in order to tar them with the same brush as they themselves are tarred with and, hence, obviate any criticism from that quarter.
Apart from making the fallacy of modernity here, there is nothing anachronistic about letting any world view group establish a school or being represented at the highest levels in the house of Lord's.
If there is an anachronism it is the faith schools campaign which is based on not having the opportunity to found schools which has been rectified.
The argument now looks solely like ''we don't want these things not because they are not fair but because we want all schools to be intrinsically secular and humanist.'' That looks a lot darker. You look hypocritical by staying out not pitching in.
The foundation of a new university in London by Grayling and Dawkins among others shows there is no real problem among humanists in educational foundation. So I give credit to them for blowing your argument.
-
In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.
Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.
When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.
You really don't understand what the word 'secular' means, do you Vlad.
Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support establishing humanists schools - why ... because they believe in secularism.
Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support having a token humanist in the Lords Spiritual - why ... because they believe in secularism.
You might as well argue that people who oppose segregation in schools should just set up their own segregated school. Or people who believe that both houses of parliament should be democratically elected should be happy if they are appointed (not elected) to the HoLs.
-
In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Saddle up!
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.
Oh, lets... should I get popcorn?
Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
They want children to be educated rather than indoctrinated - it's not enough just to limit that to the children within their own schools, don't all children deserve a free and balanced education? Why do you want to deprive children of a good education?
Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.
If the nature of the institution is broken because it structurally invests excessive influence and power in a select group, inviting different people into that group doesn't fix the issue, it makes them complicit.
When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.
They aren't being offered equality, they're being offered the opportunity to join in the very institutional, structural distortions that they're campaigning against.
O.
-
They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
No they don't - I don't think many secular humanists have objections to faith schools - what they object to is that they are tax-payer funded and discriminate on the ground of religion on their admissions criteria.
-
In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.
Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.
State schools already are mostly secular. The argument is not that we need more secular schools but that faith schools are divisive and teach children bullshit.
Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.
When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.
Abolishing the Lords Spiritual is not anti-religion. The Lords Temporal would be abolished as well and we would just have Lords.
-
You really don't understand what the word 'secular' means, do you Vlad.
It is from your and other atheist descriptions, variously the inclusion of all world views or religions or the eradication of religious privilege from the public space what ever that is , or it is the eradication of religion from the public forum.
Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support establishing humanists schools - why ... because they believe in secularism.
That rather puts humanists themselves classing humanism as a religion or faith doesn't it. All secularism means is removing religion(hard secularism)from or getting it to share the public space with.(soft secularists). Both effectively end up with a place reflecting institutionally the secular humanist view alone. so hard secularists end up with a true indoctrinating secular humanist establishment if they get their way and soft secularists end up qualifying their views by teaching religion as an arm of history or geography.
Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support having a token humanist in the Lords Spiritual - why ... because they believe in secularism.
But going by census data their wouldn't be just a token humanist.
You might as well argue that people who oppose segregation in schools should just set up their own segregated school.
But are Secular Humanists opposed to segregation in schools or just faith schools i've noticed posters who are quite comfortable with private schools. It is called the faith school campaign after all ,not the school segregation campaign.
-
It is from your and other atheist descriptions, variously the inclusion of all world views or religions or the eradication of religious privilege from the public space what ever that is , or it is the eradication of religion from the public forum.
Secularism is the separation between religion and the state - in effect that the state is neutral in regard of religion, neither privileging religion nor disadvantaging religion and people on the basis that they do or do not follow a particular religion. So no secularist worth the name is going to support state funding faith schools and nor would they support state funded humanist schools either, as to do so would similarly privilege one group and therefore disadvantage others.
-
They want children to be educated rather than indoctrinated
They want their children and others in an institution that has secular humanism implicit in it's constitution and they want to avoid having to found schools with this implicit constitution - it's not enough just to limit that to the children within their own schools, don't all children deserve a free and balanced education? Why do you want to deprive children of a good education?
Straw man argument. I want children to get a proper liberal education of course, your thesis about faith schools being the equivalent of Madrasses is, I think an incorrect one.If the nature of the institution is broken because it structurally invests excessive influence and power in a select group, inviting different people into that group doesn't fix the issue, it makes them complicit.
Confusion over how all lords are appointed, exaggeration of the possible power and influence of 3.4% of the HoL. Misunderstanding of the foundational and continuing ethos of the HoL, hijacking a desire for reformation of the house of Lords to make it institutionally aspiritual and hard secular.
-
But going by census data ...
As far as I am aware the census is completely silent on secular humanism - it isn't on of the tick box categories on the leading 'What is your religion' and seeing is it isn't a religion it wouldn't be appropriate for someone to indicate it on the 'write-in' box. And to infer that all people who answer 'no religion' are somehow secular humanists is muddled thinking in the extreme.
... their wouldn't be just a token humanist.
See above - but even if we did have census data on secular humanists and that indicated, lets say, that 70% of the UK population were secular humanists someone who is secular would still be very unlikely to support the notion of automatic places for leaders of secular humanist organisations in the HoLs - because it is fundamentally opposed to secularism which no more supports special privilege for non religious people as for religious people. Secularism is about neutrality.
-
Secularism is the separation between religion and the state[/quote - in effect that the state is neutral in regard of religion,.
Unfortunately that interpretation implies, unavoidably, a state that is institutionally secular humanist.
-
They want their children and others in an institution that has secular humanism implicit in it's constitution and they want to avoid having to found schools with this implicit constitution
Eh - what are you on about Vlad. How do you work that one out Vlad.
I cannot speak for all humanists, but I guess I am broadly humanist in outlook. Do I want to send my kids to a humanist school - nope. Could I send my kids to a humanist school - nope (well certainly not in the state sectors), because there aren't any humanist schools. What I did was send my kids to a non faith school - that is no closer to being a humanist school than it is to being a jewish school as it favours neither humanism nor judaism in its constitution and mission. It is (as far as it can be within the current law) neutral with regard to religion and other philosophical '-isms'.
-
Unfortunately that interpretation implies, unavoidably, a state that is institutionally secular humanist.
No it doesn't - you do understand that secularism and humanism are different things. You do recognise that you can be humanist without being secularist and that you can be secularist without being humanist.
So on secularism - sure if a country is secular it is ... err .. institutionally secular. Duh!!! But just because a country is secular doesn't make it humanist and indeed I think it would be very difficult for a country to be institutionally secular and institutionally humanist because the latter would nullify the former as the country would no longer be neutral with regard to religion if it is privileging a non religious philosophy.
-
State schools already are mostly secular. The argument is not that we need more secular schools but that faith schools are divisive and teach children bullshit.Abolishing the Lords Spiritual is not anti-religion. The Lords Temporal would be abolished as well and we would just have Lords.
I disagree. You can't have lords that are not temporal as soon as you steer them away from focussing on world view issues and the world view level. Any segregation is divisive and more significantly so. Look at the issues that Eton and Winchester have thrown up. Secular humanists don't found schools yes but is that partly also because they are insufficiently charitable. As I said humanists recently had no compunction in founding a university.
-
They want their children and others in an institution that has secular humanism implicit in it's constitution and they want to avoid having to found schools with this implicit constitution Straw man argument.
No they want children in a school with a secular approach to education. Whether they teach humanism amongst the other faith positions is a question for the curriculum advisors, but the pastoral approach should not be using state-funded education to indoctrinate children into one particular faith or another.
I want children to get a proper liberal education of course, your thesis about faith schools being the equivalent of Madrasses is, I think an incorrect one.
I have a five year old coming home and telling me about the things that Jesus did and what God wants. That they aren't beating his feet with sticks for not memorising the catechism doesn't mean that they're not depicting faith positions as fact, which is a difficult thing to try to get a five year old to wrap his head around.
Confusion over how all lords are appointed, exaggeration of the possible power and influence of 3.4% of the HoL. Misunderstanding of the foundational and continuing ethos of the HoL, hijacking a desire for reformation of the house of Lords to make it institutionally aspiritual and hard secular.
Not institutionally aspiritual, but not institutionally beholden to a particular spiritual sect. What's 'hard secular', atheist? Is anyone suggesting that religious people be prohibited from sitting? Or are you strawmanning out of your arse at a rate of knots again?
O.
-
No it doesn't - you do understand that secularism and humanism are different things. You do recognise that you can be humanist without being secularist and that you can be secularist without being humanist.
So on secularism - sure if a country is secular it is ... err .. institutionally secular. Duh!!! But just because a country is secular doesn't make it humanist and indeed I think it would be very difficult for a country to be institutionally secular and institutionally humanist because the latter would nullify the former as the country would no longer be neutral with regard to religion if it is privileging a non religious philosophy.
Apparently Davey secular humanism is a thing. presumably it is at least non religious so religious humanists are not definitionally welcome or would feel welcome. What do we know about them, these secular humanists....they have campaigns against religion and they are against educational establishment except founding universities.
-
Apart from making the fallacy of modernity here, there is nothing anachronistic about letting any world view group establish a school or being represented at the highest levels in the house of Lord's.
It is entirely anachronistic that the lords spiritual are still allowed to function in all their undemocratic glory due in no small part to the power and influence of the church in centuries gone by. It is entirely anachronistic that at least one third of state funded schools are faith schools long after the influence and responsibility of the church schools has been superseded by the state.
If there is an anachronism it is the faith schools campaign which is based on not having the opportunity to found schools which has been rectified.
Not an anachronism at all, as the idea of state funded schools not being subject to religious bias is grounded on balanced and egalitarian ideas.
The argument now looks solely like ''we don't want these things not because they are not fair but because we want all schools to be intrinsically secular and humanist.'' That looks a lot darker. You look hypocritical by staying out not pitching in.
It's called a level playing field, Vlad and your bias is showing yet again. Yes I want them to be secular. Why not? You do understand what 'secular' in this context means, don't you? Humanist, no, apart from it being a normal part of the curriculum,
The foundation of a new university in London by Grayling and Dawkins among others shows there is no real problem among humanists in educational foundation. So I give credit to them for blowing your argument.
On the contrary, that supports my argument. It is not state funded, Vlad. That is the point.
-
I disagree. You can't have lords that are not temporal as soon as you steer them away from focussing on world view issues and the world view level.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Is it your assertion that without the Lords Spiritual there would be only atheists in the HoL?
Any segregation is divisive and more significantly so. Look at the issues that Eton and Winchester have thrown up.
What issues would those be? On second thoughts, don't answer that: it would derail the thread.
Secular humanists don't found schools yes but is that partly also because they are insufficiently charitable. As I said humanists recently had no compunction in founding a university.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but here in the UK, schools are mostly funded by the state. Schools that are funded by the state (which is already secular in this country) should not be divisive or teach bullshit.
-
It is entirely anachronistic that the lords spiritual are still allowed to function in all their undemocratic glory due in no small part to the power and influence of the church in centuries gone by. It is entirely anachronistic that at least one third of state funded schools are faith schools long after the influence and responsibility of the church schools has been superseded by the state.
Are you aware of the fallacy of modernity? Now, a Lords spiritual comprising of solely Church of England, bishops as representing the spirituality of the British people IS an anachronistic nonsense. But the idea of a proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views
of the British people is not.
Not an anachronism at all,
That's not true, humanist and atheist movements can now I believe start their own establishments.
It's called a level playing field, Vlad and your bias is showing yet again. Yes I want them to be secular. Why not? You do understand what 'secular' in this context means, don't you? Humanist, no, apart from it being a normal part of the curriculum,
On the contrary, that supports my argument. It is not state funded, Vlad. That is the point.
Again, a secular school represents unavoidably a secular humanist institutionalised view and that alone.
That these campaigns remain happy with segregation on financial terms give lie to any equality/level playing field claims.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Is it your assertion that without the Lords Spiritual there would be only atheists in the HoL?
No. I think they would be called upon to ACT like atheists.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but here in the UK, schools are mostly funded by the state.
But founded by the church and in communities where that tradition has been valued. That's before mentioning that the communities which value the traditions and position of the church foundation schools are also taxpayers. Schools that are funded by the state (which is already secular in this country)
which is funded by the taxpayer. Of course you can override local decisions or wants and that would be in the name of secular humanism.......No God, one people, one doctrine.
-
Are you aware of the fallacy of modernity? Now, a Lords spiritual comprising of solely Church of England, bishops as representing the spirituality of the British people IS an anachronistic nonsense. But the idea of a proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views
of the British people is not.
If you wanted a "proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views of the British people" you would not have the Lords Spiritual, you'd either carefully select everybody in the chamber or you'd leave it to chance like we do with the House of Commons.
That's not true, humanist and atheist movements can now I believe start their own establishments. Again, a secular school represents unavoidably a secular humanist institutionalised view and that alone.
That these campaigns remain happy with segregation on financial terms give lie to any equality/level playing field claims.
You're not listening to the arguments. Me starting a secular school would not, in any way, resolve the issue of faith schools which are divisive and teach bullshit and should not be funded with tax payers' money.
-
Are you aware of the fallacy of modernity?
Yes, are you? That there is a fallacy of modernity does not mean that there are no anachronistic institutions.
Now, a Lords spiritual comprising of solely Church of England, bishops as representing the spirituality of the British people IS an anachronistic nonsense. But the idea of a proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views of the British people is not.
Perhaps not, but the idea that 'spirituality and belief and world views' need reserved seats - indeed, the notion of reserved seats at all - is an anachronistic idea.
That's not true, humanist and atheist movements can now I believe start their own establishments.
Does the existence of a secular school in one place somehow alleviate the distorted indoctrination happening in a religious school somewhere else?
Again, a secular school represents unavoidably a secular humanist institutionalised view and that alone.
No, secularism does not lead inevitably to a promotion of humanism. Secularism can quite easily accommodate a range of religious ideas without favouring any one of them - that's the point of secular.
That these campaigns remain happy with segregation on financial terms give lie to any equality/level playing field claims.
Whether the individuals in those campaigns do or do not favour or accept private education is a different discussion.
O.
-
No. I think they would be called upon to ACT like atheists.
No they wouldn't. That's an unbelievably stupid argument. Even now, Lords Temporal are allowed to behave like religiosity if they like.
But founded by the church and in communities where that tradition has been valued.
"Because that's the way it's always been done" is not an argument for carrying on that way.
That's before mentioning that the communities which value the traditions and position of the church foundation schools are also taxpayers.which is funded by the taxpayer.
Communities aren't tax payers. People are tax payers.
Of course you can override local decisions or wants and that would be in the name of secular humanism.......No God, one people, one doctrine.
Nobody is arguing for "one people, one doctrine". We're just saying that faith schools are divisive, teach bullshit and should not be funded with public money.
-
If you wanted a "proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views of the British people" you would not have the Lords Spiritual, you'd either carefully select everybody in the chamber or you'd leave it to chance like we do with the House of Commons.
And people who get into the HoL are carefully selected
You're not listening to the arguments.
That's the point Jeremy. I for the first time it seems around here am holding un examined atheist beliefs and up for scrutiny and i'm afraid the egalitarian part of the ''campaign'' is shown to be bullshit, as is the question of fairness and balance.
What is left is undiluted, naked antireligion.
-
.. presumably it is at least non religious so religious humanists are not definitionally welcome or would feel welcome.
Welcome to what?!?
There are all sorts of humanists - some are religious, some are non religious.
There are all sorts of secularists - some are religious, some are non religious.
That a single organisation, e.g. HumanistsUK defines a specific brand of humanist is no more relevant than the fact that a single religious organisation might define a specific brand of religion. HumanistsUK does not speak for all humanists in the UK, it only speaks for those people who actively choose to follow it as an organisation by becoming a member.
-
Are you aware of the fallacy of modernity? Now, a Lords spiritual comprising of solely Church of England, bishops as representing the spirituality of the British people IS an anachronistic nonsense. But the idea of a proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views
of the British people is not.
Rubbish as I am not appealing to the novelty of an idea but rather on democratic grounds.
That's not true, humanist and atheist movements can now I believe start their own establishments.
If that were true(I.e. they could be state funded) then they would simply add to the original anachronism.
Again, a secular school represents unavoidably a secular humanist institutionalised view and that alone.
That these campaigns remain happy with segregation on financial terms give lie to any equality/level playing field claims.
Again, you are confusing secularism with humanism.
That some individuals want to promote independently funded institutions is a wholly different question which involves the whole argument about public schools for instance.
My position is that no faith school should be a state funded school. Do you agree?
-
And people who get into the HoL are carefully selected
But not on the criteria you cited.
That's the point Jeremy. I for the first time it seems around here am holding un examined atheist beliefs and up for scrutiny and i'm afraid the egalitarian part of the ''campaign'' is shown to be bullshit, as is the question of fairness and balance.
Fairness and balance? When twenty four seats in the House of Lords are closed to the majority of the population?
What is left is undiluted, naked antireligion.
Secularism is not anti religion. You're just upset because it is not pro religion either and you don't want your religion to lose its privileges.
-
Fairness and balance? When twenty four seats in the House of Lords are closed to the majority of the population?
Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population.... all are closed in view of election.Secularism is not anti religion
There is a Hard secularism and a soft secularism. The entry in wikipedia on secularisms outline what Hard and Soft secularism are. You're just upset
If I am upset Jeremy it is on the banning of the original meaning of secular which is where we get Lords Temporal from. Life under the definition was spiritual and temporal and was seen as balancing the two. Under the present definition you can contemplate a totally secular life and that represents an homonculus. So it is not a case of me not wanting to lose privileges, that is a misconception that permits you to hate. It is a case of diminishing the spiritual aspect of humanity however you define that. If you don't like the word spiritual I am happy with the term ''nontemporal'' or belief or world view.
-
Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population.... all are closed in view of election.
And yet we're discussing proposals for a new upper house - as you well know. Sadly familiar attempt at avoidance noted.
There is a Hard secularism and a soft secularism. The entry in wikipedia on secularisms outline what Hard and Soft secularism are.
It doesn't mention either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism)
One paper referenced in the bibliography talks about 'hard' secularists taking the position that religion is inherently unworthy and attempting to excise it from the public realm - that's not what's being suggested here, no-one is proposing banning religious people from being in the upper house, no-one is even suggesting that religious organisations should not be able to put forward candidates.
If I am upset Jeremy it is on the banning of the original meaning of secular which is where we get Lords Temporal from.
Actually, as is made clear in the paper that was referenced in the Wikipedia article on secularism, 'secular' as a term is a product of religion, something religious organisations took it up on themselves to define to clarify those things that weren't of a religious nature - things like government and politics.
Life under the definition was spiritual and temporal and was seen as balancing the two.
And yet there's no justification for that assumption that anything in life is 'spiritual', nor that even if there were any particular group has a good handle on it.
Under the present definition you can contemplate a totally secular life and that represents an homonculus.
No. Removing privileged seats for religion from the upper house neither removes religious people nor religious topics from that house - it just doesn't predispose the house in any way.
So it is not a case of me not wanting to lose privileges, that is a misconception that permits you to hate.
It's exactly that, because no-one is suggesting anything else. The Church of England currently has a privileged position, by way of reserved seats. You acknowledge that's not politically or socially viable, so you're trying to cling to a part of it by broadening the scope of those reserved seats. The problem is that, although it may well have been the presence of the Bishops that attracted the attention in the first place, many people have come to the realisation that the problem is reserved seats, not the presence of Bishops per se, so your attempt to cling to relevance isn't addressing the underlying issue, just the symptom.
It is a case of diminishing the spiritual aspect of humanity however you define that. If you don't like the word spiritual I am happy with the term ''nontemporal'' or belief or world view.
Call it whatever you'd like; unless you can demonstrate that it's actually a thing, then it carries no more or less weight than anyone else's opinion, and goes out to the electorate like everything else. If you can demonstrate it, then you need to show why it merits different consideration to everything else, or it can just go out to the electorate like everything else.
O.
-
And yet we're discussing proposals for a new upper house - as you well know. Sadly familiar attempt at avoidance noted.
It doesn't mention either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism)
One paper referenced in the bibliography talks about 'hard' secularists taking the position that religion is inherently unworthy and attempting to excise it from the public realm
so hard and soft aren't mentioned......but they are eh, Ourider?
-
Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population....
Actually no they aren't. The constitution allows pretty well anyone to be nominated to the Lords and the appointment process doesn't debar pretty well anyone in the UK. Sure it may be difficult to become a member (but when you've got a few hundred seats for a population of 60 million it is always going to be difficult to actually gain a seat). However no-one (well very few) are actually constitutionally excluded.
There are, however, two categories of HoLs seats that exclude most people - the Bishops and the legacy hereditary peers. I would, of course, like to see both of those groups abolished. And I'd like to see a situation in which no adult, irrespective of their religion, world-view etc can be considered for any seat in the HoL, with no seats automatically held for a particular category of people.
Out of interest Vlad - if you are concerned about religious leaders being banned from the Lords (and I agree you should be) I suggest you stop demonising secularists, none of whom have ever suggested that Bishops, priests, vicars, imams, rabbis etc cannot be offered seats. You should aim you ire at organisations that do ban religious leaders being represented in the Lords - for example the Roman Catholic Church who (unless things have changed recently) ban their priests from being members of the Lords.
-
so hard and soft aren't mentioned......but they are eh, Ourider?
No. The issue of hard and soft secularism aren't mentioned in the wikipedia article at all. I only found the paper because it was in the title - it wasn't why the article had been cited. But don't let little things like having to try to deflect off into irrelevancies stop you from failing to address the points that I made, focus on the other mistakes you made so that you can pretend that at least you've not lost the original argument.
Any explanation for why we should reserve any seats in a new format upper house, yet?
O.
-
Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population....
No they aren't. The only entry requirement is that you get selected by the government or opposition.
There is a Hard secularism and a soft secularism. The entry in wikipedia on secularisms outline what Hard and Soft secularism are.
I would say the secularists on this board mostly go for the soft variety looking at their definition.
If I am upset Jeremy it is on the banning of the original meaning of secular which is where we get Lords Temporal from. Life under the definition was spiritual and temporal and was seen as balancing the two. Under the present definition you can contemplate a totally secular life and that represents an homonculus. So it is not a case of me not wanting to lose privileges, that is a misconception that permits you to hate. It is a case of diminishing the spiritual aspect of humanity however you define that. If you don't like the word spiritual I am happy with the term ''nontemporal'' or belief or world view.
That's no reason not to abolish the labels in the House of Lords.
-
No they aren't. The only entry requirement is that you get selected by the government or opposition.
Even that isn't required - you can actually nominate yourself. You simply need to fill out a pretty simple form indicating how you meet their criteria and include a cv.
-
So guys what is driving your secularism?
''Secularism may be categorized into two types, "hard" and "soft". "Hard" secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible.''
Or is it ''The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;arguing "the attainment of "absolute truth" is "impossible and therefore scepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion"
Source wikipedia: Secularism. My opinion is that you are all coming at this from the Hard Atheist position and that your assault on spirituality and faith schools is mainly motivated by that.
-
So guys what is driving your secularism?
''Secularism may be categorized into two types, "hard" and "soft". "Hard" secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible.''
Or is it ''The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;arguing "the attainment of "absolute truth" is "impossible and therefore scepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion"
Source wikipedia: Secularism. My opinion is that you are all coming at this from the Hard Atheist position and that your assault on spirituality and faith schools is mainly motivated by that.
Secularism doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the claims of religion are right or wrong, beyond the notion that we don't know. And as we don't know we should not favour any particular religion over any other religion. And we should not favour religion over non-religion or vice versa. Secularism is about fairness not about faith claims.
So as far as I am aware there is no-one on this MB who is anything other than a soft secularist, nor as far as I can see are any of the campaigning groups, e.g. NSS anything other than soft secular. In no way do I think we should 'ban religion' - nope I am a secularist as I think both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are important and the only way you can achieve both is by ensuring that no-one is advantaged or disadvantaged whether or not they are religious, or what religion they might follow. That means that there needs to be separation of the state and religions, similarly there needs to be separation of the state from equivalent non-religious organisations, such as HumanistsUK. That's the only way you can achieve fairness and equality.
And removal of special privileges isn't an 'assault' - it is removing discrimination as if you privilege one person you are, by definition, discrimination another. It is all about fairness.
-
Secularism doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the claims of religion are right or wrong, beyond the notion that we don't know. And as we don't know we should not favour any particular religion over any other religion. And we should not favour religion over non-religion or vice versa. Secularism is about fairness not about faith claims.
So as far as I am aware there is no-one on this MB who is anything other than a soft secularist, nor as far as I can see are any of the campaigning groups, e.g. NSS anything other than soft secular. In no way do I think we should 'ban religion' - nope I am a secularist as I think both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are important and the only way you can achieve both is by ensuring that no-one is advantaged or disadvantaged whether or not they are religious, or what religion they might follow. That means that there needs to be separation of the state and religions, similarly there needs to be separation of the state from equivalent non-religious organisations, such as HumanistsUK. That's the only way you can achieve fairness and equality.
And removal of special privileges isn't an 'assault' - it is removing discrimination as if you privilege one person you are, by definition, discrimination another. It is all about fairness.
First of all the manifestation of secularism in the faith school campaign is not about fairness because humanism has no inherent qualms about segregation by financial means of the parents. It denies the offer of equality in the foundation of schools and in the context of schools wants all schools to be institutionally secular humanist
Therefore because of it's focus on religion and it's aim that there cannot be religious schools the motivator is hard secularism as described in the Wikipedia article.
You attempt to seperate the hard secular from the humanist but a belief in hard secularism IS the basic belief of the humanists. That's why they are called secular humanists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
-
No they aren't. The only entry requirement is that you get selected by the government or opposition.
So these are political appointments favouring the political class or those who will show the correct political focus. That is too narrow a view.
I would say the secularists on this board mostly go for the soft variety looking at their definition.
I'm sorry but the aims and behaviours fit Hard Atheism namely the assumed invalidity of the religious. I would like to see a case put on this thread or another why most secularists on this board are soft rather than hard secularists. My thinking is whatever our world view or belief we are given to thinking were the good guy moderates rather than an unpleasant fundamentalist version and we have to keep that in check or at least 'fess up to it.
That's no reason not to abolish the labels in the House of Lords.
I think we are going to have to agree to differ on that one. Not least because Lords Temporal will always be temporal whether they are the only type left in the Lords or not.
-
First of all the manifestation of secularism in the faith school campaign is not about fairness because humanism has no inherent qualms about segregation by financial means of the parents. It denies the offer of equality in the foundation of schools and in the context of schools wants all schools to be institutionally secular humanist
Absolute non-sense. Secularism is about separation of state and religion, so of course a secular campaign will always be about the involvement of the state in schooling, in other words state funded schools. Whether or not private schools are permitted isn't something that secularism will concern itself about. That doesn't, of course, mean that secularists won't also have a view on that and many will also object to private schools. However if they think that private schools should be allowed they (including me) will have no issue with some of those private schools being faith schools, providing their is a level playing field on assessment of the basic quality and safety of those schools.
Therefore because of it's focus on religion and it's aim that there cannot be religious schools the motivator is hard secularism as described in the Wikipedia article.
Non-sense again. Where have I said there cannot be faith schools - I haven't, see above. What I have said is I don't agree that there should be state funded faith schools. Classic soft secularism if you like the term. And this is absolutely about fairness. Despite the fact that everyone pays taxes for state funded schools parents who are non religious are clearly discriminated against in the current system - both direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. Removing that discrimination, which is the aim of the secular campaign, is about fairness.
-
Any explanation for why we should reserve any seats in a new format upper house, yet?
Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.
There are therefore no real objections to labels in the House of Lords.
Now the Law Lords became a separate supreme court. Now I don't know about you but how does a UK supreme conclave of world views sit with you? Why, if you baulked against the idea, do you not baulk against a supreme court. Answer? Hard Secularism.
I would also have doubts based around the house of lords being institutionally hard secular and that the temporal Lords no longer act as a check and a balance on the Lords world view. Would you not want the Lords spiritual to be a mere 3.4 % in a house of Lords than a 100% great ass big throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief?
-
Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.
There are therefore no real objections to labels in the House of Lords.
Now the Law Lords became a separate supreme court. Now I don't know about you but how does a UK supreme conclave of world views sit with you? Why, if you baulked against the idea, do you not baulk against a supreme court. Answer? Hard Secularism.
I would also have doubts based around the house of lords being institutionally hard secular and that the temporal Lords no longer act as a check and a balance on the Lords world view. Would you not want the Lords spiritual to be a mere 3.4 % in a house of Lords than a 100% great ass big throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief?
What people seem to be saying to you, and what you seem to be struggling to comprehend, is that the archaic and undemocratic HofL should be dispensed with - and if there is to be a second chamber to replace it then it should be filled via regular elections (possibly using a form of PR): with no reserved seats for anyone on any basis.
-
What people seem to be saying to you, and what you seem to be struggling to comprehend, is that the archaic and undemocratic HofL should be dispensed with
We're talking about secular Humanism. It's in the thread title. We are talking about it in the context of faith schools and the house of Lords.
You want to abolish the house of Lords, fine, we have discussed that in full. I believe we have touched upon your fallacies of modernity in other threads too.
What I may have an interest in discussing with you is your apparently limited conception of democracy.
Now, back to the thread where people I think are trying to justify why they are soft secularists rather than hard secularists. Care to contribute?
-
Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.
Perhaps it was rather that there was considered to be a valid purpose to having qualified judges sit as Law Lords, given that it was the highest court of appeal in the land at the time. As soon as that function was passed to another body, those Law Lords were excised from the house.
There are therefore no real objections to labels in the House of Lords.
Carrots weren't objected to as green things, therefore my kiwi fruit are fine in this bolognese sauce...
Now the Law Lords became a separate supreme court. Now I don't know about you but how does a UK supreme conclave of world views sit with you? Why, if you baulked against the idea, do you not baulk against a supreme court. Answer? Hard Secularism.
We have laws, and we therefore need a system of arbiters of those laws - hence the courts. Those courts have a hierarchy, and the Supreme Court (arguments regarding some broader jurisdictions like the ECJ) is at the peak of that.
We don't have established in any firm way that there is 'spirit' or 'magic' or 'gods' and therefore we don't formally need to represent those in the legislature.
I would also have doubts based around the house of lords being institutionally hard secular and that the temporal Lords no longer act as a check and a balance on the Lords world view.
So would I, so would pretty much everyone here, it seems. You're pushing on an open door, no-one is trying to advocate for the removal of religious people from the institutions of power.
Would you not want the Lords spiritual to be a mere 3.4 % in a house of Lords than a 100% great ass big throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief?
I'd want the 'Lords Spiritual' to be a concept rather than an Act of Parliament - I'd want as many religious people in the upper house as the electorate sent there, on as much or as little religious posturing as got them elected.
As to a '100% great ass throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief' - you mean a panel of theological and ecumenical representatives capable of giving informed advice to the Lords? No, have as many of those as you'd like, and we'll trust the Lords to put their presentations into context, that's the point.
O.
-
We're talking about secular Humanism.
We're talking about secularism, and when it's relevant secular humanism (the humanism bit hasn't been that relevant, so far). You appear to be talking about your favourite boogeyman, the Vlad-patented 'Anti-Theism'TM and their campaign to eradicate religion from all walks of life.
We are talking about it in the context of faith schools and the house of Lords.
Again, we are, you aren't. No-one is trying to remove religious people from the upper house, no-one is attempting to prevent teaching about religions in schools. We are talking about removing structural artefacts that skew institutions in favour of religion, and in favour of one particular religion.
You want to abolish the house of Lords, fine, we have discussed that in full.
So did you, as it stands. You wanted a different structure, too, it was just a different different structure to what we were suggesting.
I believe we have touched upon your fallacies of modernity in other threads too.
No, you've mentioned the fallacy of modernity (but failed to explain how you though anyone was engaging in it) in an attempt to justify clinging to anachronistic ideas like 'Lords Spiritual'.
What I may have an interest in discussing with you is your apparently limited conception of democracy.
*ping* went the irony meter, once more. I even put that one on the James Webb Space Telescope in the hope that the distance would give it a chance, but alas...
Now, back to the thread where people I think are trying to justify why they are soft secularists rather than hard secularists. Care to contribute?
Care to listen? Why does anyone need to justify being one rather than the other? I believe in equality, hence the secularism. I believe in equality, hence not the hard secularism.
O.
-
We're talking about secularism, and when it's relevant secular humanism (the humanism bit hasn't been that relevant, so far). You appear to be talking about your favourite boogeyman, the Vlad-patented 'Anti-Theism'TM and their campaign to eradicate religion from all walks of life.
we are talking about secular Humanism.....it's in the thread title.
Something else you missed was the description of Hard and soft secularism in the article on wikipedia. Indeed I quote from it on this thread but you seem to have failed to see that also.
-
We're talking about secular Humanism. It's in the thread title. We are talking about it in the context of faith schools and the house of Lords.
As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are.
You want to abolish the house of Lords, fine, we have discussed that in full. I believe we have touched upon your fallacies of modernity in other threads too.
So we can add that one to the list of fallacies you don't understand.
What I may have an interest in discussing with you is your apparently limited conception of democracy.
From the guy that wants to bypass democracy so as to drop some religious people/clerics into political governance arrangements by default - the irony here is one of your best efforts yet.
Now, back to the thread where people I think are trying to justify why they are soft secularists rather than hard secularists. Care to contribute?
Certainly - I move that there are just secularists, and that they have a range of views.
-
As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are.
So we can add that one to the list of fallacies you don't understand.
From the guy that wants to bypass democracy so as to drop some religious people/clerics into political governance arrangements by default - the irony here is one of your best efforts yet.
Certainly - I move that there are just secularists, and that they have a range of views.
Thanks for the information in the first point you make.
Points two and three are shit.
Point four I feel don't add much.
-
Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.
Nope it was outwit secularism.
