Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 20, 2024, 09:38:28 AM
-
I wonder if it is time for the C of E to follow the Church of Scotland practice of having a moderator rather than an AoC.
The Bishop of Newcastle seems most effective and given a five year tenure might achieve things Archbishop Welby failed to do.
The CoE may also want to review it's leadership of the World wide Anglican community and concentrate on matters English.
The Anglican community then becomes a looser agglomeration along relationship lines.
Tight little cliques with power exercised over decades could then disappear.
-
I'm not quite sure how that is supposed to help.
-
I'm not quite sure how that is supposed to help.
Help what and help who?
-
Help what and help who?
I assumed you had an idea of the answers to those two questions otherwise why bother suggesting the change? So, in summary, can you please tell me who or what it is supposed to help and how.
-
I assumed you had an idea of the answers to those two questions otherwise why bother suggesting the change? So, in summary, can you please tell me who or what it is supposed to help and how.
Sorry I was just trying to triangulate.
It helps to break up, neutralise and prevent the development of rotten and sclerotic networks and systems in the church.As demonstrated in Welby's tenure. It would help to prevents personification where the C o E becomes Welby or Runcie or anyone so ALL members of the Church are not seen as mini Welby's It prevents the concentration of power , it reduces the opportunities for patronage.
At the very least it seems Welby was stretched beyond his capacity and it is hard to see anyone not failing in the role.
-
Sorry I was just trying to triangulate.
It helps to break up, neutralise and prevent the development of rotten and sclerotic networks and systems in the church.
How does it do that?
As demonstrated in Welby's tenure. It would help to prevents personification where the C o E becomes Welby or Runcie or anyone so ALL members of the Church are not seen as mini Welby's It prevents the concentration of power , it reduces the opportunities for patronage.
How does it reduce the opportunities for patronage?
At the very least it seems Welby was stretched beyond his capacity and it is hard to see anyone not failing in the role.
What if the moderator is stretched beyond his or her capacity? Why would changing the name of the role of CofE "chief executive" help in any way?
-
How does it do that?
The duration of tenure prevents accumulation of power in an individual, Power is spread and the period of tenure should be short enough to weed out those whose chief ambition is power.How does it reduce the opportunities for patronage?
It reduced the power and extent of the patron, again weeding out the ambitious.What if the moderator is stretched beyond his or her capacity
That is a universal problem for anyone in a role but a moderator would not have as much scope to mess up as an A oC Why would changing the name of the role of CofE "chief executive" help in any way?
It wouldn't just be a name change( see Role of the moderator of the Church of Scotland). I think CEOCOE is a bit of a crude analogy but I can certainly see how Welby's tenure might have given that impression
-
I'd have thought the first thing to do would be to disentangle the CofE from the affairs of state politics and get them out of the HofL.
Then they can sort out their own internal affairs with proper accountability without the rest of us being bothered, unless there are legal cases that like other cases are of public interest.
-
I'd have thought the first thing to do would be to disentangle the CofE from the affairs of state politics and get them out of the HofL.
You might have thought it. I, like the previous AoC Rowan Williams was disestablishmentarian until I heard some of the noises some atheists were making and the atmosphere that generated.
-
You might have thought it. I, like the previous AoC Rowan Williams was disestablishmentarian until I heard some of the noises some atheists were making and the atmosphere that generated.
Like what?
-
Like what?
Well, for me it was talk of wanting religion out of the public forum and behind closed doors and religion being the root of all evil and even religious moderates pose a danger.
-
Well, for me it was talk of wanting religion out of the public forum and behind closed doors and religion being the root of all evil and even religious moderates pose a danger.
So if atheists saying something is affecting your view, it seems that the CoE harbouring and protecting a savage child molester doesn't? You seem a little confused in your approach, to the extent of being hypocritical.
-
Well, for me it was talk of wanting religion out of the public forum and behind closed doors and religion being the root of all evil and even religious moderates pose a danger.
You don't think then that the CofE already operates 'behind closed doors', given the current problem they are facing, by failing to act and keeping quiet about child abuse they were well aware of.?
Nice to see, at this time of year, that you've managed to hang on to some straw.
-
So if atheists saying something is affecting your view, it seems that the CoE harbouring and protecting a savage child molester doesn't? You seem a little confused in your approach, to the extent of being hypocritical.
Are you therefore identifying all associated with the CofE as savage child molesters and that is the raisin d’etre of the CofE? And do you also think that all associated with the CofE self identify as such?
I’m sure you want the Church to go away or is there some form in which you think it should continue.
How do you think disestablishment would prevent bad elements in the Cof E?
