Christians outnumbered by people with no religion, report by senior lecturer

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With regard to opposite-sex marriage specifically or rather religious provisions thereof, that came to an end on January 1st 1837 with the introduction of secular civil marriage as per the Marriages Act 1836. The fact that a couple can get married with no religious element or trappings is all down to that.

They still try to stick their oar in given half a chance, though, even now. As with marriage equality, for example, which despite their beloved quadruple lock they wanted to prohibit even though it referred only to civil marriages and was thus none of their business.

Maybe you could just have said ''there is no oppressive tyranny of the Bishops''

[Shaker]

Maybe you could just have said ''there is no oppressive tyranny of the Bishops''

I said what I meant - that if they see a chance to impose their religion on those who don't follow it, they'll likely take it.

Here's that salient bit again:

They still try to stick their oar in given half a chance, though, even now. As with marriage equality, for example, which despite their beloved quadruple lock they wanted to prohibit even though it referred only to civil marriages and was thus none of their business.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said what I meant - that if they see a chance to impose their religion on those who don't follow it, they'll likely take it.

Here's that salient bit again:

If it was about a change in the law of course it's their business.

Good to see though your conversion to absolute morality

[Shaker]

If it was about a change in the law of course it's their business.

Why should it be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should it be?

Because they have a view of what marriage is and are required to express that in debate.

I think you are letting your inner totalitarian out a bit.

[Shaker]

Because they have a view of what marriage is and are required to express that in debate.

That view is based on religious beliefs which, we know, are shared by a small minority of the population. Having a view is one thing; why should it - and it's a minority view, you'll recall - be used to deny civil rights to a segment of the population?

The whole idea of automatic religious representation in legislature is farcical. That it comes from the unelected pushes it into sitcom territory. England and Iran are the only two countries in the world who have clerics in the legislature as of right, and that's not good company to be in.

I think you are letting your inner totalitarian out a bit.

It's my not very inner secularist, actually.

It's not my fault that you think they're the same thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That view is based on religious beliefs which, we know, are shared by a small minority of the population. Having a view is one thing; why should it - and it's a minority view, you'll recall - be used to deny civil rights to a segment of the population?

The whole idea of automatic religious representation in legislature is farcical.

We know it's a minority view and that maybe is why the Lords spiritual were defeated. My point is you cannot argue or knock on the door of arguing that the Lords spiritual represent oppressive tyranny and trumpet the march of secularism humanism.....

In terms of religious representation I think the idea was to have spiritual representation and back then that meant the C of E. By spiritual we mean something other than material privilege or material commerce or capital and labour.

In view of that I would include the chief rabbi, imams, Gurus and Give the ermine to Messrs Dawkins, Copson and Terry, Keith, Sashi and of course Jim and chuck in Rhiannon and Bluehillside for good measure.

[ProfessorDavey]

We know it's a minority view and that maybe is why the Lords spiritual were defeated. My point is you cannot argue or knock on the door of arguing that the Lords spiritual represent oppressive tyranny and trumpet the march of secularism humanism.....

Oh yes, of course you are right ... because while there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are 27 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the British Humanist Society and National Secular Society.

Hmm, wait a minute - nope that's not correct is it. While there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are exactly zero members of the Lords automatically appointed due to their leasing role in any organisation that specifically promotes Secularism or Humanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh yes, of course you are right ... because while there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are 27 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the British Humanist Society and National Secular Society.

Hmm, wait a minute - nope that's not correct is it. While there are 26 members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to the Lords by virtue of having a leading role in the Church of England there are exactly zero members of the Lords automatically appointed due to their leasing role in any organisation that specifically promotes Secularism or Humanism.

Please see my update.

[ProfessorDavey]

In view of that I would include the chief rabbi, imams, Gurus and Give the ermine to Messrs Dawkins, Copson and Terry, Keith, Sashi and of course Jim and chuck in Rhiannon and Bluehillside for good measure.

