Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Nearly Sane]

you are deliberately misunderstanding my point for some reason not known to me .
It is very childish and annoying

PS I'm on on iPhone 4 at the moment in a lay-by so can't really engage as I would like

No, I think your point is merely a set of prejudices with no real evidence, which is based on an illogical position of denying democracy to support democracy.

[Nearly Sane]

Are people not spiritual?

I have no idea what the term means, it's all a bit raindrops on Moses, and whiskers on mittens.

[Maeght]

Have read the Baggini articles and they seem pretty reasonable to me. There are certainly extremists who go beyond true secularism, but that doesn't mean the extreme voice is the vouce of secularism. As I said earlier it is important not to view secularism as atheism or antitheism. Sounds a similar argument to people saying religious extremists don't represent the true voice of the religion doesn't it.

The articles don't really give any evidence that secularism is atheistic,and nor have you. I amsure you can gind dome examples but where is theevidence that this is the main stream view?

[SusanDoris]

So not only in support of religious privilege but closed minded to the effects. ; The vast majority of what people post here is in their opinion so we should on the basis of you position not actually have any discussion

If the long-time members of this forum, after all this time, think I am someone with a closed mind, well, theree's not much I can do about it! Just in case, though, I will point out that I do not have a closed mind.

[Walter]

No, I think your point is merely a set of prejudices with no real evidence, which is based on an illogical position of denying democracy to support democracy.

you call it prejudices , I call it awareness
You say illogical position , I say hiding your head in the sand denial

[Gordon]

Regardless of anything else, I for one would be extremely worried if I thought that the Islamic faith was to gain too much influence in this country. That is one of the reasons I'd support the maintenance of the CofE on the basis of if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The current special status of the CofE predates more recent social trends involving non-Christian religious affiliations, and as far as I can see having 26 'Lords Spiritual' is an irrelevance in terms of countering any supposed influences from other religions and especially since, it seems to me the CofE, are more interested in protecting and maintaining their own special status and getting to put crowns on the heads of equally useless monarchs every now and then. Moreover, the special status of the CofE is already 'broke' since they sit in a UK as opposed to exclusively English parliament and are therefore irrelevant to those of us in Scotland, in that the main Scottish protestant organisation (the Church of Scotland) isn't affiliated to the CofE.

I can't see why the CofE can't operate on the same basis as the CofS does, and if the CofE are seen to represent Christians who are members of the CofE (or denominations affiliated to the CofE) then I can't see that they can be said to represent Christians of other denominations or any non-Christians - so they are now are representing a declining constituency but have a disproportionate influence in UK political governance arrangements. That needs fixing.

[Nearly Sane]

you call it prejudices , I call it awareness
You say illogical position , I say hiding your head in the sand denial

Awareness that you haven't provided any evidence for.

And the illogical position is about your position on democracy, any denial of mine would be about the evidence  which you have provided none

[SusanDoris]

The current special status of the CofE predates more recent social trends involving non-Christian religious affiliations, and as far as I can see having 26 'Lords Spiritual' is an irrelevance in terms of countering any supposed influences from other religions and especially since, it seems to me the CofE, are more interested in protecting and maintaining their own special status and getting to put crowns on the heads of equally useless monarchs every now and then. Moreover, the special status of the CofE is already 'broke' since they sit in a UK as opposed to exclusively English parliament and are therefore irrelevant to those of us in Scotland, in that the main Scottish protestant organisation (the Church of Scotland) isn't affiliated to the CofE.

I can't see why the CofE can't operate on the same basis as the CofS does, and if the CofE are seen to represent Christians who are members of the CofE (or denominations affiliated to the CofE) then I can't see that they can be said to represent Christians of other denominations or any non-Christians - so they are now are representing a declining constituency but have a disproportionate influence in UK political governance arrangements. That needs fixing.

I agree with nearly all that you say, but since things are not going to happen as straightforwardly and securely as you propose, I'll take the status quo rather than any kind of a vacuum or not fully evaluated steps into too much uncertainty.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have n idea what the term means, it's all a bit raindrops on Moses, and whiskers on mittens.

