Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

But secular is about fairness - that there are no special privileges provided nor discrimination against (the two being two sides of the same coin) individuals on the basis of their religion or lack of religion.

Reserving places in the HoLs for representatives of a single religion is completely incompatible with secularism. That requires that all members of the HoLs are appointed using processes that are completely neutral with regard to the religion, or lack of religion of that individual.

The implication that the Lords temporal is somehow unfair towards religion is bonkers as many (perhaps most) of the Lords temporal are themselves religious. It would only be unfair if people who were religious were banned from becoming a member of the Lords in the Lords temporal category - but they aren't and nor would the NSS ever suggest that as it would be completely against their basic mission.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But secular is about fairness - that there are no special privileges provided nor discrimination against (the two being two sides of the same coin) individuals on the basis of their religion or lack of religion.

Reserving places in the HoLs for representatives of a single religion is completely incompatible with secularism. That requires that all members of the HoLs are appointed using processes that are completely neutral with regard to the religion, or lack of religion of that individual.

The implication that the Lords temporal is somehow unfair towards religion is bonkers as many (perhaps most) of the Lords temporal are themselves religious. It would only be unfair if people who were religious were banned from becoming a member of the Lords in the Lords temporal category - but they aren't and nor would the NSS ever suggest that as it would be completely against their basic mission.

I just have to point you back to my previous posts.
There is the secular and the spiritual therefore real fairness involves both being represented.
A 3.3% stake is considered reasonable at present.0% stake is unreasonable.
The 3.3% acts as an advisory to the 96.7%. A view from a different angle.

I wonder if you are driven by anti religious rage.

[ProfessorDavey]

I just have to point you back to my previous posts.
There is the secular and the spiritual therefore real fairness involves both being represented.
A 3.3% stake is considered reasonable at present.0% stake is unreasonable.

No 0% specifically reserved for people of a specific religion is entirely right. As is 0% reserved for people who are non religious.

100% of the members of HoLs should be appointed using processes that neither require them to be of a specific religion, nor require them to be non religious.

The 3.3% acts as an advisory to the 96.7%. A view from a different angle.

In what way is is a 'view from a different angle', given that many of the 96.7% are also practicing members of the CofE too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The implication that the Lords temporal is somehow unfair towards religion is bonkers as many (perhaps most) of the Lords temporal are themselves religious.

I make no such implication as I have said that The wider secular world has not seen fit to indulge two key campaigns of the NSS/Humanist UK alliance/axis/canoodle.

[ProfessorDavey]

The wider secular world has not seen fit to indulge two key campaigns of the NSS/Humanist UK alliance/axis/canoodle.

And which two campaigns would that be Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No 0% specifically reserved for people of a specific religion is entirely right. As is 0% reserved for people who are non religious.

100% of the members of HoLs should be appointed using processes that neither require them to be of a specific religion, nor require them to be non religious.
In what way is is a 'view from a different angle', given that many of the 96.7% are also practicing members of the CofE too.

There are a lot of should bes about the HOL MrDavey. To single out religion is monomania, However if you are wanting the term Secular then the opposite is the spiritual. If you are campaigning for 100% secular then you are by definition a totalitarian. Fortunately, the wider secular society and its chosen structures does not agree with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And which two campaigns would that be Vlad?

House of Lords and education.
Are you confusing secular with secularist here?

[ProfessorDavey]

House of Lords and education.
Are you confusing secular with secularist here?

Thanks - then, as so often, you are completely wrong.

In broader UK society there is a significant majority who oppose both faith schools and also the presence of bishops in the HoLs. So on Bishops a recent survey found that 62% agreed that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats.

Similar proportions oppose state funded faith schools.

[ippy]

House of Lords and education.
Are you confusing secular with secularist here?

Wouldn't it be more simple for you to put up your hands up Vlad, and say 'all right I've got it wrong about secularism', which you most obviously have?

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Thanks - then, as so often, you are completely wrong.

In broader UK society there is a significant majority who oppose both faith schools and also the presence of bishops in the HoLs. So on Bishops a recent survey found that 62% agreed that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats.

Similar proportions oppose state funded faith schools.

When the Bishops retire most of them are awarded a title and where can you go if you have a title, guess?

This part of the deal seems to be forgotten most of the time.

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

However if you are wanting the term Secular then the opposite is the spiritual.

The opposite of football pitch is Manchester United.

You are taking non-sense - the opposite of secular (in the societal context we are using) isn't spiritual but theocratic.

If you are campaigning for 100% secular then you are by definition a totalitarian.

By campaigning for a level playing field you are therefore being unfair.

Again bonkers - a secular society, by definition, is the opposite to totalitarianism, certainty with regard to religion as it specifically protects both freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Fortunately, the wider secular society and its chosen structures does not agree with you.

Wrong - wider society very clearly agrees with me with strong majorities opposing both the presence of Bishops in the HoLs and state funded faith schools.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks - then, as so often, you are completely wrong.

In broader UK society there is a significant majority who oppose both faith schools and also the presence of bishops in the HoLs. So on Bishops a recent survey found that 62% agreed that no religious clerics should have “an automatic right to seats”. Only 8 per cent of people said the bishops should retain their seats.