Let's set aside the fact that the Law Lords haven't sat in the Lords for well over a decade for a moment and ask the following questions.
1. Was it a requirement that you had to be from a particular religion? Answer - NO
2. Was being a Law Lord open to anyone regardless of their religion or lack of religion - Answer - YES.
Hence the issue of the Law Lords, prior to 2009 had nothing to do with secularism so why would an organisation whose mission is to campaign on issues relating to secularism campaign about the Law Lords, when there is no secularism element. You might equally challenge the RSPB on their lack of campaigning on faith schools, or the Guide Dogs Association for their lack of campaigning on reform of the House of Lords.
Oh, and by the way the Law Lords satting in the Lords was wrong - not on any secularism grounds, but because it failed to provide clear distinction between the legislature and the judiciary.
-
As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are.
I think that is merely an issue of terminology.
As far as I'm aware the same issues exist in Scotland. Specifically faith/denominational schools (call them what you will) which are state funded, established with a specific religious ethos and mission and with governance involving major representation from an organised religious denomination. In addition that those schools are able to discriminate in their admissions policies in favour of children who are of a particularly religion (or more realistically whose parents are), for example requiring evidence of baptism and/or regular church attendance which attains a higher ranking in the admissions criteria.
I think Scotland has an additional problem, which isn't the case in England - in that local authorise education boards are required to have three religious appointments on the board, which must involve RCC and Church of Scotland.
-
we are talking about secular Humanism.....it's in the thread title.
The content of the conversation has been almost entirely about secularism - humanism has barely featured. The title could say 'Wankfantasy', but that wouldn't change what the conversation was actually about.
Something else you missed was the description of Hard and soft secularism in the article on wikipedia. Indeed I quote from it on this thread but you seem to have failed to see that also.
Still haven't explained how it's relevant, given that no-one is advocating a hard secularist position. Still haven't actually attempted to justify your point, rather than sniping at perceived off-topic errors from other people.
Something you missed in your argument appears to be your argument, but hey, keep on with the shitgun shotgun approach.
O.
-
Something else you missed was the description of Hard and soft secularism in the article on wikipedia. Indeed I quote from it on this thread but you seem to have failed to see that also.
I didn't miss it - but I've not seen anything on here that could be characterised as 'hard' secularism, nor from UK secular organisations such as NSS, whose mission statement is:
'The National Secular Society champions the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone's human rights so no one is disadvantaged, nor privileged, because of their beliefs.
We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all. We promote secularism as the surest guarantor of religious freedom and the best means to foster a fair and open society, in which people of all religions and none can live together as equal citizens.' - my emphasis.
Sounds like the fluffiest, softest of soft secularism (to use your terms). Hardly fits with your non-sense notion that this is all about banning religion - how can you be wanting to ban religion if your mission is a state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith.
-
I think Scotland has an additional problem, which isn't the case in England - in that local authorise education boards are required to have three religious appointments on the board, which must involve RCC and Church of Scotland.
Why is that a problem? It seems to me it would only be a problem for a Hard secularist. As long as others are represented on the board I think this is the ideal soft secularist scenario.
-
I didn't miss it - but I've not seen anything on here that could be characterised as 'hard' secularism, nor from UK secular organisations such as NSS, whose mission statement is:
'The National Secular Society champions the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone's human rights so no one is disadvantaged, nor privileged, because of their beliefs.
We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all. We promote secularism as the surest guarantor of religious freedom and the best means to foster a fair and open society, in which people of all religions and none can live together as equal citizens.' - my emphasis.
Sounds like the fluffiest, softest of soft secularism (to use your terms). Hardly fits with your non-sense notion that this is all about banning religion - how can you be wanting to ban religion if your mission is a state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith.
Certainly softer than the man who thinks religious representatives on the education board is somehow a problem.
-
Sounds like the fluffiest, softest of soft secularism (to use your terms). Hardly fits with your non-sense notion that this is all about banning religion - how can you be wanting to ban religion if your mission is a state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith.
What are the limits to the practice of it? What is the secularist definition of practice?
-
Why is that a problem? It seems to me it would only be a problem for a Hard secularist. As long as others are represented on the board I think this is the ideal soft secularist scenario.
No, the hard secularist would object to the option of a religious board member, the soft secularist objects to the REQUIREMENT for one.
Why is a religious representative a requirement?
O.
-
Even that isn't required - you can actually nominate yourself. You simply need to fill out a pretty simple form indicating how you meet their criteria and include a cv.
What are the chances of getting in to the HoL without the backing of the government or the opposition?
-
First of all the manifestation of secularism in the faith school campaign is not about fairness because humanism has no inherent qualms about segregation by financial means of the parents. It denies the offer of equality in the foundation of schools and in the context of schools wants all schools to be institutionally secular humanist
It's true that I'm not against private schools, but I don't oppose religious organisations setting up their own private faith schools. I just don't think tax revenue should be going to schools that promote divisive views and teach bullshit to children.
Therefore because of it's focus on religion and it's aim that there cannot be religious schools the motivator is hard secularism as described in the Wikipedia article.
So what? In what way could it possibly matter if you apply the label "hard" or "soft" to certain secular ideas?
You attempt to seperate the hard secular from the humanist but a belief in hard secularism IS the basic belief of the humanists. That's why they are called secular humanists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
No, this is you attempting a cheap trick. Stop obsessing over labels and concentrate on the ideas.
-
As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are.
Your description of "non denominational schools" pretty much fits the definition of faith school in England. You do have faith schools.
-
No, the hard secularist would object to the option of a religious board member, the soft secularist objects to the REQUIREMENT for one.
But effectively both positions are against religious involvement in the public forum...which is Hard secularism. Soft secularism would not want exclusive religious representation.
Why is a religious representative a requirement?
Because of religious foundation, Because these schools were run for the benefit of the public prior to a consultative and mutual nationalisation, because the communities they serve have a religious component, because of the experience in educational matters by diocesan boards of education.
Now, here's one for you....why not?
O.
[/quote]
-
No, the hard secularist would object to the option of a religious board member, the soft secularist objects to the REQUIREMENT for one.
Why is a religious representative a requirement?
O.
Exactly.
And all other board members are elected members of the local authority in question - there are no other non-elected board members except for the automatic and required religious representatives, which must include at least on automatically appointed by the RCC and another automatically appointed by the Church of Scotland.
This is clearly a special privilege that directly benefits organised religious organisations in controlling the running of schooling and education. Removing that special privilege is clearly something that a soft secularist would expect, noting that there is no suggestion that the elected members aren't representative of the religious breakdown of their local area, so will likely also include people who are actively religious and are, of course, free to bring that perspective to discussions on schooling.
-
What are the limits to the practice of it? What is the secularist definition of practice?
These will be based on balancing the right of freedom of religion, with the equally valid right to freedom from religion.
So if one person's freedom to practice their religion impacts upon another's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion then a judgement call needs to be made as to whether that is appropriate or not.
And similarly if one person's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion impacts on another's freedom to practice their religion then a judgement call needs to be made as to whether that is appropriate or not.
The state takes a neutral view and looks to protect both groups freedoms and rights equally.
-
What are the chances of getting in to the HoL without the backing of the government or the opposition?
If you applying to become a non party affiliated peer then the backing of either government or the opposition is irrelevant and would be like be considered negatively as it would imply a party political bias.
Nominations for applications to become a so-called cross-bencher are taken by an independent Appointments Commission, based on merit. Support from the government or opposition is completely irrelevant as I mentioned above.
Anyone can apply - you can even self-nominate.
-
But effectively both positions are against religious involvement in the public forum...
No, they aren't. One of them is, one of them is about not favouring religion. They both, arguably, seek to reduce the current religious privilege - which is a good thing - but one of them wishes to go further.
which is Hard secularism.
Which would be hard secularism, if that was what was happening, but it's not. It's as much 'Hard Secularism' as it is 'Islamic Extremism'.
Soft secularism would not want exclusive religious representation.
Absolutely. Hard secularism wouldn't, either.
Because of religious foundation, Because these schools were run for the benefit of the public prior to a consultative and mutual nationalisation, because the communities they serve have a religious component, because of the experience in educational matters by diocesan boards of education.
None of which prevents a school OPTING to have a religious board member, none of which bans religious people from taking part in the organisation of a school, but equally they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so.
Now, here's one for you....why not?
Because children deserve to be educated in a space that doesn't favour religion over non-religion, or one religion over others. Because being an organised religion doesn't offer any particular insight into education or child welfare.
O.
-
Because children deserve to be educated in a space that doesn't favour religion over non-religion, or one religion over others.
So you would favour non religion over religion....... and the answer to someone who questions religious representation must be yes Because being an organised religion doesn't offer any particular insight into education or child welfare.
But we know for instance that the backbone of the primary system at least are schools founded by religions. Diocesan boards of Education are part of the repository of educational expertise.
-
So you would favour non religion over religion....... and the answer to someone who questions religious representation must be yes
Only if you support non-religious representation (i.e. someone specifically appointed to represent non-religion) - and of course none of us are calling for this. So all we are saying is that there should be neither formal and automatic religious representation nor formal and automatic non-religious representation. That is about having a level playing field that neither favours religion over non-religion, nor non-religion over religion.
Of course committee members will bring their own religious and non-religious perspectives, based on their individual beliefs to the committee and that is absolutely fine, but in neither case is their appointment on the basis as acting as a formal representative for religion or for non-religion. As often happens with public bodies we'd want to be mindful of diversity on the committee, so we might have concerns if the committee ended up predominantly RCC or atheist etc, etc in the same manner as we might have concerns if a committee was entirely male, entirely white or entirely middle aged etc. But the approach then would be to encourage a broader diversity of people to put themselves forward for election/appointment as appropriate.
-
So you would favour non religion over religion...
On a purely personal level I'd like education to be able to focus on something useful, but the state of the world is such that children need to be taught about some of the predominant religious viewpoints. I don't see a need for religious organisations to be involved in the running of schools, and certainly I object to religious organisations using them as tools of indoctrination. I advocate for religion not having preferential treatment.
.... and the answer to someone who questions religious representation must be yes
And, yet again, because you seem to have some sort of fetish for this particular straw man, no-one is arguing against the OPTION of religious representation - in schools or in the upper house of parliament - we're arguing against it being an institutional requirement.
But we know for instance that the backbone of the primary system at least are schools founded by religions.
Hardly the backbone, but there are certainly a number of schools which were founded by religious organisations, and many which are still funded by religious organisations and which operate within premises owned by religious organisations - none of which is a good argument for requiring them to be involved the educational or pastoral decisions of those schools.
Diocesan boards of Education are part of the repository of educational expertise.
At best, questionable. If particular individuals are, then by all means consider those individuals for a place, but that doesn't mandate the requirement that school boards have religious representation.
O.
-
Only if you support non-religious representation (i.e. someone specifically appointed to represent non-religion) - and of course none of us are calling for this. So all we are saying is that there should be neither formal and automatic religious representation nor formal and automatic non-religious representation. That is about having a level playing field that neither favours religion over non-religion, nor non-religion over religion.
A level playing field would be say 3 religious bodies represented and 3 non religious bodies being represented
Of course committee members will bring their own religious and non-religious perspectives, based on their individual beliefs to the committee and that is absolutely fine, but in neither case is their appointment on the basis as acting as a formal representative for religion or for non-religion. As often happens with public bodies we'd want to be mindful of diversity on the committee, so we might have concerns if the committee ended up predominantly RCC or atheist etc, etc in the same manner as we might have concerns if a committee was entirely male, entirely white or entirely middle aged etc. But the approach then would be to encourage a broader diversity of people to put themselves forward for election/appointment as appropriate.
In an educational board there might be one or two diocesan board representatives but then there would be several more secular educational organisations represented because that, in the here and now, is where the expertise resides. Any lay individuals might carry a religious view or not. Are they there for their religious or non religious view or just to remark in a secular non religious way about secular non religious issues? Secondly, how does election confer expertise? That sounds like magical thinking to me.
-
A level playing field would be say 3 religious bodies represented and 3 non religious bodies being represented
Which bodies? Why? A level playing field would be appointed people to a school because of their background in education, ignoring their religious beliefs and affiliations entirely.
In an educational board there might be one or two diocesan board representatives but then there would be several more secular educational organisations represented because that, in the here and now, is where the expertise resides.
You are phrasing those two - religious and secular - as though they are opposites, and that's not the case, they are positions on different issues. You can, and do, get religious secularists.
Any lay individuals might carry a religious view or not. Are they there for their religious or non religious view or just to remark in a secular non religious way about secular non religious issues?
They should be there in an educational and pastoral framework to comment about education and pastoral matters - you know, stuff to do with schools.
Secondly, how does election confer expertise?
How does being in a church confer expertise in education? An election puts the assessment in the hands of those with a vested interest, so that they can select based upon whichever criteria they decide is most relevant and significant.
That sounds like magical thinking to me.
FFS, how far up do I have send an irony meter...?
O.
-
On a purely personal level I'd like education to be able to focus on something useful,
Yes and we all agree with that. The trouble of course comes when we come to what we personally view as useful and the trouble is look where the fallacy of modernity, the throwing out of the baby with the bath water and the law of unintended consequences has
got us to. but the state of the world is such that children need to be taught about some of the predominant religious viewpoints.
and of course because that is their own communal heritage, believers and the culturally religious are part of their community and kith and kin. I suppose you are as keen to see your kids educated in your culture. I don't see a need for religious organisations to be involved in the running of schools,
Why not? and certainly I object to religious organisations using them as tools of indoctrination.
I don't see the church of England primary which probably comprise the bulk of primaries as a tool for indoctrination.
-
How does being in a church confer expertise in education?
Being a church might not, But a Diocesan board of Education or it's equivalent certainly does. In the real world that is.
-
But we know for instance that the backbone of the primary system at least are schools founded by religions.
Absolute non-sense. Currently 36.8% of primary schools have a faith foundation. And that proportion hasn't changed markedly for decades, despite religiosity declining in the UK.
And the 1944 Education Act, which brought faith schools under formal state control was all about savings these schools from going bust due to falling roles - they were frankly, not the back-bone of the education system but the failing sector. The reason why they were failing was because although they received grants to support pupils prior to 1944 as private schools they were antiquated and massively in need of mordernisation. They were therefore unable to compete with the burgeoning numbers of non-faith schools that never had a religious foundation that had been establishing in the decades leading up to the 1944 Act.
The establishment of compulsory primary age schools was the result of the 1870 Elementary Education Act - this was based on the establishment of no-faith schools (indeed the act had a requirement that 'No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school). The backbone of compulsory state primary age education is that 1870 Act and the creation of state non-faith schools. The faith sector remained resolutely private, albeit expected state hand-outs - holding out until 1944 when it became clear to both churches and government that the faith schools were simply not able to deliver education to a suitable standard without major state investment.
-
Absolute non-sense. Currently 36.8% of primary schools have a faith foundation. And that proportion hasn't changed markedly for decades, despite religiosity declining in the UK.
What I mean is had the greater part of school foundation not been through the church it is doubtful that education would have emerged in any great quantity from secular sources. I would like us to consider the statistics. Does it include transfer to secular sponsorship, academy trusts and the like?
And the 1944 Education Act, which brought faith schools under formal state control was all about savings these schools from going bust due to falling roles - they were frankly, not the back-bone of the education system but the failing sector. The reason why they were failing was because although they received grants to support pupils prior to 1944 as private schools they were antiquated and massively in need of mordernisation. They were therefore unable to compete with the burgeoning numbers of non-faith schools that never had a religious foundation that had been establishing in the decades leading up to the 1944 Act.
Stats?
The establishment of compulsory primary age schools was the result of the 1870 Elementary Education Act
And church schools for parishes? - this was based on the establishment of no-faith schools (indeed the act had a requirement that 'No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school).
I went to a Cof E primary and I don't recall being taught any religious catechism. What do you think you mean by your comment. The backbone of compulsory state primary age education is that 1870 Act and the creation of state non-faith schools.
specifically non faith schools? can you give me an example of a school set up as specifically a no faith, faith free, zero faith involvement school? The faith sector remained resolutely private, albeit expected state hand-outs - holding out until 1944 when it became clear to both churches and government that the faith schools were simply not able to deliver education to a suitable standard without major state investment.
source?
-
What I mean is had the greater part of school foundation not been through the church it is doubtful that education would have emerged in any great quantity from secular sources.
Non-sense - actually the established churches opposed the 1870 act which supported, for the first time, the establishment of sufficient school places for all children up to the age of 12. Up to that time the church schools catered for just 25% of primary age children. The step change (and therefore the backbone of our current system) is the 1870 act, the key provision of which was the establishment of non-faith schools (with no religious foundation) controlled by schools boards and with state funding. Effectively what is still the backbone of our primary education system now.
-
Being a church might not, But a Diocesan board of Education or it's equivalent certainly does. In the real world that is.
Does it? Or does it pass of expertise whilst pushing a particular religion's agenda in education?
O.
-
Non-sense - actually the established churches opposed the 1870 act which supported, for the first time, the establishment of sufficient school places for all children up to the age of 12.
You make that sound like a secular society revolution . It wasn't please desist Up to that time the church schools catered for just 25% of primary age children. The step change (and therefore the backbone of our current system) is the 1870 act, the key provision of which was the establishment of non-faith schools (with no religious foundation) controlled by schools boards and with state funding.
Again can you name such schools? Are you saying that no church schools for the public were founded after this date?
-
Does it? Or does it pass of expertise whilst pushing a particular religion's agenda in education?
I put it to you that educational agenda was started in church schools and promoted through the numerous teacher training colleges of church foundation.
-
Yes and we all agree with that.
It doesn't seem like we do.
The trouble of course comes when we come to what we personally view as useful and the trouble is look where the fallacy of modernity, the throwing out of the baby with the bath water and the law of unintended consequences has got us to.
Wow. So much horse-shit, so little time. It's not about what we personally view as useful, it's about what academic studies of education suggest is best for children, and sectarianism isn't it, religious instruction isn't it. It's like there isn't a place for religion to promulgated within the curriculum, which is what religious groups want access to education for.
Again, you bring up this idea of the fallacy of modernity as though we're saying this must be better because it's new: no, it's better because it's better, the fact that it's the current thinking is an aside to that. We're not throwing out the bathwater, we're throwing out the requirement to only bathe the baby in holy water.
Presumably your bemoaning the 'law of unintended consequences' bringing us to here is a suggestion that the world is a worse place as we increasingly move away from organised religion; we have happier people, better life expectancy, more widespread literacy and education, an increase in rights equality, fewer wars... doesn't seem so bad from where I'm sitting.
and of course because that is their own communal heritage, believers and the culturally religious are part of their community and kith and kin.
And they should have the same opportunities for representation as everyone else in the community, too, rather than specially reserved places.
I suppose you are as keen to see your kids educated in your culture.
I'm not keen to see children educated IN any culture - about, I'd like to see them educated about a range of cultures.
I don't see the church of England primary which probably comprise the bulk of primaries as a tool for indoctrination.
Do you not?
O.
-
I put it to you that educational agenda was started in church schools and promoted through the numerous teacher training colleges of church foundation.
I put it to you that was a long time ago, and the relevance of the Church as a cultural, political, social and financial institution has changed massively since then. You'd be as well citing the Whigs agenda.
O.
-
It doesn't seem like we do.
It doesn't seem like it to you because you are probably a ''My way or the Highway'' sort of a chap.
Wow. So much horse-shit, so little time. It's not about what we personally view as useful, it's about what academic studies of education suggest is best for children,
Yes a liberal education and sectarianism isn't it,
I remember having a mate Michael who went to the catholic school. Absolutely no sense of sectarianism in our friendship. The erasure of RE from your curriculum just reflects your Hard secularism.
-
I put it to you that was a long time ago, and the relevance of the Church as a cultural, political, social and financial institution has changed massively since then. You'd be as well citing the Whigs agenda.
Crap.
-
It doesn't seem like it to you because you are probably a ''My way or the Highway'' sort of a chap.
As is evidenced by my advocation of equal access for all to parliament and the establishments of education, opposed to your more egalitarian concept of clinging to historic privilege by the instruments of historic religious power.
Yes a liberal education I remember having a mate Michael who went to the catholic school. Absolutely no sense of sectarianism in our friendship. The erasure of RE from your curriculum just reflects your Hard secularism.
Oh, shit, no, he's deployed an anecdote!!! Oh wait...
No-one is advocate eradicating religious education (teaching children about various religious positions and belief systems) but the time has come to end religious instruction (the indoctrination of children into a particular religion) as part of their education.
Crap.
Well, I see where you get the 'butt' in your rebuttal, now all you need is a point.
O.
-
No-one is advocate eradicating religious education (teaching children about various religious positions and belief systems) but the time has come to end religious instruction (the indoctrination of children into a particular religion) as part of their education.
That's certainly what will happen in a school which is institutionally hard secularist and non religionist. I'm sorry but every inspection of every claim of equality and fairness you've made collapses. It seems that when it comes to religion it is not religion that is taught in the institutionally secularist school but history and geography.
You can run from your own proselytising, evangelical awfulness but not hide it seems.
You say you want only secular organisations to judge the teaching of RE. Where is the check that your conception of religion is not just a swivel eyed secular bigots caricature?
-
That's certainly what will happen in a school which is institutionally hard secularist and non religionist.
And who in the thread is advocating such a thing?
I'm sorry but every inspection of every claim of equality and fairness you've made collapses.
Does it? Does it really? Are we not a more egalitarian society now than we were, say, in the 1800's (you know, the era you raised when religious institutions were one of the founding forces in public education)? Have we not achieved universal suffrage, equal marriage, child labour laws, a publicly-funded National Health Service...
It seems that when it comes to religion it is not religion that is taught in the institutionally secularist school but history and geography.
I don't think you've seen enough of what happens in modern classrooms; I'm married to a teacher, I am regaled with classroom tales every day.
You can run from your own proselytising, evangelical awfulness but not hide it seems.
Nobody hiding here, I'm owning every single thing I put on the page. You're the one that's spouting strawmen and citing irrelevant fallacies to try to obfuscate your apparent lack of any foundation for the argument you're attempting to make.
You say you want only secular organisations to judge the teaching of RE. Where is the check that your conception of religion is not just a swivel eyed secular bigots caricature?
Ofsted, probably, or the Independent Schools Inspectorate, if you're that way inclined. And, to be clear, it's not the judging of the teaching of RE, a religious input on whether the relevant aspect of the curriculum has been well delivered could conceivably be useful; it's the designing of the curriculum, the establishing in the scheme of work what the purpose of the lessons is (to educate, not indoctrinate, to inform without advocating) and to ensure that the individual lesson plans conform to that best practice.
O.
-
And who in the thread is advocating such a thing?
Does it? Does it really? Are we not a more egalitarian society now than we were, say, in the 1800's (you know, the era you raised when religious institutions were one of the founding forces in public education)? Have we not achieved universal suffrage, equal marriage, child labour laws, a publicly-funded National Health Service...
I don't think you've seen enough of what happens in modern classrooms;
Ha ha ha I'm married to a teacher, I am regaled with classroom tales every day.
Nobody hiding here, I'm owning every single thing I put on the page. You're the one that's spouting strawmen and citing irrelevant fallacies to try to obfuscate your apparent lack of any foundation for the argument you're attempting to make.
Ofsted, probably, or the Independent Schools Inspectorate, if you're that way inclined. And, to be clear, it's not the judging of the teaching of RE, a religious input on whether the relevant aspect of the curriculum has been well delivered could conceivably be useful; it's the designing of the curriculum, the establishing in the scheme of work what the purpose of the lessons is (to educate, not indoctrinate, to inform without advocating) and to ensure that the individual lesson plans conform to that best practice.
O.
Yes Centralising, delocalisation would certainly be the tendencies of the cult of the aspiritual homonculus. I'm glad you've come clean on your Hard secularism. Are you aware that the first OFSTED supremo was a guy called Chris Woodhead who I believe was a very public secular Humanist. Presumably OFSTED would draw their ''expertise'' from their wellspring of secular humanism with politbureau oversight.
So it is an expertise thing. Hard secularists don't want to gain any, since getting to close might result in going native, so we end up with the soviet approach where subjects are taught around the ideology.
-
You make that sound like a secular society revolution.
Actually when you consider the society of the day in the 1860s the political battles that led up to the 1870 act were about as close to a secular society revolution as you'd get.
So the Act:
1. Was based on the establishment of schools without religious foundation that were state funded and non-faith.
2. Enshrined the principle that holds today that non-faith schools should not favour any specific religious denomination.
3. Enshrined the principle that holds today that any religious education must not be compulsory and that parents must have the right to remove their children from RE.
4. That the schools are controlled by secular School Boards, later LEAs, that did not include representations from religious organisations.
Effectively the schools established by the 1870 are the direct forefathers of what we now consider to be non faith schools.
You may also like to know that there was a humungous battle between two organisations leading up to the 1870 Act - firstly the National Education League that aimed:
'at making education secular (to remove it out of the hands of priests of all denominations), compulsory (to overcome the tendency of squires and small manufacturers to keep children away from school), and free (in order to overcome the artisan's objection to losing the labour of his children)'
And the National Educational Union that demanded that state funding should simply go toward the provision of more schools with religious foundation that regarded that state funding (again direct quote):
Not a farthing of its funds is available for secular schools, nor for the promotion of mere bible-reading schools where no catechism of formula is allowed or taught ... It must regard a mere secular school as a source of great danger'
It was, without doubt a battle between the secular and the religious. Although there were some compromises it is absolutely clear that the secular argument won, with the establishment of state-funded non-religious schools effectively with exactly the features we see today. The churches actively tried to undermine the new Act, for example by trying to block the election of members of the new School Boards.
-
Ha ha ha
Sadly, that's approaching the most coherent argument you've not offered.
Yes Centralising, delocalisation would certainly be the tendencies of the cult of the aspiritual homonculus.
Those functions are already centralised - I'm open to a discussion on reform of Ofsted, if you've a strong opinion, but it's (again) a different discussion.
I'm glad you've come clean on your Hard secularism.
Yawn.
Are you aware that the first OFSTED supremo was a guy called Chris Woodhead who I believe was a very public secular Humanist.
I don't see anything about that in his wikipedia bio; as he's dead now, I'm not sure how relevant that is.
Presumably OFSTED would draw their ''expertise'' from their wellspring of secular humanism with politbureau oversight.
Why would you presume that? I'm sure that Ofsted would consult with, say, the various Christian communities on what should be included in the RE curriculum, just as they would with Public Health England on what should be included from a medical point of view in PSHE, indeed with the relevant experts in various fields.
So it is an expertise thing.
Shouldn't everything be?
Hard secularists don't want to gain any, since getting to close might result in going native, so we end up with the soviet approach where subjects are taught around the ideology.
Says the man, talking to 'soft' secularists, from the position of wishing to maintain ideologically religious influence in schooling. In a potentially infinite universe I'm not sure I can get an irony meter far enough way from you...
O.
-
Actually when you consider the society of the day in the 1860s the political battles that led up to the 1870 act were about as close to a secular society revolution as you'd get.
So the Act:
1. Was based on the establishment of schools without religious foundation that were state funded and non-faith.
yes and of course it's not going to deal with schools that are already church foundations or those schools that would be founded later.2. Enshrined the principle that holds today that non-faith schools should not favour any specific religious denomination.
3. Enshrined the principle that holds today that any religious education must not be compulsory and that parents must have the right to remove their children from RE.
4. That the schools are controlled by secular School Boards, later LEAs, that did not include representations from religious organisations.
In England only and then I doubt that English LEA's had no consultation with diocesan Boards of education
Effectively the schools established by the 1870 are the direct forefathers of what we now consider to be non faith schools.
Ah and this is it Prof, In 1870 it doesn't feel like a secular humanist triumph. It feels like extension of achievements in education.
You may also like to know that there was a humungous battle between two organisations leading up to the 1870 Act - firstly the National Education League that aimed:
'at making education secular (to remove it out of the hands of priests of all denominations)
Undeniably an anticlerical move but secular? and one toward professionalism certainly, compulsory (to overcome the tendency of squires and small manufacturers to keep children away from school), and free (in order to overcome the artisan's objection to losing the labour of his children)'[/i]
Do you know if any of these aims took precedence?
And the National Educational Union that demanded that state funding should simply go toward the provision of more schools with religious foundation that regarded that state funding (again direct quote):
Not a farthing of its funds is available for secular schools, nor for the promotion of mere bible-reading schools where no catechism of formula is allowed or taught ... It must regard a mere secular school as a source of great danger'
were these people soft and hard secularists? It seems they wanted money to go to bible reading schools where no catechism is taught.
-
yes and of course it's not going to deal with schools that are already church foundations or those schools that would be founded later.
But the point is that the churches and the National Education Union opposed the establishment of any school unless it had a church foundation.
In England only ...
Nope, in England and Wales.
Ah and this is it Prof, In 1870 it doesn't feel like a secular humanist triumph.
Humanism has nothing to do with it - but in the context of society in England & Wales in 1870 - yes it was a major step forward for secularism - the establishment of state funded secular schools (i.e. without a church foundation) which were accountable to an elected school board that had no automatic church representation.
It seems they wanted money to go to bible reading schools where no catechism is taught.
They wanted to establish what would have been considered in 1870 to be secular schools - in other words schools with no church foundation that were not accountable to a religious organisation. Sure the schools included RE on the curriculum (just as non-faith school do now), but that RE was to be non-denominational and not about bring up children within a particular religion. And the 1870 Act enshrined the principle still in place today that parents can remove their children from any RE or religious observance.
The schools established in 1870 are very similar in foundation and operation to the non-faith primary schools we still have today, which of course are the majority of primary schools in England & Wales. The 1870 Act and its establishment of secular state funded primary schools is the backbone of the system we still see today.
In fact had the established churches got their own way we'd have no system recognisible as the one we have today, as they explicitly opposed:
1. The establishment of schools without a church foundation.
2. Compulsory primary education.
3. Free education.
4. The extension of compulsory education beyond the age of 12.
5. State schools, rather than private schools with grants from the state
These are all things that are absolutely fundamental to our state education system - every one of them was opposed by the church establishment when they were proposed. I'd have thought you'd be in favour of free, compulsory, state education up to the age of 16/18 that includes non-faith schools - if so you'd be on the other side of the argument from the churches through the history of our educational system.
-
yes and of course it's not going to deal with schools that are already church foundations or those schools that would be founded later.In England only and then I doubt that English LEA's had no consultation with diocesan Boards of education Ah and this is it Prof, In 1870 it doesn't feel like a secular humanist triumph. It feels like extension of achievements in education. Undeniably an anticlerical move but secular? and one toward professionalism certainlyDo you know if any of these aims took precedence? were these people soft and hard secularists? It seems they wanted money to go to bible reading schools where no catechism is taught.
"Not an anachorinism... blah blah... fallacy of modernity... blah blah..." But just let me try to reach back to the 1800s to try to find a mote of relevance...
O.
-
But the point is that the churches and the National Education Union opposed the establishment of any school unless it had a church foundation.
OKNope, in England and Wales.
OKHumanism has nothing to do with it
Then in what way can they take any credit for it? - but in the context of society in England & Wales in 1870 - yes it was a major step forward for secularism - the establishment of state funded secular schools (i.e. without a church foundation) which were accountable to an elected school board that had no automatic church representation.
I'm not opposed to this. Fast forward to today though and we see the NSS and the secular Humanist are against foundation since they do not take up the equal opportunity of founding their own free schools.They wanted to establish what would have been considered in 1870 to be secular schools - in other words schools with no church foundation that were not accountable to a religious organisation.
Yes I get that and I am not opposed to that but the faith schools campaign it isn't. Sure the schools included RE on the curriculum (just as non-faith school do now),
I think they also wanted funding for ''Bible-Reading schools'' though according to you but that RE was to be non-denominational and not about bring up children within a particular religion. And the 1870 Act enshrined the principle still in place today that parents can remove their children from any RE or religious observance.
Fine but it still isn't the HumanistUK NSS faithschools campaign chiefly because they wanted funding for bible reading schools.
The schools established in 1870 are very similar in foundation and operation to the non-faith primary schools we still have today, which of course are the majority of primary schools in England & Wales. The 1870 Act and its establishment of secular state funded primary schools is the backbone of the system we still see today.
I don't think anybody is arguing against that pattern of education. It seems that Hard secularism though now opposes school foundation and thus finds itself in a universe where some of the thinking behind the faith schools campaign does not stack up.
In fact had the established churches got their own way we'd have no system recognisible as the one we have today, as they explicitly opposed:
Given the differences between their campaign and yours where do you now put yours? Hard secularist or soft secularist and would you say that I, who approve of these 1870 campaigners and their aims, was secularist or nonsecularist? and finally......am I a secular Humanist?
-
I think they also wanted funding for ''Bible-Reading schools'' though according to you.
No - it was the church establishment and the National Educational Union that used that term, in dismissive language, not those from the National Education League who wanted non denominational secular schools to be established.
The 'secularists' clearly expected RE to be taught in the new secular schools - why wouldn't they noting that this is 1870. And I'm not aware that this has changed 150 years later. I don't believe that the NSS thinks that there should be no mention of religion in schools - nope they support religious education, but on the basis that it is 'education' not instruction and delivered in a neutral and proportionate manner.
Interesting historical point - the NSS was established in 1866, so just 4 years before this landmark act. I'm not up in the history of the NSS enough to know to what extent they were involved in the push for secular education that was established in the 1870 act, but I'd not be surprised if they were.
-
No - it was the church establishment and the National Educational Union that used that term,
OK...But there must have been a class of school that wasn't a catechical establishment nor a secular school and that people were suggesting should, if not actually, be funded. not those from the National Education League who wanted non denominational secular schools to be established.