So you would compound the 'wrong' by making it more wrong, noting that most people aren't members of the CofE, a Jewish religious organisation, a member of an Islamic religious organisation, a member of the BHA, NSS etc.

What you do is further compound the error by further distorting membership on the basis that somehow religious and non-religious 'belief'-type organisations should gain special privileges.

It reminds me of a recent panel put together to report on 'Faith in Society' - noting that about 90% of people in society aren't members of a religious organisation and about 99.xxx% aren't members of the NSS. The panel was pretty exclusively composed of senior leaders of organised religions or prominent members of those religions, plus (I think) Copson. So the panel were not representative of about 90% of the population.

What did they conclude - well blow me down - that there should be more prominent role for faith organisation in society - knock me down with a feather. Had the panel been much more representative - perhaps 2 prominent faith leaders, one prominent member of NSS/BHA plus 25 people who aren't actively religious do you think they's have come to the same conclusion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you would compound the 'wring' by making it more wrong, noting that most people aren't members of the CofE, a Jewish religious organisation, a member of an Islamic religious organisation, a member of the BHA, NSS etc.

What you do is further compound the error by further distorting membership on the basis that somehow religious and non-religious 'belief'-type organisations should gain special privileges.

It reminds me of a recent panel put together to report on 'Faith in Society' - noting that about 90% of people in society aren't members of a religious organisation and about 99.xxx% aren't members of the NSS. The panel was pretty exclusively composed of senior leaders of organised religions or prominent members of those religions, plus (I think) Copson. So the panel were not representative of about 90% of the population.

What did they conclude - well blow me down - that there should be more prominent role for faith organisation in society - knock me down with a feather. Had the panel been much more representative - perhaps 2 prominent faith leaders, one prominent member of NSS/BHA plus 25 people who aren't actively religious do you think they's have come to the same conclusion?

The house of Lords is not my preferred model of a second house.
But if there is one I think it is a good idea not just to represent the interests of material in the form of material privilege, entrepreneurship, capital and labour since people are more than these interest groups.

A better system IMHO is a house of representatives who are elected by lot.

[ProfessorDavey]

In view of that I would include the chief rabbi, imams, Gurus and Give the ermine to Messrs Dawkins, Copson and Terry, Keith, Sashi and of course Jim and chuck in Rhiannon and Bluehillside for good measure.

Why stop there - why is it only religions and (what you would probably describe as anti religious organisations) - if you are saying that top members of prominent organisations of importance to (some of, perhaps as little as 1%) the public must automatically be appointed to the Lords (something that only happens for the Bishops) then why not:

Chief execs of all premier league football clubs
COE of RSPB
COE of National Trust
Top bod in the British Angling society
Top bod in all major unions
Chief Scout
Chief Guide
Top bod in British Wildlife trusts
etc etc

All of these have far more members or active supporters than, for example, the organisation lead by the Chief Rabbi.

[ProfessorDavey]

But if there is one I think it is a good idea not just to represent the interests of material in the form of material privilege, entrepreneurship, capital and labour since people are more than these interest groups.

But currently no-one who you might describe as representing 'the interests of material in the form of material privilege, entrepreneurship, capital and labour' are automatically made members of the Lords by virtue of a role in another organisation - not one. The CBI chief doesn't automatically become a Lord, nor does the leaders of Unite the union etc etc.

No the only people who automatically become members of the Lords when they are appointed to a senior position in another organisation are the Bishops.

[ippy]

Just a small thing but adds to the already unjustified position of bishops in the house, don't forget when these bishops retire they're mostly awarded a title and your'd never guess where the title puts them.

Talk about rubbing it in.

ippy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a small thing but adds to the already unjustified position of bishops in the house, don't forget when these bishops retire they're mostly awarded a title and your'd never guess where the title puts them.

Talk about rubbing it in.

ippy

Why should former clergymen et women be barred from becoming peers?