-
You don't think then that the CofE already operates 'behind closed doors', given the current problem they are facing, by failing to act and keeping quiet about child abuse they were well aware of.?
Nice to see, at this time of year, that you've managed to hang on to some straw.
https://thehumanist.com/voices/the_ethical_dilemma/humanist-dilemma-religion-banned/
-
https://thehumanist.com/voices/the_ethical_dilemma/humanist-dilemma-religion-banned/
And your point is?
I'm not a humanist, and I don't want to ban religion.
-
And your point is?
I'm not a humanist, and I don't want to ban religion.
Did I say you did? If I did please accept my apologies. I said some did.
-
Are you therefore identifying all associated with the CofE as savage child molesters and that is the raisin d’etre of the CofE? And do you also think that all associated with the CofE self identify as such?
I’m sure you want the Church to go away or is there some form in which you think it should continue.
How do you think disestablishment would prevent bad elements in the Cof E?
No. But you did that about atheists so I merely played it back. Own it. Your link also doesn't show what you claim.
-
No. But you did that about atheists so I merely played it back. Own it. Your link also doesn't show what you claim.
OK If you don't mind that Enland still has a C of E established or not, the Anglican community in England is still stuck with itself being by way of ties that are more familial than geographical.
Clearly being an AoC of the past is nye on impossible so maybe voluntary disestablishment is on the cards but then the question remains, if there is religion in the country should that not be acknowledged at the political level and should an attitude of secularise to get rid of the evil of religion, prevail?
-
OK If you don't mind that Enland still has a C of E established or not, the Anglican community in England is still stuck with itself being by way of ties that are more familial than geographical.
Clearly being an AoC of the past is nye on impossible so maybe voluntary disestablishment is on the cards but then the question remains, if there is religion in the country should that not be acknowledged at the political level and should an attitude of secularise to get rid of the evil of religion, prevail?
A secular society isn't one with no religion. It's one where religion isn't privileged.
-
Well, for me it was talk of wanting religion out of the public forum and behind closed doors...
Seems fair enough, we want policy based upon demonstrable facts, not supernatural suspicions.
and religion being the root of all evil
Not the root of all evil, but demonstrably a net negative in the world.
and even religious moderates pose a danger.
They don't pose a direct danger, but they validate the nonsense that's used by religious fanatics to justify their atrocities.
OK If you don't mind that Enland still has a C of E established or not
I object - it's up there with having a hereditary head of state as something with a lack of an moral justification, but it's lower on the list of priorities than, say, sorting out education or the health and care services.
the Anglican community in England is still stuck with itself being by way of ties that are more familial than geographical.
The problem is that, as an establshed church, even if they want to leave they're still stuck with them, we all are.
if there is religion in the country should that not be acknowledged at the political level and should an attitude of secularise to get rid of the evil of religion, prevail?
Banning it is counterproductive, it just feeds the martyr complex that's baked into, particularly, the Abrahamic religions. Better to just hold the structures to account when needed, and then ignore them when they're casting their spells, and with time they'll just drift further and further into irrelevance. We don't need to 'get rid' of them, they'll just wither away on their own.
O.
-
The duration of tenure prevents accumulation of power in an individual, Power is spread and the period of tenure should be short enough to weed out those whose chief ambition is power. It reduced the power and extent of the patron, again weeding out the ambitious.That is a universal problem for anyone in a role but a moderator would not have as much scope to mess up as an A oCIt wouldn't just be a name change( see Role of the moderator of the Church of Scotland). I think CEOCOE is a bit of a crude analogy but I can certainly see how Welby's tenure might have given that impression
But you introduce a new problem in that, with a new leader each year, there is no long term vision. A fixed term Arch bishop might be a good idea, but I would go with five years.
-
I'd have thought the first thing to do would be to disentangle the CofE from the affairs of state politics and get them out of the HofL.
That's nothing to do with the problems that currently exist in the CofE.
Then they can sort out their own internal affairs with proper accountability without the rest of us being bothered, unless there are legal cases that like other cases are of public interest.
I don't see anything stopping them from doing that now, in practice.
-
...
Not the root of all evil, but demonstrably a net negative in the world....
Demonstrate thar it is, taking into account that the traits that give rise to it would have to be removed from humanity for it to be shown.
-
A secular society isn't one with no religion. It's one where religion isn't privileged.
Ideally and if intentions were pure.
-
Seems fair enough, we want policy based upon demonstrable facts, not supernatural suspicions.
What policies are based on supernatural suspicions?
Not the root of all evil, but demonstrably a net negative in the world.
You might not think it but sufficient numbers thought it for Dawkins to answer it in his documentary “Religion, root of all evil?”
