Religion in our schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By giving what?

Time, through volunteering?

Money, through charitable donations?

If so neither are on the decline.

You have deliberately missed out what you should know I include as charity had you bothered to read my posts.

The giving of money collectively through taxation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can I have some facts with that straw?

There is austerity, The cut in public service due to collective tax and spending policy.

You yourself have been flagging that up for years.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I note that you evaded the point about the U.S.. And then have made up your definition of secular. And then with no facts have used a correlation implies causation approach with no correlation. Really quite impressively bad post from you.

Your ''never mind the UK what about America'' is whataboutery. THAT is quite impressively bad from a chap for whom whataboutery is his lietmotif.

The american christianity you talk about is palpably a syncretism of protestantism and frontier spirit.

[ProfessorDavey]

And the problem is Davey that there is a massive decrease in charity ...

There isn't.

So looking at the past couple of decades:

Proportion of people formally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 27%
2016 - 27%

Proportion of people informally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 34%
2016 - 34%

Average hours per person formally volunteering
2001 - 11.0
2016 - 11.6

Charitable donations (excluding legacies etc) and adjusted for inflation
2002 - £15.7Billion
2006 - £19.6Billion

Total charitable sector income, adjusted for inflation
2002 - £34Billion
2006 - £47Billion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There isn't.

So looking at the past couple of decades:

Proportion of people formally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 27%
2016 - 27%

Proportion of people informally volunteering at least once a month
2001 - 34%
2016 - 34%

Average hours per person formally volunteering
2001 - 11.0
2016 - 11.6

Charitable donations (excluding legacies etc) and adjusted for inflation
2002 - £15.7Billion
2006 - £19.6Billion

Total charitable sector income, adjusted for inflation
2002 - £34Billion
2006 - £47Billion

And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?

If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.

[Nearly Sane]

There is austerity, The cut in public service due to collective tax and spending policy.

You yourself have been flagging that up for years.

So that would be no facts then. In order to  show a 'massive decrease' in tax receipts, you would need to show a massive decrease in the % of GDP taken in tax, do you have such facts. And I note that you have again ignored the point about the U.S. And the problem of correlation does nor mean causation though you still have to show facts, which you have not done, to have any correlation.

[Nearly Sane]

Your ''never mind the UK what about America'' is whataboutery. THAT is quite impressively bad from a chap for whom whataboutery is his lietmotif.

The american christianity you talk about is palpably a syncretism of protestantism and frontier spirit.

No, if you are claiming secular means less tax for health and education, then the U'S' falsifies it. You just managed to show that you have no understanding of whataboutery/tu quoque fallacy.

I have no idea how you think your last sentence  has relevance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So that would be no facts then. In order to  show a 'massive decrease' in tax receipts, you would need to show a massive decrease in the % of GDP taken in tax, do you have such facts. And I note that you have again ignored the point about the U.S. And the problem of correlation does nor mean causation though you still have to show facts, which you have not done, to have any correlation.

The point about US is whataboutery, a deviation but consistent with a British Atheists shite perspective where Christians are generally white, southern, wunnerful teeth and either Robert Tilton/Jerry Falwell types or their followers and if not then poor, helpless and sapped.......completely ignoring the Bishop Curry Christianity.

America has never had a national health service. We have one and an increasingly secular society (NSS understanding) appear to be collectively acting against public services.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?

If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.

Which is entirely to do with politics and the overall economic position of the UK - which has absolutely nothing to do with secularisation.

[Nearly Sane]

The point about US is whataboutery, a deviation but consistent with a British Atheists shite perspective where Christians are generally white, southern, wunnerful teeth and either Robert Tilton/Jerry Falwell types or their followers and if not then poor, helpless and sapped.......completely ignoring the Bishop Curry Christianity.

America has never had a national health service. We have one and an increasingly secular society (NSS understanding) appear to be collectively acting against public services.

So once again you show you don't understand whataboutery, and again no facts, and again some irrelevant verbiage. Is there a worst post of the year award that you are trying to win?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, if you are claiming secular means less tax for health and education, then the U'S' falsifies it. You just managed to show that you have no understanding of whataboutery/tu quoque fallacy.