But here's where you are in error linking all non catechical schools with modern state schools where RE is taught. Where was the evidence that founders of secular schools wanted these ''bible-reading'' schools abolished...or even church schools abolished?
The 'secularists' clearly expected RE to be taught in the new secular schools - why wouldn't they noting that this is 1870. And I'm not aware that this has changed 150 years later. I don't believe that the NSS thinks that there should be no mention of religion in schools - nope they support religious education,
But we are still miles away from the faith schools campaign of the NSS and Humanist UK but on the basis that it is 'education' not instruction and delivered in a neutral and proportionate manner.
Is that in the 1870 act in the words and format you describe it? Surely the secularist and humanist organisation want religion taught as geography and history. Neutrality can never be the case since Faith schools campaign is a manifesto for all state schools to be uniquely secular humanist
Interesting historical point - the NSS was established in 1866, so just 4 years before this landmark act. I'm not up in the history of the NSS enough to know to what extent they were involved in the push for secular education that was established in the 1870 act, but I'd not be surprised if they were.
They may have been. But would it have amounted to Hard secularism of the faith schools campaign? It looks like it, because of a class of not quite secular, not quite church school ''Bible reading'' schools existed and Secularists have become more extreme and less tolerant.
-
The 'secularists' clearly expected RE to be taught in the new secular schools - why wouldn't they noting that this is 1870. And I'm not aware that this has changed 150 years later. I don't believe that the NSS thinks that there should be no mention of religion in schools - nope they support religious education, but on the basis that it is 'education' not instruction and delivered in a neutral and proportionate manner.
Proportionate to who?, I understand that the NSS consider the amount of religious broadcasting to be disproportionately high, when it is in fact miniscule. It is that kind of exaggeration and hyperbole that gives it the impression of being a bit off the wall. IMHO.
-
I understand that the NSS consider the amount of religious broadcasting to be disproportionately high, when it is in fact miniscule.
1 - why is your subjective opinion 'in fact', whilst the NSS's subjective opinion is a 'consideration'?
2 - it could be both be objectively miniscule and still disproportionate.
BBC religious output is required to produce 115 hours of tv and 370 hours of radio dedicated to religious content each year - approximately 10 hours a week of TV? Seems disproportionate to me, especially when you look into the content and see how Christian-centred that output skews, too.
O.
-
Proportionate to who?
Proportionate to the numbers of people who are actively religious in the UK, and to proportionately include non-religious moral philosophical standpoints. Now you love the term 'world-view', so here is an organisation using that in the context of reform of the RC curriculum to fit the 21stC. This seems very reasonable and sensible:
21st Century RE for all - It's time to reform religious and belief education
A high quality education for all
We want every pupil to have the same entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about worldviews. We want to see all schools preparing young people for life in modern Britain by teaching pupils about:
- The diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews.
- How people's worldviews may influence their thinking on philosophical, moral and cultural issues.
- Worldviews and rights: how the freedom to manifest religion and belief interacts with the rights of others.
Any form of confessionalism/religious instruction should be separated from this subject, and should only take place in a voluntary - non-state funded environment.
Of and that organisation ... the NSS. Now I guess had you not realised this was the campaign statement from the NSS you'd have no issue with it, but will disagree simply because you don't like the NSS. But nonetheless does this sound like an organisation that wants to abolish RE - clearly not.
-
I understand that the NSS consider the amount of religious broadcasting to be disproportionately high, when it is in fact miniscule.
Really - evidence please. As far as I can see the campaign information from the NSS makes no comment about the amount of religious broadcasting. It's main point is about the discriminatory nature of Thought for the Day which bans non religious participants even though they might have interesting and valid moral and philosophical 'thoughts'.
On religious broadcasting, their view is:
There is a place for high quality, critical religion and belief programming on the BBC. The public broadcaster undoubtedly can promote literacy on contemporary matters of religion and belief. We think the BBC should completely move away from proselytising, discriminatory or extremely deferential programming.
-
OK...But there must have been a class of school that wasn't a catechical establishment nor a secular school and that people were suggesting should, if not actually, be funded.
Not really as in 1870 a secular school was one that was defined as not having a religious foundation. So all schools were, in effect, one or the other. The church establishment opposed the provisions of the 1870 act to allow the establishment of secular state schools, funded from taxes and controlled by an elected school board. The churches wanted only their schools to be allowed - ones that had a religious foundation, were private (but they wanted grants from the state to support them) and under the control of religious authorities.
-
But here's where you are in error linking all non catechical schools with modern state schools where RE is taught.
Not really - sure things have moved on in the last 150 years, but the foundations established for the secular schools in the 1870 act remain clearly visible today in our non-faith schools. Notably that RE must be on the curriculum, should be taught without favouring one denomination over another and that parents have the right to remove their children.
Where was the evidence that founders of secular schools wanted these ''bible-reading'' schools abolished...
Again you are misunderstanding things - the 'bible reading' schools was a derogatory term used by the church establishment and the National Educational Union to describe the secular schools - in effect that they merely 'read the bible' rather than were required to worship and be instructed into a particular denomination. So, of course the secularists didn't want to abolish the 'bible reading' schools, as these were, in fact, the secular schools that they had established.
... or even church schools abolished?
As far as I am aware they didn't want the church school abolished, however they did campaign against them receiving public money. This all came to a head with the 1902 Education Act which established the system of funding of church schools which isn't a mile away from what we have today - at that time state funding became available for secular teaching in the church schools, but not for religious instruction nor for maintenance of the buildings.
The reality is that the relation of the churches towards eduction and the state has followed a familiar cycle over the past 150 years, namely.
1. We want to be in control of education, we don't want the state involved - we oppose anyone else being involved (1870)
2. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1902)
3. Sure we have state funding but we must be private, we don't want the state involved (1902-1944)
4. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1944)
5. Sure we have state funding and are state schools, we don't want the state involved in any decision making (1944-1959)
6. We've gone bust, we can't afford to maintain our schools, we want the state to bail us out
7. Repeat 6 several times as the amount of funding churches are required to input into maintaining their schools (despite them owning the assets) has dwindled to effectively no different to any other state school (who don't own the assets).
So in effect cycles of the churches telling the state to F-off out of their business and then going cap in hand to the state when they'd run out of money.
-
Not really - sure things have moved on in the last 150 years, but the foundations established for the secular schools in the 1870 act remain clearly visible today in our non-faith schools. Notably that RE must be on the curriculum, should be taught without favouring one denomination over another and that parents have the right to remove their children.
But there seems to be no attempt to convert schools to secular humanity schools, the onus being on foundation. Therefore afar less hard secularism.
Again you are misunderstanding things - the 'bible reading' schools was a derogatory term used by the church establishment and the National Educational Union to describe the secular schools -
And again is this correct since you cannot have a group of secular schools (yet to be founded large scale) and a separate group perjoritively called bible reading. The detractors give evidence of two distinct types here. Where is your evidence that they are one and the same? in effect that they merely 'read the bible' rather than were required to worship and be instructed into a particular denomination. So, of course the secularists didn't want to abolish the 'bible reading' schools, as these were, in fact, the secular schools that they had established.
Neither did they wish to ban church schools proper. And they had a foundation drive unlike the Faith schools campaign
1. We want to be in control of education, we don't want the state involved - we oppose anyone else being involved (1870)
2. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1902)
3. Sure we have state funding but we must be private, we don't want the state involved (1902-1944)
4. We've gone bust, we want the state to bail us out (1944)
5. Sure we have state funding and are state schools, we don't want the state involved in any decision making (1944-1959)
6. We've gone bust, we can't afford to maintain our schools, we want the state to bail us out
7. Repeat 6 several times as the amount of funding churches are required to input into maintaining their schools (despite them owning the assets) has dwindled to effectively no different to any other state school (who don't own the assets).
This account seems to be really biased, romanticised and revisionist. Can you point to any evidence for it? The question is of course were church schools providing a public service...if they were then why not public funding?
-
But there seems to be no attempt to convert schools to secular humanity schools, the onus being on foundation.
None of this discussion has anything to do with humanism or even humanity [sic]. It is about secularism - you know separation of state and church. Hence a state funded school with a religious foundation and controlled by religious authorities isn't secular. A state funded school without a religious foundation and controlled by secular authorities is, err, secular.
-
Neither did they wish to ban church schools proper. And they had a foundation drive unlike the Faith schools campaign
Actually, despite being separated by some 150 years the campaign objectives are incredibly similar - namely that they both had no issue with schools with a religious foundation existing, but they objected to public funding for those schools.
-
None of this discussion has anything to do with humanism or even humanity [sic]. It is about secularism - you know separation of state and church. Hence a state funded school with a religious foundation and controlled by religious authorities isn't secular. A state funded school without a religious foundation and controlled by secular authorities is, err, secular.
So on a thread about secular Humanism does that represent derail, a successful shimmy to not talk about humanism or what?
I think humanism has been at least touched upon since a secular school where religion is taught in the form of a hybrid of geography and history yet has a humanist ethos is a uniquely secular humanist establishment. Not a bad thing in itself perhaps but it representing all of educational contexts? Not sure.
-
Actually, despite being separated by some 150 years the campaign objectives are incredibly similar - namely that they both had no issue with schools with a religious foundation existing, but they objected to public funding for those schools.
But what about this type of school perjoratively called ''mere bible reading schools'' mentioned as a separate category from secular schools.
Did they want these schools to have funding? Again a reference or two might be handy.
-
So on a thread about secular Humanism does that represent derail, a successful shimmy to not talk about humanism or what?
I think humanism has been at least touched upon since a secular school where religion is taught in the form of a hybrid of geography and history yet has a humanist ethos is a uniquely secular humanist establishment. Not a bad thing in itself perhaps but it representing all of educational contexts? Not sure.
As a sub-component of this thread we are discussing the history of state education in England & Wales. The distinction between secular and non-secular schooling has been at the heart of that debate since 1870 when the first state schools were established. Humanism has never been a part of that debate as there are no state humanist schools today, nor have their been over the past 150 year. So a complete red herring and let's get back to the discussion of secularism in state education in England & Wales.
-
As a sub-component of this thread we are discussing the history of state education in England & Wales. The distinction between secular and non-secular schooling has been at the heart of that debate since 1870 when the first state schools were established. Humanism has never been a part of that debate as there are no state humanist schools today, nor have their been over the past 150 year. So a complete red herring and let's get back to the discussion of secularism in state education in England & Wales.
No I don't think it is a red herring seeing this is a discussion of the aims of people and the evidence coming from discussion of these matters is how antireligious are the campaigns, what effectively seeps into any vacuum resulting and why is it that Humanists are pushing this?
Also there is another mystery we have touched on. Why have secularists and humanist given up on school foundation but not say university foundation and why are Humanists majoring on minimising religious influence but completely blase about how their own world view is taught.
-
But what about this type of school perjoratively called ''mere bible reading schools'' mentioned as a separate category from secular schools.
They are the same thing. There were only two types of school established through the 1870 act, which first created state schools. Firstly so-called voluntary schools, that had religious foundations and remained private schools. Secondly secular 'Board' schools which were the first state schools in England, established without religious foundation and under the control of a secular School Board (hence secular).
If you actually want to educatE yourself a bit, there is huge amounts of information here:
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/index.html
However I suspect there may be a little too much information for you Vlad and also you might not like what it says.
This is also very interesting, but covers really just Church of England schools and the history of the The National Society (Church of England and Church in Wales) for the Promotion of Education which has been around since 1811 and is effectively the body that has overarching responsibility for CofE schooling. It is a little one-side both in its content (understandably) but also its editorial slant (perhaps not unreasonably as it is a history of the society produced by the society).
https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/2012%20Distinctive%20and%20Inclusive%20-%20The%20National%20Society%20and%20Church%20of%20England%20Schools%201811%20-%202011.pdf
However if you read both document you will see that my cyclical timelines hold true, with regular points where the church schools effectively went bust, or close to bust, and went cap in hand to the state. Perhaps I use somewhat different language but the reality holds true. So for example:
In the run up to the 1902 Act:
The cost of sustaining this expanded provision was huge. 'Knowingly or not the churches had overreached themselves' (Gates 2005:19), and 'the initial impetus given to voluntary-school building by the passing of the Act could not be maintained' (Lawson and Silver 1973:320). During the 1890s the number of voluntary schools fell by over 350 (there were 14,500 in 1900), while the number of board schools rose by almost a thousand.
The Church of England's objective was
to get the maximum public subsidy while conceding the least possible control, and at the same time, if possible, to reverse the 1870 compromise embodied in the Cowper-Temple clause and obtain entry for Anglican teaching in the board schools (Simon 1965:215).
In the run up to the 1936 Act:
In the 1929 election campaign, the Conservatives promised 'actively to seek an agreed settlement which will enable provided and non-provided schools to work together' (quoted in Simon 1974:150), to complete reorganisation and to improve all 'blacklisted' school buildings. This would be a major task because many church schools were in a state of chronic disrepair: of around 3,000 'blacklisted' schools condemned by the Board of Education in 1925 as 'unfit for further use', most were church schools (Simon 1991:52).
However, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church made it clear that, unless there was a settlement which met their demands, 'they would arrest all advance - in terms of reorganisation - by any means to hand' (Simon 1974:150).
In the run up to the 1944 Act:
By 1938 more than half the schools in England and Wales belonged to the churches; they educated about a third of the nation's children. Almost all these 'voluntary' or 'non-provided' schools were housed in Victorian buildings which the churches (mainly the Church of England and the Catholic Church) could not afford to maintain. They were 'the epitome of low-level mass education' (Jones 2003:18). Many were in a state of chronic disrepair: NUT President GCT Giles (of whom more below) called them 'pigsty schools' (Giles 1946:35), and Dent said they were 'a disgrace to any civilised people' and were 'condoned and perpetuated by the very institution in society - organised religion - which properly ought to be most concerned to improve them' (Dent 1942:23). He went on:
To-day, in spite of the accumulated evidence that they are quite unable to provide and maintain schools of a satisfactory standard, the Churches resolutely refuse to surrender their buildings to the State. It is easy to appreciate their concern that children shall be instructed in the Christian Faith according to their particular tenets, but it is difficult for the impartial observer to reconcile the tender care they manifest for the children's souls with the disregard they exhibit for their bodies (Dent 1942:24).
Of particular concern was the churches' inability (or unwillingness) to carry out 'Hadow reorganisation': by 1938, 62 per cent of council schools had been reorganised, but only 16 per cent of church schools. Several million children were thus condemned to spend their entire school career within a single 'all-age' school with no access to specialised teaching. 'Local authorities, and others, were in despair about the situation' (Simon 1991:52).
And I could go on, specifically since 1944 the numerous times when the churches have said they cannot afford to maintain their schools and demanded more and more capital funding. The 1944 Act specified a 50:50 split between church and state funds to maintain the church-owned asset. In the 1959 Act 75% funding was to be funded by the state, state funding increased further to 80% in 1967, to 85% in 1975 and finally to 90% - in each case precipitated by the churches pleading poverty. And even though church schools are legally obliged to contribute 10% to certain capital projects they don't even fulfil this obligation, with the most recent evidence indicating they only contribute 7%.
Now before you claim that non faith schools contribute nothing - that is simply untrue. For any significant capital programme these days there is a default expectation of 10% school contribution at the minimum. As a school governor at a non-faith school I've been involved in several of these multiple-million £ projects, and guess what? We've fulfilled our obligation to provide 10% of the capital costs from other sources. We'd have loved to have said, no we can only afford 7%, but we didn't - we abide by the rules.
-
They are the same thing. There were only two types of school established through the 1870 act, which first created state schools. Firstly so-called voluntary schools, that had religious foundations and remained private schools. Secondly secular 'Board' schools which were the first state schools in England, established without religious foundation and under the control of a secular School Board (hence secular).
If you actually want to education yourself a bit, there is huge amounts of information here:
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/index.html
However I suspect there may be a little too much information for you Vlad
.........
Squirrel Secularist
::)
-
They are the same thing. There were only two types of school established through the 1870 act, which first created state schools. Firstly so-called voluntary schools, that had religious foundations and remained private schools. Secondly secular 'Board' schools which were the first state schools in England, established without religious foundation and under the control of a secular School Board (hence secular). That doesn't identify what seems to be a separate category of schools which seem to predate the 1870 acts namely those perjoratively called ''bible-reading schools
If you actually want to educatE yourself a bit, there is huge amounts of information here:
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/index.html
Thanks I shall peruse that.
The cost of sustaining this expanded provision was huge. 'Knowingly or not the churches had overreached themselves' (Gates 2005:19), and 'the initial impetus given to voluntary-school building by the passing of the Act could not be maintained' (Lawson and Silver 1973:320). During the 1890s the number of voluntary schools fell by over 350 (there were 14,500 in 1900), while the number of board schools rose by almost a thousand.
The Church of England's objective was
to get the maximum public subsidy while conceding the least possible control, and at the same time, if possible, to reverse the 1870 compromise embodied in the Cowper-Temple clause and obtain entry for Anglican teaching in the board schools (Simon 1965:215).
In the run up to the 1936 Act:
In the 1929 election campaign, the Conservatives promised 'actively to seek an agreed settlement which will enable provided and non-provided schools to work together' (quoted in Simon 1974:150), to complete reorganisation and to improve all 'blacklisted' school buildings. This would be a major task because many church schools were in a state of chronic disrepair: of around 3,000 'blacklisted' schools condemned by the Board of Education in 1925 as 'unfit for further use', most were church schools (Simon 1991:52).
However, both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church made it clear that, unless there was a settlement which met their demands, 'they would arrest all advance - in terms of reorganisation - by any means to hand' (Simon 1974:150).
In the run up to the 1944 Act:
By 1938 more than half the schools in England and Wales belonged to the churches; they educated about a third of the nation's children. Almost all these 'voluntary' or 'non-provided' schools were housed in Victorian buildings which the churches (mainly the Church of England and the Catholic Church) could not afford to maintain. They were 'the epitome of low-level mass education' (Jones 2003:18). Many were in a state of chronic disrepair: NUT President GCT Giles (of whom more below) called them 'pigsty schools' (Giles 1946:35), and Dent said they were 'a disgrace to any civilised people' and were 'condoned and perpetuated by the very institution in society - organised religion - which properly ought to be most concerned to improve them' (Dent 1942:23). He went on:
To-day, in spite of the accumulated evidence that they are quite unable to provide and maintain schools of a satisfactory standard, the Churches resolutely refuse to surrender their buildings to the State. It is easy to appreciate their concern that children shall be instructed in the Christian Faith according to their particular tenets, but it is difficult for the impartial observer to reconcile the tender care they manifest for the children's souls with the disregard they exhibit for their bodies (Dent 1942:24).
Of particular concern was the churches' inability (or unwillingness) to carry out 'Hadow reorganisation': by 1938, 62 per cent of council schools had been reorganised, but only 16 per cent of church schools. Several million children were thus condemned to spend their entire school career within a single 'all-age' school with no access to specialised teaching. 'Local authorities, and others, were in despair about the situation' (Simon 1991:52).
And I could go on, specifically since 1944 the numerous times when the churches have said they cannot afford to maintain their schools and demanded more and more capital funding. The 1944 Act specified a 50:50 split between church and state funds to maintain the church-owned asset. In the 1959 Act 75% funding was to be funded by the state, state funding increased further to 80% in 1967, to 85% in 1975 and finally to 90% - in each case precipitated by the churches pleading poverty. And even though church schools are legally obliged to contribute 10% to certain capital projects they don't even fulfil this obligation, with the most recent evidence indicating they only contribute 7%.
Now before you claim that non faith schools contribute nothing - that is simply untrue. For any significant capital programme these days there is a default expectation of 10% school contribution at the minimum. As a school governor at a non-faith school I've been involved in several of these multiple-million £ projects, and guess what? We've fulfilled our obligation to provide 10% of the capital costs from other sources. We'd have loved to have said, no we can only afford 7%, but we didn't - we abide by the rules.
I don't recall denying that providing a public service cost the Churches. You seem to be pushing a financial mismanagement by churches agenda here as a smokescreen. Schools, Academy trusts and Local authorities have been running short of money since 1870 I think you'll find
-
You seem to be pushing a financial mismanagement by churches agenda here as a smokescreen.
It isn't a smokescreen and certainly there have been times over the past 150 years where there has been clear financial mismanagement - most notably between 1870 and 1900 when churches built schools they new they could possibly find the money to maintain, with public funding in an attempt to crowd out secular Board schools.
Schools, Academy trusts and Local authorities have been running short of money since 1870 I think you'll find
But there is a world of difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure depending on who owns the asset.
So revenue expenditure - day to day spending on staff, consumables, most equipment etc etc is covered 100% in both faith and non-faith schools by the state.
The difference is capital expenditure. Realistically both faith and non-faith schools are likely to be required to cough up 10% of the costs of any major project, but the key difference is who owns the asset. In the case of non-faith schools it is, effectively, the state. So when the state invests in its asset (e.g. a new school building) it owns the asset which is now worth more. And that increased capital value sits on its books. So if the state invests £3M in a new school building the value of the state owned asset increases by £3M. Sure they have to find the money but in accounting terms they are even - they've invested £3M and increased the value of their asset by £3M.
But that isn't the case for most faith schools where the assets (buildings etc) are actually owned by the religious organisation. So if they spend £3M on a new building their asset will increase by £3M (perhaps more). Yet they are only contributing perhaps £300k. So the church invests just £300k (realistically even less than that) yet they end up owning an asset that is worth £3M more. Great deal for the church. Terrible deal for the state (i.e. the tax-payer) - they invest £2.7M but in reality in accounting terms they are simply transferring that capital value from the state to the church.
If churches want to retain ownership of these buildings and retain the cash if they sell them (which is often the case) then it isn't unreasonable that they should find the money to maintain/improve them themselves. If on the other had they want the tax-payer to cough up the bill then the value of the asset should reasonably be transferred to the state on the basis of the relative investment from the state and the church. But that isn't what happens. So since 1944 the overwhelming majority of the money to maintain and improve faith school buildings has come from the state yet the church continues to own the maintained/improved asset 100%.
-
It isn't a smokescreen and certainly there have been times over the past 150 years where there has been clear financial mismanagement - most notably between 1870 and 1900 when churches built schools they new they could possibly find the money to maintain, with public funding in an attempt to crowd out secular Board schools.
But there is a world of difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure depending on who owns the asset.
So revenue expenditure - day to day spending on staff, consumables, most equipment etc etc is covered 100% in both faith and non-faith schools by the state.
The difference is capital expenditure. Realistically both faith and non-faith schools are likely to be required to cough up 10% of the costs of any major project, but the key difference is who owns the asset. In the case of non-faith schools it is, effectively, the state. So when the state invests in its asset (e.g. a new school building) it owns the asset which is now worth more. And that increased capital value sits on its books. So if the state invests £3M in a new school building the value of the state owned asset increases by £3M. Sure they have to find the money but in accounting terms they are even - they've invested £3M and increased the value of their asset by £3M.
But that isn't the case for most faith schools where the assets (buildings etc) are actually owned by the religious organisation. So if they spend £3M on a new building their asset will increase by £3M (perhaps more). Yet they are only contributing perhaps £300k. So the church invests just £300k (realistically even less than that) yet they end up owning an asset that is worth £3M more. Great deal for the church. Terrible deal for the state (i.e. the tax-payer) - they invest £2.7M but in reality in accounting terms they are simply transferring that capital value from the state to the church.
If churches want to retain ownership of these buildings and retain the cash if they sell them (which is often the case) then it isn't unreasonable that they should find the money to maintain/improve them themselves. If on the other had they want the tax-payer to cough up the bill then the value of the asset should reasonably be transferred to the state on the basis of the relative investment from the state and the church. But that isn't what happens. So since 1944 the overwhelming majority of the money to maintain and improve faith school buildings has come from the state yet the church continues to own the maintained/improved asset 100%.
May I just point out something of the providence of your source material as recommended by you. This from chapter six
''But in other respects, the 1870 Act failed to resolve the problem of the involvement of the churches in state educational provision. It could have begun to separate church and state, as was happening in other countries. 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism, institutional convenience and a political predisposition to enjoy religious company in spite of its irks' (Gates 2005:18).''
Since involvement of the churches is seen as a ''problem'' this is not a neutral source is it Davey?
That said, what do you see as the problem? It can't be financial after all '' 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism'' so what is it? and when is the job of secularisation in education finished, bearing in mind that as a secularist I think reducing RE to a hybrid of History and Geography as over the top yet that is where we find ourselves.
-
It isn't a smokescreen and certainly there have been times over the past 150 years where there has been clear financial mismanagement - most notably between 1870 and 1900 when churches built schools they new they could possibly find the money to maintain, with public funding in an attempt to crowd out secular Board schools.
But there is a world of difference between revenue expenditure and capital expenditure depending on who owns the asset.
So revenue expenditure - day to day spending on staff, consumables, most equipment etc etc is covered 100% in both faith and non-faith schools by the state.
The difference is capital expenditure. Realistically both faith and non-faith schools are likely to be required to cough up 10% of the costs of any major project, but the key difference is who owns the asset. In the case of non-faith schools it is, effectively, the state. So when the state invests in its asset (e.g. a new school building) it owns the asset which is now worth more. And that increased capital value sits on its books. So if the state invests £3M in a new school building the value of the state owned asset increases by £3M. Sure they have to find the money but in accounting terms they are even - they've invested £3M and increased the value of their asset by £3M.
But that isn't the case for most faith schools where the assets (buildings etc) are actually owned by the religious organisation. So if they spend £3M on a new building their asset will increase by £3M (perhaps more). Yet they are only contributing perhaps £300k. So the church invests just £300k (realistically even less than that) yet they end up owning an asset that is worth £3M more. Great deal for the church. Terrible deal for the state (i.e. the tax-payer) - they invest £2.7M but in reality in accounting terms they are simply transferring that capital value from the state to the church.
If churches want to retain ownership of these buildings and retain the cash if they sell them (which is often the case) then it isn't unreasonable that they should find the money to maintain/improve them themselves. If on the other had they want the tax-payer to cough up the bill then the value of the asset should reasonably be transferred to the state on the basis of the relative investment from the state and the church. But that isn't what happens. So since 1944 the overwhelming majority of the money to maintain and improve faith school buildings has come from the state yet the church continues to own the maintained/improved asset 100%.
I'm interested in how this practice qualitatively or quantitatively differs from academy trusts being handed council land other than of course, the religious element.
I believe any gain like this would be open to any partaker of the free school set up?
-
May I just point out something of the providence of your source material as recommended by you. This from chapter six
''But in other respects, the 1870 Act failed to resolve the problem of the involvement of the churches in state educational provision. It could have begun to separate church and state, as was happening in other countries. 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism, institutional convenience and a political predisposition to enjoy religious company in spite of its irks' (Gates 2005:18).''
Since involvement of the churches is seen as a ''problem'' this is not a neutral source is it Davey?
That said, what do you see as the problem? It can't be financial after all '' 'That this did not happen was based on a combination of economic realism'' so what is it? and when is the job of secularisation in education finished, bearing in mind that as a secularist I think reducing RE to a hybrid of History and Geography as over the top yet that is where we find ourselves.
It isn't non-neutral to indicate that there has been a 'problem' of the involvement of churches in state education provision. That is self evident as we are having the same debate now as people had 150 year ago. If someone talked about the 'Irish problem' that wouldn't indicate that they were pro or anti a united Ireland merely that they recognise this to be an ongoing and contentious issue.
-
I'm interested in how this practice qualitatively or quantitatively differs from academy trusts being handed council land other than of course, the religious element.
I believe any gain like this would be open to any partaker of the free school set up?
I am a governor (well actually a Trustee) of an academy trust school, and there are major differences between academies and VA schools which don't relate just to religion. You may be aware that not all VA school are religious - there are a tiny number of non religious VA schools.
One difference is that the ownership of the trust land and buildings by the trust/trustees is nominal only. We can do nothing with the land and buildings and our structure is effectively merely the same as a LEA but driven down a level or two. So we are really just a public body. That is entirely different to a religious diocese that is a very real thing and is not a public body whatsoever. The controlling body of a VA school has far greater authority to act over its land and buildings compared to an academy trust. You may also be aware that VA schools dug their heals in over academisation in order to gain concessions so that if they became academies they would retain control in a manner that most academies don't.
Academy land and buildings are basically public land not private land, so value on sale reverts back to the public purse. That isn't the case for VA schools where the land/buildings are owned by the diocese and are therefore considered to be private land. However there is the basic provision of 'publicly funded improvement' - effectively this is a fundamental provision that if the state improves private land or property then it must receive back the value of the investment on sale or realisation of the value of that land or building. Problem is that this doesn't apply to VA schools - this from official DfE guidance:
'In practice most previously private land at voluntary-aided schools would currently be unlikely to meet the legal definition of publicly funded land following enhancement, since central grant from the Department was not covered prior to 2007, and since 2007 has required a specific notice that the grant will act to make the land meet the definition of publicly funded land. Notwithstanding this likelihood, the Department requires that the local authority be offered the chance to give their view on whether or not the land is publicly funded.'
So the best to be hoped for is that the local authority can make an argument that the land is publicly funded, but no guarantee of success. Therefore this means that if the VA school decides to sell land and buildings it is likely to be able to pocket the value of the sale regardless of there being public funding to improve or even to build the building. And I know this has happened - I'm aware of a situation in Wales where the diocese sold off one school site for housing development and split the proceeds between building a new school on a different and cheaper site with the balance going directly to the diocese. This despite there being significant public funding on that original school over decades.
-
I put it to you that educational agenda was started in church schools and promoted through the numerous teacher training colleges of church foundation.
What if it was? That was then. This is now.
-
It isn't non-neutral to indicate that there has been a 'problem' of the involvement of churches in state education provision. That is self evident as we are having the same debate now as people had 150 year ago. If someone talked about the 'Irish problem' that wouldn't indicate that they were pro or anti a united Ireland merely that they recognise this to be an ongoing and contentious issue.
But what is the problem Davey? Apparently it was an economically expedient. Church schools existed long before state provision existed, the state wasn't entirely secular either in membership and constitution of government and local government.
Again it seems the problems are all from the Hard secularists perspective.
I do not believe there has been an Irish problem. The irish problem is as we have recently learned has always been the English problem.
-
What if it was? That was then. This is now.
But is the faith schools campaign an educational agenda really, or is it a secular humanists agenda?
-
But is the faith schools campaign an educational agenda really, or is it a secular humanists agenda?
It's an educational issue - don't the children attending faith schools deserve an education free of overt, state-funded indoctrination into a faith?
It's a secular issue - doesn't the state have a responsibility to provide education to all free from sectarian favouritism?
I'm not sure if it's a humanist issue, particularly, beyond the humanist inference on individual agency being best realised through informed self-direction, which rather opposes the idea of religious indoctrination of children. Humanism favours teaching children how to think, not what to think.
O.
-
Church schools existed long before state provision existed ...
Firstly - so what. Why does longevity have any relevance. And in other posts you don't seem to keen on private, rather than state, education.
But secondly, as we are discussing state education I could easily remind you that secular state schools existed long before faith state schools, noting that faith schools were effectively private (albeit subsidised by the state) until 1944. It was the 1944 Act that brought about the first faith state schools. There had, of course, been non-faith state schools since 1870.
-
Again it seems the problems are all from the Hard secularists perspective.
Non-sense - for it to be 'hard' secular (under you rather arbitrary definition) there would need to be an attempt to eradicate all religious education, regardless of whether that is state, private, voluntary, Sunday School etc. I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting that, nor does the NSS, nor did the various historic campaigns as outlined in the history of education piece.
Indeed this is the softest of soft secularism, given that all we are advocating is that there should not be state funding for any school with a specific religious foundation/ethos. I, and the NSS, for example strongly think that there should be RE in schools, albeit they and I would like to see it reformed to be broader, more neutral and better matched to the current diversity of beliefs (religious and otherwise) in the UK today. There is no suggestion that schools in the private sector cannot be religious, nor that churches cannot set up extra curricular education that aligns with their religious beliefs. All fine by me, albeit I'd expect fundamental legal/regulatory expectations e.g. basic safety/quality of provision and adherence to equalities legislation to apply to these schools in the same manner as and other educational provision.
-
Non-sense - for it to be 'hard' secular (under you rather arbitrary definition) there would need to be an attempt to eradicate all religious education, regardless of whether that is state, private, voluntary, Sunday School etc. I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting that, nor does the NSS, nor did the various historic campaigns as outlined in the history of education piece.
Indeed this is the softest of soft secularism, given that all we are advocating is that there should not be state funding for any school with a specific religious foundation/ethos. I, and the NSS, for example strongly think that there should be RE in schools, albeit they and I would like to see it reformed to be broader, more neutral and better matched to the current diversity of beliefs (religious and otherwise) in the UK today. There is no suggestion that schools in the private sector cannot be religious, nor that churches cannot set up extra curricular education that aligns with their religious beliefs. All fine by me, albeit I'd expect fundamental legal/regulatory expectations e.g. basic safety/quality of provision and adherence to equalities legislation to apply to these schools in the same manner as and other educational provision.
I'm gaugeing Secularism by this reference from Wikipedia
Secularism may be categorized into two types, "hard" and "soft". "Hard" secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible. The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;[9] arguing "the attainment of "absolute truth" is "impossible and therefore scepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion"
The thing is then that the teaching of RE from a geography, sociology, and history view seems to be hard secularist since religious propositions are deemed in this context illegitimate.
-
I'm gaugeing Secularism by this reference from Wikipedia
Secularism may be categorized into two types, "hard" and "soft". "Hard" secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible. The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;[9] arguing "the attainment of "absolute truth" is "impossible and therefore scepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion"
The thing is then that the teaching of RE from a geography, sociology, and history view seems to be hard secularist since religious propositions are deemed in this context illegitimate.
