Secularism and tolerance go hand in hand

[ippy]

I know it's from the NSS but Have they got it wrong?

Make up your own mind from the link below:

secularism.org.uk/blog/2015/07/secularism-and-tolerance-go-hand-in-hand

ippy

[Hope]

Yes, ippy, I think Steven Evans has got it right/wrong - and therein lies the problem.

I have long felt that a lot of social developments have occurred over time that are 'sold' as secularism, but aren't in reality.  At the same time, there have long been attempts by the Church of England (especially) to become less beholden to the secular government, including (as I've noted before) efforts to encourage MPs to agree to disestablishment.

Montgomerie doesn't necessarily speak for the Conservative Party, let alone the Church, as such, he is entitled to speak his mind just as you and I are entitled to question or agree with him.

Finally, I'm unsure about tolerance.  Are we a more tolerant society, or are we all simply less interested in other people and their views and beliefs?

[ippy]

Yes, ippy, I think Steven Evans has got it right/wrong - and therein lies the problem.

I have long felt that a lot of social developments have occurred over time that are 'sold' as secularism, but aren't in reality.  At the same time, there have long been attempts by the Church of England (especially) to become less beholden to the secular government, including (as I've noted before) efforts to encourage MPs to agree to disestablishment.

Montgomerie doesn't necessarily speak for the Conservative Party, let alone the Church, as such, he is entitled to speak his mind just as you and I are entitled to question or agree with him.

Finally, I'm unsure about tolerance.  Are we a more tolerant society, or are we all simply less interested in other people and their views and beliefs?

Secularism is very straight forward it's for the freedom of religion and freedom from religion, end of story how you seem to think there are complications in that beats me?

Is it because so many religious privileges are relatively minor but when added together they hold some considerable weight and this is the real reason people like yourself keep on fluffing about around the edges not wanting to recognise these privileges are even there in the first place.

If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.

The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Loss of privilege, sorry not read your link ( no access on my phone ) but a question.

The big three I know of, CoE, CoS and the RC, should they have any privilege, given the fact that our welfare, NHS, would suffer big time without the aboves intervention.

Now please remember I am asking, I don't know.

Gonnagle.

[DaveM]

If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.

The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.

ippy

There never was any official state church in this country, but during the time of apartheid there was essentially an equivalent de facto relationship between the government and what was probably the largest Protestant denomination.  And that church was ineffective, largely ignored and bleeding members at that time.

Since 1994 when it became free from the need to represent 'the apartheid government at prayer' the transformation in that church had been nothing short of amazing.  It is now a powerful force for good in this country.

I suspect if your country went fully secular tomorrow it would produce a one day shock wave.  And then, horror of horrors, you could well find a new, re-energised church emerging which might just truly make waves in transforming the Christian landscape of Britain. 

[Hope]

Secularism is very straight forward it's for the freedom of religion and freedom from religion, end of story how you seem to think there are complications in that beats me?

As you say, secularism is very straight forward until it is used as a cover for politically-correct ideas.

Is it because so many religious privileges are relatively minor but when added together they hold some considerable weight and this is the real reason people like yourself keep on fluffing about around the edges not wanting to recognise these privileges are even there in the first place.

I have noticed that you seem very keen on the privileges that some religious people have in this country.

If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.

Actually, apart from Anglicans in England (the Church of England), many religious people in the UK would find themselves losing very few, if any, privileges.  After all, most such people have no more privileges than their non-religious compatriots.

The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.

OK, perhaps you can list what privileges a Baptist, Hindu, Jedi, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, Muslim, Pentecostalist, Roman Catholic, Sikh (to list but a few) have that the general public don't?

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Loss of privilege, sorry not read your link ( no access on my phone ) but a question.

The big three I know of, CoE, CoS and the RC, should they have any privilege, given the fact that our welfare, NHS, would suffer big time without the aboves intervention.

Now please remember I am asking, I don't know.

Gonnagle.

Since a secularist state wouldn't be interfering with any of the operational processes of your big three, they wouldn't be required to disappear.

The religious can help with the NHS or do welfare work to their hearts content only it would have to be  without any state support or funding, like for instance hospital chaplains would have to be funded by whatever denomination they represented, not the state, I doubt anybody would want them to go, including myself; it's only that they would no longer be in receipt of any kind of state funding.

Like every secularist I know of; we all support your right to have the freedom to follow any religion of choice.

ippy

 

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Hospital Chaplains!! Sorry but I am talking about foot soldiers, feeding the poor, visiting the elderly, dealing with alcoholics, kids who live in poverty, battered wives, battered husband's, adoption, retreats for carers, carers, the list is endless, yes endless!!