They don't pose a direct danger, but they validate the nonsense that's used by religious fanatics to justify their atrocities.
You will have to justify if, where and how they validate it. How for instance does the religion that gets people to wear masks so as to not hurt flies, validate atrocities?
I object - it's up there with having a hereditary head of state as something with a lack of an moral justification, but it's lower on the list of priorities than, say, sorting out education or the health and care services.
That presupposes that without religion health and care would be a priority, ignoring religions historic role in health and care and indeed education. None of which are guaranteed in a religionless society.
-
What policies are based on supernatural suspicions?
In part, all of them, given the input of The Church of the England in the drafting and the Head of the Church in the ratification of all legislation. In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill.
You might not think it but sufficient numbers thought it for Dawkins to answer it in his documentary “Religion, root of all evil?”
Channel 4's documentary - Professor Dawkins explicitly did not want that title, as he's said at the time and since. And maybe some do, but I was answering for me.
You will have to justify if, where and how they validate it. How for instance does the religion that gets people to wear masks so as to not hurt flies, validate atrocities?
When they say that a world-view based upon fairy stories is valid. When 'I believe' becomes sufficient to deny reality, the exact same argument can be utilised whether the tenet you want to cleave to is 'all good dogs go to heaven' or 'all the infidels should be bombed to a paste'. 'God wants it' isn't open to rational debate, regardless of what 'it' is.
That presupposes that without religion health and care would be a priority, ignoring religions historic role in health and care and indeed education.
Money's role in health and care is important. Societal structures role in health and care is important. Religion's role in trying to dominate those fields implicates in health and care, but health and care are available in other places. Sure, religion sometimes offers - for religious reasons - health and care, but sometimes it uses health and care to syphon up money and prestige for the Vatican while lauding suffering for poor people in India. And whichever of those it does, it's doing it for poor reasons.
None of which are guaranteed in a religionless society.
But it is guaranteed that suicide bombings will go down, that sectarian violence will go down, that one more pillar of institutional and cultural homophobia and misogyny will go away, that fewer children will be signed up by their parents for harmful conversion therapy.
O.
-
Ideally and if intentions were pure.
No, by definition.
-
In part, all of them, given the input of The Church of the England in the drafting and the Head of the Church in the ratification of all legislation. In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill.
Since there are about 1432 secular MP’s and Lords in the HoP and 26 Lords spiritual I make that each policy has a maximum of just under 2% of religious input.
When they say that a world-view based upon fairy stories is valid. When 'I believe' becomes sufficient to deny reality, the exact same argument can be utilised whether the tenet you want to cleave to is 'all good dogs go to heaven' or 'all the infidels should be bombed to a paste'. 'God wants it' isn't open to rational debate, regardless of what 'it' is.
Again in terms policy only 2% maximum of any policy can be attributed to the Lords spiritual. For the second time of asking can you give a policy founded on a fairy story?”
-
Since there are about 1432 secular MP’s and Lords in the HoP and 26 Lords spiritual I make that each policy has a maximum of just under 2% of religious input.
If you're talking about input that is intended to be specifically reliigious, why does it have any? If you're looking at people participating who have a religious affiliation there's significantly more than that 2%. The problem is that there is 2% that is reserved specifically for religious input, and specifically for religious input from one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular domain of one religion.
Again in terms policy only 2% maximum of any policy can be attributed to the Lords spiritual. For the second time of asking can you give a policy founded on a fairy story?”
Did you miss this bit: "In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill."?
You could add their blanket support for the 'Listed Places of Worship' scheme which saw them add their voice to a £150 million+ pot of money to subsidise their building maintenance costs, their near blanket opposition to the Civil Partnership Act, their 90% opposition voting record to the Gordon Brown labour government (in contrast to their greater than 60% support of Cameron's government, and less than 30% support of the Coalition), blanket opposition to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, their support of the £20 million extension of the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repair bill, the Place of Worship Security funding (twice) and the extension of the Gift Aid eligibility criteria.
And a curious tidbit that popped up while I was looking that lot up that I hadn't realised before: the Lords Temporal aren't permitted to vote in a General Election... but the Lords Spiritual are.
O.
-
If you're talking about input that is intended to be specifically reliigious, why does it have any? If you're looking at people participating who have a religious affiliation there's significantly more than that 2%. The problem is that there is 2% that is reserved specifically for religious input, and specifically for religious input from one particular sect of one particular branch of one particular domain of one religion.
Did you miss this bit: "In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill."?
