Shappi Khorsandi new president of the British Humanist Association

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shappi Khorsandi is the new president of British Humanist Association.

She is a writer, broadcaster and comedian.

Apparently she was due to go on stage but couldn't because ''she felt a little funny''.

Her manager apparently told her to get on before it wore off.

[Shaker]

For Christ's sake tell us one we don't know, Vlad!

[SusanDoris]

Interesting info, so I went straight to google to find out more. This page
https://humanism.org.uk/2015/12/14/shappi-khorsandi-named-new-president-of-the-british-humanist-association/
made for a good start to the day!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting info, so I went straight to google to find out more. This page
https://humanism.org.uk/2015/12/14/shappi-khorsandi-named-new-president-of-the-british-humanist-association/
made for a good start to the day!

Why did Jim leave the post of president?

[Hope]

Why did Jim leave the post of president?

It appears from the article that Susan posted that BHA presidents now have time-limited presidencies - of 3 years. 

[SqueakyVoice]

Why did Jim leave the post of president?

Well. Apparently, he was feeling a little funny.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Shappi Khorsandi is the new president of British Humanist Association.

She is a writer, broadcaster and comedian.

Apparently she was due to go on stage but couldn't because ''she felt a little funny''.

Her manager apparently told her to get on before it wore off.

Let's hope she takes it seriously & does not try any of her "jokes".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well. Apparently, he was feeling a little funny.

class comment squeaky.

[Bubbles]

From Susan Doris link

Accepting the appointment, Shappi Khorsandi commented:

‘It’s a great honour to be selected to be the next President of the British Humanist Association. As someone who was raised in a non-religious family, I don’t just believe that human virtues such as love, compassion, generosity, and understanding can exist outside the realm of religion… I know it for a fact. This approach has been hugely fulfilling in my own life, and it’s the ethos behind everything the BHA does – whether campaigning for a pluralistic and cooperative society, offering pastoral care in hospitals, or providing meaningful non-religious ceremonies for baby-namings, funerals, and weddings.

‘I would like every young person growing up with the mainstream liberal non-religious values of today to know that their worldview isn’t second-best or incoherent and that there is a name for it – humanism. I’ve been as excited as everyone else to see the progress made in recent weeks to have the humanist perspective included in the school curriculum alongside religious beliefs and I can’t wait to see how that develops in my three years!

‘This humanist perspective is a profound and inspiring one – and it’s not just a modern perspective. Through the centuries and all around the world, people have looked to reason and to science in place of superstition and sought to make the most out of the one life they have. It’s crucial that this voice is heard. The BHA is consistent in its calls for a more tolerant, rational, and above all fairer society, and I hope that I can add to its influence as a positive movement for social change.’

Her background

Born to non-religious parents in Iran, Shappi and her family fled to Britain in her youth after her father, the poet Hadi Khorsandi, was targeted for assassination by Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime after writing a satirical piece about the Islamic Revolution. Growing up in England, Shappi’s childhood was marked by recurrent fears of her father being assassinated, and the family spent time under police protection.

As long as it doesn't come out as anti religion.

It would be incorrect to dismiss all religion as superstitious nonsense IMO.

As long as she remembers that religion can also embody the human virtues such as love, compassion, generosity, and understanding  and it can exist within religion.

[ippy]

From Susan Doris link

Her background

As long as it doesn't come out as anti religion.

It would be incorrect to dismiss all religion as superstitious nonsense IMO.

As long as she remembers that religion can also embody the human virtues such as love, compassion, generosity, and understanding  and it can exist within religion.

Only trouble with that point of view rose is that even here in the UK supposed to be one of the more enlightened parts of this world the religions still have so many little privileges, here and there and all over the place, some other privileges not quite so small, that when each one of them pops up its head each and virtually every challenge to these privileges is seen as another persecution of their beliefs by the followers.

In actual fact even though the largest majority of Secular Humanists and yes it's usually us that challenge religious privilege, the Secular part of our reasoning is still very much for having a level playing field for all, including Secular Humanists, so in the majority of cases where we challenge religion about their privileges, the privileges have been around for such a long time they have become the norm inside the heads of religious believers and it seems to them they are being persecuted or as in your case Rose you think it's Secular Humanists in general being anti religion.

I'd add that from my own point of view where you say, "It would be incorrect to dismiss all religion as superstitious nonsense IMO", what other way can anyone describe our long left over beliefs from our primitive past; even though that's my personal view of religions I still think it's correct and a basic human right that people are entitled to hold these beliefs and I would like to think I would be standing in the front row in protest if the religious were being persecuted for having a belief of their own choice.

You seem to be surprised that so many of us see religions as a somewhat ludicrous way of thinking but even with this, as I see it, a handicap, of course religious believers can also embody the human virtues such as love, compassion, generosity, and understanding  and it can exist within religion and in spite of it.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

In actual fact even though the largest majority of Secular Humanists and yes it's usually us that challenge religious privilege, the Secular part of our reasoning is still very much for having a level playing field for all, including Secular Humanists, so in the majority of cases where we challenge religion about their privileges, the privileges have been around for such a long time they have become the norm inside the heads of religious believers and it seems to them they are being persecuted or as in your case Rose you think it's Secular Humanists in general being anti religion.

Religious privilege, one of those is the Bishops in the House of Lords, CoE, yes?

Now correct me if I am wrong but these Bishops are the ones in charge of half way houses, drug rehab centres, homeless facilities, feeding the poor, helping the aged, the list is endless, now I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the secular human if he/she is saying this is not a Church problem but a society as a whole problem, but I will not protest against Bishops in the House of Lords until we all tackle the above problems, until we all tell the government that these problems are your problems our problems.