Firstly - if hard secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible then they won't allow any mention of religious claims (e.g. that christians believe that Jesus was the son of god, resurrected etc) within schools. Why would a hard secularist permit children to learn about propositions they think are illegitimate - they will deny them the space within the school curriculum for those propositions to be heard. So having any RE within schools inconsistent with the definition of hard secularism.
Secondly no-one is talking about RE being taught from a geography, sociology, and history view - no, I (and the NSS) see is as part of education around ethics and philosophy along with other non religious worldview. Have you even bothered to read the NSS on what they think RE should cover. For reference:
We want every pupil to have the same entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about worldviews. We want to see all schools preparing young people for life in modern Britain by teaching pupils about:
- The diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews.
- How people's worldviews may influence their thinking on philosophical, moral and cultural issues.
- Worldviews and rights: how the freedom to manifest religion and belief interacts with the rights of others.
Arguably there is an element of sociology, but this isn't about history or geography - it is fundamentally about exploring religious and non-religious propositions as they apply to philosophy and ethics, and also to explore those propositions within the context of rights of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. None of that would be taught in schools under hard secularism.
So, as so often Vlad, you are completely wrong. The suggestions are the softest of soft secularism.
-
Firstly - if hard secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible
Yes then they won't allow any mention of religious claims (e.g. that christians believe that Jesus was the son of god, resurrected etc) within schools.
That though isn't in the definition. What is in the definition though is ''to deny them as much as possible.'' For me this would come in the form of institutional secular humanism. Christianity comes against Hard secularism less I would imagine than say Islam which has a positive statement of faith rather than a credo. Why would a hard secularist permit children to learn about propositions they think are illegitimate - they will deny them the space within the school curriculum for those propositions to be heard.
Again the denial need not necessarily be upfront although there is nothing I see to prevent in the past secular heads from preventing RE. How then would a secularist like your self respond to visiting Imans, priests, Ministers, Gurus or vicars giving positive statements of faith and credos? So having any RE within schools inconsistent with the definition of hard secularism.
again that depends on school leader reactions to the announcement of faith statements and the school's response to them.
Secondly no-one is talking about RE being taught from a geography, sociology, and history view - no, I (and the NSS) see is as part of education around ethics and philosophy along with other non religious worldview. Have you even bothered to read the NSS on what they think RE should cover. For reference:
We want every pupil to have the same entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about worldviews. We want to see all schools preparing young people for life in modern Britain by teaching pupils about:
- The diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews.
- How people's worldviews may influence their thinking on philosophical, moral and cultural issues.
- Worldviews and rights: how the freedom to manifest religion and belief interacts with the rights of others.
I believe these organisations are wrong about neutrality, though both in the nature of the subject matter and in the nature of their reaction to it.
Arguably there is an element of sociology, but this isn't about history or geography - it is fundamentally about exploring religious and non-religious propositions as they apply to philosophy and ethics, and also to explore those propositions within the context of rights of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. None of that would be taught in schools under hard secularism.
i'm taking no lessons from you on soft secularism from you Davey in remembrance of your statement of desire of the end of religion.
Secondly the acid test is this. The local imam comes into the school gives the positive Islamic statement of faith There is one God etc, How does the school respond or The vicar comes in and answers a question on how he became a christian or a hindu declaring bakhti. Well, how do you and others including Susan Doris if she's following this thread respond?
Don't invite, or invite and ask them to remove bits that offend, or make a statement afterwards.....If the last, what statement?
-
i'm taking no lessons from you on soft secularism from you Davey in remembrance of your statement of desire of the end of religion.
You will have to remind me of that one Vlad, as I do not recollect making any such statement.
-
How then would a secularist like your self respond to visiting Imans, priests, Ministers, Gurus or vicars giving positive statements of faith and credos?
Well in my experience of non-faith state schools, they go further than that. Rather than invite mans, priests, Ministers, Gurus or vicars into the schools, they are more likely to take the kids to visit the temples, churches, mosques etc and meet the religious leaders on their own patch to get an even better understanding of their religions, beliefs customs etc.
Interesting difference between faith and non-faith schools. While the non-faith schools I've been involved in have taken their pupils to visit these places of worship. By contrast my in-laws kids attend a catholic school - they have never been to any place of worship organised by their school, except the catholic church. Likewise the CofE school my wife taught in - there was a suggestion that they take the kids to a local hindu temple - it created a massive stink amongst governors and parents.
-
Secondly the acid test is this. The local imam comes into the school gives the positive Islamic statement of faith There is one God etc, How does the school respond or The vicar comes in and answers a question on how he became a christian or a hindu declaring bakhti. Well, how do you and others including Susan Doris if she's following this thread respond?
I would expect the school to be completely neutral to the claims - neither indicating them to be right, nor to be wrong. I would expect there to be the opportunity for the students to discuss the claims, to ask questions, to try to understand what the religious leader believes and why. And to engage in the discussion in a two-way respectful manner. In other words that the students should be respectful of the views of the religious leader and that the religious leader should treat the questions, comments etc of the students with respect to.
The whole purpose being for the students to understand more about the faith position of the religious leader regardless of their own views on the matter.
I should add that the school needs to be careful to ensure balance and neutrality - so it wouldn't be reasonable to have the local Imam invited into the school (or inviting the students to the mosque) every couple of weeks if the local rabbi is never engaged.
-
I believe these organisations are wrong about neutrality, though both in the nature of the subject matter and in the nature of their reaction to it.
Well that's your opinion, but then you complaining of others being non neutral is real pot/kettle territory. Given that secularism is fundamentally about freedom of religion and freedom from religion is is inherently neutral - fundamentally neither favouring nor disadvantaging people on the basis of whether or not they have a religious belief.
-
Don't invite, or invite and ask them to remove bits that offend, or make a statement afterwards.....If the last, what statement?
See above - invite, get them to tell the students about their beliefs, allow the students to ask questions and discuss their beliefs. And that's it.
I mentioned respect previously - so in the spirit of respect it wouldn't be reasonable for the students to treat an imam as if he was a terrorist, because of islamic terrorism. But similarly it would not be appropriate for a RC priest to come in and claim that homosexuality is evil as there may be gay students in the room. So yes, there may be opinions that the school would not expect to be discussed as they have a duty of care towards their students and that would include a duty of care not to expect a gay student to be subjected to such views within the school environment. That said, it would be a pretty stupid priest who would use the opportunity to discuss their faith with a group of students to use it for a homophobic rant.
-
Well that's your opinion, but then you complaining of others being non neutral is real pot/kettle territory. Given that secularism is fundamentally about freedom of religion and freedom from religion is is inherently neutral - fundamentally neither favouring nor disadvantaging people on the basis of whether or not they have a religious belief.
The idea that you can have freedom of religion and freedom from religion is pure Cake-ism.
-
See above - invite, get them to tell the students about their beliefs, allow the students to ask questions and discuss their beliefs. And that's it.
Agreed
I mentioned respect previously - so in the spirit of respect it wouldn't be reasonable for the students to treat an imam as if he was a terrorist, because of islamic terrorism. But similarly it would not be appropriate for a RC priest to come in and claim that homosexuality is evil as there may be gay students in the room. So yes, there may be opinions that the school would not expect to be discussed as they have a duty of care towards their students and that would include a duty of care not to expect a gay student to be subjected to such views within the school environment. That said, it would be a pretty stupid priest who would use the opportunity to discuss their faith with a group of students to use it for a homophobic rant.
Yes but someone still has to have that chat with Father
Ted to check that he's on the same page.
-
The idea that you can have freedom of religion and freedom from religion is pure Cake-ism.
No it isn't - it is secularism. There of course need to be checks and balances to ensure that the freedom of one group or individual to practice their religion doesn't unreasonably impact on another group or individual's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion. But that is no different to the checks and balances that we have on freedom of expression vs hate speech etc. Hardly rocket science.
-
No it isn't - it is secularism. There of course need to be checks and balances to ensure that the freedom of one group or individual to practice their religion doesn't unreasonably impact on another group or individual's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion.
That just makes ''freedom of religion and freedom from religion'' a slogan but one that leads us to examine, hopefully, any compromises that must be made and what compromises we are prepared to make and how we disappoint both sides. But that is no different to the checks and balances that we have on freedom of expression vs hate speech etc. Hardly rocket science.
But it is dangerous to think that is a done deal. I'm still, along with people like Rowan Williams and those of minority religions he said changed his mind on disestablishment, suspicious of the phrase ''Freedom from religion''. That can't be just paranoia, since it sounds rather like an advert for cleanser particularly from the more swivel eyed of your fraternity. Perhaps you can put us at ease as to what ''freedom from religion'' looks like to you and why I should believe that all others of your stripe take as less extreme interpretation of the phrase
-
I'm still, along with people like Rowan Williams and those of minority religions he said changed his mind on disestablishment, suspicious of the phrase ''Freedom from religion''.
I this the same non-sense you came out with on another thread implying that minority religious groups supported the Bishops being in the House of Lords:
'... from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.'
This is flat out untrue - there hasn't been much research on this, but that which has been conducted has shown that people from every single religious group (where there were enough people surveyed) opposed the presence of the Bishops in the HoLs. So jewish people were opposed, muslims were opposed, hindus were opposed. For crying out loud, even christians were opposed.
-
I this the same non-sense you came out with on another thread implying that minority religious groups supported the Bishops being in the House of Lords:
'... from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.'
This is flat out untrue - there hasn't been much research on this, but that which has been conducted has shown that people from every single religious group (where there were enough people surveyed) opposed the presence of the Bishops in the HoLs. So jewish people were opposed, muslims were opposed, hindus were opposed. For crying out loud, even christians were opposed.
As all very well as this maybe, what on earth does freedom from religion mean if not your life being completely religion free. I keep asking You and those of your stripe fundamental questions like this but like the freemasons you wish to preserve your mystique.
-
As all very well as this maybe, ...
So is that the closest we will get to you and Rowan Williams lying when you claim that people of minority religions want to retain the Bishops in the HoLs since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.
For the record this is the proportion of people from the various religions (where there were sufficient numbers to draw conclusion) who do not want to retain the Bishops position in the HoLs (proportion who want the Bishops is brackets).
Christian - 70% (26%)
Muslim - 53% (33%)
Hindu - 69% (18%)
Jewish - 59% (25%)
Other religion - 80% (17%)
For the record the results for no religion were 83% (13%) with overall 74% opposing and just 21% supporting.
-
So is that the closest we will get to you and Rowan Williams lying when you claim that people of minority religions want to retain the Bishops in the HoLs since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.
For the record this is the proportion of people from the various religions (where there were sufficient numbers to draw conclusion) who do not want to retain the Bishops position in the HoLs (proportion who want the Bishops is brackets).
Christian - 70% (26%)
Muslim - 53% (33%)
Hindu - 69% (18%)
Jewish - 59% (25%)
Other religion - 80% (17%)
For the record the results for no religion were 83% (13%) with overall 74% opposing and just 21% supporting.
I don’t believe that I or Roman Williams made any claim involving numbers .He reports that he knows people in minority faiths who see the House of Lords spiritual as a bulwark against hard secularism and that made him rethink his position on disestablishment. I think similarly.
You seemed to have turned that into some kind of argumentum ad populum. At no point have I claimed any or majorities or numbers.
What doesn’t help of course are statements like “freedom from religion”.....what would you say is the non threatening version of that particular call for eradication?
-
I don’t believe that I or Roman Williams made that claim. He reports that he knows people in minority faiths who see the House of Lords spiritual as a bulwark against hard secularism and that made him rethink his position on disestablishment. I think similarly.
Death by anecdote - the implication when someone makes that kind of comment is that the faith community in general supports Bishops in the Lords, rather than some random individual they spoke to in the street (or more likely the central lobby of parliament). That you can find an individual within a faith community with that view is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether the faith community (in other words the sum of those individual views) is in favour or not. And very clearly they are not.
Indeed I it is very rare to find a question with almost unanimity of response when you breakdown the opinion by various sub-demographics.
So:
Christians - opposed
Muslims - opposed
Jewish - opposed
Hindu - opposed
Other religions - opposed
Non-religious - opposed
Male - opposed
Female - opposed
Every single region across the UK - opposed
Every single age group - opposed
Every single socio-economic grouping - opposed
But hey, Rowan Williams (and Vlad) chatted to a muslim who was in support, and uses it to claim some generalised support for the Bishops within minority faith communities. Disingenuous and, frankly, rather pathetic and sad.
-
You seemed to have turned that into some kind of argumentum ad populum. At no point have I claimed any or majorities or numbers.
So you therefore accept that not only is there strong opposition to the Bishops overall, there is also strong opposition across the various faith groups. And in doing so your argument that:
'... from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.'
Is completely meaningless because most in those religious communities don't want the Lords Spiritual to exist.
-
He reports that he knows people in minority faiths who see the House of Lords spiritual as a bulwark against hard secularism and that made him rethink his position on disestablishment. I think similarly.
But that is completely lazy thinking - and rather disingenuous from a person and an organisation that benefits from the status quo. Weird that he seems only to be listening to the minority in those faith communities who want his bishops to remain, but ignoring the majority who want them gone. Why isn't he listening to them and rethinking his position'.
And frankly do we have any evidence that Rowan Williams ever opposed the Bishops in the Lords (given that he was one). This is a classic disingenuous trope whereby someone claims that a compelling argument from someone else changed they mind, when that supposedly new position was likely always their position and is highly advantageous to them.
-
What doesn’t help of course are statements like “freedom from religion”.....what would you say is the non threatening version of that particular call for eradication?
You are taking that out of its usual context. "Freedom of religion & Freedom from religion". They go hand in hand. It has always meant to me that you can choose the religion you wish to follow or you can choose not to follow any religion. Any thoughts that eradication may flow from part of that statement are purely a product of your own overactive and somewhat sensationalist imagination.
-
You are taking that out of its usual context. "Freedom of religion & Freedom from religion". They go hand in hand. It has always meant to me that you can choose the religion you wish to follow or you can choose not to follow any religion. Any thoughts that eradication may flow from part of that statement are purely a product of your own overactive and somewhat sensationalist imagination.
yes the freedom to choose is of course straight forward and right...but adding a stinger...freedom from religion IS a call for eradication and defending it is turdpolishing.
-
Freedom to choose cheese & freedom from cheese.
It's the new movement to eradicate cheese.
-
Freedom to choose cheese & freedom from cheese.
It's the new movement to eradicate cheese.
Trivialising and sneering and crap analogy.
Try saying “Freedom from atheism”. And then ask minority atheists how they feel about that...
Or “Freedom from (insert name of any religion)” which is effectively what you ARE saying.
-
yes the freedom to choose is of course straight forward and right...but adding a stinger...freedom from religion IS a call for eradication and defending it is turdpolishing.
I don't like Brussel sprouts, I'd like to be offered meals without Brussel sprouts, I don't think schools should force children to eat Brussel sprouts... can you explain where, in that, I'm advocating that Brussel sprouts should be banned, because I'm missing that seemingly significant step that you're finding.
O.
-
I don't like Brussel sprouts, I'd like to be offered meals without Brussel sprouts, I don't think schools should force children to eat Brussel sprouts... can you explain where, in that, I'm advocating that Brussel sprouts should be banned, because I'm missing that seemingly significant step that you're finding.
O.
Are you blaming Brussels for your obvious brain fart here?
-
Are you blaming Brussels for your obvious brain fart here?
Is English not your first language? You've correctly identified that there's a brain-fart, but you've mixed up the pronouns in your attribution...
O.
-
Try saying “Freedom from atheism”. And then ask minority atheists how they feel about that...
Absolutely fine with me.
I think everyone has the right to live their live free from the influence of atheism if that is how they choose, provided it doesn't unduly influence another person's equivalent freedom to be atheist.
And, of course, that is largely how things are at the moment in the UK. Can you explain to me Vlad, exactly how anyone who wants to live their live free from atheism in the UK is unable to do so, given that there are no state funded atheist schools, no state schools that will discriminate against you as a pupil or staff member if you aren't atheist, no special tax concessions for atheists and atheist organisations, no opt-outs from equalities legislation for atheists and atheist organisations, no requirement for atheists and atheist organisations to be automatically represented on public bodies and in public forums, no special slot on peak time radio for atheists and atheist organisations to given their opinions that ban anyone who isn't atheist etc etc.
-
Freedom to choose cheese & freedom from cheese.
It's the new movement to eradicate cheese.
It is a rather good analogy - freedom to choose cheese will include the right for any person to choose to eat cheese, to prefer one cheese over another, to change that preference if they wish.
Freedom from cheese means a person can live their life not just not eating cheese but also not being unduly influenced by the cheese-eaters.
And, of course, there should be absolute freedom for an individual to move from the cheese-eaters to the free-from-cheesers or in reverse whenever they wish.
-
Trivialising and sneering and crap analogy.
Try saying “Freedom from atheism”. And then ask minority atheists how they feel about that...
Or “Freedom from (insert name of any religion)” which is effectively what you ARE saying.
Sneering, I'll give you. Trivialising no - you've already done that.
You say gouder I say Gouda. Let's call the whole thing off.
You are getting yourself worked up about something that doesn't exist in terms of this particular saying.
-
Or “Freedom from (insert name of any religion)” which is effectively what you ARE saying.
Indeed - and I suspect you and others are perfectly able to live your life free from zoroastrianism Vlad. I suspect zoroastrianism have just about zero impact on the lives of those who wish to live their lives free from zoroastrianism, without in any way influencing the ability of those who choose to follow zoroastrianism to be able to do so. There may be a few quirk, for example I suspect zoroastrianism also has the same tax and equalities opt outs as other religions but otherwise how exactly is your life affected by zoroastrianism if you choose to live your life free from it.
-
Indeed - and I suspect you and others are perfectly able to live your life free from zoroastrianism Vlad. I suspect zoroastrianism have just about zero impact on the lives of those who wish to live their lives free from zoroastrianism, without in any way influencing the ability of those who choose to follow zoroastrianism to be able to do so. There may be a few quirk, for example I suspect zoroastrianism also has the same tax and equalities opt outs as other religions but otherwise how exactly is your life affected by zoroastrianism if you choose to live your life free from it.
None of this is related to the call for eradication when you use the phrase “Freedom from Religion. The trouble with you andTrentvoyager is that you think you are immune from being offensive in the
Wrong way.
I don’t think we will see you or Trent mentioning the phrase again though.
-
None of this is related to the call for eradication when you use the phrase “Freedom from Religion.T
There is no call for eradication - I don't want to 'eradicate' religion as I see freedom of religion to be as important as freedom fro religion. So if people want to follow a particular religion, that's fine, so long as it doesn't unreasonably affect the abilities of others to follow a different religion or live their lives from from the influence of religion.
Why is that so hard to understand.
-
There is no call for eradication - I don't want to 'eradicate' religion as I see freedom of religion to be as important as freedom fro religion. So if people want to follow a particular religion, that's fine, so long as it doesn't unreasonably affect the abilities of others to follow a different religion or live their lives from from the influence of religion.
Why is that so hard to understand.
Was I untroubled by religion back in the late seventies as a non believer? absolutely.
Did I use the untrue defence against people of religion “we’re always having religion rammed down our throat” you betcha.
Did I ever hear people moaning that they wanted their lives to be free from religion? It wasn’t a thing.
Now we’ve had the new atheists and the atheist wanksites on the Internet. There’s a new narrative.
One more heave and we’ll be over the line with our aggressive freedom from religion slogans.......
Anyway what do you think about freedom from secularism? Or freedom from humanism?
-
Was I untroubled by religion back in the late seventies as a non believer? absolutely.
Did I use the untrue defence against people of religion “we’re always having religion rammed down our throat” you betcha.
Did I ever hear people moaning that they wanted their lives to be free from religion? It wasn’t a thing.
Now we’ve had the new atheists and the atheist wanksites on the Internet. There’s a new narrative.
One more heave and we’ll be over the line with our aggressive freedom from religion slogans.......
Yawn.
-
Did I ever hear people moaning that they wanted their lives to be free from religion? It wasn’t a thing.
Well actually it was a think - the NSS has been going since 1866, so was alive and well in the 1970s.
And perhaps you heard less about people moaning that they wanted their lives to be free from religion back then, as I suspect people feel more empowered to stand up for fairness and equality than they did in the 70s. In the same was as women were meant to just put up with unequal pay, and gay people were meant to just put up with not being able to get married. The UK has (thankfully) moved on since the 1970s - we are less accepting of special privileges for some (which means discrimination against others) regardless of whether special privileges/discrimination is on the basis of sex, or race, or sexuality or whether you are religious or not.
-
Anyway what do you think about freedom from secularism? Or freedom from humanism?
Category error:
Secularism is to democracy as christian is to Labour party. Humanism is in the latter category.
You will undoubtedly fail to understand that.
So do I want freedom from secularism - no I don't, any more than I want freedom from democracy. Why, because both democracy and secularisms are inextricably linked to freedom. So you cannot have true political freedom without democracy and you cannot have true freedom of religion without secularism.
Do I want freedom from humanism - sure, fine with me. I think everyone should have the right to live their lives free from humanism provided it doesn't impact on the equal right of others to be humanists.
-
The trouble with you andTrentvoyager is that you think you are immune from being offensive in the
Wrong way.
Do you know what you are actually going on about?
And can you please explain what immunity you think I and ProfD have, because I really don't know what you are babbling about?
Unless you are upset by my dairy-based comparison.
Is there a right way to be offensive?
Surely it is your perception, after all, offence is taken, not given.
-
Do you know what you are actually going on about?
And can you please explain what immunity you think I and ProfD have, because I really don't know what you are babbling about?
Unless you are upset by my dairy-based comparison.
Is there a right way to be offensive?
Surely it is your perception, after all, offence is taken, not given.
Then complete this sentence Freedom of religion, Freedom from (insert name of religion) if you think it is inoffensive.
-
Hard secularism and freedom from religion on manoeuvers in the sixties? Not sure the term freedom from religion is explicit
I couldn't quite believe anyone one was this hardass secularist if it's any consolation to you 'soft secularists'
https://education.blogs.archives.gov/2016/04/12/religious-freedom/
-
Then complete this sentence Freedom of religion, Freedom from (insert name of religion) if you think it is inoffensive.
Freedom of Christianity, freedom from Christianity.
Why is that offensive?
Do you think that my life should be controlled by Christianity or any other religion?
Should I try to ßtop you living your life in a Christian manner?
What aren't you getting? Strikes me you are jußt being contrary for the sake of it.
-
Freedom of Christianity, freedom from Christianity.
Why is that offensive?
Do you think that my life should be controlled by Christianity or any other religion?
Should I try to ßtop you living your life in a Christian manner?
What aren't you getting? Strikes me you are jußt being contrary for the sake of it.
Why did you choose Christianity? Could you have said the same of other religions? In what way are you not free of christianity? What more needs to be done?
-
Freedom of Christianity, freedom from Christianity.
Why is that offensive?
Do you think that my life should be controlled by Christianity or any other religion?
Should I try to ßtop you living your life in a Christian manner?
What aren't you getting? Strikes me you are jußt being contrary for the sake of it.
Freedom of religion....you can be any religion you like. Freedom from religion...you must not express it in the public forum.
-
Why did you choose Christianity? Could you have said the same of other religions? In what way are you not free of christianity? What more needs to be done?
Yes, I could have chosen any other religion. Of course, I am free of Christianity, except in a wider cultural sense which I can't, and don't want, to do anything about. All the two parts of that saying mean is that you can't have one without the other. If it was just freedom of religion, then as a non-believer I don't have any kind of guarantee if a more extreme kind of religion should arise in this country. I might not anyway if that were to happen, but there's no point making it easier by you setting up false positions in some deranged attempt to bolster your paranoia concerning secularism.
-
Freedom of religion....you can be any religion you like. Freedom from religion...you must not express it in the public forum.
And who is stopping you from expressing your religion on here or elsewhere?
Have you visited Huddersfield lately?
Or are you talking about expressing prejudice born out of religion which is a different and thornier subject?
-
Did I ever hear people moaning that they wanted their lives to be free from religion? It wasn’t a thing.
Now we’ve had the new atheists and the atheist wanksites on the Internet. There’s a new narrative.
You mean all those people who felt they couldn't speak up before, now can? You mean they have a degree of freedom to speak their mind in a way they didn't when the country was more overtly religiously oriented...? If only there was a word for that sort of political environment?
One more heave and we’ll be over the line with our aggressive freedom from religion slogans.......
So aggressive. The way they go door to door asking if you've heard the... oh, wait... The way they hole up in their tax-exempt premises and... oh, wait... the way they retain reserved slots on the national public broadcaster to spread... oh, wait...
Anyway what do you think about freedom from secularism?
Secularism is individual freedom from institutional expectations you absolute tool. Freedom from secularism is either religious prohibition a la Soviet Russia, which no-one here is advocating, or it's choose a religion for your theocracy. Which of those is your preferred option?
Or freedom from humanism?
Why do you need to be 'free' from humanism, given that it's not incompatible with religious belief? https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christian_Humanism#:~:text=Christian%20humanism%20is%20the%20belief,faith%20and%20classical%20humanist%20principles. (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christian_Humanism#:~:text=Christian%20humanism%20is%20the%20belief,faith%20and%20classical%20humanist%20principles.)
O.
-
Freedom of religion....you can be any religion you like.
Or none.
Freedom from religion...you must not express it in the public forum.
No. Freedom from religion is that I shouldn't be restricted or disadvantaged because you don't have a firm grasp on reality. Say what you like, espouse whatever nonsense you want, so long as I have the right to walk away unscathed.
O.
-
I've only read the last few posts. I don't see the problem with saying Freedom from Islam or freedom from any other religion, belief, idea or concept.
If Christianity was picked as the religion to be free from in earlier posts I assume it is because Christianity is part of state institutions in this country and therefore has the most impact on the lives of non-religious people e.g. Bishops in the House of Lords.
I don't think there is a problem with some programmes on the BBC being religious because presumably if there is a gap in the market for talking about atheism on TV the producers would commission a series to fill that gap. Is there any evidence of an appetite amongst the British public for such programmes that has been vetoed by the BBC?
I also don't see the issue with religious organisations being given tax breaks - it is government policy to encourage and support charitable activities as that relieves the government of providing the kind of support that many religious organisations provide to the public. While atheists are free to criticise this policy, realistically it's unlikely to be changed for pragmatic reasons. When the atheists can provide stats and forecasts on alternative organisations that provide similar levels of emotional support to the public, that's when things might change.
I think in the current politically-correct, Twitter mob environment it seems you get spoken to by the police if you express ideas about freedom from certain beliefs and ideas e.g. Freedom from: trans ideology, LGBTQ inclusiveness ideology, mass immigration etc are a few I can think of where if you say you want freedom from having to listen to people espousing the ideology you could be criticised for committing some kind of micro-aggression at best and charged with a hate crime and 'cancelled' at worst.
Possibly Vlad is saying why be selective about the ideologies and beliefs that people are allowed to openly express that they want to be free from.
-
Was I untroubled by religion back in the late seventies as a non believer? absolutely.
Did I use the untrue defence against people of religion “we’re always having religion rammed down our throat” you betcha.
Did I ever hear people moaning that they wanted their lives to be free from religion? It wasn’t a thing.
Now we’ve had the new atheists and the atheist wanksites on the Internet. There’s a new narrative.
One more heave and we’ll be over the line with our aggressive freedom from religion slogans.......
Anyway what do you think about freedom from secularism? Or freedom from humanism?
As far as "One more heave and we’ll be over the line with our aggressive freedom from religion slogans" I disagree with your take on it. We're on a religion & ethics forum, and many of the other places where such ideas are expressed are also similar discussion forums - where else would such ideas be expressed if not here. It is no more aggressive than Alan's evangelism or even your ideas about "God-dodging", which I also don't agree with.
Sure, some atheists might be similar to Alan Burns e.g. atheists who believe that they have discovered a 'truth' that will enrich the mind/ body/ soul of anyone who adopts it and yes those atheists might feel so inspired by their 'truth' that they seek out theists on forums to convert so they too can experience the joy if only they would open their minds in the "correct" way.
But I think a lot of atheists probably just feel baffled by the idea of religion or a belief in the supernatural and are on forums to debate the ideas. So if theists come on such forums and express ideas about why people might need religion or gods, the normal human response of anyone who disagrees with ideas being expressed is to challenge the reasoning behind the idea.
Having been an atheist and now as a theist, I find I have the same reaction to people ridiculing me for either holding or not holding a particular belief - which is, that if the belief is sufficiently important to me and if I have examined it and given it serious consideration over the years, I don't feel threatened by other people's ridicule. It provides an interesting insight into their perspective and their personality.
People who want theocracies would want freedom from secularism - and they get to express that idea. So not sure what the problem is with saying you want freedom from something.
-
I also don't see the issue with religious organisations being given tax breaks - it is government policy to encourage and support charitable activities as that relieves the government of providing the kind of support that many religious organisations provide to the public.
I have no issues with charities getting tax breaks to incentive and support their work. My issue is that there are certainly tax breaks which are provided to religious organisation with charitable status that are not available to any other charities. These provide an unloved playing field where a charity that is also religious is placed in an advantageous position compared to a charity that isn't religious. Two examples being higher threshold exemption from needing to apply for charitable status and exemption from onerous reporting and also complete exemption from business rates, while other charities have only a partial reduction.
There is a broader argument whether delivering religious worship alone should be a charitable aim, regardless of whether that organisation does any broader charitable activities. But that is an argument over the appropriate scope of charitable aims, rather than very clear and very specific special privileges that religious charities benefit from that non religious ones don't.
-
I don't think there is a problem with some programmes on the BBC being religious because presumably if there is a gap in the market for talking about atheism on TV the producers would commission a series to fill that gap.
I think there are two types of religious programming - the first being programmes about religion, with the aim of informing and educating the audience about some aspect of religious belief. I don't think such programming is controversial, provided is is done in an appropriately balanced manner.
The second type of programme is, in effect, broadcast worship of some form or other, specifically aimed at meeting the religious needs of religious people. Here is where greater care needs to be taken. While I have no great issue on principle care needs to be taken for a public service broadcaster such as the BBC, who needs to be impartial, from being seen to support or even promote particular religious views without balance or challenge. So if within the broadcast of a religious service a minister of religion is permitted to make a statement of faith and opinion (which they will often do within a sermon) which may go well beyond pure religious views, then in the form of balance the BBC needs to ensure that those views can be balanced by other views and challenged appropriately.
In the world of politics, while the BBC might broadcast a minister's speech at a party conference, it will ensure balance by also broadcasting speeches from other parties and having some editorial opinion/challenge from BBC journalists. This never happens with religion. And of course the most egregious example is Thought for the Day - a slot smack in the middle of BBC radios prefer news show, which allows a person to promulgate a specific view, uninterrupted, without balance and without challenge. And that person is not permitted to be someone who is not religious. It is the equivalent of having a 3 minute slot every day where a politician from one of a number of right wing parties can provide any opinion they wish, completely unchallenged, but a left wing politican is never allowed to give their view (or reverse the left/right). That simply isn't right.
Is there any evidence of an appetite amongst the British public for such programmes that has been vetoed by the BBC?
The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people. The notion has been repeatedly vetoed by the BBC who continue to ban non religious people from the slot.
-
While atheists are free to criticise this policy, realistically it's unlikely to be changed for pragmatic reasons. When the atheists can provide stats and forecasts on alternative organisations that provide similar levels of emotional support to the public, that's when things might change.
The vast majority of charities in the UK are non-religious. And for every religious aid charity, every religious housing charity, every religious homeless charity etc there are non religious equivalents typically larger, more numerous and helping more people. And then there are a raft of charitable areas where the sector is pretty well entirely non religious - good examples being medical research, environmental charitable activities and grass roots sports clubs. So the notion that charities = religion is non-sense.
And the same is true for individuals - there have been many surveys that have shown that engagement voluntary activity (whether formal or informal) to help others is pretty well identical between religious and non religious people.
The issue of charitable giving is complicated by the fact that religious organisations are charities and therefore if you go to church (and therefore want the church to exist for your personal benefit) then the collection money is defined as charitable giving, even though your are actually simply paying for a service you are benefiting from. So it no more surprising that church going appear nominally to give more to charity than other people whose chosen activities that they attend and pay towards aren't charities. So once that is stripped out, again there is no difference in the money religious and non religious people give to charity to benefit others, rather than just to pay for a service they benefit from themselves.
-
I don't think there is a problem with some programmes on the BBC being religious because presumably if there is a gap in the market for talking about atheism on TV the producers would commission a series to fill that gap. Is there any evidence of an appetite amongst the British public for such programmes that has been vetoed by the BBC?
Notwithstanding the point made above about there being programming about religion and programming which is just broadcasting religious views or activity, there is also the problem of balance within that. Whilst, within the religious sphere, Christianity is still the majority religious view in the UK (not getting into the breakdown of individual sects) the BBC has improved the balance of its output examining other religious outlooks, it's lagging significantly behind when it comes to representing other religious outlooks. Thought for the day does invite many religions, but Songs of Praise, various radio daily worship segments and the like are disproportionately Christian. It's hard to find anything sharing Islamic worship, virtually impossible to find anything Hindu (especially on television) and the rest...?
I also don't see the issue with religious organisations being given tax breaks - it is government policy to encourage and support charitable activities as that relieves the government of providing the kind of support that many religious organisations provide to the public.
I think the problem is the automatic assumption that anything religious is also charitable. Certainly any number of religious organisations do a great deal of charitable work, but also much of their work is not aimed at the broader community, it's about maintaining there own ongoing operations - is that inherently charitable? Other social organisations have to prove their benefit, and do not always succeed, but slap a 'religion' label on it and no questions are asked.
O.
-
And who is stopping you from expressing your religion on here or elsewhere?