You could add their blanket support for the 'Listed Places of Worship' scheme which saw them add their voice to a £150 million+ pot of money to subsidise their building maintenance costs, their near blanket opposition to the Civil Partnership Act, their 90% opposition voting record to the Gordon Brown labour government (in contrast to their greater than 60% support of Cameron's government, and less than 30% support of the Coalition), blanket opposition to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, their support of the £20 million extension of the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repair bill, the Place of Worship Security funding (twice) and the extension of the Gift Aid eligibility criteria.
And a curious tidbit that popped up while I was looking that lot up that I hadn't realised before: the Lords Temporal aren't permitted to vote in a General Election... but the Lords Spiritual are.
O.
And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.
Your fears seem to be based on secular superstition rather than data.
Then there is the question of whether a notional minuscule input is invariably bad or good.
-
And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.
The 'it's only a little bit biased' argument. I said it wasn't a high priority of mine, in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a situation that appears to be a blatant sop to a particular religious viewpoint at the expense of everyone else, and so is not justifiable. Your 'it's not much' is effectively a tacit admission of that.
Your fears seem to be based on secular superstition rather than data.
Which is why you asked for data? Or is it because now that you've been given the data it serves you to ignore it?
Then there is the question of whether a notional minuscule input is invariably bad or good.
No, there really isn't. Whether you agree or disagree with their voting record is irrelevant, the problem is that they have a reserved place for one particular sect of spellcasters, when no-one else does. It's special treatment, it's a double-helping that hasn't been justified.
I'm particularly exercised because they so regularly vote against the principles I'd espouse, but my argument against their inclusion isn't that I disagree with their stance, it's that I disagree with the notion that they should get to have a stance when everyone else instead gets to have the opportunity to write to a Lord of their choice.
O.
-
And Again there are 1432 secular lords and MPs. Including782 secular Lords against 26 Spiritual Lords.
But not a simple of the 'secular' lords are appointed automatically on the basis of their position in another organisation. All need to be nominated, considered and if thought suitable, then appointed.
I have no issue with individuals who are Bishops (or indeed clergy in whatever church or other religious organisation) being nominated, assessed and appointed to the Lords, provided the process is that same as for everyone else.
The issue here is one of special privileges that are not (and realistically could not as we'd end up with a Lords with tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of members) be applied consistently to other organisations.
-
But not a simple of the 'secular' lords are appointed automatically on the basis of their position in another organisation. All need to be nominated, considered and if thought suitable, then appointed.
I have no issue with individuals who are Bishops (or indeed clergy in whatever church or other religious organisation) being nominated, assessed and appointed to the Lords, provided the process is that same as for everyone else.
The issue here is one of special privileges that are not (and realistically could not as we'd end up with a Lords with tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of members) be applied consistently to other organisations.
Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.
Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.
-
Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.
Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.
Not having special privileges for religion is not favouring humanism or atheism. And given that no one has suggested doing so, then stop lying about what they say.
-
Not having special privileges for religion is not favouring humanism or atheism. And given that no one has suggested doing so, then stop lying about what they say.
No one suggests it but it is unavoidable.
-
Yes but introducing a system that automatically favours secular humanism and is atheistic and naturalistic cannot as far as I can see eliminate special privilege.
Can you explain who is given special privelege by 'favouring secular humanism'? Humanism is the position that we should consider humans, so unless you're harbouring ACTUAL aliens I'm not sure you have even a straw-point in your straw-man argument.
Since eliminating special privilege is an ideal it is better served imo by representing more world views not just the atheistic ones.
So we have 4,200 religious sects in the world that would require representation, as a starting point - by the time you factor in representation for all the non-religious differences - flat-earthers, breatharians, turtle-breeders etc. we're practically going to be at direct democracy. Even if that were the ideal, which I'd argue, it's not practical.
What is there in the current 750+ Lords Spiritual that isn't sufficient to represent a suitable variety of world views?
O.
-
No one suggests it but it is unavoidable.
He asserted
-
In part, all of them, given the input of The Church of the England in the drafting and the Head of the Church in the ratification of all legislation.
Nothing supernatural in that since those functions are carried out by the head of state In the specific it's been instrumental in the past in laws on slavery, denying women suffrage, denying women rights, denying gay people rights, and currently it's active in opposition to things like the assisted dying bill.
You seem to be saying that Homophobia, misogyny, and not wanting a national death service are supernatural
Channel 4's documentary - Professor Dawkins explicitly did not want that title, as he's said at the time and since. And maybe some do, but I was answering for me.
He should have removed consent for broadcast.
-
The 'it's only a little bit biased' argument.
You have some balls claiming a huge bias towards the secular is in fact a little bias toward the church
-
Can you explain who is given special privelege by 'favouring secular humanism'?
secular humanists Humanism is the position that we should consider humans, so unless you're harbouring ACTUAL aliens I'm not sure you have even a straw-point in your straw-man argument.