I say shut up about Bishops and start joining the many unsung heroes who daily cope with the poor hungry and less privileged members of our society.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only trouble with that point of view rose is that even here in the UK supposed to be one of the more enlightened parts of this world the religions still have so many little privileges, here and there and all over the place, some other privileges not quite so small, that when each one of them pops up its head each and virtually every challenge to these privileges is seen as another persecution of their beliefs by the followers.

In actual fact even though the largest majority of Secular Humanists and yes it's usually us that challenge religious privilege, the Secular part of our reasoning is still very much for having a level playing field for all, including Secular Humanists, so in the majority of cases where we challenge religion about their privileges, the privileges have been around for such a long time they have become the norm inside the heads of religious believers and it seems to them they are being persecuted or as in your case Rose you think it's Secular Humanists in general being anti religion.

I'd add that from my own point of view where you say, "It would be incorrect to dismiss all religion as superstitious nonsense IMO", what other way can anyone describe our long left over beliefs from our primitive past; even though that's my personal view of religions I still think it's correct and a basic human right that people are entitled to hold these beliefs and I would like to think I would like to be standing in the front row in protest if the religious were being persecuted for having a belief of their own choice.

You seem to be surprised that so many of us see religions as a somewhat ludicrous way of thinking but even with this, as I see it, a handicap, of course religious believers can also embody the human virtues such as love, compassion, generosity, and understanding  and it can exist within religion and in spite of it.

ippy

It's a secular country Ippy therefore this is all about removal of any representation of a non secular humanist point of view. I would make Copson, Sanderson and Dawkins et al Lords aspiritual though just to take the wind out of your sails.

[ippy]

It's a secular country Ippy therefore this is all about removal of any representation of a non secular humanist point of view. I would make Copson, Sanderson and Dawkins et al Lords aspiritual though just to take the wind out of your sails.

Ay ay Vlad, you do keep forgetting to put your glasses on, before you're reading anything. Now go and get your reading glasses, they might be on your head and you've forgotten, now assuming you've found your glasses here you are read it again, as follows:

" I'd add that from my own point of view where you say, "It would be incorrect to dismiss all religion as superstitious nonsense IMO", what other way can anyone describe our long left over beliefs from our primitive past; even though that's my personal view of religions I still think it's correct and a basic human right that people are entitled to hold these beliefs and I would like to think I would be standing in the front row in protest if the religious were being persecuted for having a belief of their own choice".

Better?

ippy

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Religious privilege, one of those is the Bishops in the House of Lords, CoE, yes?

Now correct me if I am wrong but these Bishops are the ones in charge of half way houses, drug rehab centres, homeless facilities, feeding the poor, helping the aged, the list is endless, now I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the secular human if he/she is saying this is not a Church problem but a society as a whole problem, but I will not protest against Bishops in the House of Lords until we all tackle the above problems, until we all tell the government that these problems are your problems our problems.

I say shut up about Bishops and start joining the many unsung heroes who daily cope with the poor hungry and less privileged members of our society.

Gonnagle.

How would getting rid of seats, as of right, for bishops in the house of lords prevent them from doing the things you tell me they are doing?

Just for the record Gonners, I can't think of any good reason why a bishop shouldn't have a seat in the house of lords provided he or she went through an exactly similar method of selection as any other person, after all they're only doing something called being a bishop and that's no more or any less of a job than many others do for a living.

ippy

[Outrider]

It's a secular country Ippy therefore this is all about removal of any representation of a non secular humanist point of view.

Is it? The head of state is also the head of an established church and we have reserved positions in the government for officials from that established church.

There might be grounds for it being a secular country, there might be a general sense that it's a secular culture, but it's not legally a secular country in its entirety (the nature of the established church in Scotland complicates things, but just the existence of an established church in Scotland puts pay to the idea that the country is secular).

I'm curious as to how many times the idea of secularism needs to be explained to you before you realise that reserving viewpoints to one source - humanism, say - is the antithesis of secularism. The point of secularism isn't to eliminate religious viewpoints, it's to eliminate the reserved status of particular elements exclusively for religious viewpoints in the absence of similar status for other view.

Religious people are in the Commons, religious people are sitting in the Lords in chairs that aren't reserved for the Lords Spiritual - no-one is 'banning' religion via secularism.

I would make Copson, Sanderson and Dawkins et al Lords aspiritual though just to take the wind out of your sails.

Would you? As a secularist, I'd wind up the House of Lords and implement an elected upper chamber, personally, but to each their own I suppose.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Church of Scotland isn't established.

[Shaker]

Church of Scotland isn't established.

And hasn't been in ages.

Or Wales.

[Outrider]

Church of Scotland isn't established.

I knew that Scotland was different, didn't bother look up up exactly how - principle still stands, though.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I knew that Scotland was different, didn't bother look up up exactly how - principle still stands, though.

O.

Does it? Not really clear what the principle is. That the Kirk isn't established surely means that you cannot argue that Scotland isn't secular because of it? You can make another argument but not on that principle.

[Outrider]

Does it? Not really clear what the principle is. That the Kirk isn't established surely means that you cannot argue that Scotland isn't secular because of it? You can make another argument but not on that principle.

The point remains that:

a) the established church in England, the head of state's status as head of that church and the presence of reserved seats for that established church in the parliament mean that Britain isn't a 'secular' country

b) the fact that there are not established churches in Scotland or Wales, and that the head of state is not the head of those churches, and they don't have reserved seats in the parliament gives grounds for suggesting that there is a cultural push towards secularism.

O.

[jeremyp]

Does it? Not really clear what the principle is. That the Kirk isn't established surely means that you cannot argue that Scotland isn't secular because of it? You can make another argument but not on that principle.

Scotland isn't secular. The House of Lords still has some jurisdiction over it and the House of Lords has several CofE bishops in it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Scotland isn't secular.

..........Jeremy can still smell religion.