Quite, and just because many people consider themselves to be spiritual (but certainly not all) that doesn't mean that the CofE somehow represents them. If their 'spirituality' aligned with that of the CofE then surely they'd choose to become members of the CofE, i.e. on their so-called electoral roll. But over 98% of people in the UK, whether spiritual or not, have chosen not to be included on the CofE electoral roll. So how on earth can it be claimed that CofE Bishops 'represent' them when they have taken the decision not to be part of that organisation.

Note too that CofE average weekly attendance continues to nose-dive, having reduced by over 11% in just the past 5 years (all age average weekly attendance currently stands at just 1.4% of the UK population). 

[Nearly Sane]

If the long-time members of this forum, after all this time, think I am someone with a closed mind, well, theree's not much I can do about it! Just in case, though, I will point out that I do not have a closed mind.

Which is not exactly evidenced by refusal to look at links or discuss thngs

[Gordon]

I agree with nearly all that you say, but since things are not going to happen as straightforwardly and securely as you propose, I'll take the status quo rather than any kind of a vacuum or not fully evaluated steps into too much uncertainty.

Sometimes though it needs revolution and not evolution to change things, and especially where the status quo seems to be justified only by fallacious arguments from authority and tradition: the status quo is undemocratic and anachronistic and in my view the best approach would be to simply bin the HoL and the monarchy, since the positions of the 'Lords Spiritual', the established status of the CofE and the monarchy are all intertwined.

[SusanDoris]

Sometimes though it needs revolution and not evolution to change things, and especially where the status quo seems to be justified only by fallacious arguments from authority and tradition: the status quo is undemocratic and anachronistic and in my view the best approach would be to simply bin the HoL and the monarchy, since the positions of the 'Lords Spiritual', the established status of the CofE and the monarchy are all intertwined.

Okay, so what is your thought out, practical, available for immediate setting up, plan - which of course would have to be readily accepted by all?
There isn't one, is there?!

Say that last sentence with stress on isn't and is

[Nearly Sane]

Okay, so what is your thought out, practical, available for immediate setting up, plan - which of course would have to be readily accepted by all?
There isn't one, is there?!

Say that last sentence with stress on isn't and is

And your plan to maintain religious privilege isn't readily acceptable to all, is it?

Nor was getting rid of slavery, so  on the basis of your position above you would have opposed getting rid of that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have read the Baggini articles and they seem pretty reasonable to me. There are certainly extremists who go beyond true secularism, but that doesn't mean the extreme voice is the vouce of secularism. As I said earlier it is important not to view secularism as atheism or antitheism. Sounds a similar argument to people saying religious extremists don't represent the true voice of the religion doesn't it.

The articles don't really give any evidence that secularism is atheistic,and nor have you. I amsure you can gind dome examples but where is theevidence that this is the main stream view?

The very fact that Baggini has to write them indicates that there is a problem over what he terms as neutrality.

I am perhaps a bit more read on Baggini but in an item where he quotes Rawls on the language of secularism, Baggini suggests IMV that eventually everyone has to settle on the same language and that is not religious. Baggini IMV supports this by saying that the majority are not religious so that dictates the language of secularism. That is rot since for secularism to work we cannot remain lazily ignorant of the different views or languages of those views because we are waiting for the other party to make their views comprehensible to us. I cannot afford the time to wade back through Baggini so any links are going to have to wait.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just checking in again to see whether Vladdo has worked out yet his category error problem of comparing theism (a set of beliefs and practices) with secularism (the separation of those beliefs and practices from access by right to the offices of state).

Ah, and that’s a “no” then. It’s getting weirder now though – if, say, enough RCs (or leprechaunists for that matter) stood in an election and won the majority of seats there’s nothing about secularism that would stop them from forming the majority party in the House of Commons. And if they stayed there long enough there’s nothing to stop them from eventually nominating so many co-religionists for the HoL that they would form the majority there too.   

The NSS is of course doing no such thing – to the contrary it expressly protects the rights of those with any religion as well as those with none. What the NSS does do though is to campaign against special privileges being given to any of them by right in the offices and instruments of state. 

And who could argue with that?

Well me.
Every apparently innocuous statement above would be undone if the NSS were to be successful in the separation of ''church'' from ''state'' as defined by people like yoursel' Hillside.

[Nearly Sane]

Well me.
Every apparently innocuous statement above would be undone if the NSS were to be successful in the separation of church from state as defined by people like yoursel' Hillside.

Why?

