The Church of England.Time for a moderator?

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Examples please.

Increasing discrepancies between rich poor and middling with favour to the rich.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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..

[Maeght]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Gordon]

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.





   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Maeght]

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

[Maeght]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

Increasing discrepancies between rich poor and middling with favour to the rich.

Oh dear - as anticipated - notoriously wonky thinking incoming from Vlad.

[Gordon]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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

[Outrider]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Outrider]

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.