Just asking

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Hospital Chaplains!! Sorry but I am talking about foot soldiers, feeding the poor, visiting the elderly, dealing with alcoholics, kids who live in poverty, battered wives, battered husband's, adoption, retreats for carers, carers, the list is endless, yes endless!!

Just asking

Gonnagle.

Little muddled there Goners, I get the impression that you haven't got the faintest idea of what secularism is all about.

As far as I know religious bodies are free to do any kind of charitable work they want to, your post suggests that a secularist state would want to shut all of the present religion based charities down? If that is what you are thinking it might be best if you left the subject alone until after you have done some serious reading up of all you can find about what secularism actually is and what it stands for.

If you do read up about secularism and manage to get a full understanding of the subject, perhaps it might help if you could pass any books about it on to Hope he has the same trouble that you appear to have.

ippy

 

[Hope]

The religious can help with the NHS or do welfare work to their hearts content only it would have to be  without any state support or funding, like for instance hospital chaplains would have to be funded by whatever denomination they represented, not the state, I doubt anybody would want them to go, including myself; it's only that they would no longer be in receipt of any kind of state funding.

Oddly enough, many religious charities are supported by the state on the grounds that they do work that a local authority should be doing but doesn't/can't, and with no reference to their religious background.  However, rarely are they supported by the state 100% - which isn't always the case with non-religious charities.

I understand that should a law be introduced to ban the state from supporting religious charities, there would probably be a court case based on discrimination - different organisations doing similar, perhaps even identical, work being treated differently.

[Hope]

If you do read up about secularism and manage to get a full understanding of the subject, perhaps it might help if you could pass any books about it on to Hope he has the same trouble that you appear to have.

Gonners, it would be worth passing it on to ippy, as he seems to have some weird ideas about secularism as well.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Well  ippy is right, I am a bit muddled over what secularism is,  but he has not answered my question.

Never mind, maybe ippy is looking for a career in politics.

Dear ippy,

Sorry in case you forgot, privilege is the question, not what secularism is.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.

The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.

ippy

There never was any official state church in this country, but during the time of apartheid there was essentially an equivalent de facto relationship between the government and what was probably the largest Protestant denomination.  And that church was ineffective, largely ignored and bleeding members at that time.

Since 1994 when it became free from the need to represent 'the apartheid government at prayer' the transformation in that church had been nothing short of amazing.  It is now a powerful force for good in this country.

I suspect if your country went fully secular tomorrow it would produce a one day shock wave.  And then, horror of horrors, you could well find a new, re-energised church emerging which might just truly make waves in transforming the Christian landscape of Britain.

I can see where you're coming from DM, you give me the impression that you think we might follow the US example/model if we were lucky enough to become a fully secular state.

Well of course I don't know what your connection is with the UK or if there is any connection other than the usual sources; but although we share a common language with the Americans but they are still very foreign in lots of their ways to us here in the UK, if the religionists were to try their ludicrous TV stuff here, you would probably hear the laughter all the way down there in SA.

At the moment here if you can imagine one of those sometimes flat line screens where it can be a wavy line, well the wavy line would be approximately centre slightly above and below the line that's how it is here at the moment with the religious believers and the non-religious, I don't think that compares with the States just for starters.

Generally here at the moment is how the religious even some you would think have a bit more savvy than most really don't understand secularism and I get the feeling if you were to put them on a six year intensive course about the subject they still wouldn't get it.

We already have secular states here in Europe and even so there is nothing similar happening in them that even faintly resembles the US or your description of how religion has developed in SA either.

ippy

[ippy]

Dear Hope,

Well  ippy is right, I am a bit muddled over what secularism is,  but he has not answered my question.

Never mind, maybe ippy is looking for a career in politics.

Dear ippy,

Sorry in case you forgot, privilege is the question, not what secularism is.

Gonnagle.

Well Gonners amongst other things secularism is against privileges like:The bishops in the Lords

Chancery legislation

Tax relief for places of worship, council tax relief for the same

The religious invited to the Remembrance Day Ceremony 11-11, non-religious representation denied

The religious are allowed to discriminate with employment legally at denominational schools

Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing

There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).

There's plenty.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Thankyou for that clarification, so they don't deal in feeding the poor, fighting poverty, no thought for, there for the grace of, oh sorry you don't believe in God.

Anyway, how does secularism fight greed!!

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Hope,

Well  ippy is right, I am a bit muddled over what secularism is,  but he has not answered my question.

Never mind, maybe ippy is looking for a career in politics.