Similar proportions oppose state funded faith schools.

But then those wanting more money for the NHS and a massive tax cut are probably in a majority.
I did say wider secular world and that includes its political and social structures.
So far then all of that put together means that faith schools, bishops in the House of Lords, single sex schools and admission criteria remain.

That is not to say one cannot campaign for change, or that ones campaign is correct, or that one cannot fight alongside the NSS to establish Imho a tyranny of the majority.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

- a secular society, by definition, is the opposite to totalitarianism

What rubbish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Secular for the NSS equals atheism.

Just looking in to see whether Vladdo is still telling lies. That's a "yes" then.

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.     

They're in different epistemic categories, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses in a heap. A fair society is allows anyone to believe anything they like; an unfair one gives special privileges to one special interest group.   

[SteveH]

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.

I've looked at the Christian Institute website from your link, and they appear to be a bunch of right-wing, narrow-minded, curtain-twitching busy-bodies. You talk of "Christians being discriminated against because of what they believe", but when what they believe is itself discriminatory, the more their beliefs are accommodated, the more others are discriminated. We saw that in the C of E, with the "Backward in Bigotry" misogynists demanding ever more outrageous concessions to their prejudice, and the more churches where women are not allowed as vicars, the less equal women priests are. The same applies to gays, etc. Incidentally, the Christian Institute certainly doesn't speak for all, or even, I suspect, a majority, of Christians - it emphatically doesn't speak for me. Right-wing evangelicals do have the very bad habit of referring to themselves as "Christians" without qualification, as though their joyless (per)version of the faith represents all of Christianity.

[Anchorman]

Not only do the 'CI' not represent all Christians, they dont even represent the majority of those identifying ourselves as evangelical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some interesting reflections from Baggini

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/16/what-mean-secular-state-neutral
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/14/is-religion-really-under-threat

I have some criticisms. e.g. his implicit suggestion that atheists have no obligation to know or understand what religionists might be going on about. That is a bit arse clenchingly new atheist.

he also suggests religious paranoia but should have named New Atheist paranoia too. Epic fail on his part.

Also what social policy have Christians say suggested be based on the holy trinity, the virgin birth or the resurrection? The greatest service a Christian can do in the house of Lords as a Lord spiritual is to flag up the failure of love wherever that occurs in British life IMHO.

If, as atheists would argue, there are no atheist states then there have been a few oppressive and totalitarian secular states.

[SusanDoris]

Incidentally, the Christian Institute certainly doesn't speak for all, or even, I suspect, a majority, of Christians - it emphatically doesn't speak for me. Right-wing evangelicals do have the very bad habit of referring to themselves as "Christians" without qualification, as though their joyless (per)version of the faith represents all of Christianity.

Well said. I didn't look at the link - from what you say, they sound like an unpleasant, narrow-minded, bigoted lot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

     
They're in different epistemic categories, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses in a heap. A fair society is allows anyone to believe anything they like; an unfair one gives special privileges to one special interest group.   

Allowing people to believe what they like isn't enough. People should be able to express it in the highest halls Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Allowing people to believe what they like isn't enough. People should be able to express it in the highest halls Hillside.

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that people are "able to express it in the highest halls" in just the same way that I can express my leprechaunism "in the highest halls" if I want to, a right the NSS in particular would defend by the way. What the NSS and others argue for though is that no one special interest group should have specially privileged access by right to certain "halls" - the the legislature, in education, in the media etc.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

an unfair one gives special privileges to one special interest group.   

As if that only applies in the case of the spiritual....and it doesn't give it there since 96.3% outweighs 3.3% by a factor of about 30.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that people are "able to express it in the highest halls" in just the same way that I can express my leprechaunism "in the highest halls" if I want to, a right the NSS in particular would defend by the way. What the NSS and others argue for though is that no one special interest group should have specially privileged access by right to certain "halls" - the the legislature, in education, in the media etc.   

The NSS monomaniacally focuses on religion in what is a house of privilege. Therefore they are not really antiprivilege but antireligion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

As if that only applies in the case of the spiritual....and it doesn't give it there since 96.3% outweighs 3.3% by a factor of about 30.

As Vladdo's still not getting it, here it is again: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God" etc); secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.     

That is, they're in different epistemic categories, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses. A fair society allows anyone to believe anything they like; an unfair one gives special privileges differentially between special interest groups.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo still fails to grasp that people are "able to express it in the highest halls" in just the same way that I can express my leprechaunism "in the highest halls" if I want to, a right the NSS in particular would defend by the way. What the NSS and others argue for though is that no one special interest group should have specially privileged access by right to certain "halls" - the the legislature, in education, in the media etc.   

Humanists and secularists and probably atheists too are allowed to found freeschools Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Vladdo's still not getting it, here it is again: theism concerns the contents of its claims ("God" etc); secularism concerns the privileges theists would arrogate for those claims.     

That is, they're in different epistemic categories, so the "level playing field" nonsense collapses. A fair society allows anyone to believe anything they like; an unfair one gives special privileges differentially between special interest groups.

Did you have cucumber for lunch or something?