Secularism and tolerance go hand in hand

[Shaker]

Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.

Surely not even you could suggest that were the trifling privileges mentioned be removed
everybody will be on a living wage etc, etc, etc.

[Shaker]

Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.

Surely not even you could suggest that were the trifling privileges mentioned be removed
everybody will be on a living wage etc, etc, etc.

No, the things are entirely separate, distinct and discrete.

Would removal of HoL bishops, disestablishment of the C of E - full secularism in other words - guarantee a living wage for those at the bottom of the pile and an end to the persecution of the physically and/or mentally ill (principally by that alleged Catholic, Iain Duncan Smith, so passionately and articulately, even I would say fiercely challenged and criticised by other Catholics)?

No.

Would it make, over all, for a fairer, more just and egalitarian society? I say yes. An end to entirely unwarranted, unjustified and indefensible privileges is not what I regard as trifling. As I think Nearly Sane (not sure; dredging the memory here) said only the other day with regard to America's explicitly secularist Constitution, you have to stand up for the smaller examples in order to defend the greater overarching principles.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.

Surely not even you could suggest that were the trifling privileges mentioned be removed
everybody will be on a living wage etc, etc, etc.

No, the things are entirely separate, distinct and discrete.

Would removal of HoL bishops, disestablishment of the C of E - full secularism in other words - guarantee a living wage for those at the bottom of the pile and an end to the persecution of the physically and/or mentally ill (principally by that alleged Catholic, Iain Duncan Smith, so passionately and articulately, even I would say fiercely challenged and criticised by other Catholics)?

No.

Would it make, over all, for a fairer, more just and egalitarian society? I say yes. An end to entirely unwarranted, unjustified and indefensible privileges is not what I regard as trifling. As I think Nearly Sane (not sure; dredging the memory here) said only the other day with regard to America's explicitly secularist Constitution, you have to stand up for the smaller examples in order to defend the greater overarching principles.

I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentried, non political but more pastoral aspects of life and therefore more than warranted, justifiable and indeed defensible.

Is there much evidence that increased secularism isn't concomitant with increased antitheism and
increased acquisitive materialism?

[Shaker]

I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentried, non political but more pastoral aspects of life and therefore more than warranted, justifiable and indeed defensible.

In a capitalist society there is no such thing as "non-economic."

If you think that HoL bishops represent anything "non-gentried, non-political" you don't know much about the history of Christianity in Britain.

Is there much evidence that increased secularism isn't concomitant with increased antitheism and
increased acquisitive materialism?

I don't share your monomaniacal obsession with anti-theism so am not bothered about that. Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentried, non political but more pastoral aspects of life and therefore more than warranted, justifiable and indeed defensible.

In a capitalist society there is no such thing as "non-economic."

If you think that HoL bishops represent anything "non-gentried, non-political" you don't know much about the history of Christianity in Britain.

Is there much evidence that increased secularism isn't concomitant with increased antitheism and
increased acquisitive materialism?

I don't share your monomaniacal obsession with anti-theism so am not bothered about that. Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?
2: Yes Bishops were gentrified in History but then so were the gentry and you seem to have no problem with that. That was though History and we can be assured that todays Lords spiritual are indeed lords pastoral.
3: Do you honestly still think the UK will get a high standard of living all round, more social liberalism. a strong welfare state and high levels of donation to what are now deemed as parasites on society if there were no episcopal presence.....................

[Shaker]

1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?

Secularism doesn't entail that religion is "out of the public forum." With regard to England specifically (Wales and Scotland having seen sense long ago) it means or would mean that not Christianity, not even Protestant Christianity, not even Anglican Protestant Christianity but the Church of England specifically would have no greater or lesser share of the public forum pie than Wicca or Satanism. I'm very happy with that. Have a table big enough to have everyone at the table, or take a chainsaw to the table and don't even pretend to bother with the concept of tables.

2: Yes Bishops were gentrified in History but then so were the gentry and you seem to have no problem with that.

What on earth gives you that entirely false impression?

3: Do you honestly still think the UK will get a high standard of living all round, more social liberalism. a strong welfare state and high levels of donation to what are now deemed as parasites on society if there were no episcopal presence.....................

A question you've asked before which I've answered before in #29.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?

