Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[ProfessorDavey]

I was just responding to Ippy's request for equal representation.

Yours is a representation per head model.

Applied to the House of Lords that makes

96.7% lords temporal
3.3% lords spiritual

But the Lords temporal may also be religious - indeed I suspect a large proportion are religious. There is no equivalent of the Lords spiritual - which would be Lords automatically appointed specifically because of their position in high office of another organisation. All other Lords are appointed on their individual merit, albeit nominated by others. The Lords spiritual get their places automatically when appointed as Bishops (or when they become a long enough time serving bishop.

[ProfessorDavey]

That seems like a false dichotomy, Vlad.

Indeed it is - secularism is the playing field, not the team.

Vlad is suggesting that a 'fair' football match should be 50% football pitch and 50% Manchester United - it makes no sense whatsoever.

[Maeght]

1. The secular religious divide in the House of Lords is recognised in its official title which includes the Lords temporal or secular Lords and the Lords spiritual.
2. The current division is 96.7% secular lords to3.3% Bishops.
3. The notion of religion being somehow privileged above the secular here does not stack up

Thanks for your reply.

I think you are, as others have said, creating a false dichotomy. Its not that Lords Temporal are non religious nor that they are in the House of Lords to somehow represent secularism but rather that they are ot specifically Lords Spiritual or holder sof ecclesiastical positions. Its just a term to indicate they are not Lords Spiritual surely.

4. In terms of schools Humanist UK and NSS have right to found schools
5. Many schools are church foundations
6. The church has therefore no privilege in the right to found schools.
7. Objective teaching of religion already exists in schools
8. Any further religious obligation is on all schools and is not necessarily interpreted by the religious.

I've not commented on school funding etc so won't comment here either.

9. The NSS is unreliable in its descriptions concerning religious broadcasting which is minimal and unreflective of the number of religious licence payers or the BBC mission to inform and entertain.

I don't know what the NSS description is. I see no problem with some religious broadcasting.

10. The wider secular world considers NSS and humanist U.K. Unreasonable in some respects concerning the presence of religion in society and takes no action or action to equalise by providing rights to secularists rather than indulging the secularists tendency to demand elimination. Vis allowing them to found state schools or free schools.

No, lost me there I'm afraid.

Can you say where you think secularist get favoured treatment, remebering that secularism does not equate to no religion or anti religion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the Lords temporal may also be religious - indeed I suspect a large proportion are religious. There is no equivalent of the Lords spiritual - which would be Lords automatically appointed specifically because of their position in high office of another organisation. All other Lords are appointed on their individual merit, albeit nominated by others. The Lords spiritual get their places automatically when appointed as Bishops (or when they become a long enough time serving bishop.

So what. They are there on a secular ticket. They are the Lords temporal after all.
You have underestimated the capacity of an atheist prime minister to influence church appointments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed it is - secularism is the playing field, not the team.

Vlad is suggesting that a 'fair' football match should be 50% football pitch and 50% Manchester United - it makes no sense whatsoever.

I am just outlining what a level playing field would have to look like. It was Ippy's idea.
I think there cannot be a level playing field but it is not slanted in favour of religion.
You speculate on which secular lords have a belief. Constitutionally none of the Lords secular have to have a belief.
So there is no seculist teams?
You are deliberately ignoring the NSS, the Humanists and yourselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks for your reply.

I think you are, as others have said, creating a false dichotomy. Its not that Lords Temporal are non religious nor that they are in the House of Lords to somehow represent secularism but rather that they are ot specifically Lords Spiritual or holder sof ecclesiastical positions. Its just a term to indicate they are not Lords Spiritual surely.

I've not commented on school funding etc so won't comment here either.

I don't know what the NSS description is. I see no problem with some religious broadcasting.

No, lost me there I'm afraid.

Can you say where you think secularist get favoured treatment, remebering that secularism does not equate to no religion or anti religion?

My last point deals with how wider society, which is secular responds to the demand of new atheists, NSS and Humanist UK. To date it seems it does not want to indulge their demands for an out and out final excision or removal of religion from the public forum.