But it’s how we consider humans...sophisticated ape, image of God, pinnacle of evolution, winners and losers, Spirit or mechanism
So we have 4,200 religious sects in the world that would require representation, as a starting point - by the time you factor in representation for all the non-religious differences - flat-earthers, breatharians, turtle-breeders etc. we're practically going to be at direct democracy. Even if that were the ideal, which I'd argue, it's not practical.
So the best thing to do is ignore religion and just go with secular humanism which seems to be the minority view in terms of the world and indeed England
-
secular humanists
So you're opposed to treating everyone equally, but with the assumptions of rights based on the fact that they're human?
But it’s how we consider humans...sophisticated ape, image of God, pinnacle of evolution, winners and losers, Spirit or mechanism
All of those, but favouring none.
So the best thing to do is ignore religion and just go with secular humanism which seems to be the minority view in terms of the world and indeed England
It's a good thing you're not allergic to straw. Nobody is talking about 'ignoring religion', but religion - and one particular viewpoint of one particular religion - should not be afforded any special status or access. And, given a reasonably sized representative body, those religions will be represented, as we know they already are (if not slightly over-represented) in both houses, without needing to resort the Lords Spiritual.
You have some balls claiming a huge bias towards the secular is in fact a little bias toward the church
And they say educational standards have gotten worse... can you read?
YOU made the argument that we should not be worried about the existence of the Lords Spiritual, on the basis (your maths) that it's only 2% religious input - your argument, therefore, is that yes it is biased towards religion (that particular stripe of that particular sect of that particular religion) but it's OK, because it's not much.
It's more than anyone else. Where's the reserved representation for science? Or sport? Or law? Or economics? Or cheese?
O.
-
So you're opposed to treating everyone equally, but with the assumptions of rights based on the fact that they're human?
I would be opposed to treating everyone equally if I was to favour Secular Humanism.
-
I would be opposed to treating everyone equally if I was to favour Secular Humanism.
Tell me you don't understand secular humanism without telling me you don't understand...
O.
-
Tell me you don't understand secular humanism without telling me you don't understand...
O.
I shall let them speak for themselves.
https://humanists.uk/humanism/
-
I would be opposed to treating everyone equally if I was to favour Secular Humanism.
You do understand that secularism and humanism aren't the same thing. And the
And regarding secularism, well yes you would, as one of the key tenets of secularism is that people are treated equally regardless of whether or not they are religious and if religious are treated equally regardless of their religion.
-
I shall let them speak for themselves.
https://humanists.uk/humanism/
Can you explain where in that description humanism does it state that people should not be treated equally. Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
I think you will find that it is many religions who have a long and disreputable history of failing to treat people equally, from refusing accept equality for women (e.g. to permit women to be clergy), to discriminating against gay people (including supporting jailing them or worse), to executing people for not being of the right religion etc etc.
-
Can you explain where in that description humanism does it state that people should not be treated equally. Oh, that's right, it doesn't.
I think you will find that it is many religions who have a long and disreputable history of failing to treat people equally, from refusing accept equality for women (e.g. to permit women to be clergy), to discriminating against gay people (including supporting jailing them or worse), to executing people for not being of the right religion etc etc.
I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.
-
I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.
Examples please.
-
I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.
Even if there are examples of inequality, such as the RC proscription of female priests, where are you seeing that 'secular' has a specific social role that leads to directly to inequality?
-
I think you will find UK secular society has a disreputable recent history of not treating people equally.
Evidence please. And not your notoriously wonky opinion Vlad, actual proper evidence.
-
Examples please.
Increasing discrepancies between rich poor and middling with favour to the rich.
-
Even if there are examples of inequality, such as the RC proscription of female priests, where are you seeing that 'secular' has a specific social role that leads to directly to inequality?
Inequality though is not meant to occur in a secular society since according to Humanist UK we can live ethical and fulfilled lives based on reason and science.
What we see in an increasingly secular society is unfulfilled lives in the middling and poorer lives and unethical lives amongst the wealthy..
-
Increasing discrepancies between rich poor and middling with favour to the rich.
Secularism is about religion - do you think the inequalities you refer to are related to people's religious beliefs?
-
Secularism is about religion - do you think the inequalities you refer to are related to people's religious beliefs?
Secularism is about religion? Not sure what you mean by that.
Is the concentration of wealth down to religion. It looks like Mammon worship, but the context in the UK is increasing disparity alongside increasing secularism.
-
Inequality though is not meant to occur in a secular society since according to Humanist UK we can live ethical and fulfilled lives based on reason and science.