I think the question is more about who believes it should be limited to zero point in an ideal world
Or are you talking about expressing prejudice born out of religion which is a different and thornier subject?
Actually I'm wondering why you are defending the ''Freedom of, Freedom from'' line when it is basically the sentiment behind something like section 28.
-
Or none.
No. Freedom from religion is that I shouldn't be restricted or disadvantaged because you don't have a firm grasp on reality.
Hard secularism since a soft secularist would claim no absolute monopoly on reality as you have.
-
Certainly any number of religious organisations do a great deal of charitable work, but also much of their work is not aimed at the broader community, it's about maintaining there own ongoing operations - is that inherently charitable?
Absolutely true and if you want to help vulnerable people donating to a church is an appalling inefficient way of doing so as for every £1 donated the vast, vast majority will go towards the upkeep of the buildings, people and other paraphernalia for delivering religious worship, which will include some people who might be considered vulnerable, but the demographics of church-goers indicates that they are more affluent, advantaged and less vulnerable than the population in general.
Bottom line - if you want to help homeless people, give to a homeless charity, don't give to a church.
Other social organisations have to prove their benefit, and do not always succeed, but slap a 'religion' label on it and no questions are asked.
Indeed - to be classed as a charity all you need to do is indicate that you deliver religious worship. And actually many of them don't even need to register as there is a two tier system for charities. For non religious charities if you have income above just £5k you have to register and are subjected to annual reporting. The so-called excepted charity approach means that a church and many other religious charities are given a much higher threshold - £100k, before they have to register.
So clear double standards - so my choral society, which is a charity has an income of about £13k per year - so we have to register and we have to make annual submissions to the charity commission. One of our 'chosen' charities, that we raise money for throughout the year is a local homeless person's support charity. They have an annual income of about £30k - so they have to register and we have to make annual submissions to the charity commission. Yet we sometime rehearse (and pay market rates for hire) in a local church - they are a charity and have an income of approx. £90k so they are permitted to gain the benefits of being a charity without having to formally register, nor having to submit annually to the charity commission. How can that be right?
-
Actually I'm wondering why you are defending the ''Freedom of, Freedom from'' line when it is basically the sentiment behind something like section 28.
In what way?
Section 28 or Clause 28 was a legislative designation for a series of laws across Britain that prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities.
You do understand what the definition of prohibition is?
I see no equivalence.
-
You mean all those people who felt they couldn't speak up before, now can? You mean they have a degree of freedom to speak their mind in a way they didn't when the country was more overtly religiously oriented...? If only there was a word for that sort of political environment?
The country hasn't been overtly religiously oriented for decades. You hold a revisionist past.
Why do you need to be 'free' from humanism, given that it's not incompatible with religious belief? https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christian_Humanism#:~:text=Christian%20humanism%20is%20the%20belief,faith%20and%20classical%20humanist%20principles. (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christian_Humanism#:~:text=Christian%20humanism%20is%20the%20belief,faith%20and%20classical%20humanist%20principles.)
O.
Has any body followed my link to a case of extreme hard secularism? If so have they been surprised by how much they support the type of secularism espoused?
-
In what way?
The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.
-
The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.
That was not the basis of Section 28.
-
The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.
Idiotic drivel
-
I have no issues with charities getting tax breaks to incentive and support their work. My issue is that there are certainly tax breaks which are provided to religious organisation with charitable status that are not available to any other charities. These provide an unloved playing field where a charity that is also religious is placed in an advantageous position compared to a charity that isn't religious. Two examples being higher threshold exemption from needing to apply for charitable status and exemption from onerous reporting and also complete exemption from business rates, while other charities have only a partial reduction.
There is a broader argument whether delivering religious worship alone should be a charitable aim, regardless of whether that organisation does any broader charitable activities. But that is an argument over the appropriate scope of charitable aims, rather than very clear and very specific special privileges that religious charities benefit from that non religious ones don't.
I wasn't thinking of support purely in monetary terms of charitable fundraising. Many religious organisations provide emotional support and a feeling of family and community and the government encourages that kind of support because the comfort they provide cannot be exactly replicated if you take out the religious element, and the facilities that the government currently fund and the non-religious organisations would not meet everyone's needs if the religious organisations stopped doing what they do.
-
Idiotic drivel
Evidence?
-
Evidence?
'The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.'
-
Hard secularism since a soft secularist would claim no absolute monopoly on reality as you have.
No, hard secularism would be that you should be put in care because of your infirmity, soft secularism is that I shouldn't be put in prison because of your infirmity.
O.
-
Actually I'm wondering why you are defending the ''Freedom of, Freedom from'' line when it is basically the sentiment behind something like section 28.
I'm so glad I'm the one with the flaky grasp of the historical context.... ::)
O.
-
I wasn't thinking of support purely in monetary terms of charitable fundraising. Many religious organisations provide emotional support and a feeling of family and community and the government encourages that kind of support because the comfort they provide cannot be exactly replicated if you take out the religious element, and the facilities that the government currently fund and the non-religious organisations would not meet everyone's needs if the religious organisations stopped doing what they do.
So do many non religious organisations VG - and while I accept that only a religious organisation might be able to support the religious emotional needs of individuals it is also the case that they may be ill equipped to support the needs of those who are non religious who may actually treat a religious charity with a level of scepticism for fear of evangelising etc.
So non religious emotional needs are, to my mind, better served through organisations that have no religious ethos and mission so to speak. And let's face it most people in the UK do not consider religious to be important so I'd argue that those with specifically religious emotional needs will represent a very small proportion of those with emotional needs.
And it will be certainly true that non religious charities will have much greater impact in terms of the number of people needing emotional support that they are able to help.
-
Hard secularism since a soft secularist would claim no absolute monopoly on reality as you have.
Whilst I can't be sure there is no god, I am 100% certain that Christianity is false. The central concepts are incoherent and do not stand up to scrutiny. You may take offence at that but I don't care. There's no fundamental right not to have your feelings hurt. Furthermore, if you are offended by my pointing out your religion is based on a lot of nonsense, you are offending all muslims by insisting Christianity is true.
-
The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people.
Like Ricky Gervais?
-
The country hasn't been overtly religiously oriented for decades.
And yet much of the structure that we have now still comes from there, you see why this is an issue?
You hold a revisionist past.
On the contrary, you seem to have failed to see how much of the past is still holding us back.
Has any body followed my link to a case of extreme hard secularism? If so have they been surprised by how much they support the type of secularism espoused?
Was that the one about the American Atheist complaint regarding the Bible reading during the Apollo landing? Not really, I agree with her point, I don't think it was a good case to take to court if it was worth taking one at all. The school-sponsored Bible readings that she contested and won was a good choice, and certainly one I'd agree with.
O.
-
Whilst I can't be sure there is no god, I am 100% certain that Christianity is false. The central concepts are incoherent and do not stand up to scrutiny. You may take offence at that but I don't care. There's no fundamental right not to have your feelings hurt. Furthermore, if you are offended by my pointing out your religion is based on a lot of nonsense, you are offending all muslims by insisting Christianity is true.
To be clear, of course, I'm not claiming to have the definitive grasp of what reality is, just enough of a sense of it to know that Vlad's definitely considerably further away from it than I am!
O.
-
And yet much of the structure that we have now still comes from there, you see why this is an issue?
On the contrary, you seem to have failed to see how much of the past is still holding us back.
Was that the one about the American Atheist complaint regarding the Bible reading during the Apollo landing? Not really, I agree with her point, I don't think it was a good case to take to court if it was worth taking one at all. The school-sponsored Bible readings that she contested and won was a good choice, and certainly one I'd agree with.
O.
Yeh, I had you down as a hard secularist anyway.
-
Whilst I can't be sure there is no god, I am 100% certain that Christianity is false. The central concepts are incoherent and do not stand up to scrutiny. You may take offence at that but I don't care. There's no fundamental right not to have your feelings hurt. Furthermore, if you are offended by my pointing out your religion is based on a lot of nonsense, you are offending all muslims by insisting Christianity is true.
so do you think your 100% certainty steers you toward Hard or soft secularism?
-
Yeh, I had you down as a hard secularist anyway.
He's got a list.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
-
I think there are two types of religious programming - the first being programmes about religion, with the aim of informing and educating the audience about some aspect of religious belief. I don't think such programming is controversial, provided is is done in an appropriately balanced manner.
The second type of programme is, in effect, broadcast worship of some form or other, specifically aimed at meeting the religious needs of religious people. Here is where greater care needs to be taken. While I have no great issue on principle care needs to be taken for a public service broadcaster such as the BBC, who needs to be impartial, from being seen to support or even promote particular religious views without balance or challenge. So if within the broadcast of a religious service a minister of religion is permitted to make a statement of faith and opinion (which they will often do within a sermon) which may go well beyond pure religious views, then in the form of balance the BBC needs to ensure that those views can be balanced by other views and challenged appropriately.
In the world of politics, while the BBC might broadcast a minister's speech at a party conference, it will ensure balance by also broadcasting speeches from other parties and having some editorial opinion/challenge from BBC journalists. This never happens with religion. And of course the most egregious example is Thought for the Day - a slot smack in the middle of BBC radios prefer news show, which allows a person to promulgate a specific view, uninterrupted, without balance and without challenge. And that person is not permitted to be someone who is not religious. It is the equivalent of having a 3 minute slot every day where a politician from one of a number of right wing parties can provide any opinion they wish, completely unchallenged, but a left wing politican is never allowed to give their view (or reverse the left/right). That simply isn't right.
The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people. The notion has been repeatedly vetoed by the BBC who continue to ban non religious people from the slot.
Given that secular humanism is these days, antireligious, I'm wondering what there is in it above atheist titillation and ''campaigns'' that is spiritually or morally uplifting or philosophically edifying.
-
He's got a list.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Where are you on quoting the bible in secular spaceships?
-
so do you think your 100% certainty steers you toward Hard or soft secularism?
I don't care. I have my opinions and you trying to shoehorn me into a particular box doesn't change them.
-
So do many non religious organisations VG - and while I accept that only a religious organisation might be able to support the religious emotional needs of individuals it is also the case that they may be ill equipped to support the needs of those who are non religious who may actually treat a religious charity with a level of scepticism for fear of evangelising etc.
So non religious emotional needs are, to my mind, better served through organisations that have no religious ethos and mission so to speak. And let's face it most people in the UK do not consider religious to be important so I'd argue that those with specifically religious emotional needs will represent a very small proportion of those with emotional needs.
And it will be certainly true that non religious charities will have much greater impact in terms of the number of people needing emotional support that they are able to help.
That was my point - it's not an either or situation. The religious organisations with their charitable status cater to the religious and the non-religious organisations with their charitable status cater to the non-religious.
I don't think it matter which group is bigger, the point is both groups have needs that are served by the respective organisations that they feel most connected with, and the government takes a pragmatic approach that taking away that emotional support would not be useful or in their best interests.
-
Yeh, I had you down as a hard secularist anyway.
I know, because the evidence of the world around you, and what people say and do, doesn't appear to mean as much to you as your preconceived notions. Hence my comments about your detachment from reality.
O.
-
Given that secular humanism is these days, antireligious
Is it, or is that just you.... (checks notes)... 'wankfantasy'?
I'm wondering what there is in it above atheist titillation and ''campaigns'' that is spiritually or morally uplifting or philosophically edifying.
Who needs 'spiritually uplifting' when you can practically more egalitarian?
O.
-
Is it,
Name one ''campaign'' that doesn't take the deficit view of religion namely that is that there is something basically wrong about religion.
We've already established that secular humanism or the british version at least is not the equivalent of egalitarianism.
-
I have no issues with charities getting tax breaks to incentive and support their work. My issue is that there are certainly tax breaks which are provided to religious organisation with charitable status that are not available to any other charities. These provide an unloved playing field where a charity that is also religious is placed in an advantageous position compared to a charity that isn't religious. Two examples being higher threshold exemption from needing to apply for charitable status and exemption from onerous reporting and also complete exemption from business rates, while other charities have only a partial reduction.
My understanding is that the higher threshold was temporary in order to allow a managed process of registration -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf
And only religious buildings open to the public (regardless of the beliefs of the member of the public) are exempt from business rates. Any places of worship that are closed to the general public are not exempt from business rates.
There is a broader argument whether delivering religious worship alone should be a charitable aim, regardless of whether that organisation does any broader charitable activities. But that is an argument over the appropriate scope of charitable aims, rather than very clear and very specific special privileges that religious charities benefit from that non religious ones don't.
A charitable aim should have a public benefit. As religious worship provides public benefit, it qualifies as a charitable aim.
-
Name one ''campaign'' that doesn't take the deficit view of religion namely that is that there is something basically wrong about religion.
We've already established that secular humanism or the british version at least is not the equivalent of egalitarianism.
I think secular humanism campaigns want equal treatment for all, including religion. So not so much saying there is something basically wrong with religion, I think their argument is why privilege beliefs at all but if you are going to distinguish communities and groups based on belief then that should include non-religious beliefs as well as religious beliefs. See below from their website:
Where there are legitimate reasons (although we can imagine these would only ever be very few) for working with communities identified by beliefs, then this must include humanists and other non-religious people, as well as religious people.
-
I think there are two types of religious programming - the first being programmes about religion, with the aim of informing and educating the audience about some aspect of religious belief. I don't think such programming is controversial, provided is is done in an appropriately balanced manner.
The second type of programme is, in effect, broadcast worship of some form or other, specifically aimed at meeting the religious needs of religious people. Here is where greater care needs to be taken. While I have no great issue on principle care needs to be taken for a public service broadcaster such as the BBC, who needs to be impartial, from being seen to support or even promote particular religious views without balance or challenge. So if within the broadcast of a religious service a minister of religion is permitted to make a statement of faith and opinion (which they will often do within a sermon) which may go well beyond pure religious views, then in the form of balance the BBC needs to ensure that those views can be balanced by other views and challenged appropriately.
In the world of politics, while the BBC might broadcast a minister's speech at a party conference, it will ensure balance by also broadcasting speeches from other parties and having some editorial opinion/challenge from BBC journalists. This never happens with religion. And of course the most egregious example is Thought for the Day - a slot smack in the middle of BBC radios prefer news show, which allows a person to promulgate a specific view, uninterrupted, without balance and without challenge. And that person is not permitted to be someone who is not religious. It is the equivalent of having a 3 minute slot every day where a politician from one of a number of right wing parties can provide any opinion they wish, completely unchallenged, but a left wing politican is never allowed to give their view (or reverse the left/right). That simply isn't right.
The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people. The notion has been repeatedly vetoed by the BBC who continue to ban non religious people from the slot.
Are you arguing that the BBC does not give an opportunity for non-religious perspectives on current issues to be broadcast? It does not have to be within Thought for the Day presumably if there are sufficient other programmes on the BBC that allow non-religious views to be heard?
-
My understanding is that the higher threshold was temporary in order to allow a managed process of registration -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf
Then you understand wrong VG.
Although this provision has extended the exception even further this is no temporary measure - I can trace the legal exception for religious charities back through legislation at least as far back as The Charities (Exception from Registration and Accounts) Regulations 1963. I suspect it goes way further back than that, but I really cannot be arsed to research any further.
So even assuming that 1963 is the starting point (I doubt it is) these charities have a temporary provision to sort out registration that extends for 68 years!!!
This is not temporary measure - it is, in reality, a permanent exception that applies to religious charities that doesn't apply to non religious charities except in extremely narrowly defined and rare circumstances (mainly Scouts and military charities).
-
And only religious buildings open to the public (regardless of the beliefs of the member of the public) are exempt from business rates. Any places of worship that are closed to the general public are not exempt from business rates.
Again you are wrong.
To be completely exempt from business rates a building need only be registered as a place of worship under The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. That doesn't mean the place must be open to the general public in the sense that the public can visit when they wish (within reason) for a variety of purposes. No all it means is that any act of worship cannot be theoretically restricted to members of that religion. It allows a building to be locked for virtually the whole week and only unlocked when worship is taking place, when of course general members of the public who aren't adherents of that religion are unlikely to feel they can visit.
And these buildings don't even exist on the Value Agency Office's database of buildings so it isn't really that they are exempt, they don't even exist as far as the ratings system is concerned. So as the VOA has no visibility of the premised how on earth would it know to what extent the building is available to be used by the general public.
Yet, of course, all other places that may be generally open to the public to use for a variety of purposes - e.g. libraries, museums, community centres, covered public realm spaces do not get the same exemption - typically even if run by a charity then they'd still pay 20% business rates.
And it gets worse when a religious building has, for example, a cafe run as a commercial venture - as the whole building doesn't exist as far as the VOA is concerned then they pay zero business rates on that cafe space. And for a charity that may have a cafe (e.g. a museum) that space is typically considered to be 'commercial' and therefore full business rates are paid.
So as a real example - where I live there I can think of three cafes within perhaps one minutes walk of each other (all are rather nice by the way):
1. An independent cafe - pays full business rates.
2. A cafe in the foyer of a local museum - the museum itself as a charity gets 80% business rates relief - the cafe area is subject to full business rates.
3. A cafe in the foyer of a baptist church - as the whole building doesn't exist on the VOA list the cafe space is completely exempt from business rates.
While I can see an argument that example 1 might be different from 2 and 3, how on earth can it be right that the cafe in example 2 pays full business rates, while the cafe in example 3 pays nothing.
-
Then you understand wrong VG.
Although this provision has extended the exception even further this is no temporary measure - I can trace the legal exception for religious charities back through legislation at least as far back as The Charities (Exception from Registration and Accounts) Regulations 1963. I suspect it goes way further back than that, but I really cannot be arsed to research any further.
So even assuming that 1963 is the starting point (I doubt it is) these charities have a temporary provision to sort out registration that extends for 68 years!!!
This is not temporary measure - it is a permanent exception that applies to all religious charities that doesn't apply to non religious charities except in extremely narrowly defined and rare circumstances (mainly Scouts and military charities).
Incorrect PD.
The government's explanatory note I linked to specifically says the £100k exception is only for some religious charities, is a temporary measure for operational reasons, and they intend to bring the threshold of the excepted religious charities in line with other charities. So I understood correctly. We might not like how long the Charity Commission's lack of resources/ inefficiency is taking to bring religious charities in line with other charities but it isn't intended to be a permanent exception.
Per Para 6.1, the exception is since the Charities Act 1960 apparently when charities were first required to register with the Charities Commission - per the government explanatory note I linked to - "The provision allowing the Charity Commission and the Minister to except some charities from registration was included in the 1960 Act."
And as you say, the exception is there for Scouts and military charities - so not just a religious exception then. And the exception is not for all religious denominations and faiths.
From Gov website https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excepted-charities/excepted-charities--2
Some charities are ‘excepted’ from charity registration. This just means they don’t have to register or submit annual returns. Apart from that, the Charity Commission regulates them just like registered charities and can use any of its powers if it needs to. A charity is excepted if its income is £100,000 or less and it is in one of the following groups:
- churches and chapels belonging to some Christian denominations (see section 5)
- charities that provide premises for some types of schools (see section 9)
- Scout and Guide groups (see section 10)
- charitable service funds of the armed forces (see section 11)
- student unions (see section 12)
See point 4 : Most exceptions are permanent; only one – the exception for certain churches – has an end date (31 March 2031). This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
See point 5 which begins:
Churches and other charities that are wholly or mainly for public religious worship linked to any of the following bodies are excepted if their income is £100,000 or less:
And ends with: Charities linked to other faith bodies must register if their income is more than £5,000.
-
Incorrect PD.
The government's explanatory note I linked to specifically says the £100k exception is only for some religious charities, is a temporary measure for operational reasons, and they intend to bring the threshold of the excepted religious charities in line with other charities.
Yes - I'm well aware of the legal aspects - so this temporary measure has been in place since at least 1963 and has just been extended for a further 10 years. It is, let's face it a permanent measure. What kind of organisation needs 68 (or more) years to get their registration in place. And why is this temporary measure somehow important for a religious charity, but virtually all non-religious charities (e.g. my local homeless charity I mentioned earlier) aren't in need of a temporary measure and have been expected to sort their registration and reporting obligations for decades.
I think you need to learn a little more about the background to this very clear (and very clearly not temporary) special privilege.
-
Churches and other charities that are wholly or mainly for public religious worship linked to any of the following bodies are excepted if their income is £100,000 or less:
And ends with: Charities linked to other faith bodies must register if their income is more than £5,000.
Just because a special privilege doesn't apply to all religions doesn't mean it isn't a special privilege, if it is targeted at organisations on the basis of their religious foundation, but not available to equivalent non religious organisations. See too the automatic places for the Bishops - this applies only to the Cofe, but is still a no-no from a secular point of view. So it clearly falls foul of the goal of secularism of a level playing field regardless of whether you are religious or not, and which religion you might affiliate to.
As a muslim, surely you too should be annoyed that while your local mosque may have to go through the bureacracy of registering with the charity commission and having to make annual returns, the church next door (with exactly the same religious charitable purpose and exactly the same income) doesn't have to in order to gain the same benefits of charitable status. And surely you should be annoyed that your local mosque has never been given time to sort out their registration while the neighbouring church and has been given a bit more time since at least 1963 to sort out registration.
All charities, regardless of their provenance and charitable purpose should be held to the same basic obligations in order to gain the benefits of charitable status. Why should some charities gain special privileges when others don't. Surely that is self evident if you believe in fairness and a level playing field.
-
Again you are wrong.
To be completely exempt from business rates a building need only be registered as a place of worship under The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855. That doesn't mean the place must be open to the general public in the sense that the public can visit when they wish (within reason) for a variety of purposes. No all it means is that any act of worship cannot be theoretically restricted to members of that religion. It allows a building to be locked for virtually the whole week and only unlocked when worship is taking place, when of course general members of the public who aren't adherents of that religion are unlikely to feel they can visit.
I assume it is because religious worship is not considered a commercial activity and is considered a particular type of activity that provides moral guidance to its participants and therefore is of benefit to society. The government seems to think it is better for these acts of worship and moral guidance to continue for the people who like to attend, rather than do away with them, though I understand that atheists may disagree and think it all a pointless waste of time.
Members of the public are not prevented from entering when the building is open. Apparently the purpose of the exemption was to benefit churches who worshipped with open doors which in turn could dispel myths and prejudices in a multi cultural society. There is some kind of "invitation test" that needs to be satisfied to qualify for the exception - the public have to feel suitable invited into the premises and not excluded.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rating-manual-section-6-chhallenges-to-the-rating-list/part-6-part-b-churches-church-and-chapel-halls-and-similar-buildings
And these buildings don't even exist on the Value Agency Office's database of buildings so it isn't really that they are exempt, they don't even exist as far as the ratings system is concerned. So as the VOA has no visibility of the premised how on earth would it know to what extent the building is available to be used by the general public.
Yet, of course, all other places that may be generally open to the public to use for a variety of purposes - e.g. libraries, museums, community centres, covered public realm spaces do not get the same exemption - typically even if run by a charity then they'd still pay 20% business rates.
And it gets worse when a religious building has, for example, a cafe run as a commercial venture - as the whole building doesn't exist as far as the VOA is concerned then they pay zero business rates on that cafe space. And for a charity that may have a cafe (e.g. a museum) that space is typically considered to be 'commercial' and therefore full business rates are paid.
So as a real example - where I live there I can think of three cafes within perhaps one minutes walk of each other (all are rather nice by the way):
1. An independent cafe - pays full business rates.
2. A cafe in the foyer of a local museum - the museum itself as a charity gets 80% business rates relief - the cafe area is subject to full business rates.
3. A cafe in the foyer of a baptist church - as the whole building doesn't exist on the VOA list the cafe space is completely exempt from business rates.
While I can see an argument that example 1 might be different from 2 and 3, how on earth can it be right that the cafe in example 2 pays full business rates, while the cafe in example 3 pays nothing.
Yes I can see that the distinction might be difficult to justify. Though apparently where café facilities are considered to be a prominent and commercial character rather than as part of a non-commercial activity such as an act of worship, they won't get the 100% business rates exemption.
-
Yes - I'm well aware of the legal aspects - so this temporary measure has been in place since at least 1963 and has just been extended for a further 10 years. It is, let's face it a permanent measure. What kind of organisation needs 68 (or more) years to get their registration in place. And why is this temporary measure somehow important for a religious charity, but virtually all non-religious charities (e.g. my local homeless charity I mentioned earlier) aren't in need of a temporary measure and have been expected to sort their registration and reporting obligations for decades.
I think you need to learn a little more about the background to this very clear (and very clearly not temporary) special privilege.
No idea why the Charity Commission and the churches are taking so long. Inefficiency? Or because there were lots of churches in 1960 - more than the number of homeless charities. Happy to learn about the background if you want to post some links.
-
Just because a special privilege doesn't apply to all religions doesn't mean it isn't a special privilege, if it is targeted at organisations on the basis of their religious foundation, but not available to equivalent non religious organisations. See too the automatic places for the Bishops - this applies only to the Cofe, but is still a no-no from a secular point of view. So it clearly falls foul of the goal of secularism of a level playing field regardless of whether you are religious or not, and which religion you might affiliate to.
As a muslim, surely you too should be annoyed that while your local mosque may have to go through the bureacracy of registering with the charity commission and having to make annual returns, the church next door (with exactly the same religious charitable purpose and exactly the same income) doesn't have to in order to gain the same benefits of charitable status. And surely you should be annoyed that your local mosque has never been given time to sort out their registration while the neighbouring church and has been given a bit more time since at least 1963 to sort out registration.
All charities, regardless of their provenance and charitable purpose should be held to the same basic obligations in order to gain the benefits of charitable status. Why should some charities gain special privileges when others don't. Surely that is self evident if you believe in fairness and a level playing field.
Well, I can't say I'm annoyed that mosques have to register and churches don't - as there are only about 1200 mosques in the UK and they arrived on the scene way after the churches. There are far more Anglican churches so the process seems to be a headache the Charity Commission keeps postponing apparently.
-
Why should some charities gain special privileges when others don't.
History. The Church of England occupies a unique place in English history.
Of corse "we've always done it that way" is not a justification for carrying on.
I'll maker two observations on the subject
My mother was the treasurer for her parish church during the pandemic years. Their income, even during the pandemic, exceeded £100k. They are not a particularly rich parish so I think removing the exemption would not be quite as difficult as it may seem at first sight since I expect it already doesn't apply to many parishes.
Secondly, most parishes are run by amateurs. Excepting the priest, most of the officers are doing it in their spare time. A lot of them (I'm basing this on my observations of the parishes my parents have been in) really have no idea of their duties and responsibilities under English law. More oversight is a must IMO.
-
My mother was the treasurer for her parish church during the pandemic years. Their income, even during the pandemic, exceeded £100k. They are not a particularly rich parish so I think removing the exemption would not be quite as difficult as it may seem at first sight since I expect it already doesn't apply to many parishes.
Secondly, most parishes are run by amateurs. Excepting the priest, most of the officers are doing it in their spare time. A lot of them (I'm basing this on my observations of the parishes my parents have been in) really have no idea of their duties and responsibilities under English law. More oversight is a must IMO.
Firstly reducing the exemption would mean that parishes with income over £5k would need to register - I suspect there will be very few parishes with income below £5k, and I suspect there will be a lot in that £5k-£100k band who are currently benefiting from the special privilege, and of course there are huge numbers of non religious charities in that £5k-£100k band who have to register while the religious charities are exempt.
Secondly - sure many parishes are run by amateurs - so what, so are countless other non religious charities. I am a Trustee of two charities (both of which are required to register), I'm an amateur in that context. However being an amateur (i.e. an unpaid Trustee) doesn't mean you don't have skills - I'm sure there are plenty of unremunerated Trustees of religious and non religious charities who are qualified lawyers, accountants, successful business people etc.
Also CofE parishes have the support of a huge higher level infrastructure above then to support them to fulfil their obligations as Trustees - I think that would make it far easier to be able to cope with the tasks of charity registration and reporting than for a small stand alone charity that may have no similar support.
That said - I agree that proper oversight is important for charities which is why I cannot accept a situation where some charities are given exemptions from registration and reporting obligation while other similar sized charities are required to.
-
The delays in removing the exception for registration might be due to the lack of resources of the Charity Commission rather than the resources of the Parish amateurs. I know as a voluntary trustee that contacting the Charity Commission involves long delays before they respond. Similarly, contacting HMRC to register anything also takes a while. And what the government explanation that I linked to said was (my emphasis):
In 2002, the Prime Minister’s
Strategy Unit (“the Strategy Unit”) published a report on proposals for charity law
reform, “Private action, public benefit: a review of charities and the wider not-forprofit sector”. In relation to excepted charities, it asserted (para 7.89) that “to promote
trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all
organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability
requirements”.
THE CHARITIES (EXCEPTION FROM REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2021 extended the exception of these religious charities until 31st March
2031. This will enable the Charity Commission to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period.
The Commission will begin liaising with church bodies in the first half of 2021-22 to
co-design and consult on a programme of phased voluntary registration.
-
THE CHARITIES (EXCEPTION FROM REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2021 extended the exception of these religious charities until 31st March
2031. This will enable the Charity Commission to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period.
The Commission will begin liaising with church bodies in the first half of 2021-22 to
co-design and consult on a programme of phased voluntary registration.
Yawn - they've been saying the same since at least 1963 - how kong do these people need to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period. By the time we reach 2031 they will have had at least 68 years. And why do churches need this extension when most charities with incomes between £5k and £100k apparently need no extension and haven't been granted one. Are churches particularly crap at getting their affairs in order?
-
The delays in removing the exception for registration might be due to the lack of resources of the Charity Commission rather than the resources of the Parish amateurs. I know as a voluntary trustee that contacting the Charity Commission involves long delays before they respond.
Hmm - so do churches have their own version of the Charity Commission which is particularly rubbish at answering calls. Do you think somehow that it is somehow easier for my local homeless charity to contact them than my local United Reform Church. Why do you think the Trustees of church charities are any more 'amateur' than the trustees of non religious small charities with incomes between £5k and £100k.
Special privilege on stilts.
-
THE CHARITIES (EXCEPTION FROM REGISTRATION) (AMENDMENT)
REGULATIONS 2021 extended the exception of these religious charities until 31st March
2031. This will enable the Charity Commission to develop a manageable approach for
phasing these organisations onto the register over the course of the extension period.
The Commission will begin liaising with church bodies in the first half of 2021-22 to
co-design and consult on a programme of phased voluntary registration.
You do realise that regularly since at least 1963 there has been the suggestion of an additional temporary extension. Weirdly this never is temporary and always gets extended again.
This commentary about the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, which was only supposed to extend the exemption until 2014:
'The temporary exception from the requirement to register has been extended on several occasions since 1996 – but the suspicion is that this is the last extension. It is unlikely, however, that the Charity Commission would be able to cope with large numbers of small congregations registering simultaneously, so the presumption must be that registration will be staged.'
So exactly the same argument has been used numerous times over the past decades, and apparently there was to be no further extension of the special privilege beyond 2014, yet weirdly this is still in place until at least 2031.
And the mention of 1996 refers to the The Charities (Exception from Registration) Regulations 1996 which were intended to be a 'temporary' measure, supposedly only until 2001 and replaced the The Charities (Exception from Registration and Accounts) Regulations 1963.
-
Hmm - so do churches have their own version of the Charity Commission which is particularly rubbish at answering calls. Do you think somehow that it is somehow easier for my local homeless charity to contact them than my local United Reform Church. Why do you think the Trustees of church charities are any more 'amateur' than the trustees of non religious small charities with incomes between £5k and £100k.
Special privilege on stilts.
No idea what the bureaucracy hold up is - from experience I assume the project has been passed from one manager to another without anyone taking the initiative, rolling their sleeves up, working over-time and getting it done. That is generally why big projects get held up - individual people given the responsibility look at the size of the project and the admin involved and procrastinate suddenly found all these other important things they mysteriously find the time to do instead of tackling the big project. They presumably want to get all the churches registered without big gaps where some get registered and others don't.
There is probably little incentive in dealing with the project as the churches are raking money in without being registered. It seems the public like to donate to churches. Whereas the smaller charities want to be registered as it gives the public confidence in them and they get more donations.
-
In 2002, the Prime Minister’s
Strategy Unit (“the Strategy Unit”) published a report on proposals for charity law
reform, “Private action, public benefit: a review of charities and the wider not-forprofit sector”. In relation to excepted charities, it asserted (para 7.89) that “to promote
trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all
organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability
requirements”.
Have you looked at the date on this statement - 2002. So apparently in 2002 it was important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements' - yet this will not happen until at least 2031. If this was important in 2002 how come it will take at least 29 years to achieve.
-
They presumably want to get all the churches registered without big gaps where some get registered and others don't.
Hmm - yes, obviously requires at least 68 year to achieve this. Weirdly for the non religious charities this is achieved as they go along as if they have incomes greater than £5k then they must register - not 68 year extension for them.
-
Have you looked at the date on this statement - 2002. So apparently in 2002 it was important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements' - yet this will not happen until at least 2031. If this was important in 2002 how come it will take at least 29 years to achieve.
That's a question for the government and the Charity Commission presumably. As I said could be lack of political will because not enough voters care if churches are registered or not, plus general inefficiency - what is your suggestion on how to convince the government and the Charity Commission to get on with it?
-
Hmm - yes, obviously requires at least 68 year to achieve this. Weirdly for the non religious charities this is achieved as they go along as if they have incomes greater than £5k then they must register - not 68 year extension for them.
More likely not enough voters care for it to be a government priority.
-
There is probably little incentive in dealing with the project as the churches are raking money in without being registered. It seems the public like to donate to churches.
But I though this wasn't about a numbers game VG - see your reply 185. You do seem to be a little all over the place in your arguments.