[Maeght]

So what. They are there on a secular ticket. They are the Lords temporal after all.
You have underestimated the capacity of an atheist prime minister to influence church appointments.

Again you've referred to a secular ticket but not really explained what you mean. lords temporal can be religious and not secularists - they just aren't appointed for reasons of religion.

[Maeght]

My last point deals with how wider society, which is secular responds to the demand of new atheists, NSS and Humanist UK. To date it seems it does not want to indulge their demands for an out and out final excision or removal of religion from the public forum.

Where do those people say they want to remove religion from the public forum, rather than saying they want to seperate it from the state and remove religious privilages - which are different things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again you've referred to a secular ticket but not really explained what you mean. lords temporal can be religious and not secularists - they just aren't appointed for reasons of religion.

Non religious ticket.
If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.

[Maeght]

Non religious ticket.
If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.

Secularism doesn't exclude the religious.

[Walter]

Non religious ticket.
If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.

Oh ffs!

[Stranger]

If secularism excludes the religious then it is effectively anti religious.

Which it doesn't and isn't.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism doesn't exclude the religious.

The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.
Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops
Rather than taking up the option of founding humanist schools they want religion removed from schools to make schools acceptable to Humanists.....to win, in short.

[bluehillside Retd.]

If there were no privileges for anyone then in anything there would be 50% secular involvement and 50% religious involvement.

In which Vladdo clings to his category error as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt. For that to work he’d need 50% saying, “there is a god” and 50% saying, “there isn’t a god” (and for that matter 50% saying, “there are leprechauns”, and 50% saying, “there are no leprechauns” etc etc). His (now epic) mistake (or epic lie) is to think that secularism has anything at all to say about the content of his or any other religious belief when all it actually says is, “believe anything you like but don’t expect those beliefs to be given special privileges”. 

Actually it goes further - not only does it say, “believe anything you like” but it can also say, “the state will protect your right to believe anything you like” (as the NSS makes plain) – something theocracies rarely do.

For the hard of understanding: theism is concerned with the content of the claims (eg, "God"); secularism is concerned with the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.

[Stranger]

The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.

Drivel.

Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops

Because that is the way you separate religion and state (which is what secularism is). If they wanted to exclude religion, they'd be campaigning for people to be excluded on the basis of faith, rather than appointed without regard to their faith position.

And apart from that, there aren't just CofE and atheists in the country, if you want to give seats in the HofL based on different religious views, where would it end? IMO The HofL is a bizarre, undemocratic anachronism that should be abolished anyway.

Rather than taking up the option of founding humanist schools they want religion removed from schools to make schools acceptable to Humanists.....to win, in short.

That's because kids need to be taught about religion, rather than told that one religion (or atheism or humanism) is true. That's how you make a level playing field.

And again on a practical note - you couldn't possibly have faith schools available for all faiths in all parts of the country available to everyone equally.

[Maeght]

The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.
Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops
Rather than taking up the option of founding humanist schools they want religion removed from schools to make schools acceptable to Humanists.....to win, in short.

No they don't. They campaign against preference being given to Bishops etc. That is not anti religion but anti preferential treatment given on the basis of religion - a different thing!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Actually it goes further - not only does it say, “believe anything you like” but it can also say, “the state will protect your right to believe anything you like” (as the NSS makes plain) – ...

That is clearly not true.

Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.

Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.

[ippy]

Indeed it is - secularism is the playing field, not the team.

Vlad is suggesting that a 'fair' football match should be 50% football pitch and 50% Manchester United - it makes no sense whatsoever.

Cheers Prof D, this is how I should have been presenting my case to poor old Vlad, incidentally, I wonder when the penny will eventually drop for him or if it ever will?

Vlad, when anyone goes into either of our two houses, I'm not aware of any selection criteria or rule that demands that the candidate or appointee has to either put a hold on their individual religious belief when voting, or they can't have a seat in either of those houses if they are believers in one religion or another.

I don't know of any secular aim to stop religious believers representing us in either of the two houses, if there were, which there isn't, I wouldn't want anything to do with it, because it wouldn't conform with the secular views I hold.

I only want the Bishops to go because there is no justifiable reason why they or any other similar group should be sitting there as of right, because it, without a doubt, goes directly against the principles of democracy and also, without a doubt, it is a religious privilege.