Secularism defines the separation of religion and the state - so how do you get from there to arguing that inequalities that have no religious connotations are somehow a consequence of secularism?
What we see in an increasingly secular society is unfulfilled lives in the middling and poorer lives and unethical lives amongst the wealthy..
Nice to see a bit of sweeping generalisation on a Tuesday morning.
-
Inequality though is not meant to occur in a secular society since according to Humanist UK
One particular type of inequality is not meant to occur as a result of a society being secular - that's religion-based inequality, and is generally reasonably well managed in the UK. Although it's ironic that you're regularly arguing for one of the more egregious structural inequalities in the field (the existence of the Lords Spiritual), whilst coming here and complaining that secularism hasn't cured inequality at large.
we can live ethical and fulfilled lives based on reason and science.
We can, we currently don't, we're generally improving, but inequality is a hydra that spawns a new head or two every time you hack one off.
What we see in an increasingly secular society is unfulfilled lives in the middling and poorer lives and unethical lives amongst the wealthy.
Whereas when religion ruled the roost we had an equally unfulfilled poor, but with even fewer rights and no expectation of anything more, kept in their place by structural forces including the blunt club of religion, no 'middle-class' to speak of, and a wealthy elite propped up by structural religion and utilising that religious backing to justify rigging the system to maintain that status quo. The names have changed, the systems have changed, but we have a middle-class, now, we have a guarantee of a baseline of rights for people, we have an understanding that no-one is supposed to be beyond the law (although there's always people trying to shift the system to change that).
We're not perfect, but we're better than we were, and that's not just in parallel to the decline of religion, it's a virtuous cycle of being because of the decline of religion and a prompt for its further decline.
Long may it continue.
O.
-
Secularism defines the separation of religion and the state - so how do you get from there to arguing that inequalities that have no religious connotations are somehow a consequence of secularism?
Nice to see a bit of sweeping generalisation on a Tuesday morning.
Secularism defines the separation of religion and the state - so how do you get from there to arguing that inequalities that have no religious connotations are somehow a consequence of secularism?
Nice to see a bit of sweeping generalisation on a Tuesday morning.
Secularism is touted here as the means of eliminating inequality, the important inequalities often being presented as religious in nature.
In view of that inequality should go down the more secular politics becomes.
-
Secularism is touted here as the means of eliminating inequality, the important inequalities often being presented as religious in nature.
On what basis have you concluded that general concerns about inequality are solely, or predominantly, focused on religious issues? I suspect that those who advocate secularism don't see it as a means of eliminating all inequality.
In view of that inequality should go down the more secular politics becomes.
It would certainly be the case that the elimination of religiously inspired inequalities may reduce the overall level of inequality, which would be good news, but that alone wouldn't eliminate all inequality - but then I'm sure you already know that.
-
On what basis have you concluded that general concerns about inequality are solely, or predominantly, focused on religious issues? I suspect that those who advocate secularism don't see it as a means of eliminating all inequality.
It would certainly be the case that the elimination of religiously inspired inequalities may reduce the overall level of inequality, which would be good news, but that alone wouldn't eliminate all inequality - but then I'm sure you already know that.
And yet Gordon, in an increasingly secular society inequality has risen in health, mental health, life expectancy, wealth, opertunity, housing. What religious inequalities do you propose outweigh this?
-
And yet Gordon, in an increasingly secular society inequality has risen in health, mental health, life expectancy, wealth, opertunity, housing. What religious inequalities do you propose outweigh this?
Since you are telling us here that increasing secularism is directly correlated with increasing inequalities then I think we need to see your workings, since you are making a 'cause and effect' claim. You should also include details of any changes in levels of inequality across the aspects you mention and how these are measured.
You are asking me to conclude the relative weightings of different forms of inequality and I'll decline that invitation for two reasons; 1) I have insufficient reliable information or the methodological expertise required, and 2) I'm not that stupid.
-
Since you are telling us here that increasing secularism is directly correlated with increasing inequalities
I am saying that the observation is increased inequality has occurred in the context of increased secularisation.
Since there are only secular and religious solutions and reasons then a correlation seems inescapable.
-
Secularism is about religion? Not sure what you mean by that.
Is the concentration of wealth down to religion. It looks like Mammon worship, but the context in the UK is increasing disparity alongside increasing secularism.
I mean that it is a position regarding religion in society
https://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism (https://www.secularism.org.uk/what-is-secularism)
-
And yet Gordon, in an increasingly secular society inequality has risen in health, mental health, life expectancy, wealth, opertunity, housing. What religious inequalities do you propose outweigh this?
