Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

In which Vladdo persists in his category error despite having it spelled out to him in simple words. Just for funsies, he's now thrown in a flat out lie about the state not protecting your right to say whatever you like ("as long as it doesn't reach your mouth or is expressed in anyway"). The state only steps in rarely to issues of censorship - for example when it's an incitement to racial violence (in sharp contrast by the way to theocracies with their obsessions with blasphemy laws and the like). If you want to express your views while in the paid employment of the state though (for example by being a registrar who wants to tell same sex marriage partners they'll go to hell) then they'll be in breach of contract.

It's simple enough I'd have though, even for the house droll.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo persists in his category error despite having it spelled out to him in simple words. Just for funsies, he's now thrown in a flat out lie about the state not protecting your right to say whatever you like ("as long as it doesn't reach your mouth or is expressed in anyway"). The state only steps in rarely to issues of censorship - for example when it's an incitement to racial violence (in sharp contrast by the way to theocracies with their obsessions with blasphemy laws and the like). If you want to express your views while in the paid employment of the state though (for example by being a registrar who wants to tell same sex marriage partners they'll go to hell) then they'll be in breach of contract.

It's simple enough I'd have though, even for the house droll.

Nope.......I have said repeatedly that the state is separate from the NSS and Humanist UK and the wider secular society does not support the views of NSS and Humanist UK vis a vis the house of Lords and schools because effecting gags on manifestations of christian charity and an opinion from an angle other than material concerns, as advocated by NSS/Humanist UK, is exactly tantamount to a kind of antitheocracy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp (or just lies about) the fact that "the state" doesn't need to know what you believe. It doesn't care. What the secular state does do though is to protect your right to believe whatever it happens to be. 

Does Secularism seek to protect religious expression?

In which Vladdo tries some disingenuousness when he knows perfectly well that that's what the secular state does (and the NSS expressly says it supports). People can express any religious views that like, provided:

1. They don't incite racial or similar violence; and

2. They don't try to do it while on the state's time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp (or just lies about) the fact that "the state" doesn't need to know what you believe. It doesn't care. What the secular state does do though is to protect your right to believe whatever it happens to be. 

In which Vladdo tries some disingenuousness when he knows perfectly well that that's what the secular state does (and the NSS expressly says it supports). People can express any religious views that like, provided:

1. They don't incite racial or similar violence; and

2. They don't try to do it while on the state's time.

I think we can all agree on point 1. Although I don't think a new atheist would ever admit to sailing close to that line.
Point 2 is where the wider secular British society diverges from the antitheocratic tendencies of NSS and their wee wizards.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Nope.......I have said repeatedly that the state is separate from the NSS and Humanist UK and the wider secular society does not support the views of NSS and Humanist UK vis a vis the house of Lords and schools because effecting gags on manifestations of christian charity and an opinion from an angle other than material concerns as advocated by NSS/Humanist UK is exactly tantamount to a kind of antitheocracy.

The random word generator is firing on all cylinders today.

Anyways, as it's just been ignored here's the re-cap: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God") etc; secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.     

They're in different epistemic categories entirely, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses in a heap.

[ippy]

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

Clueless!!

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Ippy and bluehilside

I did think of attempting a  reply to SotS's post, but preferred to wait for your much better ones!

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Clueless!!

Or lying. Could be either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Clueless!!

ippy

Oh come on now. The NSS is a single issue movement committed to the elimination of religion from the public forum. The house of Lords is privilege 'r' us so a focus on religion does seem a little monomaniac.

Given it has no interest in removing other forms of privilege, the anti privilege plea looks a bit thin.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh come on now. The NSS is a single issue movement committed to the elimination of religion from the public forum.

In which Vladdo hopes that if he tells the same lie often enough it'll stop being a lie. What the NSS actually does is to campaign for the removal of special privileges for the religious from the instruments and offices of the state.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just to kill the lie (and the "antireligious" one too) here's what the NSS position really is:

"We believe religion should be separated from the state and individuals should have freedom of and from religion. Secularism is an essential element in a cohesive society where citizens are valued equally.

The National Secular Society champions the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone's human rights so no one is disadvantaged, nor privileged, because of their beliefs.

We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all. We promote secularism as the surest guarantor of religious freedom and the best means to foster a fair and open society, in which people of all religions and none can live together as equal citizens."

http://www.secularism.org.uk/our-vision.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo hopes that if he tells the same lie often enough it'll stop being a lie. What the NSS actually does is to campaign for the removal of special privileges for the religious from the instruments and offices of the state.

It would be nice to believe it ends there but examination of their (NSS) pronouncements on the coverage of religion in broadcast media belies your portrait of innocence. Better, more precise and accurate counsels prevailed at the BBC.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It would be nice to believe it ends there but examination of their (NSS) pronouncements on the coverage of religion in broadcast media belies your portrait of innocence. Better, more precise and accurate counsels prevailed at the BBC.

In which Vladdo just ignores being caught out in his latest lie and instead dissembles to mysterious "examination of pronouncements" without bothering to tell us what those "examinations" or "pronouncements" might actually be.

Funny that.

Anyways, as it's just been ignored again here's the re-cap: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God") etc; secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.

[ippy]

Ippy and bluehilside

I did think of attempting a  reply to SotS's post, but preferred to wait for your much better ones!

I really don't think it's possible to have a serious exchange about secularism with anyone that continually displays their inability to understand a dictionary or even look at Wikki's description of secularism, and, well there's plenty of places to find out about it, it's not like it takes that much time or effort to find the facts, it isn't difficult, (for most)?

I've given up on the clueless person, (I had some trouble just then printing 'person' at the end of that lot), never mind.

S O S, is a slightly different person, (that trouble again), it might be worth trying to get him or her, I don't know, to understand, if S O S is anything like the other one; well? I don't know?