And of course, by definition, we are dealing with small and micro charities here, those with income less than £100k. So regardless of whether they are religious or non religious they aren't raking money in by any stretch of the imagination.
And no VG, the public in a general sense, do not like to donate to churches - the charitable donations to churches come almost exclusively from their own church-going members, not from the general public. The only exceptions being cash donated by visitors to large cathedrals, and they aren't in the ;ess that £100k category anyhow.
Whereas the smaller charities want to be registered as it gives the public confidence in them and they get more donations.
I'm sure that small and micro non religious charities would be delighted not to have to go through the administrative bureaucracy of registering and reporting annually to the Charities Commission in the same manner as religious charities, but they aren't permitted that exemption.
-
But I though this wasn't about a numbers game VG - see your reply 185. You do seem to be a little all over the place in your arguments.
And of course, by definition, we are dealing with small and micro charities here, those with income less than £100k. So regardless of whether they are religious or non religious they aren't raking money in by any stretch of the imagination.
And no VG, the public in a general sense, do not like to donate to churches - the charitable donations to churches come almost exclusively from their own church-going members, not from the general public. The only exceptions being cash donated by visitors to large cathedrals, and they aren't in the ;ess that £100k category anyhow.
I'm sure that small and micro non religious charities would be delighted not to have to go through the administrative bureaucracy of registering and reporting annually to the Charities Commission in the same manner as religious charities, but they aren't permitted that exemption.
Church goers vs General public
Taxpayers vs churchgoers
Religious vs General public
It is another sinister direction down which you lead us.
-
Church goers vs General public
Weird and there was me thinking that I used the phrase 'public in a general sense' - i.e. overall, the full demographic of the public, that's what general public means.
And the point is that the money raised by churches (and especially the small ones) comes almost exclusively from a small subset of the public, those who attend those churches for worship - which is about 5% of the population. The rest (the 95%) don't donate to churches, except perhaps when they visit a cathedral, effectively as a tourist, and those cathedrals aren't the charities we are discussing here.
So VG's hyperbolic claim that 'the public like to donate to churches' is flat out wrong Vlad.
-
Taxpayers vs churchgoers
Where have I claimed that churchgoers aren't taxpayers Vlad.
-
Church goers vs General public
Dictionary definition of General Public - note my emphasis:
ordinary people, especially all the people who are not members of a particular organization or who do not have any special type of knowledge
So if we are discussing donating to a church, people who are members of that church would not be considered to be the general public under that definition, as they are members of that particular organisation.
-
More likely not enough voters care for it to be a government priority.
You may well be correct, but that statement doesn't lead where you think it does. So I'd image that if you surveyed members of the general public on the matter you get the following response.
1. That most people would have no idea that small religious and non religious charities were treated differently by the Charities Commission - indeed I suspect most people wouldn't know what the Charities Commission is nor how charities are regulated. However ...
2. When they know about the different treatment most people would think it wrong and unfair that two charities with exactly the same income were treated differently and that the special privilege should go. But ...
3. That the issue shouldn't be a major priority and the government shouldn't really be spending its time one it.
But, of course the government decided back in 1996 to get rid of the anomaly so if the government devotes no further time or effort on the matter the special privilege goes. Why it is still with us is because governments over the years have prioritised retaining the special privilege and devoted parliamentary time and effort in bringing forward new regulations several times to maintain the special privilege
So the point is that although the public are unlikely to consider it to be a priority, the government has prioritised maintaining an unfair distinction over a quarter of a century after it committed to get rid of it, when all they would need to do to get rid of it is to do nothing, and they'd already committed to get rid of it in 1996. And while the public probably think it is wrong and should go but not a priority you can bet your bottom dollar that the lobbying power of religious organisations who have highly privileged access to government and parliament will be campaigning to make the government prioritise parliamentary time and effort to retain the spacial privilege.
-
Firstly reducing the exemption would mean that parishes with income over £5k would need to register - I suspect there will be very few parishes with income below £5k, and I suspect there will be a lot in that £5k-£100k band who are currently benefiting from the special privilege, and of course there are huge numbers of non religious charities in that £5k-£100k band who have to register while the religious charities are exempt.
Fewer than you might think.
Secondly - sure many parishes are run by amateurs - so what, so are countless other non religious charities. I am a Trustee of two charities (both of which are required to register), I'm an amateur in that context. However being an amateur (i.e. an unpaid Trustee) doesn't mean you don't have skills - I'm sure there are plenty of unremunerated Trustees of religious and non religious charities who are qualified lawyers, accountants, successful business people etc.
Υes there are, but to be clear, I'm using this as an argument to do away with the current exemption, not to maintain it.
Also CofE parishes have the support of a huge higher level infrastructure above then to support them to fulfil their obligations as Trustees - I think that would make it far easier to be able to cope with the tasks of charity registration and reporting than for a small stand alone charity that may have no similar support.
That said - I agree that proper oversight is important for charities which is why I cannot accept a situation where some charities are given exemptions from registration and reporting obligation while other similar sized charities are required to.
You seem to have taken my post as a defence of the status quo. It wasn't intended as such. I see no reason why churches shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other charities.
-
I don't care. I have my opinions and you trying to shoehorn me into a particular box doesn't change them.
I'm not sure I'm out to change your opinions, only you can do that yourself. I'm more about degrees of secular humanism and secularism here based on a classification going back to the 19th century.
For example.
Outrider has already agreed that a scripture should not be quoted on state property even if the quotation reflects an astronaut's wonder at the moon and the government property is only there because of the skill of the astronaut. That is f*****g Hard Secularism.
I wonder what his attitude would be at Yuri Gagarin apparently laughingly reporting that he couldn't see God in space......approval?
-
I'm not sure I'm out to change your opinions,
No, you're out to misrepresent them.
only you can do that yourself. I'm more about degrees of secular humanism and secularism here based on a classification going back to the 19th century.
But nobody except you is claiming that it exactly fits all (or any) positions. You seem to be obsessed with putting labels on people's arguments instead of actually engaging with them.
Outrider has already agreed that a scripture should not be quoted on state property even if the quotation reflects an astronaut's wonder at the moon and the government property is only there because of the skill of the astronaut. That is f*****g Hard Secularism.
Don't blame Outrider for that. It's a consequence of the US Constitution and its interpretation by the US Supreme Court. What does it matter whether you classify it as hard or soft?
I wonder what his attitude would be at Yuri Gagarin apparently laughingly reporting that he couldn't see God in space......approval?
Those would be Yuri Gagarin's own words, not lifted from the holy book of one religion.
-
But I though this wasn't about a numbers game VG - see your reply 185. You do seem to be a little all over the place in your arguments.
You're making little sense PD - you should try to make your point more clearly if you have one. The charities are not registered and they are receiving donations from the public. The public that are donating to churches may not be a large number, but whatever their number, and whoever they are, they seem to like to donate to unregistered church charities.
And of course, by definition, we are dealing with small and micro charities here, those with income less than £100k. So regardless of whether they are religious or non religious they aren't raking money in by any stretch of the imagination.
It's all relative. Let's not get into another pointless discussion about English phrasing and grammar. Try reigning in your pedantry and stick to discussing the issue, as use of this kind of language is subjective.
And no VG, the public in a general sense, do not like to donate to churches - the charitable donations to churches come almost exclusively from their own church-going members, not from the general public. The only exceptions being cash donated by visitors to large cathedrals, and they aren't in the ;ess that £100k category anyhow.
By public I meant the people that contribute to and attend the church e.g. the parishioners. The users of the service who are members of the public and voters in general elections.
I'm sure that small and micro non religious charities would be delighted not to have to go through the administrative bureaucracy of registering and reporting annually to the Charities Commission in the same manner as religious charities, but they aren't permitted that exemption.
Some might prefer not to register but others may find they want the tax advantages of registering as a charity and the public have more confidence in them if they do register. And doing a charity annual return is not a big deal - it's online and doesn't take very long. I think the Charity Commission should try and hire some competent people to get church charities registered too - if the government will provide the funding. It may be that hiring competent people is expensive so they keep putting off getting this done.
-
Weird and there was me thinking that I used the phrase 'public in a general sense' - i.e. overall, the full demographic of the public, that's what general public means.
And the point is that the money raised by churches (and especially the small ones) comes almost exclusively from a small subset of the public, those who attend those churches for worship - which is about 5% of the population. The rest (the 95%) don't donate to churches, except perhaps when they visit a cathedral, effectively as a tourist, and those cathedrals aren't the charities we are discussing here.
So VG's hyperbolic claim that 'the public like to donate to churches' is flat out wrong Vlad.
Except it isn't a hyperbolic claim. But you are so often shown to be wrong on here PD that it doesn't surprise me that you are wrong yet again. The public who donate to church charities are referred to as "the public" because they are people in the community who use the service - a service performed for the benefit of the public.
-
You may well be correct, but that statement doesn't lead where you think it does. So I'd image that if you surveyed members of the general public on the matter you get the following response.
1. That most people would have no idea that small religious and non religious charities were treated differently by the Charities Commission - indeed I suspect most people wouldn't know what the Charities Commission is nor how charities are regulated. However ...
2. When they know about the different treatment most people would think it wrong and unfair that two charities with exactly the same income were treated differently and that the special privilege should go. But ...
3. That the issue shouldn't be a major priority and the government shouldn't really be spending its time one it.
But, of course the government decided back in 1996 to get rid of the anomaly so if the government devotes no further time or effort on the matter the special privilege goes. Why it is still with us is because governments over the years have prioritised retaining the special privilege and devoted parliamentary time and effort in bringing forward new regulations several times to maintain the special privilege
So the point is that although the public are unlikely to consider it to be a priority, the government has prioritised maintaining an unfair distinction over a quarter of a century after it committed to get rid of it, when all they would need to do to get rid of it is to do nothing, and they'd already committed to get rid of it in 1996. And while the public probably think it is wrong and should go but not a priority you can bet your bottom dollar that the lobbying power of religious organisations who have highly privileged access to government and parliament will be campaigning to make the government prioritise parliamentary time and effort to retain the spacial privilege.
You have a vivid imagination PD.
Not sure where you imagine I thought my statement might lead. My point was simple - it was that spending money on the Charity Commission hiring staff to go through all the applications by church charities for registration and communicating with church charities to correct errors or clarify information is probably not a high priority for the government. Once charities are registered there will be additional work for the Charity Commission in dealing with queries and admin issues and that will cost more money for the government.
-
Not sure where you imagine I thought my statement might lead. My point was simple - it was that spending money on the Charity Commission hiring staff to go through all the applications by church charities for registration and communicating with church charities to correct errors or clarify information is probably not a high priority for the government. Once charities are registered there will be additional work for the Charity Commission in dealing with queries and admin issues and that will cost more money for the government.
But there are far, far more non religious small and micro charities (i.e. below £100k income) - so if you want to reduce burden on Charities Commission focussing on exempting just one class of small/micro charity on the basis of religion makes no sense whatsoever.
-
Except it isn't a hyperbolic claim.
It is a hyperbolic claims because you have no evidence that beyond the small minority of people who are active church goers (about 5%) that the rest of the population (the 95%) like to donate to churches. Indeed all the evidence suggests that the income of donation income of churches comes almost exclusively from donations made by their worshiping members and that churches (and indeed religious charities) are very low priority for people who aren't actively religious.
So actually the word hyperbolic isn't correct - the correct word to describe your claim VG, is ... wrong.
-
The public who donate to church charities are referred to as "the public" because they are people in the community who use the service - a service performed for the benefit of the public.
Blimey - Vlad was complaining about my use of "the public" but you are really taking the biscuit. So non church goers are therefore not members of the public because they don't use the services of a church.
The public (i.e. the wide demographic of our population) do not "like to donate to churches" - a small subset of the overall population - active church goers are the ones who donate to churches, and presumably like to do so as they gain a direct benefit from the presence of a place of worship offering worship that they want to attend.
-
But there are far, far more non religious small and micro charities (i.e. below £100k income) - so if you want to reduce burden on Charities Commission focussing on exempting just one class of small/micro charity on the basis of religion makes no sense whatsoever.
Those micro-charities may want the benefits they get from being registered. I know that the charity that I am a trustee of is happy to be registered. We get more donations, we get charity rates when we hire venues - the venues actually ask for our registered charity number for the hire contract and give us a discount. If you want to hire park spaces for an event, our Council offers a 60% discount if you are a local registered charity.
It's also useful in putting in financial controls and for general governance issues because we can make people follow governance rules by saying we are a registered charity.
-
It is a hyperbolic claims because you have no evidence that beyond the small minority of people who are active church goers (about 5%) that the rest of the population (the 95%) like to donate to churches.
Straw man as I never made that claim.
Indeed all the evidence suggests that the income of donation income of churches comes almost exclusively from donations made by their worshiping members and that churches (and indeed religious charities) are very low priority for people who aren't actively religious.
So actually the word hyperbolic isn't correct - the correct word to describe your claim VG, is ... wrong.
Nope, just your over-active imagination again PD or your dishonesty in misrepresenting what I wrote.
-
Some might prefer not to register but others may find they want the tax advantages of registering as a charity ...
For crying out loud VG, don't you understand the position here - the excepted charities gain all the benefits of charitable status including tax advantages, without having to register as a charity - that's the whole point. If you are a non religious charity you are required to register in order to gain those benefits. So charity A (income £20k - religious) no need to register, gets tax advantages; charity B (income £20k) cannot get the benefits without registering.
And doing a charity annual return is not a big deal - it's online and doesn't take very long.
If it is such a minor issue for non religious charities why is it such an issue for the religious ones. Are they all unable to use online systems!!!
-
Straw man as I never made that claim.
Yes you did - you claimed that:
"It seems the public like to donate to churches." - that is not true unless you define 'the public' as not including the 95% of the population who aren't active church goers and do not prioritise donation to churches and donate very little to those churches.
-
Blimey - Vlad was complaining about my use of "the public" but you are really taking the biscuit. So non church goers are therefore not members of the public because they don't use the services of a church.
Again PD - please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting what I wrote.
The public (i.e. the wide demographic of our population) do not "like to donate to churches" - a small subset of the overall population - active church goers are the ones who donate to churches, and presumably like to do so as they gain a direct benefit from the presence of a place of worship offering worship that they want to attend.
The subset is part of the public, and as the public they donate to the church and benefit from its services and are referred to as the public because they are not the clergy or employees of the church.
Try and retain the point that it is not a numbers game when you are making your own point PD, as it seems I have to keep repeating myself as you are failing to grasp this point. It doesn't matter if the majority of the public are not religious or do not donate. A large majority used to be religious and donate and the system needs to be changed from that time, given now there are far less religious people, but currently it is not a high priority to make that change due to the cost of the admin and time involved.
-
Again PD - please stop being dishonest and misrepresenting what I wrote.
The subset is part of the public, and as the public they donate to the church and benefit from its services and are referred to as the public because they are not the clergy or employees of the church.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public
relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people
You comment is nonsense - if I talk about "the public" liking this or liking that, that will generally be considered to represent a large proportion of the population not a small minority (see definition above). Or the following would be applicable.
The public like to engage in naturist activities
The public like to support Bristol Rovers FC
The public like to vote for the Green Party
In each case there is a small minority in the public that does engage in naturist activities, support Bristol Rovers and vote Green but it is nonsense and/or deeply disingenuous to claim that "the public" like these things.
-
Yes you did - you claimed that:
"It seems the public like to donate to churches." - that is not true unless you define 'the public' as not including the 95% of the population who aren't active church goers and do not prioritise donation to churches and donate very little to those churches.
Again you're wrong. The public does not need to be defined in the way that you suggest for the statement to be true.
The donors who are members of the public (as opposed to employees of the church) like to donate. Hence I said "the public like to donate". I am not suggesting that most of the public like to donate - that's just your overactive imagination interpreting my words that way because you care about the numbers.
As I have said repeatedly it's not a numbers game. The churches provide a service that makes a section of the public happy. Good enough reason for the service to continue - so long as they are not breaking laws. Most people are probably indifferent. Unless you have evidence that 95% or even a majority are opposed to people donating to churches?
-
Again you're wrong. The public does not need to be defined in the way that you suggest for the statement to be true.
So a word doesn't need to be defined in the manner that it is ... err ... defined.
Using the accepted dictionary definition of the term The Public it is not correct to claim that "the public like to donate to churches".
-
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public
relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people
Nonsense - if I talk about "the public" liking this or liking that, that will generally be considered to represent a large proportion of the population not a small minority (see definition above). Or the following would be applicable.
The public like to engage in naturist activities
The public like to support Bristol Rovers FC
The public like to vote for the Green Party
In each case there is a small minority in the public that does engage in naturist activities, support Bristol Rovers and vote Green but it is nonsense and/or deeply disingenuous to claim that "the public" like these things.
Thanks for explaining how you would use the words "the public". If you want to use the words that way, feel free.
Please stop misrepresenting how I used the words "the public". It's not a numbers game so I am not interested in trying to argue for services based on the idea that the public object to minorities being catered for, unless you can link to evidence that a majority of the public object to donations to churches that aren't registered with the Charity Commission.
-
The churches provide a service that makes a section of the public happy. Good enough reason for the service to continue - so long as they are not breaking laws.
I agree - when have I ever claimed that churches shouldn't exist, or that people (whether a majority or a small minority) should be able to donate to those churches and shouldn't choose to benefit from those churches if that is important to them. I haven't.
My argument that if those churches are charities and if so they should be subject to exactly the same rules as other charities of an equivalent size. It is about special privileges to religious organisations that my local homeless charity (or my choral society etc etc) cannot benefit from.
-
Thanks for explaining how you would use the words "the public". If you want to use the words that way, feel free.
It isn't how I would define it - it is how it is generally defined in the dictionary. I am using the term as it is defined. You can't simply redefine a term for your own purposes in a manner which is the exact oppose of its generally accepted (and dictionary) definition.
-
So a word doesn't need to be defined in the manner that it is ... err ... defined.
Using the accepted dictionary definition of the term The Public it is not correct to claim that "the public like to donate to churches".
You're still wrong. The dictionary definition you linked to says "All ordinary people" - are you suggesting that people who have been using the term "the public" to refer to...err the public...should not have been using it unless they were referring to all ordinary people i.e. 100 % of the population?
-
It isn't how I would define it - it is how it is generally defined in the dictionary. I am using the term as it is defined. You can't simply redefine a term for your own purposes in a manner which is the exact oppose of its generally accepted (and dictionary) definition.
Except you are not using the term as it is defined. You have taken 1 definition in one dictionary and interpreted it in a nonsensical way.
-
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/public
relating to or involving people in general, rather than being limited to a particular group of people
You comment is nonsense - if I talk about "the public" liking this or liking that, that will generally be considered to represent a large proportion of the population not a small minority (see definition above). Or the following would be applicable.
The public like to engage in naturist activities
The public like to support Bristol Rovers FC
The public like to vote for the Green Party
In each case there is a small minority in the public that does engage in naturist activities, support Bristol Rovers and vote Green but it is nonsense and/or deeply disingenuous to claim that "the public" like these things.
PD - you really need to brush up on your grammar - the definition you quoted from the dictionary is for "the public" the adjective, not the noun. You then go on to use the word as a noun.
-
PD - you really need to brush up on your grammar - the definition you quoted from the dictionary is for "the public" the adjective, not the noun. You then go on to use the word as a noun.
The use of the word as adjective and noun are obviously related, in other words the totality of the populace not a specific subset. So a standard noun definition (also Cambridge): All ordinary people - my emphasis.
All ordinary people (i.e. the public) do not like to donate to churches - a small subset of all ordinary people (i.e. not the public) do like to donate to churches.
-
Except you are not using the term as it is defined. You have taken 1 definition in one dictionary ...
Pretty all definitions are basically the same - obviously.
... and interpreted it in a nonsensical way.
And applied it in its standard an accepted definition.
-
The use of the word as adjective and noun are obviously related, in other words the totality of the populace not a specific subset. So a standard noun definition (also Cambridge): All ordinary people - my emphasis.
All ordinary people (i.e. the public) do not like to donate to churches - a small subset of all ordinary people (i.e. not the public) do like to donate to churches.
All ordinary people (your emphasis) do not like the same things. So it's nonsensical to require "the public" to mean "All ordinary people".
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/all
every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of):
-
Pretty all definitions are basically the same - obviously.
And applied it in its standard an accepted definition.
Except of course you have applied it in a nonsensical way, emphasising the word "all" in all ordinary people.
-
All ordinary people (your emphasis) do not like the same things. So it's nonsensical to require "the public" to mean "All ordinary people".
Take it up with people who define the term - I'm just using the standard definition (unlike you).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/all
every one (of), or the complete amount or number (of), or the whole (of):
You aren't really helping your argument are you VG, as you are making your claim more and more wrong. In reality when talking about the public liking this, or liking that, it is accepted that you'd expect the thing you claim they like to be liked by a large proportion of ordinary people. If something is liked by a small minority (e.g. 5%) it is completely wrong to claim this to be liked by the public.
You could otherwise claim that 'the public in the UK are muslims' - that statement is clearly non-sense even if maybe 3% of the population are muslim.
As they say - when in a hole, stop digging.
-
Take it up with people who define the term - I'm just using the standard definition (unlike you).
You aren't really helping your argument are you VG, as you are making your claim more and more wrong. In reality when talking about the public liking this, or liking that, it is accepted that you'd expect the thing you claim they like to be liked by a large proportion of ordinary people. If something is liked by a small minority (e.g. 5%) it is completely wrong to claim this to be liked by the public.
You could otherwise claim that 'the public in the UK are muslims' - that statement is clearly non-sense even if maybe 3% of the population are muslim.
As they say - when in a hole, stop digging.
The big problem is then how to be really neutral instead of taking one's own position and calling it neutral particularly since you seem, going back to be arguing for the majority rather than for neutrality.
-
Fewer than you might think.
Maybe rather more than you'd imagine.
Apparently over 70% of christian charities are in the below £100k category, that is about 18,000 charities. The median income for all christian charities of just £23k. Now not all of those will be in the category that can benefit from the special privilege of excepted charity status, but many will be.
And that is of course the argument about excepted status, that there are too many to deal with. Yet when you look at non religious charities over 80%, some 90,000 are in that £5k-£100k category, but no exemption for the. Surely if you want to do something to reduce workload you'd target that much larger sector first ... except they don't have there religious lobby behind them.
Υes there are, but to be clear, I'm using this as an argument to do away with the current exemption, not to maintain it.
You seem to have taken my post as a defence of the status quo. It wasn't intended as such. I see no reason why churches shouldn't be subject to the same rules as other charities.
No I didn't see it as a defence of the status quo - I think we both agree that exactly the same rules should apply for all charities of the same size regardless of whether they are a church, a tennis club, a homeless charity, support medical research, help disabled children etc, etc.
-
Take it up with people who define the term - I'm just using the standard definition (unlike you).
Except you are using one definition in one dictionary and interpreting it in a nonsensical way evidenced by your emphasis of the word "all"
You aren't really helping your argument are you VG, as you are making your claim more and more wrong. In reality when talking about the public liking this, or liking that, it is accepted that you'd expect the thing you claim they like to be liked by a large proportion of ordinary people. If something is liked by a small minority (e.g. 5%) it is completely wrong to claim this to be liked by the public.
You aren't really helping your argument PD by disagreeing with the dictionary definition that you linked to. Your dictionary definition defined the public as "all the ordinary people" (your emphasis) and not just a large proportion, which is your personal preference of how to define "the public". Good to know that you are open to using terms in a different way from the dictionary.
You could otherwise claim that 'the public in the UK are muslims' - that statement is clearly non-sense even if maybe 3% of the population are muslim.
As they say - when in a hole, stop digging.
I suggest you take your advice and stop digging, given you just disagreed with your own link.
Let's just stick with talking about what the public like rather than what the public are. You do like your pointless discussions don't you.
I have already explained that by using the term "the public" I was not engaged in a numbers game to try to claim that most people like donating to churches. So we're in agreement that this is a minority of the public. "The public" just meant people from the public who use the services of the church and like to donate to them. It seemed a lot shorter to say "the public". So I'm going to carry on using it that way - if you don't like it being used in that way, oh well, free country and all that.
So, it seems registering church charities is not a high priority, especially as people seem to not mind donating even if the charities are not registered.
-
Except of course you have applied it in a nonsensical way, emphasising the word "all" in all ordinary people.
It's not my definition, but here is another (again noun):
'The public is also the people who do not belong to a particular group or organization'
-
For crying out loud VG, don't you understand the position here - the excepted charities gain all the benefits of charitable status including tax advantages, without having to register as a charity - that's the whole point. If you are a non religious charity you are required to register in order to gain those benefits. So charity A (income £20k - religious) no need to register, gets tax advantages; charity B (income £20k) cannot get the benefits without registering.
If it is such a minor issue for non religious charities why is it such an issue for the religious ones. Are they all unable to use online systems!!!
PD it's you that do not seem to understand the position. Many non-religious charities get advantages from being registered with the Charity Commission. Why would they want to go backwards and not be registered and forgo the benefits? They would just have to come up with a new system to distinguish charities from non-charities.
Makes more sense to keep the charities already registered and get the smaller church charities registered as well eventually, when resources permit. Especially if the goal is to get every charity registered. Not being registered might not make much difference to church charities because of the history the church charities have with the communities they are in, but it would make more of a difference to non-church charities if they do not have a similar historical connection with their communities.
-
PD it's you that do not seem to understand the position. Many non-religious charities get advantages from being registered with the Charity Commission.
But the point is that the excepted charities (i.e. the churches) get exactly the same benefits of being a charity yet they don't have to go through the administrative burden of registering and annual reporting.
Why would they want to go backwards and not be registered and forgo the benefits?
They wouldn't want to forgo the benefits, but I suspect a lot would like to retain exactly the same benefits without having to register/report, which is the situation for the excepted charities.
They would just have to come up with a new system to distinguish charities from non-charities.
You'd need no new system, just a system that applies to all charities in a fair and equitable basis. One that doesn't allow one set of charities to gain all the benefits of charitable status without registering while requiring another charity of the same size to have to register to gain the benefits.
Makes more sense to keep the charities already registered ...
I agree
... and get the smaller church charities registered as well eventually, when resources permit.
How long do these charities need - even if you just take the starting point as 1996, they've had 26 years, realistically since 1963. This isn't about resourcing, it is about lobbying to retain special privileges. This was supposed to have been sorted by 2001. We've had long enough already - time to sort out this unfairness and bring a level playing field for charities of equal size - all get the same benefits, all are subject to the same obligations.
-
Not being registered might not make much difference to church charities because of the history the church charities have with the communities they are in, but it would make more of a difference to non-church charities if they do not have a similar historical connection with their communities.
I disagree - if there was a requirement for all charities with incomes over £5k to register, you wouldn't be a non registered church charity with an income of £10k - it wouldn't be a charity and wouldn't get the tax benefits etc. I can't imagine many churches giving up on gift aid uplift, and all the benefits you mentioned that your charity gets by not registering.
And, of course, the historic connections of many churches with their communities is dwindling as churchgoing declines. As pointed out previously for most churches their income is heavily based on the donations of their worshippers, who are reducing in numbers. Could they really just absorb the hit of losing 25p additional for every £1 donated. I doubt it.
-
I disagree - if there was a requirement for all charities with incomes over £5k to register, you wouldn't be a non registered church charity with an income of £10k - it wouldn't be a charity and wouldn't get the tax benefits etc. I can't imagine many churches giving up on gift aid uplift, and all the benefits you mentioned that your charity gets by not registering.
And, of course, the historic connections of many churches with their communities is dwindling as churchgoing declines. As pointed out previously for most churches their income is heavily based on the donations of their worshippers, who are reducing in numbers. Could they really just absorb the hit of losing 25p additional for every £1 donated. I doubt it.
I meant in the current situation where the church charities are not losing out by not getting registered with the Charity Commission because they get the benefits; and the public who donate continue to donate without them being registered; and those who don't donate don't really cares enough whether they are registered to prioritise paying for the resources to get them registered.
-
How long do these charities need - even if you just take the starting point as 1996, they've had 26 years, realistically since 1963. This isn't about resourcing, it is about lobbying to retain special privileges. This was supposed to have been sorted by 2001. We've had long enough already - time to sort out this unfairness and bring a level playing field for charities of equal size - all get the same benefits, all are subject to the same obligations.
Again - that's a question for the government and Charity Commission. If you think it's down to lobbying happy to read any links you have to show this. I'm leaning towards inefficiency and procrastination as the reason as it's probably not a high priority for many people and manpower seems limited so they just keep extending the deadline for getting the church charities registered.
If people started kicking up a huge fuss and it seemed like a vote-winner the government would probably do more about it. We do often seem to see a lot of inefficiency in public bodies - and often the priority issues are linked to votes.
-
I meant in the current situation where the church charities are not losing out by not getting registered with the Charity Commission because they get the benefits; and the public who donate continue to donate without them being registered
But that is only because they have the special privilege of excepted charity status. If they had to register and chose not to, they'd lose all those benefits and donors would have to increase their donation level by 25% in order for the church to remain the same financially.
Also if they weren't an excepted charity and did not register there are all sorts of other challenges for that organisation (which would no longer be a charity) including potentially being liable for corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT issues and being liable for full business rates ... oh I forgot the other huge special privilege for churches, complete exemption from business rates unlike other charities that pay 20% and non charities that pay 100% business rates.
-
If people started kicking up a huge fuss and it seemed like a vote-winner the government would probably do more about it. We do often seem to see a lot of inefficiency in public bodies - and often the priority issues are linked to votes.
But as I've pointed out this isn't government by inertia - in other words preserving a status quo simply by not acting, because the default is the status quo.
No in this case the default is that excepted status goes - and has been since 1996. Every time the deadline is extended, as it has been for 30 years beyond the original deadline of 2001, then this is the government actively prioritising the maintenance of the special privilege. Every time they extend they have to bring the amendments to parliament, they have to go through a whole range of statutory process. But government's of course know that the institutionalised lobbying powers of the churches always come to bare to fight against any loss of special privilege for religious, whether it is this issue, or level playing field for subsidised school bus costs, changes to requirements of admissions criteria for faith schools etc etc.
So it may well be that the general public (yes used correctly) don't know about this issue, may care about it if they know but don't see it as priority but that doesn't mean that government should cave in to those who shout the loudest and activity legislate to maintain the special privilege that was supposed to disappear in 2001.
-
I'm leaning towards inefficiency and procrastination ...
I'm leaning towards inefficiency, procrastination and almost wilful obstruction ... not on the part of the Charities Commission, but on the part of the religious organisations themselves.
So I read that the Commission has estimated that there may be 30,000-40,000 excepted charities just from the CofE. Of course they don't know because these charities aren't registered. But it is entirely up to the CofE to choose how they organise their churches in order to register them. And they sure as hell don't look to be helping matters. So if that estimate is anything like true, and with CofE membership at approx 1 million that means there is a separate charity for every 29 parishioners. That is nuts and massively inefficient - except of course by doing things this way the CofE can both avoid registration under the excepted charities approach but also claim they will overwhelm the Charities Commission.
Simple solution al round - the CofE combines mini- charities into sensibly sized ones, maybe they might look at whether they already have a structure in place ... hmm, like a diocese. Refusing to do this looks like wilful obstruction, as there is no way that the CofE would want to have 30,000 registered charities in their name, all with reporting obligations.
-
But that is only because they have the special privilege of excepted charity status. If they had to register and chose not to, they'd lose all those benefits and donors would have to increase their donation level by 25% in order for the church to remain the same financially.
Also if they weren't an excepted charity and did not register there are all sorts of other challenges for that organisation (which would no longer be a charity) including potentially being liable for corporation tax, capital gains tax, VAT issues and being liable for full business rates ... oh I forgot the other huge special privilege for churches, complete exemption from business rates unlike other charities that pay 20% and non charities that pay 100% business rates.
And the government seems to have decided it is more useful to them not to pursue that option. Presumably they have their reasons but as you haven't presented any links as to what they are we will both have to remain in the dark for now until more information on the matter comes to light. Right now we just have your opinions but no actual information.
-
But as I've pointed out this isn't government by inertia - in other words preserving a status quo simply by not acting, because the default is the status quo.
No in this case the default is that excepted status goes - and has been since 1996. Every time the deadline is extended, as it has been for 30 years beyond the original deadline of 2001, then this is the government actively prioritising the maintenance of the special privilege. Every time they extend they have to bring the amendments to parliament, they have to go through a whole range of statutory process. But government's of course know that the institutionalised lobbying powers of the churches always come to bare to fight against any loss of special privilege for religious, whether it is this issue, or level playing field for subsidised school bus costs, changes to requirements of admissions criteria for faith schools etc etc.
So it may well be that the general public (yes used correctly) don't know about this issue, may care about it if they know but don't see it as priority but that doesn't mean that government should cave in to those who shout the loudest and activity legislate to maintain the special privilege that was supposed to disappear in 2001.
And when you provide some links about this lobbying and its influence on the thinking of successive governments since 1996, I will review my opinion.
In the absence of actual evidence, it's no different to my speculation that Harry and Meghan planned their exit to LA in order to make money and control their money-making opportunities in the public eye and not because they were willing to become poorer in order to have a quiet life out of the media spotlight.
-
I'm leaning towards inefficiency, procrastination and almost wilful obstruction ... not on the part of the Charities Commission, but on the part of the religious organisations themselves.
Sure - if you got any links giving evidence of the wilful obstruction, I would certainly be interested in reading them.
So I read that the Commission has estimated that there may be 30,000-40,000 excepted charities just from the CofE. Of course they don't know because these charities aren't registered. But it is entirely up to the CofE to choose how they organise their churches in order to register them. And they sure as hell don't look to be helping matters. So if that estimate is anything like true, and with CofE membership at approx 1 million that means there is a separate charity for every 29 parishioners. That is nuts and massively inefficient - except of course by doing things this way the CofE can both avoid registration under the excepted charities approach but also claim they will overwhelm the Charities Commission.