Can you show that any of that is to do with secularism? You are seeing a link but not seeing any link to political ideology or economic policy? How equal was society in Victorian times when it certainly wasn't a secular society?
-
Increasing discrepancies between rich poor and middling with favour to the rich.
Oh dear - as anticipated - notoriously wonky thinking incoming from Vlad.
-
I am saying that the observation is increased inequality has occurred in the context of increased secularisation.
Since there are only secular and religious solutions and reasons then a correlation seems inescapable.
As is often said, 'correlation does not equal causation'. I think too your 'secular vs religion' approach is a false dichotomy of sorts due to your over-simplification, since both terms are a moveable feast.
-
Is the concentration of wealth down to religion.
Well it is certainly the case that those adhering to most religions in the UK are more financially advantaged than those who are not religious. That applies to Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism. Of the major religions, only Muslims tend to be financially less advantaged than non-religious people.
And wealth is most certainly concentrated within religious organisations, through special privileges which allow them, for example, tax exemptions that do not apply to other organisations. A good example being the complete exemption from business rates for religious buildings (they aren't even on the ratings list) where most charities only get 80% relief so will still often being paying considerable amounts in business rates.
But delve into the details and it gets even less equitable. So if a charity has a shop or a cafe on its premises (whose proceeds are used to support their charitable activities), they will typically be charged full business rates on the space used for those 'commercial' activities. By contrast if a church has a shop or a cafe on its premises (whose proceeds are used to support their charitable activities) they won't pay a penny in business rates for the space used for those 'commercial' activities as the building simply doesn't exist as far as the Value Office Agency (who 'own' the ratings lists) are concerned.
-
Well it is certainly the case that those adhering to most religions in the UK are more financially advantaged than those who are not religious. That applies to Christianity, Hinduism and Judaism. Of the major religions, only Muslims tend to be financially less advantaged than non-religious people.
And wealth is most certainly concentrated within religious organisations, through special privileges which allow them, for example, tax exemptions that do not apply to other organisations. A good example being the complete exemption from business rates for religious buildings (they aren't even on the ratings list) where most charities only get 80% relief so will still often being paying considerable amounts in business rates.
But delve into the details and it gets even less equitable. So if a charity has a shop or a cafe on its premises (whose proceeds are used to support their charitable activities), they will typically be charged full business rates on the space used for those 'commercial' activities. By contrast if a church has a shop or a cafe on its premises (whose proceeds are used to support their charitable activities) they won't pay a penny in business rates for the space used for those 'commercial' activities as the building simply doesn't exist as far as the Value Office Agency (who 'own' the ratings lists) are concerned.
So, are you plumping for all inequalities having a religious cause and how then do you explain an increase alongside increased secularisation?
-
So, are you plumping for all inequalities having a religious cause and how then do you explain an increase alongside increased secularisation?
I am saying that we have structural processes that financially advantage religious organisations over non-religious organisations. Surely you can see that to be an inequality.
And I would strongly argue against your assertion that that there is a correlation between the reduced dominance of religion in the UK and greater levels of inequality. We are a way more equal society (and not just financially) today than we were say 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, when religion had a far greater dominance in our societies than it does today.
https://ourworldindata.org/how-has-inequality-in-the-uk-changed-over-the-very-long-run
-
And yet Gordon, in an increasingly secular society inequality has risen in health
Has it? 100 years ago virtually no-one had health-care, and those that did were the extremely wealthy (although it was questionable). Now we have a free at the point of use national health service. We have people threatening that status, currently, a group that historically have fostered an association with the Church of England; was it not considered to be 'the Tory Party at prayer'?
mental health
It would be wonderful to see what sort of figures you're using for mental health comparisons even twenty years ago.
life expectancy
Even discounting the spectacular decrease in infant mortality, life spans have been increasing gradually for decades - not as a result of secularism, to be fair, but because of improved nutrition and healthcare.
wealth
How much of the UK population is in absolute poverty, now? We've had to stop measuring it, and start measuring poverty after housing costs, or relative poverty - those are important, but they are signifiers of a change in the nature of the conversation such has been the cultural and societal growth in this area.
opertunity
Universal education. Increased access to further education. Equal access to the job market for women. Anti-discrimination laws for religion, ethnicity, sex, disability. Even people who can't spell opportunity have more opportunities than they did just fifty years ago.
housing
There is, currently, a problem not directly of housing (or, at least, not entirely) but certainly of housing availability.
What religious inequalities do you propose outweigh this?
Why would I need to, they're largely different questions (with the possible exception of the 'opportunities' where mainly you can't discriminate on the basis of religion). The point of secularism is not to cure all the worlds ills, it's to address one particular issue - religious privilege. If you can show how the few points you made where things are worse than they used to be are as a result of the decline of special privilege for religion, or if you can show how the current imperfect status is being held back from improvement by not affording religion a special status, then I might be able to help you.
