BBC 1 TV News at 1300 today.

[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!

Much as I see religions as complete and utter nonsense big time, if their representatives were excluded from the national remembrance day ceremony, it would be offensive to me, because of needlessly offending and hurting the feelings of families and friends left behind and I would be the last one to support such an exclusion, if there were such an exclusion.

I would expect very much the same visa versa as it is now where non-religious representatives are banned/excluded from the ceremony.

If you don't see it that way B A, I don't like to think what kind of person that would make you?

ippy

[Sriram]

Half the people may be non religious...but are they also non spiritual?  That is important to know!  Many people could reject religion (mainly Christianity I guess) and take up secular forms of spirituality. 

Secondly, the UK being very small, its growing atheism (even if) need not be of any significance because many large countries like India, America have increasing numbers following either some religion or some form of secular spirituality.  Even in countries like China and Russia where people were largely atheistic, they are now becoming more religious/spiritual.

[Hope]

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

Hi ippy, I didn't see the item either on the 1300 hrs or 1800hrs.  Did they explain what they mean by 'non-religious'?  Have no idea about this particular item, but I have seen and heard articles that used the term to mean 'non-Christian'.  This is a serious query.

[Rhiannon]

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.

I'm sorry to hear that; my family were impacted too. But there are Christians attending the Remembrance Day ceremonies on your behalf. Who is invited to attend on behalf on the non-believers?

[Hope]

That means that the other half are religious!

Sounds a suspiciously very high number to me.

Why, john?  The global figures suggest that religious people make up something like 2/3rds of the population, so why should we in Britain be any different?  Could it be that, despite our much vaunted education system, we are lacking in education in the less concrete aspects of life?  Perhaps it reflects the paucity of Religious Education (eduaction about 'religion', as opposed to a particular religion) in our current curriculum?

[Hope]

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

ippy

Can't say much for his 'clever things with language', ippy   

[Hope]

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

What gives ytou that idea, ippy?  You are the one who seems to start thread after thread about religion and you're the one who seems to think that religion has as much influence as you make out that it does.  As I mentioned in a previous post, the state of religious education (by which I refer to education about the concept) is about as bad as the state of Personal, Health and Social Education - muddled, lacking in cohesion and often taught by people with little or no understanding of the issue.

[Hope]

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!

If that reducing number is becoming increasingly active within society, ippy, your 'oh dear' may be premature.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

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

Once again you confuse the right to speak with the right to be listened to. With respect to religious beliefs no-one is objecting to the former, but some of us object to the latter.

[Hope]

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.

Could it be that they demand that access because it is a human right, bhs?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Half the people may be non religious...but are they also non spiritual?  That is important to know!  Many people could reject religion (mainly Christianity I guess) and take up secular forms of spirituality. 

Secondly, the UK being very small, its growing atheism (even if) need not be of any significance because many large countries like India, America have increasing numbers following either some religion or some form of secular spirituality.  Even in countries like China and Russia where people were largely atheistic, they are now becoming more religious/spiritual.

You'll have to tell us what you mean by "spiritual" here. In my experience, people who utter stupidities like "everything happens for a reason" to gullible young women in bars also tend to call themselves "spiritual". Is that the kind of thing you mean?

[Rhiannon]

Could it be that they demand that access because it is a human right, bhs?

I don't see that works given that Christians demand this 'right' mainly so that they can control the rights of others, assisted dying being an obvious example.

[Hope]

Once again you confuse the right to speak with the right to be listened to. With respect to religious beliefs no-one is objecting to the former, but some of us object to the latter.

Not sure how many Christians there are in the Houses of Parliament, bhs, let alone how many 'people of faith' in general, but surely if 1/2 the population is religious - as this latest report implies - surely 1/2 the representatives in the HoP should be people of faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Why, john?  The global figures suggest that religious people make up something like 2/3rds of the population, so why should we in Britain be any different?

Education. The more educated the population, the less the need to reach for superstition to explain the universe. 

Could it be that, despite our much vaunted education system, we are lacking in education in the less concrete aspects of life?

In my view, yes. If it were up to me I'd introduce philosophy at the primary school stage.   

Perhaps it reflects the paucity of Religious Education (eduaction about 'religion', as opposed to a particular religion) in our current curriculum?

No. It just reflects the realisation that the predominant religious beliefs of your own society are no less daft than the predominant religious beliefs of other societies.

[Hope]

I don't see that works given that Christians demand this 'right' mainly so that they can control the rights of others, assisted dying being an obvious example.

Sorry, Rhi, but there are many people within British society who have disagreed with the different assisted dying bills, whilst there are many, including Christians, who agree with the principle.  Often, as was the recent case with the Welfare Bill that the HoL asked the Government to reconsider, MPs may consider the view of the majority without properly considering the views of the often already disadvantaged minority.  If a Bishop stands up and speaks on their behalf, isn't that a good thing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Could it be that they demand that access because it is a human right, bhs?

No. The demand to be listened to by right is not a human right.

[Hope]

Education. The more educated the population, the less the need to reach for superstition to explain the universe. 

Religion, bhs, is usually much greater than that small element.  As has been said many times before, one doesn't have to be a creationist to be religious, whilst science doesn't even claim to be able to answer many fundamental questions about reality.

[Hope]

Hope,

No. The demand to be listened to by right is not a human right.

I'm not so sure, bhs.  Or are you suggesting that the disadvantaged, the marginalised and the poor have no right to be listened to?

[Gordon]

As has been said many times before, one doesn't have to be a creationist to be religious, whilst science doesn't even claim to be able to answer many fundamental questions about reality.

What questions would these be?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Not sure how many Christians there are in the Houses of Parliament, bhs, let alone how many 'people of faith' in general, but surely if 1/2 the population is religious - as this latest report implies - surely 1/2 the representatives in the HoP should be people of faith.

Lots, but the point rather is that 26 bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords because they are bishops.

And you're playing fast and loose here with the term "religious". If you go by church attendance, about 1m a week go which is about 1.5% of the population. You get a much bigger number of course if you ask how many self identify as vaguely thinking there's something "out there", but that's hardly an argument for aligning that belief with the suites of beliefs of the bishops.   

[Shaker]

Why, john?  The global figures suggest that religious people make up something like 2/3rds of the population, so why should we in Britain be any different?

Fallacy of composition. What is the case for the whole doesn't imply that it's true of part of that whole - as in this case, given that multiple polls and surveys show Britain to be one of the least religious nations in the world.

[Hope]

Fallacy of composition. What is the case of the whole doesn't imply that it's true of part of that whole - as in this case, given that multiple polls and surveys show Britain to be one of the least religious nations in the world.

Suggesting, perhaps, that the British population are one of the nations least in touch with reality?

[Shaker]

Suggesting, perhaps, that the British population are one of the nations least in touch with reality?

No, exactly the opposite in fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Religion, bhs, is usually much greater than that small element.  As has been said many times before, one doesn't have to be a creationist to be religious, whilst science doesn't even claim to be able to answer many fundamental questions about reality.

Of course there's a spectrum of religious beliefs, but science has a much better track record of answering "the fundamental questions about reality" than anything else we have, and seems likely to be able to do so in the future pending someone ever coming up with a working method to validate the faith claims of religion. 

[Shaker]

What questions would these be?

And why does the ability to frame a question entail that there's actually an answer to it?