BBC 1 TV News at 1300 today.

[ippy]

Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.

It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed with religion.

ippy

[floo]

Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.

It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed wit religion.

ippy

I heard that on the BBC lunchtime news!

[Red Giant]

Where are the other half hiding?

[john]

That means that the other half are religious!

Sounds a suspiciously very high number to me.

[ippy]

That means that the other half are religious!

Sounds a suspiciously very high number to me.

I see you're a maha, maters, you do clever things with numbers.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.

It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed with religion.

ippy

You are kidding, of course.  YOU are the one obsessed, as I've pointed out so often.  It just shows how far you are divorced from reality!   

[ippy]

You are kidding, of course.  YOU are the one obsessed, as I've pointed out so often.  It just shows how far you are divorced from reality!   

Sounds like you've seen Elvis again BA, where was he this time?

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Sounds like you've seen Elvis again BA, where was he this time?

ippy

Come on, try and think of something original.  You've been saying the same for years:  it wasn't an original thought of yours when you first used it, some time in 1981!

[ippy]

Come on, try and think of something original.  You've been saying the same for years:  it wasn't an original thought of yours when you first used it, some time in 1981!

Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!

ippy

Well that may not be so beneficial to you, if the majority are anything like the atheists and camp-followers on this forum!

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!

"Religious" is the weasel word there: how is it defined exactly? As I understand it, it includes anyone who vaguely thinks there must be "something" out there and self-identify as such, whereas those who - for example - attend churches of the various Christian denominations on a regular basis actually constitute only about 5% of the population. Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ippy,

"Religious" is the weasel word there: how is it defined exactly? As I understand it, it includes anyone who vaguely thinks there must be "something" out there and self-identify as such, whereas those who - for example - attend churches of the various Christian denominations on a regular basis actually constitute only about 5% of the population. Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me.

Everybody should have access to the public square otherwise it isn't public......
Don't be so silly.

[ippy]

Everybody should have access to the public square otherwise it isn't public......
Don't be so silly.

I really do agree with you Vlad, as long as no one group has any kind of privileged access to the public square.

ippy
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I really do agree with you Vlad, as long as no one group has any kind of privileged access to the public square.

ippy

As if the middle class cognoscenti secular humanist establishment are going to surrender their privileged access.......................

[Shaker]

As if the middle class cognoscenti secular humanist establishment are going to surrender their privileged access.......................

So privileged that they're barred from Remembrance Day events, indeed

[ippy]

ippy,

"Religious" is the weasel word there: how is it defined exactly? As I understand it, it includes anyone who vaguely thinks there must be "something" out there and self-identify as such, whereas those who - for example - attend churches of the various Christian denominations on a regular basis actually constitute only about 5% of the population. Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me.

Yes, a weasel word, weaseling and the churches, remember Barbara Smokers debaptism certificates, the church doesn't like them very much because the church was using the numbers of those baptised when arguing for favour in spite of the large numbers of people that have grown up and rejected any association with the relevant church, weasel, weasel, weasel it's something these churches specialise in, a little favour here another little favour there, they all add up and don't they know it?   

I think underhanded would be another accurate description of them.

ippy

[ippy]

So privileged that they're barred from Remembrance Day events, indeed

Yes Shakes it's not even as though it's a case of not being invited, non-religious representation is barred just as you say. (50% of the population not represented, it's a disgrace).

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

As if the middle class cognoscenti secular humanist establishment are going to surrender their privileged access.......................

What privilege?!?

Explain to me where some secular humanist group has privileges akin to:

1. Faith schools, paid for entirely (bar the loose change) from the public purse yet run by religious organisation and able to discriminate on the basis of children's (or rather their parents) religious faith.

2. Guaranteed places in parliament for two dozen of their senior leadership, akin to the CofE Bishops.

3. Opt outs to all sorts of equalities legislation allowing discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexuality that would land a humanist organisation in the courts before you could say 'religious privilege'.

4. Preferential treatment by the Charities Commission so that they don't have to apply for charitable status until their income twenty times higher than for other charities - as is the case for most churches under the excepted charities privilege.

etc, etc.

Nope there are no privileges for secular humanist organisations or secular humanists - they are treated the same as everyone else ... except many religious organisations and their followers who are given special privileges.

[BashfulAnthony]

Yes Shakes it's not even as though it's a case of not being invited, non-religious representation is barred just as you say. (50% of the population not represented, it's a disgrace).

ippy

As I've said before, if all you want to go for is to be part of the "official" parties, then you are going for the wrong reason.  Look elsewhere for your ego massage.  I remember, and pray for those men, and women, and I don't have to be there:  and I can do it any and every day.

[Shaker]

As I've said before, if all you want to go for is to be part of the "official" parties, then you are going for the wrong reason.  Look elsewhere for your ego massage.  I remember, and pray for those men, and women, and I don't have to be there:  and I can do it any and every day.

It has nothing to do with an ego massage; it's all about equal representation. Fairness, in other words.

[BashfulAnthony]

It has nothing to do with an ego massage; it's all about equal representation. Fairness, in other words.

There are plenty who would like to be there and are not invited.  So what?

[Shaker]

There are plenty who would like to be there and are not invited.  So what?

Such as? If they want to be and are not, why not?

[ippy]

As I've said before, if all you want to go for is to be part of the "official" parties, then you are going for the wrong reason.  Look elsewhere for your ego massage.  I remember, and pray for those men, and women, and I don't have to be there:  and I can do it any and every day.

Clueless BA.

Half of the countries families don't see any respect given to their heros that gave their lives, if you think it's enough to see a group of frock wearing prats promoting their nonsense, think again that lot don't even represent a half of us, they certainly don't represent me.

The present arrangements are insulting, big time.

ippy   

[BashfulAnthony]

Such as? If they want to be and are not, why not?

Me.  My grandfather was wounded on the Somme; and many, many of his friends died there.  I am not invited, though my grandfather lost his sanity because of the Great War.

[BashfulAnthony]

Clueless BA.

Half of the countries families don't see any respect given to their heros that gave their lives, if you think it's enough to see a group of frock wearing prats promoting their nonsense, think again that lot don't even represent a half of us, they certainly don't represent me.

The present arrangements are insulting, big time.

ippy   

I suppose there must be a great many of the old soldiers in the parade who are not religious; so just try and show some kind of respect for what it is all about:  and that's not your petty snipes at Religion, but about men who gave their all for this country, and regardless of religious leanings one way or another.  Your stance is a disgrace.  Shame on you!