[ippy]

Why should former clergymen et women be barred from becoming peers?

Nobody is as thick as you seem to be pretending you are, Vlad.

Why do you do this, has it got anything to do with the fact that English isn't your first language

ippy

P S Did you get the latest British Social Attitudes Survey figures: 53% Non-religious, 15% Anglican, 9% Catholic, 17% Other christians and 6% Other, just thought you'd like to be kept up to date Vlad. (UK figures of course).

[ProfessorDavey]

Why should former clergymen et women be barred from becoming peers?

Who is saying they can't be.

They should be able to be nominated and appointed in exactly the same manner as anyone else - which is the case for all peers (except the Bishops).

No-one is being barred.

[Sassy]

Do they tell the truth?

[Owlswing]

Do they tell the truth?

Who?

Former clergymen and women?

No, they don't! They've been peddling the unproven 'truth' - which fewer and fewer people these days believe to be the truth (see another thread) for two thousand years.

And that unproven truth may, at some time in the future, be proven to be a lie.

[Walter]

Who?

Former clergymen and women?

No, they don't! They've been peddling the unproven 'truth' - which fewer and fewer people these days believe to be the truth (see another thread) for two thousand years.

And that unproven truth may, at some time in the future, be proven to be a lie.

he's good!

[SteveH]

Almost half of the population of England and Wales identifies itself as having no religion, outweighing the number of people who say they are Christian, research found.

In 2014, 48.5% of those asked referred to themselves as having no religion, compared to the 25% that fell into the "none" category in the 2011 census.

Those who defined themselves as Christian - Anglicans, Catholics and other denominations - made up 43.8% of the population, the Guardian reports.

The proportion of the population describing themselves as Anglican plunged from 44.5% in 1983 to 19% in 2014. Catholics made up 8.3%, other Christians 15.7% and non-Christian religions 7.7%.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-05-24/no-religion-outweighs-christian-in-uk-population/

Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?

[ProfessorDavey]

Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?

Nope and nor has it ever been. An assessment of the truth is now and always has been based on the strength of the evidence presented to support something as being 'true'.

However I suspect one of the key reasons why religion is declining in the UK (and indeed globally, and certainly in places that have longstanding freedom of religion and support education) is that people are increasing looking at the woeful lack of evidence in support of religions and are concluding that their claims are not true.

[Shaker]

Is truth decided by a show of hands nowadays?

It still isn't, just like every other time you imply that it is whenever somebody posts some statistics that you don't like.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope and nor has it ever been. An assessment of the truth is now and always has been based on the strength of the evidence presented to support something as being 'true'.

However I suspect one of the key reasons why religion is declining in the UK (and indeed globally, and certainly in places that have longstanding freedom of religion and support education) is that people are increasing looking at the woeful lack of evidence in support of religions and are concluding that their claims are not true.

Or the parlous state of RE.
I think it is rather apatheism which is more about the right not to come to a conclusion. In fact this is a society where conclusion and any resolution is frowned on.
People are no longer engaged in science, arts and humanities because they are concerned with trade and finance.
As a religious person therefore I see that more hazardous for a new atheism which naively sees things as going its way and the enlightenment somehow forging ahead.

Of those still engaged in thought I don't see that new atheism has any great philosophical content.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why stop there - why is it only religions and (what you would probably describe as anti religious organisations) - if you are saying that top members of prominent organisations of importance to (some of, perhaps as little as 1%) the public must automatically be appointed to the Lords (something that only happens for the Bishops) then why not:

Chief execs of all premier league football clubs
COE of RSPB
COE of National Trust
Top bod in the British Angling society
Top bod in all major unions
Chief Scout
Chief Guide
Top bod in British Wildlife trusts
etc etc

All of these have far more members or active supporters than, for example, the organisation lead by the Chief Rabbi.

These people already have access to the HOL for doing what they are doing.