Simple solution al round - the CofE combines mini- charities into sensibly sized ones, maybe they might look at whether they already have a structure in place ... hmm, like a diocese. Refusing to do this looks like wilful obstruction, as there is no way that the CofE would want to have 30,000 registered charities in their name, all with reporting obligations.
It's almost as if not many people are really that bothered about this and it's not a high priority that is worth spending money on organising. But if you want to call it wilful obstruction, ok - but some links with some evidence would be more convincing.
-
And when you provide some links about this lobbying and its influence on the thinking of successive governments since 1996, I will review my opinion.
In the absence of actual evidence, it's no different to my speculation that Harry and Meghan planned their exit to LA in order to make money and control their money-making opportunities in the public eye and not because they were willing to become poorer in order to have a quiet life out of the media spotlight.
Faith groups have been actively lobbying government to gain advantage and protect their interests for a lot longer than just 1996. And often this pays scant regard to notions of equality and fairness with common focus being the preservation of special privileges.
So you want some research on this - well here you go. Bang up to date, from 3 months ago, detailed and specifically mentions lobbying to influence Charity Law.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/christian-interest-groups-in-a-religiously-changing-united-kingdom-issues-strategies-influence/959784482002C4EFF74DE240E2E89B80
You note that the author also focussed on blocking change - 'There are also indications that some Christian group influence may take the form of limiting policy change rather than securing it — an intriguing finding that may tell us much about the ways in which religious interests still matter in contexts of declining adherence.'
You will also note the focus on 'insider' strategies - effectively that religious lobbying groups recognise that the actively religious are significantly disproportionately represented amongst MPs and peers compared to the general public (correct use of the term again) and therefore quietly influencing on the inside is a highly effective tactic.
-
Faith groups have been actively lobbying government to gain advantage and protect their interests for a lot longer than just 1996. And often this pays scant regard to notions of equality and fairness with common focus being the preservation of special privileges.
So you want some research on this - well here you go. Bang up to date, from 3 months ago, detailed and specifically mentions lobbying to influence Charity Law.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/christian-interest-groups-in-a-religiously-changing-united-kingdom-issues-strategies-influence/959784482002C4EFF74DE240E2E89B80
You note that the author also focussed on blocking change - 'There are also indications that some Christian group influence may take the form of limiting policy change rather than securing it — an intriguing finding that may tell us much about the ways in which religious interests still matter in contexts of declining adherence.'
You will also note the focus on 'insider' strategies - effectively that religious lobbying groups recognise that the actively religious are significantly disproportionately represented amongst MPs and peers compared to the general public (correct use of the term again) and therefore quietly influencing on the inside is a highly effective tactic.
Ok I read it. So all the research is saying is that yes, religious groups, the churches etc are an interest group just like many other non-religious interest groups and ultimately, interest groups seek to influence policy outcomes.....so far so normal for a democratic political system. No reason why religious groups can't lobby to influence policy.
But no evidence or mention of any lobbying on this specific issue - no evidence of wilful obstruction or lobbying regarding registering religious charities. Then your link says:
If the churches are declining in UK society, we might naturally expect them to be less capable of achieving successes. Kettell (Reference Kettell2016a, 1) observes that UK conservative Christian lobby groups are “typically considered to exert little practical influence”. Even in the case of the Church of England, despite its established status and presumed greater access, influence has been questioned—partly because establishment may temper its behavior (Minkenberg Reference Minkenberg2003, 210), but also because it does not enjoy strong social authority (Grzymała-Busse Reference Grzymała-Busse2015, 333).
The research indicated at least three factors explaining why denominations limited their engagement with UK-level public policy. First, some denominations operate principally in parts of the UK with devolved governments; In addition, however, some groups clearly lacked the resources to pursue policy work. One survey respondent stated that “we have no resource to do so”. Third, and linked to the question of resources, some inevitably prioritized their core religious functions.
And your link says the churches employ some insider strategies and some outsider strategies. This is no different from many other interest groups - where interest groups have access to MPs they use that and cultivate the relationship. Again this is a normal part of representative Parliamentary democracies.
As can be seen, the findings indicate no obvious preference for insider or outsider strategies, instead suggesting a range of tactics. While the most important tactic was encouraging supporters to write to their elected representatives (an outsider tactic), the next three responses are all insider tactics: contacting parliamentarians directly, responding to a government consultation, and direct contact with government representatives. Yet the remaining insider tactic—direct participation in parliamentary proceedings—appears further down the list.
The final section talks about the influence and impact they have. From your link:
Finally, in terms of impact and influence, the paper found evidence of widespread, albeit often modest, success.
Nonetheless, as shown in the table, almost half did report some influence on UK-level policy itself. These responses were manually coded into the 24 policy topics featured in Table 2, and the results indicate potential influence across a very wide range of issues, with at least one example given from 19 of the 24 policy topics.Footnote10 The top category was “marriage and sexuality,” with four respondents indicating influence, three of which were in support of legalization of same-sex marriage—itself challenging simplistic caricatures of the sector. Other policy topics with at least two respondents included housing, welfare, commerce (Sunday trading), the environment, immigration, international development, religious freedom, and life issues. It can therefore once again be seen that the range of policy issues on which Christian interest groups report some policy influence is more varied than might be expected.
There wasn't any mention of registering charities as being an important issue they had been lobbying on. Do you have any links to information on that particular issue?
-
But no evidence or mention of any lobbying on this specific issue ...
Wrong.
'In other cases, there are more obvious “sectional” interests—most obviously the category labeled “institutional interest” (comprising responses such as charity law, buildings, burial and cremation)'.[/i]
-
And your link says the churches employ some insider strategies and some outsider strategies. This is no different from many other interest groups - where interest groups have access to MPs they use that and cultivate the relationship. Again this is a normal part of representative Parliamentary democracies.
How many other lobbying organisation have their 26 most senior officials as permanent members of one of the houses of Parliament? Oh yes, none. The ability to engage in insider lobbying strategies is unrivalled for the CofE - and of course they are often the cheerleaders for wider religious lobbying. Again from the article:
An interviewee from the established Church of England described it as “less campaigny” than some other groups, as “We try and influence from within, if you like—we're part of the establishment—rather than without.”
No other campaigning organisation could argue in such a manner.
-
Name one ''campaign'' that doesn't take the deficit view of religion namely that is that there is something basically wrong about religion.
Just from this thread alone, to remove privileged seats for Bishops in the Lords, to open up Thought for the Day to non-religious viewpoints. I'd add to that the campaign to remove the requirement for an 'act of broadly Christian worship' from schools, as well.
We've already established that secular humanism or the british version at least is not the equivalent of egalitarianism.
No, you've tried to make the claim, and keep falling foul of failing to distinguish between removing religious privilege and disadvantaging religion.
O.
-
Wrong.
'In other cases, there are more obvious “sectional” interests—most obviously the category labeled “institutional interest” (comprising responses such as charity law, buildings, burial and cremation)'.[/i]
Not wrong and of course you're talking complete nonsense if you think what you have quoted here counts as evidence of wilful obstruction. For a start parishes that receive a gross income over £100k will be concerned with Charity Law and Charity Law covers many areas.
So you have fun with your unevidenced speculation about wilful obstruction and lobbying on the issue of registering smaller religious charities with the Charity Commission. Just comes across as prejudiced assumptions on your part.
-
How many other lobbying organisation have their 26 most senior officials as permanent members of one of the houses of Parliament? Oh yes, none. The ability to engage in insider lobbying strategies is unrivalled for the CofE - and of course they are often the cheerleaders for wider religious lobbying. Again from the article:
An interviewee from the established Church of England described it as “less campaigny” than some other groups, as “We try and influence from within, if you like—we're part of the establishment—rather than without.”
No other campaigning organisation could argue in such a manner.
So you have no actual evidence of wilful obstruction on the issue of registering smaller religious charities with the Charity Commission.
Ok you have fun with your unevidenced speculation about wilful obstruction and lobbying on this issue. Just comes across as prejudiced assumptions on your part.
ETA: Though I agree with the idea of removing automatic seats for Bishops in the HofL. My view is that in a Parliamentary democracy, Bishops should get a voice on the merits of their message and not by automatic privilege. It seems paternalistic to argue for forced religious guidance within politics, especially given the decline in moral authority of the religious establishments.
-
There wasn't any mention of registering charities as being an important issue they had been lobbying on. Do you have any links to information on that particular issue?
Of course - this from the Christian Institute, claiming to be an umbrella lobbying organisation representing 'almost all christian denominations'. This was in relation to the Charities Act 2006, one of the numerous attempts to end the special privilege of the excepted charity status for churches, which means they don't have to register if their income is below £100k while virtually all other charities must register if their income is over £5k.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/charity/m26.htm
Note the very clear lobbying to retain the special privilege of excepted status:
Firstly, most of the major Christian denominations which are represented in the Institute’s support base are "excepted" from registration, subject to the £100,000 threshold currently relevant to each congregation. This historic excepted status recognises that those charities are connected with an umbrella body, such as a diocese, denomination or association, which exercise some oversight. Far from being an "anomaly", excepted status remains a sensible and efficient way of maintaining a degree of oversight without the unnecessary and bureaucratic burden placed on smaller churches which necessarily goes with compulsory registration.
And the special pleading:
As a result of the current law, thousands of small churches, chapels and other charities face being forced to register, creating a not insignificant burden on them as well as on the Charity Commission. - yet thousands of other small charities of exactly the same size had been forced to register for years.
and
Religious charities are spending disproportionate resources on unnecessary bureaucracy to comply with charity law. - why only religious charities, noting that they have reduced burden due to excepted charity status, compared to most non religious charities.
and
We believe that excepted charities should continue to concentrate on furthering their charitable objects free from the cost and bureaucracy of registration, including the associated reporting requirements. - yet all non excepted charities have to comply.
and
Many small churches have an income exceeding £25,000 but expend disproportionate resources in meeting reporting requirements, often paying professional fees to assist them. - so do many non religious charities, why is this only an issue for churches.
-
Of course - this from the Christian Institute, claiming to be an umbrella lobbying organisation representing 'almost all christian denominations. This was in relation to the Charities Act 2006, one of the numerous attempts to end the special privilege of the excepted charity status for churches, which means they don't have to register if their income is below £100k while virtually all other charities must register if their income is over £5k.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpubadm/writev/charity/m26.htm
Note the very clear lobbying to retain the special privilege of excepted status:
Firstly, most of the major Christian denominations which are represented in the Institute’s support base are "excepted" from registration, subject to the £100,000 threshold currently relevant to each congregation. This historic excepted status recognises that those charities are connected with an umbrella body, such as a diocese, denomination or association, which exercise some oversight. Far from being an "anomaly", excepted status remains a sensible and efficient way of maintaining a degree of oversight without the unnecessary and bureaucratic burden placed on smaller churches which necessarily goes with compulsory registration.
And the special pleading:
As a result of the current law, thousands of small churches, chapels and other charities face being forced to register, creating a not insignificant burden on them as well as on the Charity Commission. - yet thousands of other small charities of exactly the same size had been forced to register for years.
Yes and there is no problem with lobbying - it's how democracies work. The government consult bodies and they provide written evidence of their views. So far so normal workings of a Parliamentary democracy.
Thanks for identifying that these small religious charities seem to be different from other small charities as they are subject to some oversight from a larger umbrella body.
and
Religious charities are spending disproportionate resources on unnecessary bureaucracy to comply with charity law. - why only religious charities, noting that they have reduced burden due to excepted charity status, compared to most non religious charities.
and
We believe that excepted charities should continue to concentrate on furthering their charitable objects free from the cost and bureaucracy of registration, including the associated reporting requirements. - yet all non excepted charities have to comply.
and
Many small churches have an income exceeding £25,000 but expend disproportionate resources in meeting reporting requirements, often paying professional fees to assist them. - so do many non religious charities, why is this only an issue for churches.
So no evidence of wilful obstruction then? And no evidence that the Charity Commission has the resources to register these charities.
I don't know why it's an issue for religious charities as I haven't read anything on the actual issues and you haven't liked to any information on what the issues. I am not convinced by your speculation that it is wilful obstruction on the part of churches with no actual evidence to back up your assumptions. You can take your assumptions as true if you want - the same way I made assumptions about Harry and Meghan without presenting evidence. Other people weren't convinced by my speculation - and that's fine. It should not surprise you that people might not be convinced by your speculations either.
This legal forum has some info that might be relevant but no detail about the actual issue for the Charity Commission: https://lawandreligionuk.com/2015/09/04/churches-as-charities-some-basics/
The legal status of church congregations is that they are individual charities established under Measure- so Parochial Church Councils (PCCs) are accepted as charities by the Charity Commission and they are governed by Charities Law even if they are excepted from registering with the Charity Commission.
Maybe the delays are because of complications in changing the governing documents of churches. According to this article governing documents cannot be drawn up or amended by local congregational trustees but are subject instead to regulation at a higher level within the denomination concerned. In some cases, no local constitution or governing document exists as such, where each congregation is obliged to operate under a constitutional document determined centrally.
Or maybe it is because the Charities Act 2006 removed the presumption that the advancement of religion was for public benefit and now would require religious charities that need to register with them who say their purpose is to advance religion to actually demonstrate how what they do is for public benefit.
In the absence of evidence of wilful obstruction, I just keep reading that (1)the Charities Commission doesn't have the resources to register them and (2) that charities that have historically served their communities are required to comply with new Charities laws by converting established legal entities such as PCCs by amending or writing governing documents before they can register and that this is a bit of a bureaucratic process. My impression is that the government thought it was easier to extend the legislation to except these religious charities and this was a pragmatic response to lack of resources to get them registered.
-
The legal status of church congregations is that they are individual charities established under Measure- so Parochial Church Councils (PCCs) are accepted as charities by the Charity Commission and they are governed by Charities Law even if they are excepted from registering with the Charity Commission.
Yes I know how parishes are currently structured, but that is their choice - there there is no reason why the CofE needs to register its charities in a similar ultra-inefficient manner.
And you try to explain this one VG. It is reported that just the CofE has about 35,000 excepted charities that need to be registered. That, of course doesn't include PCCs with income over £100k which will already have had to register. Nor will it include any PCCs with incomes between £5k and £100k who have actually taken action and registered, noting that this requirement has been in place since 1996.
So 35,000 still to go ... and yet the CofE only has 16,000 churches :o Does not compute - that's over two charities for each parish and one charity for every 29 worshippers. So perhaps you might want to rethink where any inefficiency and unnecessary bureaucracy is coming from. I don't see why the Charities Commission should have to pay for the gross inefficiency of the CofE. They should be required to organise their charitable registrations into numbers manageable by the Charities Commission or simply lose charitable status.
To note, you will perhaps have missed it, but the Roman Catholic church is not on the list of excepted charities. Why? Well because they organise their charitable activity by diocese so they have just 22 separate charities, all of which are registered. The RCC and CofE have broadly similar numbers of worshippers, yet one has 22 charities, the other apparently over 35,000. Total non-sense and the Charities Commission shouldn't be expected to have to deal with such errant inefficiency.
-
Yes I know how parishes are currently structured, but that is their choice - there there is no reason why the CofE needs to register its charities in a similar ultra-inefficient manner.
And you try to explain this one VG. It is reported that just the CofE has about 35,000 excepted charities that need to be registered. That, of course doesn't include PCCs with income over £100k which will already have had to register. Nor will it include any PCCs with incomes between £5k and £100k who have actually taken action and registered, noting that this requirement has been in place since 1996.
So 35,000 still to go ... and yet the CofE only has 16,000 churches :o Does not compute - that's over two charities for each parish and one charity for every 29 worshippers. So perhaps you might want to rethink where any inefficiency and unnecessary bureaucracy is coming from. I don't see why the Charities Commission should have to pay for the gross inefficiency of the CofE. They should be required to organise their charitable registrations into numbers manageable by the Charities Commission or simply lose charitable status.
To note, you will perhaps have missed it, but the Roman Catholic church is not on the list of excepted charities. Why? Well because they organise their charitable activity by diocese so they have just 22 separate charities, all of which are registered. The RCC and CofE have broadly similar numbers of worshippers, yet one has 22 charities, the other apparently over 35,000. Total non-sense and the Charities Commission shouldn't be expected to have to deal with such errant inefficiency.
According to my previous link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf it was a government department that offered the charities a choice of whether to end the exception or to extend it. And they seemed to assess the impact of extending as "no impact" on business, charities or voluntary bodies, and the public sector. They wrote that an Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument (t extend the exception) because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.
The Office for Civil Society wrote to the representative bodies of the charities affected proposing two options, allowing the 1996 Regulations to lapse, so ending the exception, or extending them for a period of between five to ten years while working with the Charity Commission to prepare the affected organisations for registration.
The representative bodies unanimously supported a continuation of the exception for a fixed period of time. The 1996 Regulations will be extended on the basis that a comprehensive plan to phase organisations onto the register over the extension period will be developed. The Charity Commission will begin consultation on this programme of registration in the first half of 2021-22 financial year.
And there are lots more charities that are excepted - and it's a funding issue apparently.
There’s now legislation which requires church charities to register with the Charity Commission by 2021. However it’s questionable whether it will be enacted. The legislation was first introduced in 1996, and it’s been delayed several times since then. The cost of registering thousands of churches will be astronomical, and the Commission doesn’t appear flush with cash, so there is likely to be a problem funding it. - See more at: https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/voices/there-are-more-than-twice-as-many-charities-in-the-uk-as-you-ve-been-told.html#sthash.Z9aLhBBP.dpuf
-
According to my previous link https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/55/pdfs/uksiem_20210055_en.pdf it was a government department that offered the charities a choice of whether to end the exception or to extend it. And they seemed to assess the impact of extending as "no impact" on business, charities or voluntary bodies, and the public sector. They wrote that an Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument (t extend the exception) because no impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen.
The Office for Civil Society wrote to the representative bodies of the charities affected proposing two options, allowing the 1996 Regulations to lapse, so ending the exception, or extending them for a period of between five to ten years while working with the Charity Commission to prepare the affected organisations for registration.
The representative bodies unanimously supported a continuation of the exception for a fixed period of time. The 1996 Regulations will be extended on the basis that a comprehensive plan to phase organisations onto the register over the extension period will be developed. The Charity Commission will begin consultation on this programme of registration in the first half of 2021-22 financial year.
Yet the very same document is very clear that registration of all charities is extremely important:
“to promote trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements”.
So by their very words a situation in which some charities are registered while others are not and therefore subject to differing accountability requirements acts to undermine trust and confidence in the system.
And on the consultation, the only bodies consulted were those associated with excepted charities - so effectively they asked a block of charities that had the full benefits of charitable status, yet did not have to register, nor had to submit annual reports whether:
A) They'd like to go through the process of registering and submitting annual reports or
B) They'd like to avoid registration and reporting for another 10 years with no loss of benefits.
They went for A) - no shit, Sherlock. Why didn't they also consult all those charities that currently have to register their views on the matter? I suspect they have got a very different response. And given that they'd already stated that to ensure confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements the views of other charities is, of course, very important as an overall loss of confidence in the system linked to unregistered charities affects them.
But the broader point is that this is written as if the excepted charities had recently been hit with a bombshell that they have to register - they hadn't, they have know since 1963 that excepted status was temporary, with a clear deadline imposed in 1996 for registration to be complete by 2001. What on earth have these charities been doing. I struggling to find any evidence of any serious attempt by excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k to get themselves registered over the past 25 years.
Perhaps you can help me VG - can you provide evidence that the excepted charities have been diligently applying for registration since 1996, because I can't see any.
-
Yet the very same document is very clear that registration of all charities is extremely important:
“to promote trust and confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements”.
So by their very words a situation in which some charities are registered while others are not and therefore subject to differing accountability requirements acts to undermine trust and confidence in the system.
And on the consultation, the only bodies consulted were those associated with excepted charities - so effectively they asked a block of charities that had the full benefits of charitable status, yet did not have to register, nor had to submit annual reports whether:
A) They'd like to go through the process of registering and submitting annual reports or
B) They'd like to avoid registration and reporting for another 10 years with no loss of benefits.
They went for A) - no shit, Sherlock.
Glad you agree with me that the charities went for the obvious choice given the options they were presented with by the government. So no evidence of wilful obstruction on the part of the charities as you claimed.
Why didn't they also consult all those charities that currently have to register their views on the matter? I suspect they have got a very different response. And given that they'd already stated that to ensure confidence in the regulatory system as a whole it is important that all organisations with charitable status should be subject to the same accountability requirements the views of other charities is, of course, very important as an overall loss of confidence in the system linked to unregistered charities affects them.
You should take that up with the government. I suspect it's just a simple case of they disagree with your view of the situation. It happens.
But the broader point is that this is written as if the excepted charities had recently been hit with a bombshell that they have to register - they hadn't, they have know since 1963 that excepted status was temporary, with a clear deadline imposed in 1996 for registration to be complete by 2001. What on earth have these charities been doing. I struggling to find any evidence of any serious attempt by excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k to get themselves registered over the past 25 years.
Perhaps you can help me VG - can you provide evidence that the excepted charities have been diligently applying for registration since 1996, because I can't see any.
Why would I do that? The way it works on here is if you want to convince people about the truth of your claims e.g. about wilful obstruction by religious charities PD - it's up to you to support your claim with evidence.
All I'm seeing so far is government-led consultations, a government view that extending the deadline and not registering these charities has no significant negative impact, and what seems to be fairly significant concern about funding and resources for the Charity Commission to register these charities. Guess you have your work cut out for you lobbying the government to come round to your way of thinking that the best course of action is to take away the charitable status of these religious charities. But that's what's so great about our Parliamentary democracy - diverse opinions are entertained and people can lobby and campaign to have their opinions heard.
-
Glad you agree with me that the charities went for the obvious choice given the options they were presented with by the government.
So you ask groups who benefit from a special privilege, and only groups that benefit from a special privilege, whether they'd like to retain that special privilege, and they say 'yes please, we'd love to continue to have the special privilege'. Hardly a ringing endorsement of meaningful consultation on the matter.
So no evidence of wilful obstruction on the part of the charities as you claimed.
The obstruction, as I described it, is the failure of the churches to apply for registration since 1996 when they were told they had to against a deadline. If you disagree that they have failed to make any meaningful attempt to apply for registration in the 25 years since 1996 then you will be able to provide me with evidence of the number of excepted church charities with incomes between £5k and £100k that have applied for registration, and presumably you'd be able to indicate it to be a large proportion. If you cannot provide that evidence then my assertion that the churches have failed to apply for registration in a reasonable manner given they've had 25 years to do so, then I think my view stands.
My view is also strengthened by the claims that there are still 30-40k excepted CofE charities that had not been registered by 2021, which suggests no meaningful attempt to comply with the 1996 requirement by the churches (given that there are only 16,000 CofE churches in total). It is also strengthened by the fact that the numbers of registered charities in England & Wales has barely changed in the period 1996 to now. Had there been a major effort by the churches to register tens of thousands of charities, we would almost certainly have seen a major uptick in registered charities numbers.
The churches have, frankly, done nothing meaningful to comply with the 1996 requirements and that, in my opinion is wilful obstruction, knowing that as a deadline loss they will yet again claim that there are too many to deal with (because they have failed to be applying for registration in a measured and systematic manner) and therefore they need another extension. This is the argument used in 1996, and again in 2001, and in 2007, and in 2012, and in 2014 and again in 2021. And I suspect we will have exactly the same argument in 2031 when they demand a further extension.
And all the while as far as I can see they have done nothing meaningful to get these charities registered. If you disagree with me, please provide that evidence.
-
So you ask groups who benefit from a special privilege, and only groups that benefit from a special privilege, whether they'd like to retain that special privilege, and they say 'yes please, we'd love to continue to have the special privilege'. Hardly a ringing endorsement of meaningful consultation on the matter.
I didn't say it was meaningful consultation - I said it was a government-led consultation. It was the government that decided there was not any significant impact by extending the deadline for these excepted charities so they wrote and asked if the charities were ok with it as well, and not surprisingly the charities said they were fine with it. That's not wilful obstruction.
The obstruction, as I described it, is the failure of the churches to apply for registration since 1996 when they were told they had to against a deadline. If you disagree that they have failed to make any meaningful attempt to apply for registration in the 25 years since 1996 then you will be able to provide me with evidence of the number of excepted church charities with incomes between £5k and £100k that have applied for registration, and presumably you'd be able to indicate it to be a large proportion. If you cannot provide that evidence then my assertion that the churches have failed to apply for registration in a reasonable manner given they've had 25 years to do so, then I think my view stands.
My view is also strengthened by the claims that there are still 30-40k excepted CofE charities that had not been registered by 2021, which suggests no meaningful attempt to comply with the 1996 requirement by the churches (given that there are only 16,000 CofE churches in total). It is also strengthened by the fact that the numbers of registered charities in England & Wales has barely changed in the period 1996 to now. Had there been a major effort by the churches to register tens of thousands of charities, we would almost certainly have seen a major uptick in registered charities numbers.
The churches have, frankly, done nothing meaningful to comply with the 1996 requirements and that, in my opinion is wilful obstruction, knowing that as a deadline loss they will yet again claim that there are too many to deal with (because they have failed to be applying for registration in a measured and systematic manner) and therefore they need another extension. This is the argument used in 1996, and again in 2001, and in 2007, and in 2012, and in 2014 and again in 2021. And I suspect we will have exactly the same argument in 2031 when they demand a further extension.
And all the while as far as I can see they have done nothing meaningful to get these charities registered. If you disagree with me, please provide that evidence.
You don't seem to realise how the burden of proof works - your positive claim so it's up to you to provide supporting evidence.
Oh I see - you call it wilful obstruction when charities don't do something they are not legally obliged by the government to do and moreover when they are told that the Charity Commission can't cope with them all registering. Not convincing evidence I am afraid.
But then you do have your own peculiar way of defining things so I can't say I'm surprised that you call that wilful obstruction. It's a bit like where you linked to the Cambridge dictionary and defined "the public" as all ordinary people with your emphasis on the word "all" and then you defined "all" as many or most or a lot or some such thing. Logic is clearly not your strong point.
-
Oh I see - you call it wilful obstruction when charities don't do something they are not legally obliged by the government to do and moreover when they are told that the Charity Commission can't cope with them all registering. Not convincing evidence I am afraid.
Sorry - they are legally obliged to register, by a deadline - they have routinely failed to meet that obligation.
And just on legal obligation - no doubt you will be aware that the Cathedrals (which will have undoubtedly have income over £100k) have also failed to register. They have had to do that for decades - no extension. The failure of Cathedrals to register for charitable status is a clear breech of their legal obligations.
-
You don't seem to realise how the burden of proof works - your positive claim so it's up to you to provide supporting evidence.
My argument - as indicated in my previous post is that the CofE (i particularly) have failed to take any serious action to meet their legal obligation to register all too their excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k. Given that they'd had since 1996 to do this, serious action to meet their obligations would be evidenced by large numbers of applications submitted year on year to the Charities Commission since 1996. Yet there is no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary - for example:
1. It is reported that there are still in the order of 35,000 CofE excepted charities that still haven't submitted applications for charitable status, which is more than twice the total number of Cof E churches.
2. That there has been no uptick in numbers of registered charities since 1996 - bringing in tens of thousands of new registered charities would be seen as overall increase - yet the numbers in 2022 are pretty well identical to those in the late 1990s.
3. The business plan for the Charities Commission which makes it clear this isn't 'work in progress' - i.e the CofE have diligently been registering their excepted charities, but this work it to be completed. No their wording is clear this is 'work to be started' i.e. the commission really haven't received any significant numbers of application for registration of the £5k-£100k excepted church charities in the past 25 years:
'We will also begin preparations for an expanded Register, working with the Church of England to pilot and manage the receipt of applications from cathedrals applying for charitable status and then up to 35,000 excepted church charities over the next decade.'
'start to register Cathedrals and set out our plan for the registration of Churches'
Basically the churches have done nothing over the past 25 years.
Perhaps you disagree with my (evidenced) conclusions that the churches have done nothing, or next to nothing, to get their churches registered since 1996. If so, you will no doubt be able to provide evidence to support an alternative view that the churches have been working diligently over the past 25 years with loads of application for registrations going in year on year. In which case, over to you, evidence please.
-
Sorry - they are legally obliged to register, by a deadline - they have routinely failed to meet that obligation.
And just on legal obligation - no doubt you will be aware that the Cathedrals (which will have undoubtedly have income over £100k) have also failed to register. They have had to do that for decades - no extension. The failure of Cathedrals to register for charitable status is a clear breech of their legal obligations.
The government is not exactly encouraging them to register so not sure how they are supposed to meet these obligations. From the government website:
4. Duration of exceptions
Most exceptions are permanent; only one – the exception for certain churches – has an end date (31 March 2031). This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/excepted-charities/excepted-charities--2
-
The government is not exactly encouraging them to register so not sure how they are supposed to meet these obligations. From the government website:
4. Duration of exceptions
Most exceptions are permanent; only one – the exception for certain churches – has an end date (31 March 2031). This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
Disingenuous in the extreme.
The exceptions were announced to be temporary in 1996, with a deadline of 2001 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2001- the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2007 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 20012 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2014 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2021- the churches failed to act.
So the deadline has been extended to 2031- perhaps the churches will act this time. However I suspect we will reach 2030 and we will find we still have tens of thousands of charities that haven't applied for registration, and the churches will demand another extension. You can see that there is already the suggestion of further extension - note 'by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
So over to you VG - since 1996 how many CofE PCC's with incomes between £5k and £100k have applied for registration as they were told they needed to do.
-
Disingenuous in the extreme.
The exceptions were announced to be temporary in 1996, with a deadline of 2001 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2001- the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2007 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 20012 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2014 - the churches failed to act.
So the deadline was extended to 2021- the churches failed to act.
So the deadline has been extended to 2031- perhaps the churches will act this time. However I suspect we will reach 2030 and we will find we still have tens of thousands of charities that haven't applied for registration, and the churches will demand another extension. You can see that there is already the suggestion of further extension - note 'by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
So over to you VG - since 1996 how many CofE PCC's with incomes between £5k and £100k have applied for registration as they were told they needed to do.
Nope - you're being disingenuous and it won't work trying to shift burden of proof to me. That's not how it works. It's still with you as you have not provided evidence to back up your claim of wilful obstruction by the religious charities. While you're at you can provide evidence the Charity Commission were ready for the religious charities to register before. They have a deadline of 2031 and according to the government "This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements. "
What help does the commission need to give these churches to register? And do you have any evidence that they gave the help before for all those other deadlines and were rebuffed by the churches?
-
The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements. "
Firstly, check the date - that information is from 2014. Secondly, this is voluntary - i.e. related to excepted charities with permanent exception, not to those who have been required to register by a deadline since 1996 - that isn't voluntary.
There is nothing to stop church excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k from applying for registration and receiving that registration as checking the Charities Commission database demonstrates, as there are example, albeit precious few from the CofE. So it looks to me as if the other churches may have taken their obligations more seriously.
What help does the commission need to give these churches to register? And do you have any evidence that they gave the help before for all those other deadlines and were rebuffed by the churches?
What help does the commission give to any other charity with £5k to £100k income? Why should churches need special treatment and special help - they shouldn't. They are just as capable of checking the details needed to apply for registration that the commission sets out as any other charity. The help has always been there (and numerous other small charities have been able to understand it and apply successfully for registration since 1996) - the churches, particularly the CofE church, have simply ignored it and failed to take action.
-
Nope - you're being disingenuous and it won't work trying to shift burden of proof to me. That's not how it works.
Given that you are dismissing the clear evidence that the churches, particularly the CofE, have failed to be applying for registration as required in law I have given then the burden of proof shifts to you - effectively to provide evidence to support your alternative view that the churches have been diligently applying for registration for their £5k to £100k excepted charities as they have been required to (note not voluntary as the requirement sits in the 1996 Charity Act) since 1996.
-
Given that you are dismissing the clear evidence that the churches, particularly the CofE, have failed to be applying for registration as required in law I have given then the burden of proof shifts to you - effectively to provide evidence to support your alternative view that the churches have been diligently applying for registration for their £5k to £100k excepted charities as they have been required to (note not voluntary as the requirement sits in the 1996 Charity Act) since 1996.
Nice try - but no point misrepresenting me just because you can't provide evidence for your claim of wilful obstruction by the churches.
Good luck with finding out what help the Commission thinks the charities need for them to register; and whether the charities were offered this help before all the other deadlines issued since 1996.
-
Firstly, check the date - that information is from 2014. Secondly, this is voluntary - i.e. related to excepted charities with permanent exception, not to those who have been required to register by a deadline since 1996 - that isn't voluntary.
It was updated since 2014 - it has a link to the 2021 legislation extending the exception to 2031. And if the charity is excepted and it tries to register when it is not required to, it is registering voluntarily.
Excepted charity: A charity that is not required to register with the Charity Commission because both of the following apply:
- It is permanently or temporarily excepted from the requirement to register by order of the Commission or by statutory instrument.
- Its gross annual income does not exceed £100,000.
(Sections 30(2)(b)-(c), Charities Act 2011.)
There is nothing to stop church excepted charities with incomes between £5k and £100k from applying for registration and receiving that registration as checking the Charities Commission database demonstrates, as there are example, albeit precious few from the CofE. So it looks to me as if the other churches may have taken their obligations more seriously.
What help does the commission give to any other charity with £5k to £100k income? Why should churches need special treatment and special help - they shouldn't. They are just as capable of checking the details needed to apply for registration that the commission sets out as any other charity. The help has always been there (and numerous other small charities have been able to understand it and apply successfully for registration since 1996) - the churches, particularly the CofE church, have simply ignored it and failed to take action.