[Gordon]

Okay, so what is your thought out, practical, available for immediate setting up, plan - which of course would have to be readily accepted by all?
There isn't one, is there?!

Say that last sentence with stress on isn't and is

No idea: it would be a major change that is clearly beyond my competence to determine.

However, I'd argue that it should be within the wit of our elected representatives to consult and come up with a set of proposals that would revise current political governance arrangements that will include: the removal of the HoL, the removal of the special status of the CofE and the abandonment of monarchy - where the presumption would be that any new arrangements will involve democratic elections for all governance positions, where this may also provide the opportunity to consider replacing the FPP electoral system with an alternative.

Things can change though: Brexit is the obvious example of fairly rapid and significant political change, as was the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 (where elections to it use a form of proportional representation).   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

Because the term state means public forum and the word church is the religious.
If you have different interpretations of those words lets here them now since you seem to be in denial over any problems with the interpretation of the term neutrality which I think deserves more attention than a ''pull yourselves together, religionists''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Well me.

Every apparently innocuous statement above would be undone if the NSS were to be successful in the separation of ''church'' from ''state'' as defined by people like yoursel' Hillside.

So now all Vladdo has to explain is why on earth he thinks that. As many theists actively support the secular state it's hard to imagine why he feels excluded from the same position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Because the term state means public forum and the word church is the religious.

And whammo he goes straight in with the next lie. "Public forum" and "offices of state" are clearly not the same thing at all.

If you have different interpretations of those words lets here them now since you seem to be in denial over any problems with the interpretation of the term neutrality which I think deserves more attention than a ''pull yourselves together, religionists''.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that the "problem" is that he's just making up his own meanings again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: it would be a major change that is clearly beyond my competence to determine.

However, I'd argue that it should be within the wit of our elected representatives to consult and come up with a set of proposals that would revise current political governance arrangements that will include: the removal of the HoL, the removal of the special status of the CofE and the abandonment of monarchy - where the presumption would be that any new arrangements will involve democratic elections for all governance positions, where this may also provide the opportunity to consider replacing the FPP electoral system with an alternative.

Things can change though: Brexit is the obvious example of fairly rapid and significant political change, as was the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 (where elections to it use a form of proportional representation).   

I'd don't think you have no idea, I think you would just have elected representatives where a majority party could rule unencumbered or unscrutinised.
What about elimination of FPTP?

Brexit hasn't happened yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And whammo he goes straight in with the next lie. "Public forum and "offices of state" are clearly not the same thing at all.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that the "problem" is that he's just making up his own meanings again.

You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious. So for him then separation of church and state means exclusion of religious people from the state.

Another thing we have to challenge this wolfinsheepsclothingism on is where he gets offices of state from. Is he equating the state with the offices thereof? What does Mr Wolf consider the offices of state are?

[ProfessorDavey]

You will notice that Hillside has no apparent problem with equating church with the religious. So for him then separation of church and state means exclusion of religious people from the state.

What a ridiculous statement.

An analogy:

I equate football teams with football supporters. So if I think that there should be a separation of Manchester United and the state, does that mean exclusion of Manchester United fans (let alone football supporters) from the state.

And of course the vast majority of people who claim to be religious aren't members of the CofE.

[SteveH]

My uassuming little thread, started as a light-hearted alternative to That Woman's predictable moan, has grown into a monster!

[Anchorman]

Sometimes though it needs revolution and not evolution to change things, and especially where the status quo seems to be justified only by fallacious arguments from authority and tradition: the status quo is undemocratic and anachronistic and in my view the best approach would be to simply bin the HoL and the monarchy, since the positions of the 'Lords Spiritual', the established status of the CofE and the monarchy are all intertwined.

The first step (he said, as Presbyterian, hoping my Presbytery will bar me from sitting in it( would be to abolosh the Act of Settlement, forciing the puppet numpty who wears the golden hat to be an Anglican. - sorry - to pay lip service to being an Anglican. Given the track record of the rabble of Hanover/saxe-Coburg/Windsor, that's a tall order to aspire to.
Why should the head of state be the head of a church, just because a constituent bit of a so-calloed united Kingdom's twit on the throne wanted sex with a younger woman - legally - five centuries ago?
Why should the puppet with the golden hat be head of a church because her ancestor ws an incestuous, drunken German Protestant, rather than an Italian speaking Franco-Scottish drunken Catholic?