Secularism

[ippy]

I'm sure there are minor differences on our understanding of secularism, but overall I think most of us can see of the larger picture, but unfortunately some have what seems to be a complete mental block on the subject, whatever can be done about this problem?

ippy

[Shaker]

Not a lot, ipster.

The definition of secularism isn't like the recipe for Worcestershire sauce, Coca Cola or KFC's special blend of herbs and spices. It's not like the Voynich manuscript or Miskatonic University's copy of the Necronomicon. It's not a secret kept in a vault somewhere in a Zurich bank. It's perfectly clear and straightforward and easily understood by anyone who wants to know what the word means.

And there's the stumbling block right there - you have to want to know what the word means. If you're interested only in setting up your own invented strawman version of what you think it means (but doesn't in reality), there's not much you can do.

[Walter]

Not a lot, ipster.

The definition of secularism isn't like the recipe for Worcestershire sauce, Coca Cola or KFC's special blend of herbs and spices. It's not like the Voynich manuscript or Miskatonic University's copy of the Necronomicon. It's not a secret kept in a vault somewhere in a Zurich bank. It's perfectly clear and straightforward and easily understood by anyone who wants to know what the word means.

And there's the stumbling block right there - you have to want to know what the word means. If you're interested only in setting up your own invented strawman version of what you think it means (but doesn't in reality), there's not much you can do.

crying out loud Shakes , it took a lot of bollocks to reach that last sentence

[ippy]

I think a large part of the problem stems from the fact a lot of secular actions potentially effect the finances of various religion based organisations, this being so wouldn't endear the thoughts of these organisations toward secularism and does incline them to give the secular a bad press including misinformation i.e., persecution claims etc., therefore a lot of misinformed complainants and misunderstood secularism, misunderstood by you know who in particular.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think a large part of the problem stems from the fact a lot of secular actions potentially effect the finances of various religion based organisations, this being so wouldn't endear the thoughts of these organisations toward secularism and does incline them to give the secular a bad press including misinformation i.e., persecution claims etc., therefore a lot of misinformed complainants and misunderstood secularism, misunderstood by you know who in particular.

ippy

As if religious charity has always been financed by the state.
The issue is though having forced religion out of charity and care is the gap being filled by secular care. I rather given crises in health and care and homelessness think not.
A search on the internet for care homes run by the NSS was for me not forthcoming. The BHA has activity but they themselves talk of a charitable hey day as way back as the1950s and 1960s.
It looks then like secularism does not a charitable society make.

I say this since we are pondering the elderly life of a Christian relative who having been a home visitor now rarely has church visits herself due in a large part I would imagine to the drop in church attendance.

[ProfessorDavey]

As if religious charity has always been financed by the state.

Actually it has always been funded in part by the state - via the tax breaks linked to charitable status.

And before you say that this applies to all charities equally - it doesn't. Religious organisations benefit from a number of special privileges in terms of charitable status compared to other charities. The first being that a religious organisation needs to claim nothing other than being a religious organisation to be a charity - they do not need to demonstrate one iota of broader community benefit. Compare that to, for example, private schools that need to demonstrate engagement with the community beyond the school to gain charitable status.

In addition, many small churches can benefit from charitable status without actually having to register as a charity. The income threshold for them is massively higher than for non religious organisations. So a secular youth club with an annual income of £20k would have to register as a charity with all the bureaucracy and process involved. A church with exactly the same annual income wouldn't have to register at all, but would be given the same charitable benefits.

Third - business rates - religious buildings are completely exempt from business rates, so you won't even be able to find them on the VOA list - by contrast other charitable organisation have to pay business rates on the premises - albeit with a reduction as they are a charity, but that reduction never takes their business rates to zero, unlike the churches.

[Owlswing]

Actually it has always been funded in part by the state - via the tax breaks linked to charitable status.

And before you say that this applies to all charities equally - it doesn't. Religious organisations benefit from a number of special privileges in terms of charitable status compared to other charities. The first being that a religious organisation needs to claim nothing other than being a religious organisation to be a charity - they do not need to demonstrate one iota of broader community benefit. Compare that to, for example, private schools that need to demonstrate engagement with the community beyond the school to gain charitable status.

In addition, many small churches can benefit from charitable status without actually having to register as a charity. The income threshold for them is massively higher than for non religious organisations. So a secular youth club with an annual income of £20k would have to register as a charity with all the bureaucracy and process involved. A church with exactly the same annual income wouldn't have to register at all, but would be given the same charitable benefits.

Third - business rates - religious buildings are completely exempt from business rates, so you won't even be able to find them on the VOA list - by contrast other charitable organisation have to pay business rates on the premises - albeit with a reduction as they are a charity, but that reduction never takes their business rates to zero, unlike the churches.

I'm sorry Prof, but do you truly believe that the person to whom the above is addressed is going to believe one word of it?

Of course he is not - his blinkers and rose-coloured  spectacles will ensure that the former prevent him seing the truth of your post and the latter will enlarge his religion's right to pay no tax whatsoever and to dictate to everyone who does not follow his religiouis beliefs why they should follow said beliefs doing so with some of the most convoluted rubbish ever posted here.

Or anywhere, in all probabilty.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm sorry Prof, but do you truly believe that the person to whom the above is addressed is going to believe one word of it?

Of course he is not - his blinkers and rose-coloured  spectacles will ensure that the former prevent him seing the truth of your post and the latter will enlarge his religion's right to pay no tax whatsoever and to dictate to everyone who does not follow his religiouis beliefs why they should follow said beliefs doing so with some of the most convoluted rubbish ever posted here.

Or anywhere, in all probabilty.

Yes I know.

But it is important to tell the truth as there are plenty of people who will listen.