Secularism doesn't entail that religion is "out of the public forum." With regard to England specifically (Wales and Scotland having seen sense long ago) it means or would mean that not Christianity, not even Protestant Christianity, not even Anglican Protestant Christianity but the Church of England specifically would have no greater or lesser share of the public forum pie than Wicca or Satanism. I'm very happy with that. Have a table big enough to have everyone at the table, or take a chainsaw to the table and don't even pretend to bother.

2: Yes Bishops were gentrified in History but then so were the gentry and you seem to have no problem with that.

What on earth gives you that entirely false impression?

3: Do you honestly still think the UK will get a high standard of living all round, more social liberalism. a strong welfare state and high levels of donation to what are now deemed as parasites on society if there were no episcopal presence.....................

A question you've asked before which I've answered before in #29.

If Christianity had ''equal shares'' with Satanism that would not be ''representative'' would it?

I'm all for having a second house done by lot.

[Shaker]

If Christianity had ''equal shares'' with Satanism that would not be ''representative'' would it?

Yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If Christianity had ''equal shares'' with Satanism that would not be ''representative'' would it?

Yes.

Expliquez moi

[Shaker]

Pas de probleme.

Have everybody, or have nobody. There are Christians (I mean actual ones - believing, practising ones and not nominal, pissed-up-on-Christmas-Eve, bloody-hell-is-it-the-census-again, tick-the-box-because-I-was-baptised Christians) and there are Satanists. And Sikhs. And Wiccans. And Jains. And Heathens. And Zoroastrians.

I can't think of any argument based on sheer numbers for excluding any group from equal consideration and representation.

[Hope]

Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture ...

Do we, Shaker?  Even if the number of professing atheists is at the 51% of the population as some have quoted over the months, I'm not sure that the term 'predominantly' is quite the right term to use.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'predominantly' means "Mainly; for the most part"

[Hope]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

[Shaker]

Do we, Shaker?

Yes.

Even if the number of professing atheists is at the 51% of the population as some have quoted over the months, I'm not sure that the term 'predominantly' is quite the right term to use.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'predominantly' means "Mainly; for the most part"

Yes, that's the sense in which I understand the word too.

[Shaker]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

You would have to provide some evidence of that.

[Hope]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

You would have to provide some evidence of that.

I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.

-

Wikipedia states that

As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%

a total of 53%.  This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly.  Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK.  Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that).  If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden

[Shaker]

Best of

[jeremyp]

1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?

Same thing as in the UK:  the rule of law.

[jeremyp]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

If that's the case then it gives the lie to the idea that secularism is bad for religion.  You should be advocating a secular society.

[Hope]

If that's the case then it gives the lie to the idea that secularism is bad for religion.  You should be advocating a secular society.

jeremy, if you bother reading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.  I believe that in some ways, that is what is happening in the UK - after all, several so-called supporters of secularism take great pleasure in quoting the growing proportion of atheists in the UK population.  In a truly secular society, the proportion of adherents to this belief system against that one is irrelevant.

[Shaker]

jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.

Why?

[Hope]

jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.

Why?

Because an atheist society places atheism in a predominant position, thus denying the point of secularism.

[Shaker]

jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.

Why?

Because an atheist society places atheism in a predominant position, thus denying the point of secularism.

I'm very happy with a society that places atheism in a predominant position, but moreover don't see how this denies the point of secularism which is to give precisely equal "airtime" (so to speak) to all religions without fear or favour to any.

I'm not convinced that you know what secularism means. Or atheism, come to that.

[ippy]

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

What would be the point of trying to explain something that you either, really don't want to understand or are unable to understand, I suspect the former.

Read Proff D's post Hope, it's really as simples as he has said.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?

And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.

You would have to provide some evidence of that.

I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.

-

Wikipedia states that

As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%

a total of 53%.  This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly.  Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK.  Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that).  If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden

The most recent and highly respected WIN/Gallup International survey which looks at religiosity across a very large number of countries in the world found Sweden to be one of the very least religious countries, with over 80% saying they are 'not religious' or they are 'convinced atheists'. Only China and Japan of the 65 countries surveyed had a smaller proportion of people who say they are religious.

I gather that regular church attendance in Sweden is estimated (always rather difficult to get definitive figures) to be about 2-3% of the population, so probably a little lower than in the UK.