What is the problem religionists have with secularism?

[ippy]

Am I allowed to have disdain for rudeness, Ippy?

You're always swearing I haven't complained about that although I'm none to keen on it.

ippy

How on earth does that justify using ordinary words to mock and wound somebody?

I'm sure this is a discussion forum, isn't it?

Like a lot of people that hold unsupportable ideas if the veracity of an idea can't be established why should anyone spend time discussing it and as with any unsupportable idea it's bound to be the victim of various kinds of derision from time to time, I'm sure that you and I've heard a saying something about heat and kitchens.

We all get some stick from time to time on here as far as I'm concerned it's peoples ideas that are under attack not the person, I detest the ideas some of the contributers have as they probably detest mine, but thats discussion forums.

Although there are contested views here I'm sure 99% of the people that have these differing views are mostly decent people as I'm sure you are and I'm sorry if you find my view offensive but I can't help it those are my views and they wont be changing unless some evidence is found that would bury my own point of view in such a way that it's me that has to change or look stupid.

ippy 

 

Ippy, your views aren't offensive - in fact I think the only logical positions are to accept all belief is rubbish or all belief is possible. And nothing you say keeps me awake at night - believe me, if you are open as a pagan you have to expect derision ('kit off in woods whoar you all think you're Harry Potter') along with frightened ignorance ('Satan worshippers' 'time of baal' etc etc.)

You are free to express your disdain in whatever way you wish, but rudeness isn't debate or discussion and making assumptions about what people do and believe rather than asking or listening doesn't help either.

But I am sure you are a decent sort also and I always welcome your DIY advice. 

Say I were a Cargo Cultist, how much further than knowing I'm a Cargo Cultist would you want to go into my my particular Cultism, not much if anything I would guess: ditto paganism for me.

Sorry if you don't like it and expressing views are a normal part of forum life, I accept this as a forum and of course expect everybody to agree with me and dam those that don't.

Outside of where frankness is expected like here, you're probably like me and keep these things to yourself; back to heat/kitchen.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I have mentioned before that I own property in France.

In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.

In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.

An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.

Good Moaning.

What yoo ere seein eez zat zees are former churches now ooned by ze local council and oocazionly Hired oot to ze Church.

Are ze actual churches not allowed to own zere own premises after all a beeg Tweed soaked eenglish toff like yourselves ees allowed to own propertie. Why not Zee Church?

[Harrowby Hall]

Oh yes of course you are right.

I forgot - look at all that appalling suppression of religion that goes on in those terrible secular countries like ...

France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc

Religious people quivering with fear waiting for the boot against the door in every one of them.

I have mentioned before that I own property in France.

In the commune where my house is situated there are three churches. In secular France with its secular constitution these churches are all owned by the commune. They are maintained and cherished and are a source of pride to the commune.

In addition, they are available to be used for religious purposes. The church in my village is used for Catholic masses and for Anglican holy communion services.

An excellent example of how a secular state thrusts the jackboot of secularism into the throat and solar plexus of religion.

Good Moaning.

What yoo ere seein eez zat zees are former churches now ooned by ze local council and oocazionly Hired oot to ze Church.

Are ze actual churches not allowed to own zere own premises after all a beeg Tweed soaked eenglish toff like yourselves ees allowed to own propertie. Why not Zee Church?

If I recall correctly, Officer Crabtree's habitual greeting was "God Moaning" which I am sure is his/hers/its/theirs habitual reaction whenever he/she/it/they see your fingers touch the keyboard, Vlad.

[Hope]

Why do you think I am an academic - don't forget that is the profession where people debate and use argument, not violence.

Seem to remember that over the years, the academic world - even lecture halls - has had its fair share of violence, PD.

[Hope]

I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.

As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?

ippy

ippy, as I said in my very first post on this thread, the problem that I see is that despite having a fairly tight dictionary definition, the term 'secularism' is often used in a variety of ways by so-called supporters of 'secularism'. 

[ippy]

I take it from your answer that you want the religious to continue having privileges instead of us all being as equal as can be.

As per the OP title: "What is the problem religionists have with secularism"? which part of secularism is it N S that you are having difficulty understanding?

ippy

ippy, as I said in my very first post on this thread, the problem that I see is that despite having a fairly tight dictionary definition, the term 'secularism' is often used in a variety of ways by so-called supporters of 'secularism'.

If you're having trouble with my post, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for.

ippy

[Hope]

If you're having trouble with my post, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for.

ippy

Or, this post simply shows that you think I was accusing you of something?  Do you use the term in more than the official sense?

[ippy]

If you're having trouble with my post, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for.

ippy

Or, this post simply shows that you think I was accusing you of something?  Do you use the term in more than the official sense?

Accuse away Hope, fill your boots.

If, as it seems to me you're having trouble with my previous posts, semantics or otherwise, you must be a lot thicker than I had you for, that's all I'm trying to convey to you nothing more or anything less.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

secularism doesn't expect any kind of favoured position in public life

Except to be the favoured position in public life.

[ippy]

secularism doesn't expect any kind of favoured position in public life

Except to be the favoured position in public life.

