What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[BashfulAnthony]

The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.

That would imply you are in the right.  You are not.  You lied about Shaker's posts.

Don't call me a liar.

It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.

Not so;  but it is absolutely, 100% clear, that you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus.

[jeremyp]

The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.

That would imply you are in the right.  You are not.  You lied about Shaker's posts.

Don't call me a liar.

It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.

Not so;

Blatantly lying again.

but it is absolutely, 100% clear, that you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus.

Well we had a deal and you were the one that broke it first.  You're really not too clever, are you.

[BashfulAnthony]

The Bible allows for righteous anger, as opposed to sinful anger.

That would imply you are in the right.  You are not.  You lied about Shaker's posts.

Don't call me a liar.

It's absolutely 100% clear that, in this instance, you lied.

Not so;

Blatantly lying again.

but it is absolutely, 100% clear, that you are a foul-mouthed ignoramus.

Well we had a deal and you were the one that broke it first. You're really not too clever, are you.

You are a liar:  do you think I don't read your semi-literate posts?  I'm not going to have my intelligence questioned by a person whose shoe-size is the same as his IQ.  I have to say, if brains were dynamite, you would be hard-pressed to blow your nose!  The only place you would shine, is in a swearing academy.       Have a good night.

[Leonard James]

You're really not too clever, are you.

Unfortunately, Jeremy, he doesn't realise it. He kids himself he's very smart and witty.

[Leonard James]

I can see why religious people are suspicious of secularism as expressed by the BHA and the NSS.

.........................

People are suspicious of secularism as portrayed by those organisations because regardless of how fair the odd snippets are, they come across as too controlling.

But surely less controlling than their current religions, yes?

[ProfessorDavey]

I can see why religious people are suspicious of secularism as expressed by the BHA and the NSS.

It's because when used by these organisations it is just another attempt to control the way the religious think and a step towards putting their faith in a box to conform with what those groups think it is,or what they think it. "ought " to be.

The NSS are trying to redefine religion and what it means and its scope of influence in those that follow it.

It often also has an agenda of influencing religious people's children so that they grow up to become atheists and seeing the world in the same way as those organisations.

It's an attempt at control.

Also the BHA are exclusive in who can or can't be a humanist ( see thread on humanism the sharing faith section)p

People are suspicious of secularism as portrayed by those organisations because regardless of how fair the odd snippets are, they come across as too controlling.

What complete junk.

In what way do either the NSS or the BHA have any control or power over anyone - they don't. And if they have no control or power over anyone it is pretty hard to argue that they are controlling. Who are they controlling and how Rose.

Contrast that with the major religions in the UK that variously run about one third of our state schools, requirement for religious worship even in non faith schools, provide a significant number of members of the HoL by right (and of course disproportion numbers of members in both houses), are regularly afforded representation on official bodies that are charged with advising government on potential changes to policy, have un-challenged access to major media outlets to promulgate religious views (e.g. thought for the day).

All the NSS (and to a lesses extent the BHA) are doing is trying to create a level playing field - one in which people are not afforded privilege, nor suffer discrimination on the basis of their religious belief, or lack thereof. Now if that's "controlling' - well lets have more of it. Actually it is the complete opposite.

[floo]

You're really not too clever, are you.

Unfortunately, Jeremy, he doesn't realise it. He kids himself he's very smart and witty.

Agreed.People who think they are a cut above others intelligence wise, fall well short in reality, but fail to see it. It is so very sad when this happens because their constant unpleasant jibes just go to highlight their inadequacies!

[Harrowby Hall]

I note, with interest, that the former Education Secretary Charles Clarke is calling for the statutory obligation for schools to have an act of collective worship to end. One might view this as a step towards secularising the curriculum. However, he appears to call for the "compulsory teaching of religious literacy" - whatever that is.

Mr Clarke's remarks - as reported on the BBC website - are part of a report published as part of the Westminster Faith Debates. His report is jointly written with Professor Linda Woodhead, of Lancaster University. He considers that everybody should be taught about different faiths including non-religious beliefs such as humanism. He believes that such a development could usefully counter radicalism and fundamentalism.

However, any support I might give to this dissipated when I saw that the right of parents to send their children to faith schools should be protected.

EDIT

Just as I pressed the send button Charles Clarke appeared on Radio 4 "Today" being interviewed by John Humphries. Available in iPlayer.

[Leonard James]

Many schools can't have a collective anything because they don't have the room.

I think it was nice when schools had an assembly in the morning. Of course not ALL schools have to have a religious assembly, but there is something to be said for the morning assembly.

Unfortunately schools are often so overcrowded or have expanded to the point where any sort of assembly is out of the question.

As far as I can remember from my schooldays, the morning assembly (which was held in the gym) was a complete waste of teaching time.

[floo]

When my husband, an atheist, was a secondary school head teacher, he did non religious assemblies, but gave the kids a moral 'thought for the day'. He got away with it.

[Leonard James]

Many schools can't have a collective anything because they don't have the room.

I think it was nice when schools had an assembly in the morning. Of course not ALL schools have to have a religious assembly, but there is something to be said for the morning assembly.

Unfortunately schools are often so overcrowded or have expanded to the point where any sort of assembly is out of the question.

As far as I can remember from my schooldays, the morning assembly (which was held in the gym) was a complete waste of teaching time.

Really? I didn't find that.

While assembly lasted it was good because it was nice to be updated with various notices about school life and goings on, an opportunity to acknowledge efforts of pupils and made it much more of a school community.

Plus it gave children the chance to accompany any singing with the musical instruments they had learnt to play.

I thought it was nice.