It' should be obvious to you by now it's not just me that's trying our collective best to help you to understand that secularism isn't the enemy of religion or the religious thoughts that reside inside people's heads

When are you ever going to get it Vlad?

Regards ippy

[ippy]

That is clearly not true.

Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.

Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.

Sword, you have every right to hold your pov about same sex marriage, as long as you don't try to inflict this pov of yours on others, and if you look into the cases where, as you say where, 'Christians have been discriminated against', it's 99 times out of a hundred, the Christians haven't been persecuted, they're usually being denied a privilege, which I suppose people like yourself have become and are privilege blind.

It's usually because of history where the religious once held power now that power has largely passed by and you like all of the others will have to get used to these changes, and there's a lot more changes for you and yours on the way too, no doubt you will be seeing loss of unwarranted privileges as persecution for a while yet, I hope you get used to it in the end because the secularists are unlikely to give up ridding our public places of unfair privileges from any quarter.

Regards ippy   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is clearly not true.

Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.

Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.

Good post.
Usual flannel from BHS. The state will protect what is inside your head as long as it doesn't reach your mouth or is expressed in anyway. Stalinist thinking if ever their was. I'm afraid it isn't good enough

Note his subtle placement of NSS and the state. I suppose that had to be done to detract from the fact that the state does not back the NSS or Humanist UK in the areas of discussion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword, you have every right to hold your pov about same sex marriage, as long as you don't try to inflict this pov of yours on others, and if you look into the cases where, as you say where, 'Christians have been discriminated against', it's 99 times out of a hundred, the Christians haven't been persecuted, they're usually being denied a privilege, which I suppose people like yourself have become and are privilege blind.

It's usually because of history where the religious once held power now that power has largely passed by and you like all of the others will have to get used to these changes, and there's a lot more changes for you and yours on the way too, no doubt you will be seeing loss of unwarranted privileges as persecution for a while yet, I hope you get used to it in the end because the secularists are unlikely to give up ridding our public places of unfair privileges from any quarter.

Regards ippy

Ippy's learnt a new disguise for antitheism. Removing privileges.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword, you have every right to hold your pov about same sex marriage, as long as you don't try to inflict this pov of yours on others,

Ippy let me give you a lesson in how not to be intellectually totalitarian.

NSS you have everyright to hold your POV on the House of Lords. You even have the right to try to inflict this POV on the rest of us by peaceful persuasion.

You see the difference between my reasonable approach and your totalitarian approach?

In other words Ippy how is a religious minority going to inflict same sex marriage in a secular country. You are doubly paranoid because religious people failed to inflict that point of view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's because kids need to be taught about religion, rather than told that one religion (or atheism or humanism) is true.

They are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

That is clearly not true.

Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female. Take a trip over to the Christian Institute website when you have time and you will see a whole host of cases where Christians have been discriminated against, simply because of what they believe.

Do not try and weasel your way out of this by claiming that it is because of their actions, not their beliefs. That only makes your position worse as it implies there is a morality that comes with secularism, that must be enforced.

Wow – that’s a pretty major league non sequitur you’ve attempted there. Now try reading what was actually said about secularism protecting the rights of people to believe whatever they like (which by the way theocracies don’t do) rather than about protecting the rights of people to act on those beliefs when on state business. You can work in the public sector and believe anything you like – indeed your right to do so is protected. What you can’t do though is act on those beliefs when those actions contradict the law of the land. That applies to registrars refusing to officiate equal marriages just as much as it would to, say, someone wanting to work in a slaughterhouse but only if he could ritually cut the throats of the animals.

As for the morality effort, that’s even dafter – the state makes no claim to moral correctness. Rather it says, “the will of the people duly enacted by Parliament means that certain practices will and will not be permitted by law”. And that's it - no more, no less. 

0/10 See me

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SotS,

Wow – that’s a pretty major league non sequitur you’ve attempted there. Now try reading what was actually said about secularism protecting the rights of people to believe whatever they like

Pretty meaningless. How does the state know what you believe? It still leaves it open for the state to allow belief but ban expression.

Does Secularism seek to protect religious expression?