I have no idea how you think your last sentence  has relevance.

I think youhave demonstrate that as far as Tu Quoque is concerned you are humbug of the stripiest and minteist variety.

I am asking 1) you to explain why good things in society should be laid at the door of secularisation but bad things shouldn't.

2) Explain why there is a decrease in the giving through taxation to health, care and education, which patently isn't being made good by personal donation in a society which is becoming increasingly secular in terms of an increasingly lower profile of religion and increasing numbers of those claiming to be non religious.

[Nearly Sane]

And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?

If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.

You are the one with the thesis that secularisation has lead to a 'massive reduction' in tax take. Any facts to support that there has been a 'massive reduction' in tax take? Because I've asked you for some facts several times now and you have provided none. its almost like you don't have any.

[ProfessorDavey]

If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.

You might want to check out these 2 links. These provide data on public spending (i.e. from taxation on health and education), with perhaps the most valuable being as a proportion of GDP.

The data are from 1950 to present - a period of intense reductions in religiosity and increased secularisation - so if your thesis is correct you would expect to see a consistent decline in resources per GDP going into health and education ... but you don't.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_education_analysis
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_healthcare_analysis

The trend on health is clearly up, while on education it is more complex, with recent reductions in spend per GDP associated with a politically motivated austerity agenda. But even then spending per GDP is significantly higher than in the (oh so more religious and less secular) 1950s

[Nearly Sane]

I think youhave demonstrate that as far as Tu Quoque is concerned you are humbug of the stripiest and minteist variety.

I am asking 1) you to explain why good things in society should be laid at the door of secularisation but bad things shouldn't.

2) Explain why there is a decrease in the giving through taxation to health, care and education, which patently isn't being made good by personal donation in a society which is becoming increasingly secular in terms of an increasingly lower profile of religion and increasing numbers of those claiming to be non religious.

  That's brilliant on showing you don't understand the tu quoque, you have actually used a tu quoque. A moebius strip of idiotic irony.

Point 1) - I haven't made any such claim

Point 2) You haven't demonstrated any 'massive reduction' that you have claimed so there isn't anything to explain. You need to show some facts.

[ippy]

Unless of course in the very near future you are shown new information that causes you to alter your thoughts and opinions.

Of course you're right every idea is subject to evidence and I very much doubt there will be anything worthy of the name in the way of evidence supplied by any religion any time soon anywhere.

Regards ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet again you are ignoring collective charity through taxation.
Why do you keep doing this?

If your thesis is correct there should be overall improvement in Health, social care and educational resources.

You can go even further - back to 1900 (a period of way higher religiosity, so therefore the health and education systems should have been awash with resources.

Yet.

In 1900 we spent just 1.3% of our GDP on education - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 4.5% of GDP on education.

Health is even more stark in improved resourcing - in 1900 we spent just 0.3% of our GDP - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 7.3% of GDP.

And that period is associated with slow and then rapid decline in religiosity and an increasing secular society.

Maybe you've got your graphs the wrong way up, if you are seeing this 'massive reduction'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You might want to check out these 2 links. These provide data on public spending (i.e. from taxation on health and education), with perhaps the most valuable being as a proportion of GDP.

The data are from 1950 to present - a period of intense reductions in religiosity and increased secularisation - so if your thesis is correct you would expect to see a consistent decline in resources per GDP going into health and education ... but you don't.

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_education_analysis
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_healthcare_analysis

The trend on health is clearly up, while on education it is more complex, with recent reductions in spend per GDP associated with a politically motivated austerity agenda. But even then spending per GDP is significantly higher than in the (oh so more religious and less secular) 1950s

So there has been no austerity then, everybody with needs is as well off as they have ever been, The NHS and social care are providing more to individuals than they have ever done and it's only going to get better and better.

Here we see blind faith in secular progress in action.

Health professionals concerned about provision. A and E waiting times longer.
Social care provision in trouble school heads constantly reporting cuts.

While this has happened we have observed a phenomenal drop in religious belief.

But no..... for your standard Public atheist things are just getting better and better.