My wife funnily enough is out doing her Gospel singing practice, bit of a cross wire there somewhere, but she assures me she's a non-believer? So she tells me.

Kind regards ippy       

[ippy]

I just thought to myself I wonder, I'm not that hopeful but naaa, I'll give it a try.

There's nothing wrong in admitting it when you get something wrong, or massively misunderstand something, in fact if the one that has misunderstood finally does an about turn and makes a full admission of how wrong they were, they would be surprised at how well received the apology would be and how little flack they would have to go through coming from those argued with and they possibly could gain some status for making their admissions.

As I always like to say, even I get things wrong from time to time.

I don't like it when I'm found to be provably wrong, (who does?),  but I've always found the best thing I can do is to admit it, (on those very rare occasions when I have been found to be wrong).

Now who shall I address this post to?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo just ignores being caught out in his latest lie and instead dissembles to mysterious "examination of pronouncements" without bothering to tell us what those "examinations" or "pronouncements" might actually be.

Funny that.

Anyways, as it's just been ignored again here's the re-cap: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God") etc; secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.

First of all any single issue approach begins to smack of humbug and is prone to ridicule i.e. complaining about religious privilege in what is effectively the House of Privilege.

The real complaint is therefore Religion.

Secondly, I do not agree that that there is no place for a spiritual viewpoint in parliament. I think there is an assumption that that is a bad thing. Our secular society maintains though that system of governance. My understanding is that many religionists of many faiths appreciate the presence of the bishops as some kind of protective against a hard and hostile secularism. Indeed, it has to be the state that put religion onto schools.

Thirdly you say that the NSS just want religion out of the state apparatus. Wrong, they also wanted to reduce the amount of religious coverage on the BBC which they (NSS) described as ''extravagant on resources'' so the NSS ain't as noble as you make out Hillside.

Here is the NSS nonsense.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2017/07/the-bbc-is-overdoing-religion

Afterwards the BBC committed to increasing and improving religious output. S.I.U.

[jeremyp]

I am just outlining what a level playing field would have to look like.

A level playing field would be secular.

Secular doesn't mean anti religion, it means no special privileges for religions.

[jeremyp]

The campaigns of the NSS and Humanists do. I'm afraid.
Rather than demanding 26 atheist seats they demand the removal of the Bishops

That's called being secular. No religious organisations would get special privileges. At the moment, there are twenty six special seats that can only be filled by high ranking members of the Church of England. Why? Members of other religions don't get special seats neither do atheists. In fact even christians not in the Church of England get allocated seats in the parliament of the United Kingdom.

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.

They want schools not to privilege the propaganda of one particular faction of one particular religion.

[jeremyp]

That is clearly not true.

Try working in the public sector and claiming that you believe that marriage is between male and female.

But that's false. For several years people of the same sex have been able to get married.

I also don't think just believing that will get you fired. If it interferes with your ability to ado your job, that is another matter. For example, if you are a registrar and you refuse to marry a gay couple, you are failing in your duties. You will then lose that job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A level playing field would be secular.

Secular doesn't mean anti religion, it means no special privileges for religions.

Secular for the NSS equals atheism.

Freedom from religion does not equate with freedom of religion
Since the former logically demands that every expression of religion is removed.
If 96.7% are secular Lords then there is no warrant for a claim of unfairness from the secular.
The House of Lords is a house of privilege. So it is not reasonable to talk about religion having special privilege. That is a nonsense tautological meme which you have allowed in, I'm afraid.

Anything which is more plural than just a secular interest has got to be more representative. The plurality and alternative view here is Spiritual.

I understand that many of my fellow religionists feel secure enough about secularism to want to go fully secular in terms of parliament. They underestimate what and who drives the NSS these days namely the idea that any majority of the non religious validates the large scale dismantling of religion from public forum as demonstrated by their claims about religious coverage on the BBC.

[Stranger]

Secular for the NSS equals atheism.

Freedom from religion does not equate with freedom of religion

This is blatant dishonesty - the NSS supports both. From the NSS Our Vision page: "We believe religion should be separated from the state and individuals should have freedom of and from religion."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is blatant dishonesty - the NSS supports both. From the NSS Our Vision page: "We believe religion should be separated from the state and individuals should have freedom of and from religion."

I have put a case.....You are just parroting platitudes.

[Maeght]

You have misrepresented the NSS due to your paranoia about secularism. You were asked whether you thought it right that there were a number of seats in the Lords set aside for bishops. Do you, and if so why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have misrepresented the NSS due to your paranoia about secularism. You were asked whether you thought it right that there were a number of seats in the Lords set aside for bishops. Do you, and if so why?

See 615 and 619.
I do not considered I have misrepresented the NSS who IMV and the view of others have resorted to hyperbole over religion in the media.

Yes, I believe that it is better having 3.3% Lords spiritual and that being C of E bishops than 100% Lords temporal.
Because if you acknowledge the secular then you acknowledge the alternative and that is spiritual.
100% representation of the secular is effectively totalitarian and completely unrepresentive.

[Maeght]

See 615 and 619.
I do not considered I have misrepresented the NSS who IMV and the view of others have resorted to hyperbole over religion in the media.

I've seen those posts and they just reinforce your misunderstanding of secularism. For example people can hold and express a spiritual view point in Parliament but there is no reason why they should be favoured and given a position simply because they are religious. 

Yes, I believe that it is better having 3.3% Lords spiritual and that being C of E bishops than 100% Lords temporal.
Because if you acknowledge the secular then you acknowledge the alternative and that is spiritual.
100% representation of the secular is effectively totalitarian and completely unrepresentive.

Again you miss the point. A secular Lords would contain people of all views, and would contain religious people and religious views. It just wouldn't,'t contain a group given seats just because they hold a religious position.