Capitalism seems to be the best system we have even with all of its faults, for which I'm not making any excuses, don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?

If there are no privileged places for anyone we all have an equal say, in theory, don't you think it could be one less thing for our contentious enough human race to fall out with each other.

Whilst I want as near as can be achieved a level playing field for all in the public sphere, it really angers me when bills like assisted dying is block voted against by more than 26 Bishops.

The privilege given to the Bishops goes beyond unelected as of right seats for 26 Bishops when they retire they more often than not receive a title that enables them to carry on as though nothing has changed, they retain their seat in the HOL.

I have no objection to any Bishop if he earned his seat in our legislature or anyone else that has a faith gaining a seat in our legislature on merit; this system as it is is insulting to those of us that do not share these beliefs the Bishops have nor is it in any way democratic and this one of the most obvious privileged positions the religious have and it's only one of the many privileges the religious have.

Secularism as I understand it doesn't seek to banish religious belief from the system it only wishes to put religion in its place where it is on the same level as all others without even one privilege so that it's just the same and on the same footing as all of the  rest of us.

I have only given Bishops as an example of privilege within our legislature because it's the most glaring indefensible example of the many privileges the religious have here in the UK.

ippy



 

[Hope]

... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?

And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?

[Shaker]

... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?

And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?

There would be no religious ones, which is all that secularism concerns itself with. The evidence can be found in secular democracies.

[ProfessorDavey]

... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?

And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?

If a group was afforded special privileges on the basis of religious belief or lack thereof, then you wouldn't have secularism, would you. Simply as that.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

I think that the most pragmatic approach is to remove the posts relating to the exchange between Vlad and Prof D given the suggestion of libel, since it is not in the wider interests of the Forum for such posts to remain on public view.

Locking this while I do the split, after which I will unlock the thread. Given the above I suggest we move on.

Done, and thread unlocked.

[ippy]

... don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life?

And do you have any evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism?

Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope

"Capitalism seems to be the best system we have even with all of its faults, for which I'm not making any excuses, don't you think secularism with any faults it might have is a far better system to run the world than having any privileged groups allowed privileged positions in public life"?

ippy

[Hope]

Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope

So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?

[jeremyp]

Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope

So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?

At least it wouldn't be written into the constitution.

[ippy]

Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope

So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?

How many things have you ever come across that are perfect, like you missed a part of my post and like, as if you didn't understand in the first place, there could be a few minor snags with full secularism when it's applied.

ippy

[Hope]

How many things have you ever come across that are perfect, like you missed a part of my post and like, as if you didn't understand in the first place, there could be a few minor snags with full secularism when it's applied.

ippy

For one thing, I didn't miss anything in your post; secondly, I didn't "as if you didn't understand in the first place"; and thirdly, I choose to respond to a part of the post which seemed to me to show that you misunderstand that privilege doesn't apply only to the religious/irreligious arena.  That's the problem with secularism in the context you use it - as the Oxford Dictionary points out - it is limited in its scope to the arena of religion/spirituality.

Definition of secular in English:
adjective

1 Not connected with religious or spiritual matters:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular?q=secularism#secular__17

It has other meanings as well - economic, astronomic, ...

[ippy]

How many things have you ever come across that are perfect, like you missed a part of my post and like, as if you didn't understand in the first place, there could be a few minor snags with full secularism when it's applied.

ippy

For one thing, I didn't miss anything in your post; secondly, I didn't "as if you didn't understand in the first place"; and thirdly, I choose to respond to a part of the post which seemed to me to show that you misunderstand that privilege doesn't apply only to the religious/irreligious arena.  That's the problem with secularism in the context you use it - as the Oxford Dictionary points out - it is limited in its scope to the arena of religion/spirituality.

Definition of secular in English:
adjective

1 Not connected with religious or spiritual matters:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/secular?q=secularism#secular__17

It has other meanings as well - economic, astronomic, ...

If you're so determined fine have it how you like.

I will dump on religious privilege as long as I have the faculties that will enable me to do so, it's an obligation.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Looks like you may have missed sopmething Hope

So, you have no 'evidence to show that there would be no privileged groups in privileged positions in public life under secularism', ippy?

At least it wouldn't be written into the constitution.

The UK has no written Constitution as such.

[Hope]

I will dump on religious privilege as long as I have the faculties that will enable me to do so, it's an obligation.

ippy

You can restrict yourself to that, ippy, if you want.  I would rather 'dump' on privilege in all its forms.

[ippy]

I will dump on religious privilege as long as I have the faculties that will enable me to do so, it's an obligation.

ippy

You can restrict yourself to that, ippy, if you want.  I would rather 'dump' on privilege in all its forms.

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

ippy

[Hope]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

[Leonard James]

I'll be quite happy when the religious are put back into their little boxes where they belong, for starters, after all they are the most widespread offenders when it comes to a privilege here another there, slimy b------s.

I can think of other groups who enjoy far greater privileges than either the Monarchy or the religious.

I can think of six impossible things before breakfast, but how would that change anything?