I honestly can't remember what happened in assembly at my school, except the prayers part. It's too long ago, and it clearly didn't make much impression on me.

[ProfessorDavey]

even "thought of the day" for example.

I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.

But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.

Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.

I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.

But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?

[Leonard James]

even "thought of the day" for example.

I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.

But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.

Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.

I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.

But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?

No, it's because you are trying to make " thought of the day" something it isn't.

Perhaps they should rename it " religious thought for the day" and then the NSS can stop trying to hijack it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3110489.stm

Then perhaps it would be fairer and more sensible to have two thought for the day, one religious and the other non-religious.

[ProfessorDavey]

even "thought of the day" for example.

I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.

But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.

Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.

I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.

But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?

No, it's because you are trying to make " thought of the day" something it isn't.

Perhaps they should rename it " religious thought for the day" and then the NSS can stop trying to hijack it.

But it isn't called "religious thought for the day" it is called "thought for the day" and it isn't reasonable to ban people who might have extremely interesting and thought provoking comments on moral issues simply because they aren't religious.

The way forward isn't to rename it and continue to restrict contributors (that is a backwards step) but to allow contributions from people of all religions and none.

[ProfessorDavey]

even "thought of the day" for example.

I want to hear a "thought of the day" from an individual from an established religious viewpoint ( from many different religions) That's because sometimes listening to a religious angle gives you a different way of approaching something.

But the NSS don't want to ban Thought for the Day - they want to broaden it to allow contributors whether or not they are religious.

Surely this would further your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something' - at the moment you are only allowed to hear different voices, provided they are from the (at best) 50% who are religious. Don't the other 50% have something interesting to say Rose.

I don't want to listen to some individual moralising at me.

But that's exactly what you get at the moment. Why is it OK for someone to moralise at you if they are religious, but not if they aren't religious. Sounds like total double standards to me, and hardly fits with your desire to hear 'a different way of approaching something'. Are you scared that you might hear a non religious moral philosopher talk about an important issue and actually agree with him or her?

No, it's because you are trying to make " thought of the day" something it isn't.

Perhaps they should rename it " religious thought for the day" and then the NSS can stop trying to hijack it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3110489.stm

Then perhaps it would be fairer and more sensible to have two thought for the day, one religious and the other non-religious.

Why?

Surely the best approach is to have one thought for the day without discrimination against potential contributors simply because they aren't religious.

[Leonard James]

Why?

To please Rose and stop people from arguing about it. 

[Nearly Sane]

Why?

To please Rose and stop people from arguing about it. 

plus it gives spots for both to boil the kettle, or in my case doubles them.

[BashfulAnthony]

You're really not too clever, are you.

Unfortunately, Jeremy, he doesn't realise it. He kids himself he's very smart and witty.

The very last person on here, (with one possible exception), is you, to judge wit and intelligence.

[jeremyp]

You are a liar:  do you think I don't read your semi-literate posts?  I'm not going to have my intelligence questioned by a person whose shoe-size is the same as his IQ.  I have to say, if brains were dynamite, you would be hard-pressed to blow your nose!  The only place you would shine, is in a swearing academy.       Have a good night.

Oh dear, when the capability to think rationally deserts you, a bit of invective never hurts.  Admittedly, some of that was quite inventive.  Do you want to see if you can do any better.

[BashfulAnthony]

You are a liar:  do you think I don't read your semi-literate posts?  I'm not going to have my intelligence questioned by a person whose shoe-size is the same as his IQ.  I have to say, if brains were dynamite, you would be hard-pressed to blow your nose!  The only place you would shine, is in a swearing academy.       Have a good night.

Oh dear, when the capability to think rationally deserts you, a bit of invective never hurts.  Admittedly, some of that was quite inventive.  Do you want to see if you can do any better.

Do you realise that you are a pretentious, know-all, humourless and provocative.  You are as full of invective as any, but less strident;  settling for frequent aspersions about posters' intelligence. You assume an air of superiority, but are no more than "sounding brass, a tinkling cymbal."  You give away your true personality by your lack of self-control, manifested in your crude language.   What's more, you can't mind your own business.  Other than all that, you're okay. 

[Hope]

But surely less controlling than their current religions, yes?

What's less controlling about 'there is no God', and 'there is a God but you can choose to ignore or to believe in said God'?

[Hope]

What complete junk.

Are you trying to say that someone who explains why they - and others - are wary of a given term are wary for no good reason?  The thread title asks why people (in this case 'religionists', whatever that term might mean) have 'problems with' a particular concept.  Rose and others have explained why they feel that the term 'secularism' is a word that has been devalued by being used in a variety of sometimes conflicting ways.  What's 'complete junk' about that?

Is it that only your opinion counts, PD?

[floo]

When it can be proved, without a shadow of doubt a deity exists, it would be unreasonable to disbelieve, until then................!

[Hope]

I note, with interest, that the former Education Secretary Charles Clarke is calling for the statutory obligation for schools to have an act of collective worship to end. One might view this as a step towards secularising the curriculum. However, he appears to call for the "compulsory teaching of religious literacy" - whatever that is.

It's nothing new, HH.  Teachers (Christian and otherwise) as well as other people (also Christian and otherwise) have been calling for the repealing of this particular legislation since I first started teaching in the 1970s.  In part, the call is prompted by the high level of 'observation by omission', in part by the fact that fewer and fewer schools have halls large enough to hold whole-school assemblies and partly by the appreciation that there are an increasing number of children from non-Christian backgrounds within our schools nowadays.

[Hope]

When it can be proved, without a shadow of doubt a deity exists, it would be unreasonable to disbelieve, until then................!

In other words, we should only believe in things that don't require belief?