Dear ippy,

Sorry in case you forgot, privilege is the question, not what secularism is.

Gonnagle.

Well Gonners amongst other things secularism is against privileges like:The bishops in the Lords

Chancery legislation

Tax relief for places of worship, council tax relief for the same

The religious invited to the Remembrance Day Ceremony 11-11, non-religious representation denied

The religious are allowed to discriminate with employment legally at denominational schools

Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing

There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).

There's plenty.

ippy

I agree such privileges should be extended to explicitly atheist organisations.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Yes ippster, your secularism is working well in France. Muslim girls dropping out of school or attending makeshift Muslim schools because they are banned from wearing head coverings. Yippee for you ippy and your tolerant secularism.

[Hope]

Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing

We've had this debate before, ippy, and as I said then, of all the hospital chaplains I know/have known - numbering in the 70s or 80s - none have been paid for exclusively by the state.  I agree that in some cases, their pay has been subsidised by the state - and I think the biggest proportion I know of is 50%, but since they work with patients who are neither Christian or even religious - as well as Christian patients - I see nothing wrong with that.  After all, they are often employed by the local health board/authority.  That is not a privilege; that is a pragmatic use of money, or are you suggesting that they ought to do what may be a full-time job as an unpaid volunteer?

There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).

The only such examples I know of are councils who run a school bus service and service all the schools in their area.

[ippy]

Thank all for illustrating my point so well.

Ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear ippy,

Hospital Chaplains!! Sorry but I am talking about foot soldiers, feeding the poor, visiting the elderly, dealing with alcoholics, kids who live in poverty, battered wives, battered husband's, adoption, retreats for carers, carers, the list is endless, yes endless!!

Just asking

Gonnagle.

But Gonners there is no evidence that religious people in the UK are more likely to engage in voluntary work than non religious people. There have been several studies looking at this and the proportion of people volunteering either in a formal way (e.g. through engagement ipwith a charitable organisation, which might be a church) or an informal manner (e.g. giving a lift to an elderly person to hospital appointments etc) is basically identical between the religious and non religious within the population.

But of course none of that is relevant to secularism - religious people will be able to engage in voluntary good work if they choose under a secular society exactly as they do so today. Secularism would simply ensure that they don't receive some specifical privilege as a religious people that isn't a available to the non religious or to people of another religion.

Simples.

[Hope]

But of course none of that is relevant to secularism - religious people will be able to engage in voluntary good work if they choose under a secular society exactly as they do so today. Secularism would simply ensure that they don't receive some specifical privilege as a religious people that isn't a available to the non religious or to people of another religion.

And, from a volunteer's pov, just what are those privileges that you believe they currently enjoy?

[Hope]

Thank all for illustrating my point so well.

Ippy

And what was that point, ippy?  Several of the posts that precede this one of yours seem to disagree with your pov

[Hope]

OK, let's look at these a little more carefully:

Well Gonners amongst other things secularism is against privileges like:The bishops in the Lords

The vast majority of religious people here in the UK are not represented by anyone in the House of Commons or Lords in this way.  In fact, not even all the Anglicans in the UK are!!  I think that you needd to be a little less generalistic, ippy.

Chancery legislation

Perhaps you could expand on this since Chancery legislation covers such a huge number of issues.

Tax relief for places of worship, council tax relief for the same

There are plenty of organisations which qualify for tax reliefs; why should religious ones be picked on particularly?

The religious invited to the Remembrance Day Ceremony 11-11, non-religious representation denied

I'll give you this one, though things are changing as far as I'm aware.

The religious are allowed to discriminate with employment legally at denominational schools

This is a very fine distinction, ippy.  The most they are able to discrimate in is by requiring applicants to agree with the ethical position of the school.  They are not allowed to specify that an applicant must share the faith position of the school (though I think this may not apply in Muslim and Jewish schools)

Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing

There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).

Covered in a previous post

[Gonnagle]

Dear Prof,

If you note from my posts on this thread, I am asking, I am not arguing for or against, simply enquiring.

Should we have Bishops in the House of Lords, my gut instinct says no, but the amount of good works done by the CoE could warrant that, but then maybe we should have a rep for the Salvation Army in the House of Lords.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Prof,

If you note from my posts on this thread, I am asking, I am not arguing for or against, simply enquiring.

Should we have Bishops in the House of Lords, my gut instinct says no, but the amount of good works done by the CoE could warrant that, but then maybe we should have a rep for the Salvation Army in the House of Lords.

Gonnagle.

Secularism is the state isn't it? And right now the state's definition of good works is radically different from the church's. How therefore can a secular replacement for church charity possibly replace it?