Nope nothing stopping them from applying once the Charities Commission gives the go ahead. It currently seems to say:
Most exceptions are permanent; only one – the exception for certain churches – has an end date (31 March 2031). This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements.
I would be interested to know what help the government thinks these churches need to register - let me know if you find out.
-
It was updated since 2014 - it has a link to the 2021 legislation extending the exception to 2031. And if the charity is excepted and it tries to register when it is not required to, it is registering voluntarily.
Excepted charity: A charity that is not required to register with the Charity Commission because both of the following apply:
- It is permanently or temporarily excepted from the requirement to register by order of the Commission or by statutory instrument.
- Its gross annual income does not exceed £100,000.
(Sections 30(2)(b)-(c), Charities Act 2011.)
Nope nothing stopping them from applying once the Charities Commission gives the go ahead. It currently seems to say:
Most exceptions are permanent; only one – the exception for certain churches – has an end date (31 March 2031). This is to give the commission and denominational bodies time to help these churches prepare for registration by, or soon after this end date in 2031.
The commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet; it will publish more information about this when it has made the necessary arrangements.
VG - are you really claiming that since 1996 (when church excepted charities have been required to register by a specific deadline to retain their charitable status) that the commission has refused to accept any registration from a church excepted charity.
So if a church excepted charity completed and submitted an application to the charity commission at any point since 1996 they will simply send it back saying 'sorry we cannot accept your application yet'.
You'll need to provide some hefty evidence to defend that position as it can be easily and definitively rebutted.
-
Nice try
And I will try again.
My view is that the churches, and particularly the CofE have not made any meaningful effort to register all their church excepted charities through the 25 years since they have been required to register, against a deadline, in order to retain their charitable status. This view is based on clear evidence (precious few examples of £5-£100k excepted church charities having registered, claims of 35,000 still to apply for registration etc).
So you can either accept my view, or if you do not accept it then the onus is on you to provide evidence to counter that view, particular indicating that a significant number and proportion of £5-£100k excepted church charities have submitted applications for registration over that 25 year period.
-
VG - are you really claiming that since 1996 (when church excepted charities have been required to register by a specific deadline to retain their charitable status) that the commission has refused to accept any registration from a church excepted charity.
So if a church excepted charity completed and submitted an application to the charity commission at any point since 1996 they will simply send it back saying 'sorry we cannot accept your application yet'.
You'll need to provide some hefty evidence to defend that position as it can be easily and definitively rebutted.
I am not making any claims - I am copying and pasting what is on the government's own website that contradicts the claim you made. I see you have still failed to come up with any evidence to support your claim of wilful obstruction to registration from the religious charities.
-
I am not making any claims - I am copying and pasting what is on the government's own website that contradicts the claim you made.
Then it is a complete irrelevance - if you are unable to support a claim that church excepted charities have not been allowed to submit applications for registration throughout the period since 1996, or indeed do not wish to make that claim we are back to my original view. That is that despite being able to apply for registration and being required to register in advance of a deadline that the churches, and in particular the CofE, not made any meaningful effort to register all their church excepted charities through those 25 years.
-
And I will try again.
My view is that the churches, and particularly the CofE have not made any meaningful effort to register all their church excepted charities through the 25 years since they have been required to register, against a deadline, in order to retain their charitable status. This view is based on clear evidence (precious few examples of £5-£100k excepted church charities having registered, claims of 35,000 still to apply for registration etc).
So you can either accept my view, or if you do not accept it then the onus is on you to provide evidence to counter that view, particular indicating that a significant number and proportion of £5-£100k excepted church charities have submitted applications for registration over that 25 year period.
Oh I see - you have withdrawn your claim of wilful obstruction because you couldn't find any evidence to support it. You should make that clear, given how anal you are about asking other people to withdraw claims. A bit of humility is good for the soul (except you don't believe in souls) ;)
No I agree the churches have not registered. I am just wondering why they have not registered - specifically why the government have stated on their website that the excepted religious charities need help to voluntarily register if other charities don't need help.
And I will reserve judgement until I have some evidence regarding why, rather than jump to assumptions like you based on your atheist prejudices.
-
I am copying and pasting what is on the government's own website that contradicts the claim you made.
No it doesn't as the statement makes no claim that the commission has not been able to accept applications over the past 25 years. And, of course there is amply evidence that some excepted church charities have applied for registration (a small proportion) and that those applications have been accepted and approved by the commission.
I think you will find the 'not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet' is a temporary measure and more likely to be covid related as the commission is advising all charities to delay registration under the current circumstances:
'The Charity Commission is currently prioritising the response to the coronavirus crisis and its impact on the charity sector. While we are keen to take every step that we can to support charitable endeavour at this challenging time, we would ask that people intending to establish charities which do not relate to addressing the crisis and its effects consider delaying doing so, to allow our Registration team to focus on those applications which will help to address the crisis directly.
If you have already established a charity which is required to register by law, then this requirement still stands. In the current circumstances trustees may wish to consider delaying their application to register for a short time and may find that their time and resources can be focussed elsewhere. In line with the flexible and pragmatic approach which we are adopting to our regulatory work during the period of this crisis, we will not proactively enforce this duty in the short term, but in the longer term we do require all charities which are required to register to apply to do so.
So that accounts for failure to register £5k-£100k church excepted charities over the past two years. Over to you VG to justify the churches lack of action from 1996 to early 2020.
-
Then it is a complete irrelevance - if you are unable to support a claim that church excepted charities have not been allowed to submit applications for registration throughout the period since 1996, or indeed do not wish to make that claim we are back to my original view. That is that despite being able to apply for registration and being required to register in advance of a deadline that the churches, and in particular the CofE, not made any meaningful effort to register all their church excepted charities through those 25 years.
Nope - not a complete irrelevance to point out where you are going wrong in your previous claims of wilful obstruction.
Also, again stop misrepresenting me - I have not made a claim that the excepted charities have not been allowed to submit applications since 1996.
What I said was that if the government do not want them to register now and have stated on their website that the Charity Commission is not yet ready to accept registrations and will notify when they are, I am wondering if the Charity Commission delayed registrations before. This could be a Covid-related Charity Commission staff shortage now that obviously did not exist since 1996 - but I am interested in finding out what caused the lack of progress in registrations since 1996 before jumping to any conclusions. Probably because I don't have a prejudice against religious organisations that compel me to criticise them at every available opportunity for bureaucratic issues until I know how much of the failure to register was down to their own inefficiency/ incompetence of employees / volunteers and how much may have been due to Charity Commission issues and lack of resources.
-
No it doesn't as the statement makes no claim that the commission has not been able to accept applications over the past 25 years. And, of course there is amply evidence that some excepted church charities have applied for registration (a small proportion) and that those applications have been accepted and approved by the commission.
I think you will find the 'not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet' is a temporary measure and more likely to be covid related as the commission is advising all charities to delay registration under the current circumstances:
'The Charity Commission is currently prioritising the response to the coronavirus crisis and its impact on the charity sector. While we are keen to take every step that we can to support charitable endeavour at this challenging time, we would ask that people intending to establish charities which do not relate to addressing the crisis and its effects consider delaying doing so, to allow our Registration team to focus on those applications which will help to address the crisis directly.
If you have already established a charity which is required to register by law, then this requirement still stands. In the current circumstances trustees may wish to consider delaying their application to register for a short time and may find that their time and resources can be focussed elsewhere. In line with the flexible and pragmatic approach which we are adopting to our regulatory work during the period of this crisis, we will not proactively enforce this duty in the short term, but in the longer term we do require all charities which are required to register to apply to do so.
So that accounts for failure to register £5k-£100k church excepted charities over the past two years. Over to you VG to justify the churches lack of action from 1996 to early 2020.
Sorry but that is not how it works - I don't need to justify their lack of action. Happy to agree there has been a lack of action though. All I needed to do is point out the lack of evidence to support your claim of wilful obstruction. If I happen to come across any information on the reason for their lack of action, I will let you know. I have not looked into what the Charity Commission advice has been since 1996 regarding the deadline and the likelihood of it being extended.
Maybe it was viewed in a similar way to the Stamp Duty holiday deadline during Covid, which was extended from 31 March to 30 June. People were predicting it would be extended before they announced the extension. Maybe the excepted charities were given the impression that the exception would be extended, so they didn't bother registering.
-
Happy to agree there has been a lack of action though.
Good so we are in agreement - effectively we agree that the churches, and in particular the CofE, have not made any meaningful effort to register all their £5k-£100k church excepted charities through the 25 years since they have been required to register, against a deadline, in order to retain their charitable status.
-
Good so we are in agreement - effectively we agree that the churches, and in particular the CofE, have not made any meaningful effort to register all their £5k-£100k church excepted charities through the 25 years since they have been required to register, against a deadline, in order to retain their charitable status.
No sorry - I can't agree about whether they have made any meaningful effort or not - since I don't have information on what efforts they made or didn't make and if there were any reasons for them not registering. If they were led to believe that the exception would be extended then I don't blame them for not registering as it wouldn't be a priority. As a voluntary trustee myself, I barely have time to deal with the priorities. And I have come across many voluntary trustees of the charity I volunteer for who do not seem to take their admin responsibilities seriously and it's a struggle to get them to even do what is necessary let alone any voluntary admin.
So I can see it's possible that some of the trustees of these excepted charities may not have be motivated to deal with registering if they thought the exception would be extended and there would be no penalty for not registering.
-
No sorry - I can't agree about whether they have made any meaningful effort or not - since I don't have information on what efforts they made or didn't make and if there were any reasons for them not registering.
Oh dear and there was me thinking we had some sort of agreement - I've laid out my evidence for lack of action, over to you to find the evidence to support an opposite conclusion that you don't agree with my claim.
So we are back to the need for you to provide evidence that:
1. The churches have made loads of applications for registration, presumably a significant proportion of their £5k-£100k excepted church charities (disproved by a quick check on the commission database that shows a tiny number of applications and the claim of 35,000 still to apply) or.
2. That they have been prevented from making applications over that 25 year period due to the commission refusing to accept their applications (disproved by a quick check on the commission database that shows that although a small proportion have been registered some have which means the commission has been happy to receive and accept applications).
Otherwise I think my claim stands.
-
If they were led to believe that the exception would be extended then I don't blame them for not registering as it wouldn't be a priority.
Which would still support my claim that the churches have not made any meaningful effort to register, wouldn't it. If you think the issue will simply go away by you doing nothing then you are, by definition, not taking any meaningful action to register, quite the reverse.
-
Which would still support my claim that the churches have not made any meaningful effort to register, wouldn't it. If you think the issue will simply go away by you doing nothing then you are, by definition, not taking any meaningful action to register.
Like I said I am more interested in why they or the government have not taken any meaningful action e.g. whether the government led the excepted charities to believe they did not have to register as the deadline would be extended. And would like to know why the deadline keeps being extended - is the main reason due to lack of resources for the Charity Commission to deal with thousands of applications, as has been suggested by the post on the government's website saying the Charity Commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet and will notify when it is.
-
... as has been suggested by the post on the government's website saying the Charity Commission is not ready to accept voluntary registrations yet and will notify when it is.
Red herring - as I've pointed out the commission are currently recommending that all charities delay registration due to covid. There is no evidence this was the case prior to 2020. So we've dealt with the past 2 years - how about the other 23 VG.
-
Red herring - as I've pointed out the commission are currently recommending that all charities delay registration due to covid. There is no evidence this was the case prior to 2020. So we've dealt with the past 2 years - how about the other 23 VG.
No idea - if any information comes to light on what caused the inertia by the government and the charities, I will be sure to update you. We've had both Tory and Labour governments since then, but maybe this was not a high priority issue for either party - maybe both thought the voters were not bothered about the issue.
The current legislation seems to have added another 10 years to the deadline - so the current government still don't seem to have prioritised it as an urgent issue.
-
- but maybe this was not a high priority issue for either party -
High enough priority to legislate via regulations that need to be passed in parliament and also require a level of statutory consultation (albeit very limited as we have seen) - to retain the special privilege for churches.
The governments of the day are indicating their priorities - they are prepared to devote parliamentary and government time and effort to maintain the special privilege. If they didn't prioritise the issue then the special privilege would have lapsed in 2001.
-
Really good piece on the matter, written in 2016:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/05/did-christian-charities-really-need-twenty-years-to-complete-a-form
Note their final line:
'Let's hope there isn't a Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 being prepared.' - well guess what, when the government asked the churches (and only the churches) whether they'd like the special privilege to be extended for a further 10 years until 2031, they unanimously said 'yes'. Do bears defecate in largely wooded areas.
-
Really good piece on the matter, written in 2016:
https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2016/05/did-christian-charities-really-need-twenty-years-to-complete-a-form
Note their final line:
'Let's hope there isn't a Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 being prepared.' - well guess what, when the government asked the churches (and only the churches) whether they'd like the special privilege to be extended for a further 10 years until 2031, they unanimously said 'yes'. Do bears defecate in largely wooded areas.
But, since this thread is about you and those like you, could you please give us a comprehensive breakdown of what's wrong about this so far it's special privilege, and lazy or complicit government but these are thinks that could happen in a solely secular context. What then is the religious aspect to the wrong
You see going on here?
-
But, since this thread is about you and those like you,
No it isn't - it is about double standards by which some charities are required to be registered and are therefore regulated while other charities, of the same size, aren't. It amounts to a special privilege to a small groups of charities in most cases based on their being christian churches. So it is actually about everyone, given that there is significant evidence that registration and regulation of charities is very important to provide confidence in charities.
could you please give us a comprehensive breakdown of what's wrong about this
It is a special privilege - I think that all charities above an income threshold need to be registered with an independent public body that regulates their activities. To give some charities an opt out on the basis of religion is wrong and saps confidence in the entire system.
... so far it's special privilege,
Indeed, and special privileges are wrong regardless of whether they apply to religious groups, non-religious groups, groups based on gender, race etc etc - the law and its underpinning regulation should apply to everyone equally.
and lazy or complicit government but these are thinks that could happen in a solely secular context.
Government isn't being lazy as it is devoting parliamentary time and effort regularly to maintain the special privilege, so I think there is definitely a level of complicity. And that, of course would have nothing to do with the fact that there are significant numbers of active members of the organisations that might be affected as MPs and ministers, and that the 26 most senior officials of the organisation most affected are automatic members of one of the houses of parliament, with unrivalled access to MPs, ministers etc. And those 26 preside over cathedrals, within incomes in the millions, and often assets in the tens of millions which, although, charities are also unregistered.
What then is the religious aspect to the wrong
You see going on here?
The religious aspect is that the major block of excepted charities are given that special privilege specifically because they are christian churches - and there is another unfairness element, namely that no non-christian religious organisation gets the same special privilege. Now of course the answer isn't to extend exception to other religions, but to scrap it altogether. But overall this particular issue is an excellent example of the special privilege to established religion in our country.
-
No it isn't - it is about double standards by which some charities are required to be registered and are therefore regulated while other charities, of the same size, aren't. It amounts to a special privilege to a small groups of charities in most cases based on their being christian churches. So it is actually about everyone, given that there is significant evidence that registration and regulation of charities is very important to provide confidence in charities.
It is a special privilege - I think that all charities above an income threshold need to be registered with an independent public body that regulates their activities. To give some charities an opt out on the basis of religion is wrong and saps confidence in the entire system.
Indeed, and special privileges are wrong regardless of whether they apply to religious groups, non-religious groups, groups based on gender, race etc etc - the law and its underpinning regulation should apply to everyone equally.
Government isn't being lazy as it is devoting parliamentary time and effort regularly to maintain the special privilege, so I think there is definitely a level of complicity. And that, of course would have nothing to do with the fact that there are significant numbers of active members of the organisations that might be affected as MPs and ministers, and that the 26 most senior officials of the organisation most affected are automatic members of one of the houses of parliament, with unrivalled access to MPs, ministers etc. And those 26 preside over cathedrals, within incomes in the millions, and often assets in the tens of millions which, although, charities are also unregistered.
The religious aspect is that the major block of excepted charities are given that special privilege specifically because they are christian churches - and there is another unfairness element, namely that no non-christian religious organisation gets the same special privilege. Now of course the answer isn't to extend exception to other religions, but to scrap it altogether. But overall this particular issue is an excellent example of the special privilege to established religion in our country.
Bollocks is this thread not about how secular humanist praxis isn't about secular humanist dogma.
Where you say this isn't about extending privilege to all and thus neutralise it. I would put that against banning it so secular humanists get what they want and a bit of a power kick as well on any occasion.
Your position Is that you want it all and you want it now.
-
Your position Is that you want it all ...
If by that you mean that I want all charities of similar sizes to be register with and regulated by an appropriate independent public regulatory body regardless of whether the charity is religious or not, then yes, I want that. And I make no apology for wanting that.
... and you want it now.
Oh you are the comedian aren't you Vlad.
The whole point about this debate is that the church excepted charities have been told that their exception is temporary since 1963 and were given a deadline to register in 1996, which was to be 2001. Yet the special privilege will extend to at least 2031 (due to further extensions in 2001, and in 2007, and in 2012, and in 2014 and again in 2021), that is 68 years after the original decision that the exception would be temporary. Effectively I have been waiting my entire lifetime for the temporary exception to end.
So rather than want it now I think the term you need to use is that I, and others with my view, have had the patience of a saint.
-
If by that you mean that I want all charities of similar sizes to be register with and regulated by an appropriate independent public regulatory body regardless of whether the charity is religious or not, then yes, I want that. And I make no apology for wanting that.
Oh you are the comedian aren't you Vlad.
The whole point about this debate is that the church excepted charities have been told that their exception is temporary since 1963 and were given a deadline to register in 1996, which was to be 2001. Yet the special privilege will extend to at least 2031 (due to further extensions in 2001, and in 2007, and in 2012, and in 2014 and again in 2021), that is 68 years after the original decision that the exception would be temporary. Effectively I have been waiting my entire lifetime for the temporary exception to end.
So rather than want it now I think the term you need to use is that I, and others with my view, have had the patience of a saint.
I think the problem is extending the deadlines. Parishes know that they needn't worry about it because the deadlines always get extended. If the government said "your exemption will end in 2024, no exceptions and no extension", every CodE parish will be registered in time for the deadline. I've just checked the requirements to set up a charity and get it registered and they are not onerous. There are certain supporting documents required, but a church parish could just take the equivalent documents for another parish as a template for these. You are required to have your accounts properly audited, which is why my suggested deadline is 2024 and not 2023 - to give time for a full audited financial year to pass, but that is the only even slightly tricky hurdle.
-
I think the problem is extending the deadlines. Parishes know that they needn't worry about it because the deadlines always get extended. If the government said "your exemption will end in 2024, no exceptions and no extension", every CodE parish will be registered in time for the deadline. I've just checked the requirements to set up a charity and get it registered and they are not onerous. There are certain supporting documents required, but a church parish could just take the equivalent documents for another parish as a template for these. You are required to have your accounts properly audited, which is why my suggested deadline is 2024 and not 2023 - to give time for a full audited financial year to pass, but that is the only even slightly tricky hurdle.
Yes I agree - until the government actually sticks to a deadline then there is no incentive for the churches to do anything to get themselves registered.
And I'd actually go further, doing nothing makes it almost certain that the government will simply extend again, so there is a clear incentive to do nothing.
So as far I can see the CofE has done virtually nothing to register its churches, given that they haven't even bothered to register their largest and most significant churches, namely their cathedrals. So as a deadline approaches their line is effectively 'sorry, I know we were meant to register our excepted church charities, but we haven't got around to it. And there are 35,000 of them so we'd overwhelm the commission'. So the government extends and years later the CofE says, 'sorry, I know we were meant to register our excepted church charities, but we haven't got around to it. And there are 35,000 of them so we'd overwhelm the commission'. And on it goes.
But this is, of course, a choice by the CofE - there is absolutely no requirement for 35,000 churches to be registered - it is entirely in the CofE's discretion to group churches into larger charitable units which are registered as a single charity. The most obvious block being a diocese as there are already organisational and administrative structures that require individual parishes to report to and be controlled under the diocese structure. So this would mean presenting just 44 charities for registration, rather than 35,000. And there is a precedence, in that this is exactly how the catholic church has sorted its charities. But why would the CofE make this choice, when it can just ignore the requirement knowing that it can play its trump card of 'sorry, I know we were meant to register our excepted church charities, but we haven't got around to it. And there are 35,000 of them so we'd overwhelm the commission' every 5-10 years and still retain the special privilege.
So my solution would be that the government and commission should set a non-extendable deadline and also indicate that the commission can only register a specific number of charities per year and it is therefore up to the churches (and specifically the CofE) to work out how to organise its charities registrations to allow the commission to register them, or lose their charitable status. I suspect if the government and commission did this, we rapidly see 44 registration applications coming forward in short time.
-
I've mentioned the cathedrals earlier in the thread, but thought I should expand on this.
The CofE cathedrals are charities, with 6 or 7 figure incomes, yet they aren't registered with the charity commission. This is really quite shocking to me as it means that the information publicly available even for the small charity that I am a trustee of (income approx. £13k) is simply unavailable in a transparent way to the public for charities that have have annual incomes in excess of £10 million and financial assets of £50 million. For registered charities all this information, including 5 years of accounts and reports plus details off the charity trustees is available to anyone on the commission searchable database, simply using the charity registration number. Yet this isn't the case for the cathedrals
So for example:
Canterbury Cathedral - has no charity registration number (as it isn't registered), has no accounts or details of trustees publicly accessible on its website. None of these details are available on the commission database as it isn't registrered - it does have the following statement buried deep in the 'legal' subsection of its website:
Canterbury Cathedral is a charity and its annual accounts are available by contacting the Cathedral’s Accounts’ Department.
A complete lack of transparency over its governance and finance as a charity.
York Minster is a little better - there is a single year of accounts (for the most recent year) - the commission database will include five years of accounts. It has the following statement in that report:
York was selected as one of the pilot cathedrals to undertake a dummy application process with the Charity Commission, and is therefore likely to be one of the first Cathedrals to formally register, in all likelihood, at some point before the end of 2021.
Yet more delay - why on earth do you need a pilot and a dummy application? Just register! And it is now beyond the end of 2021, so presumably York Minster is now successfully registered with the commission. Nope - still not registered - a charity that reports typical annual income of over £10million, and with net assets exceeding £50million and sitting on unrestricted reserves of over £13million is not registered with any independent public regulatory body.
Quite astonishing.
-
Yes I agree - until the government actually sticks to a deadline then there is no incentive for the churches to do anything to get themselves registered.
And I'd actually go further, doing nothing makes it almost certain that the government will simply extend again, so there is a clear incentive to do nothing.
So as far I can see the CofE has done virtually nothing to register its churches, given that they haven't even bothered to register their largest and most significant churches, namely their cathedrals. So as a deadline approaches their line is effectively 'sorry, I know we were meant to register our excepted church charities, but we haven't got around to it. And there are 35,000 of them so we'd overwhelm the commission'. So the government extends and years later the CofE says, 'sorry, I know we were meant to register our excepted church charities, but we haven't got around to it. And there are 35,000 of them so we'd overwhelm the commission'. And on it goes.
But this is, of course, a choice by the CofE - there is absolutely no requirement for 35,000 churches to be registered - it is entirely in the CofE's discretion to group churches into larger charitable units which are registered as a single charity. The most obvious block being a diocese as there are already organisational and administrative structures that require individual parishes to report to and be controlled under the diocese structure. So this would mean presenting just 44 charities for registration, rather than 35,000. And there is a precedence, in that this is exactly how the catholic church has sorted its charities. But why would the CofE make this choice, when it can just ignore the requirement knowing that it can play its trump card of 'sorry, I know we were meant to register our excepted church charities, but we haven't got around to it. And there are 35,000 of them so we'd overwhelm the commission' every 5-10 years and still retain the special privilege.
So my solution would be that the government and commission should set a non-extendable deadline and also indicate that the commission can only register a specific number of charities per year and it is therefore up to the churches (and specifically the CofE) to work out how to organise its charities registrations to allow the commission to register them, or lose their charitable status. I suspect if the government and commission did this, we rapidly see 44 registration applications coming forward in short time.
No, the idea of grouping the parishes is unworkable. It would mean each parish relinquishing control of its finances and that would cause a lot of trouble. Furthermore, there are only 12,500 CofE parishes, not 35,000. The other 22,500 charities must be related to other things than actual parishes. Registering all of the 12,500 parishes in one go might be an issue, but it could be resolved by lowering the exemption limit gradually over a few years.
-
No, the idea of grouping the parishes is unworkable. It would mean each parish relinquishing control of its finances and that would cause a lot of trouble.
No it wouldn't - there are loads of examples of charities where there is a single large charitable organisation with many smaller groupings that are financially independent. All it requires is for donations received by individual parishes to be 'restricted' for use by that parish - happens all the time. And the most obvious example is the RCC - they have just 20-ish diocese charities, none of their local parish churches are separate charities. Yet those local churches operate in a financially independent manner, but need to report to the diocese to generate the overall accounts and annual reporting. Seems to work fine for them.
-
No it wouldn't - there are loads of examples of charities where there is a single large charitable organisation with many smaller groupings that are financially independent. All it requires is for donations received by individual parishes to be 'restricted' for use by that parish - happens all the time. And the most obvious example is the RCC - they have just 20-ish diocese charities, none of their local parish churches are separate charities. Yet those local churches operate in a financially independent manner, but need to report to the diocese to generate the overall accounts and annual reporting. Seems to work fine for them.
Whatever.
But it's not how it works now. It would require massive reorganisation of the CofE and there's no will to do it, particularly at the Diocese level and, as it turns out, there are only 12,500 parishes, not 35,000 as you claimed, so the Charities Commission will not be overwhelmed, especially as they could manage the registration of the new charities over several years by lowering the exemption limit gradually.
You're asking for the CofE to be completely restructured when the alternative is for the Charities Commission is to hire a few more staff.
-
Whatever.
But it's not how it works now. It would require massive reorganisation of the CofE and there's no will to do it, particularly at the Diocese level and, as it turns out, there are only 12,500 parishes, not 35,000 as you claimed, so the Charities Commission will not be overwhelmed, especially as they could manage the registration of the new charities over several years by lowering the exemption limit gradually.
You're asking for the CofE to be completely restructured when the alternative is for the Charities Commission is to hire a few more staff.
If the CofE and charity commission wish to register the churches in this manner, then they can of course - so long as it actually happens. But I don't think it is either necessary (they could do it by diocese) not desirable - I'm not sure the CofE would really want all that effort of reporting in two different directions, as PCCs are already required to provide the financial information to the diocese for overall collation. It would seem to me that the CofE might prefer the efficiency of a single reporting of the PCCs to the diocese, which then reports on to the commission in a single block.
As I say it seems to work for the RCC and for many other charities which have a single central charitable registration but many smaller financially independent groups below that larger structure. RNLI is another good example - the central body doesn't run an individual lifeboat station, yet there is a single charity as far as I'm aware.
-
Furthermore, there are only 12,500 CofE parishes, not 35,000. The other 22,500 charities must be related to other things than actual parishes. Registering all of the 12,500 parishes in one go might be an issue, but it could be resolved by lowering the exemption limit gradually over a few years.
The numbers are really confusing, as I've mentioned before - it seems strange that there is a claim of 35,000 excepted CofE charities requiring registration yet only 16,000 CofE churches. I'm not sure what the others can be as I though the exception was for churches specifically rather than for related charities.
But this is part of the issue - there is no list of excepted charities (for the obvious reason that they aren't registered) so we don't really know who they are, how many their are, who their trustees are, how much income they have, how they spend their income etc etc. And this in makes any kind of regulation very difficulty in practice, even if the law theoretically claims excepted charities are still regulated by the charity commission - frankly I can't see how they can be in practice as the commission doesn't even know how many of these charities exist.
-
You're asking for the CofE to be completely restructured when the alternative is for the Charities Commission is to hire a few more staff.
I think my concern is that the CofE uses the argument of the number of registrations to secure further extensions. That is a choice for the CofE, not a requirement and should not be used to prevent the registration of church charities.
I'm also not convinced that there would be any complete restructuring required, as you suggest. This from the CofE's own resources:
The diocese is then the principal pastoral and in turn financial and administrative resource of the Church of England ...
If the diocese is already the principal financial and administrative unit for the CofE, then surely it wouldn't require any major restructuring for charitable registration and reporting to be completed at this level, following receipt of financial information from individual parishes, as already happens.
-
If the CofE and charity commission wish to register the churches in this manner, then they can of course - so long as it actually happens. But I don't think it is either necessary (they could do it by diocese) not desirable - I'm not sure the CofE would really want all that effort of reporting in two different directions, as PCCs are already required to provide the financial information to the diocese for overall collation. It would seem to me that the CofE might prefer the efficiency of a single reporting of the PCCs to the diocese, which then reports on to the commission in a single block.
Why? It would add work for the dioceses and the central church. As things stand, all of the financial work is devolved onto the parishes where it is performed largely by volunteers. If the central church did it, they'd have to pay people.
As I say it seems to work for the RCC and for many other charities which have a single central charitable registration but many smaller financially independent groups below that larger structure. RNLI is another good example - the central body doesn't run an individual lifeboat station, yet there is a single charity as far as I'm aware.
But these are all charities that have always been organised that way. The CofE is not and that's really the end of it.
-
But these are all charities that have always been organised that way. The CofE is not and that's really the end of it.
But if the excepted charities have to register and report something will have to change - the status quo isn't possible. So they haven't always been organised that way, because they've never had to register and report at parish level unless incomes are in excess or £100k. So something will have to change.
-
Why? It would add work for the dioceses and the central church. As things stand, all of the financial work is devolved onto the parishes where it is performed largely by volunteers. If the central church did it, they'd have to pay people.
But as it stands already the PCCs are required to report upwards to the diocese, which are then collated and reported onward - currently this is to Church House, so central CofE. The only difference would be that the financial reporting of the PCCs, collated by the diocese would be submitted to the commission as well as Church House.
https://www.stalbans.anglican.org/finance/annual-returns-finance/
Note You can use this page to upload your Parish Finance Return and your Accounts for 2020. You are required to return two things to us.
Would you please return your Parish Finance Return to us by Friday 11th June 2021. This gives us time to collate all the data and send on to our colleagues at Church House to meet their deadline.
Sure there would be a little more work at diocese level, but arguably far less than every PCC reporting separately to the commission. And also I don't understand why work at diocese level would need to be done by paid people rather than volunteers - it can still be done by volunteers at that level.
There would be an additional benefit of oversight - while small PCCs aren't registered and reporting to the commission it is hard to see how any regulatory action can easily be taken. Once they are registered there is much greater likelihood of regulatory oversight, which if there are problems will reflect onto the central CofE organisation, so they may prefer to have greater oversight.
-
But if the excepted charities have to register and report something will have to change - the status quo isn't possible.
Yes it is. The only difference is that all the parishes that are not registered charities will become registered charities.
So they haven't always been organised that way, because they've never had to register and report at parish level unless incomes are in excess or £100k. So something will have to change.
Organised in what way? In what way do you need to be organised to become a registered charity? As I said above, probably the only onerous task would be to get the accounts audited.
-
Yes it is. The only difference is that all the parishes that are not registered charities will become registered charities.
But that is, of course, a significant difference as currently the parishes don't report to the charity commission annually, but they do report to the diocese annually, who collate the information for onward consideration. So actually the nearest to what happens now at parish level would be to retain reporting to the diocese by the parishes with the current collated information from at diocese level reported both to Church House and the charity commission.
Realistically the CofE could organise itself in either manner, but I'm really not sure I would want 16,000 (or 35,000) separate parts of my organisation separately reporting to and separately being regulated by the charity commission. That seems to me to be a recipe for inefficacy and poor governance.
-
But that is, of course, a significant difference as currently the parishes don't report to the charity commission annually
Not as significant as a complete structural reform of the Church of England, which is what you are advocating.
Realistically the CofE could organise itself in either manner, but I'm really not sure I would want 16,000 (or 35,000) separate parts of my organisation separately reporting to and separately being regulated by the charity commission. That seems to me to be a recipe for inefficacy and poor governance.
But right now the inefficiency and poor governance is not the responsibility of the Church of England, it's the responsibility of each individual parish. Why would the central part of the Church of England want to take that on?
-
Not as significant as a complete structural reform of the Church of England, which is what you are advocating.
I don't see why it would be a major structural reform, let alone a complete structural reform, given that the current structure of the CofE involves parishes that are overseen and responsible to the diocese. If parishes were somehow completely independent then why do they have to report to the diocese and why does the diocese have a level of governance and procedural control over the parishes. Realistically the parishes are just a local branch of a larger organisation.
But right now the inefficiency and poor governance is not the responsibility of the Church of England, it's the responsibility of each individual parish.
Not really, as the parishes report to and are responsible to the diocese.
Why would the central part of the Church of England want to take that on?
Firstly because it already does, given that CofE accounts are collated from diocese and parish. But at the moment any dirty washing is hidden - so if a parish is a basket case the only people who really know are the higher level organisational structures of the CofE.
If on the other hand tens of thousands of parishes are reporting directly to the commission and a proportion of those (even a small proportion) are non compliant under the regulation it will be the CofE who gets it in the neck. The media won't separate out the parishes from the overall CofE, because most people don't know, nor care how the CofE operates itself. The 'news' headline would be:
'CofE fails to meet charity requirements' - with the news item reporting that 100s of CofE churches are failing to meet the commission regulatory requirements (and that might be just 1% of those charities)
So it will rebound on the CofE, so surely the CofE will want oversight, and the way to get that is for parishes to report upward in the CofE and the more centralised structure of the CofE to ensure that everything is OK before submitting to the commission.