Currently, though, you're raging about the colour of sea at someone who's pointing out that we need to stop dropping cigarette butts in the National Parks.
O.
-
Has it? 100 years ago virtually no-one had health-care, and those that did were the extremely wealthy (although it was questionable). Now we have a free at the point of use national health service. We have people threatening that status, currently, a group that historically have fostered an association with the Church of England; was it not considered to be 'the Tory Party at prayer'?
It would be wonderful to see what sort of figures you're using for mental health comparisons even twenty years ago.
Even discounting the spectacular decrease in infant mortality, life spans have been increasing gradually for decades - not as a result of secularism, to be fair, but because of improved nutrition and healthcare.
How much of the UK population is in absolute poverty, now? We've had to stop measuring it, and start measuring poverty after housing costs, or relative poverty - those are important, but they are signifiers of a change in the nature of the conversation such has been the cultural and societal growth in this area.
Universal education. Increased access to further education. Equal access to the job market for women. Anti-discrimination laws for religion, ethnicity, sex, disability. Even people who can't spell opportunity have more opportunities than they did just fifty years ago.
There is, currently, a problem not directly of housing (or, at least, not entirely) but certainly of housing availability.
Why would I need to, they're largely different questions (with the possible exception of the 'opportunities' where mainly you can't discriminate on the basis of religion). The point of secularism is not to cure all the worlds ills, it's to address one particular issue - religious privilege. If you can show how the few points you made where things are worse than they used to be are as a result of the decline of special privilege for religion, or if you can show how the current imperfect status is being held back from improvement by not affording religion a special status, then I might be able to help you.
Currently, though, you're raging about the colour of sea at someone who's pointing out that we need to stop dropping cigarette butts in the National Parks.
O.
Yeh - but what have those pesky Romans done for us eh!!
-
Has it? 100 years ago virtually no-one had health-care, and those that did were the extremely wealthy (although it was questionable). Now we have a free at the point of use national health service. We have people threatening that status, currently, a group that historically have fostered an association with the Church of England; was it not considered to be 'the Tory Party at prayer'?
It would be wonderful to see what sort of figures you're using for mental health comparisons even twenty years ago.
Even discounting the spectacular decrease in infant mortality, life spans have been increasing gradually for decades - not as a result of secularism, to be fair, but because of improved nutrition and healthcare.
How much of the UK population is in absolute poverty, now? We've had to stop measuring it, and start measuring poverty after housing costs, or relative poverty - those are important, but they are signifiers of a change in the nature of the conversation such has been the cultural and societal growth in this area.
Universal education. Increased access to further education. Equal access to the job market for women. Anti-discrimination laws for religion, ethnicity, sex, disability. Even people who can't spell opportunity have more opportunities than they did just fifty years ago.
There is, currently, a problem not directly of housing (or, at least, not entirely) but certainly of housing availability.
Why would I need to, they're largely different questions (with the possible exception of the 'opportunities' where mainly you can't discriminate on the basis of religion). The point of secularism is not to cure all the worlds ills, it's to address one particular issue - religious privilege. If you can show how the few points you made where things are worse than they used to be are as a result of the decline of special privilege for religion, or if you can show how the current imperfect status is being held back from improvement by not affording religion a special status, then I might be able to help you.
Currently, though, you're raging about the colour of sea at someone who's pointing out that we need to stop dropping cigarette butts in the National Parks.
O.
There has been a degradation in all the provision in the context of an increasingly secular society in the UK.
-
There has been a degradation in all the provision in the context of an increasingly secular society in the UK.
Really - has there. Depends entirely where you draw the line in terms of starting point of 'increasingly secular society'.
As far as I can see pretty well all the criteria Outrider cites are way better now than they were when religion was far more dominant in the UK, in other words the first half of the 20thC and earlier.
But, of course, correlation does not indicate causation - but then it is you trying to make the case for causation even through your evidence even for correlation is pretty woeful.
-
There has been a degradation in all the provision in the context of an increasingly secular society in the UK.
I'm sure you can support that with date if asked, but regardless of what provision has or hasn't been made, in your opinion, the results speak for themselves. People are richer, people are healthier, people have rights and freedoms, people have access to healthcare and nutrition, all to a significantly greater extent than has been the case in even the relatively recent past.
And we are more secular, too. I'm not directly linking those, I'm just pointing out that your argument that life is worse because of secularisation falls at both hurdles: it's not worse in the ways that you're claiming, and even if it were you've failed to establish how secularisation is linked to those.
O.