[ippy]

You can go even further - back to 1900 (a period of way higher religiosity, so therefore the health and education systems should have been awash with resources.

Yet.

In 1900 we spent just 1.3% of our GDP on education - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 4.5% of GDP on education.

Health is even more stark in improved resourcing - in 1900 we spent just 0.3% of our GDP - in 2016 (even after Tory austerity) we were spending 7.3% of GDP.

And that period is associated with slow and then rapid decline in religiosity and an increasing secular society.

Maybe you've got your graphs the wrong way up, if you are seeing this 'massive reduction'.

The NHS could have around another £26 million if the chaplains were paid for by those organisations that they represent, including I believe it's the one humanist chaplain.

Before anyone goes into an argument about the good works chaplains do in our hospitals, I'm referring to the funding of chaplains and have no complaints about them being there in our NHS.

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

So there has been no austerity then

I never said that - quite the reverse.

What I have said is that there is no evidence that the declining religiosity and increasing secularisation in the Uk that has occurred over the past few decades is associated with declining public spending on health and education (it isn't). Nor is it associated with declining levels of private charitable giving or volunteering.

[ippy]

I note on you post 117 Vlad you still haven't got a clue about secularism you really don't understand the whole of the secularist idea.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that - quite the reverse.

What I have said is that there is no evidence that the declining religiosity and increasing secularisation in the Uk that has occurred over the past few decades is associated with declining public spending on health and education (it isn't). Nor is it associated with declining levels of private charitable giving or volunteering.

I never said that - quite the reverse.

What I have said is that there is no evidence that the declining religiosity and increasing secularisation in the Uk that has occurred over the past few decades is associated with declining public spending on health and education (it isn't). Nor is it associated with declining levels of private charitable giving or volunteering.

Spending on health and education is ultimately in the hands of the electorate which of course is increasingly non religious.

You say there is no link but there has in the last couple of decades been a phenomenal decline in the religious.

Using the graphs from your recommended website. The trend on health spending has remarkably altered, Dare I say downward? Certainly not enough to keep up.

Nobody but those who vote for a certain general tax and spend policy is responsible for that, Davey. Responsibility lies with the increasingly secular (NSS understanding) society obviously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I note on you post 117 Vlad you still haven't got a clue about secularism you really don't understand the whole of the secularist idea.

Regards ippy

I take my cue from the National Secularists who take their idea of an increasingly secular society from the declining numbers of the religious.

You should know this because you triumphantly keep us informed of the success of secularism and, and as, the decline in religion.

That is why I am now adding ''NNS understanding'' every time I use it.

[ippy]

I take my cue from the National Secularists who take their idea of an increasingly secular society from the declining numbers of the religious.

You should know this because you triumphantly keep us informed of the success of secularism and, and as, the decline in religion.

That is why I am now adding ''NNS understanding'' every time I use it.

Yes I do convey my personal views to you and also keep you updated on the decline of religion but my personal view isn't necessarily a word for word description of the secular point of view and that's where you go wrong you still don't understand the views and aims of secularism, you get them mixed up with my personal point of view.

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

You say there is no link but there has in the last couple of decades been a phenomenal decline in the religious.

I'm not sure I would use the term 'phenomenal' but certainly there has been a steady decline in religiosity.

Using the graphs from your recommended website. The trend on health spending has remarkably altered, Dare I say downward?

Rubbish.

Even following the period of austerity post 2010 health spending per GDP is markedly up over the past two decades. In 1996 health spending was 5.07% of GDP - fast forward 2 decades to 2016 and it is now 7.27% of GDP. How can you claim that to be a decline?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure I would use the term 'phenomenal' but certainly there has been a steady decline in religiosity.
Rubbish.

Even following the period of austerity post 2010 health spending per GDP is markedly up over the past two decades. In 1996 health spending was 5.07% of GDP - fast forward 2 decades to 2016 and it is now 7.27% of GDP. How can you claim that to be a decline?

The trouble is the fast forwarding since you are bidding us to consider just two reference points which should be enough to endanger any scientific reputation. However anyone looking at the charts will notice a change of trend in the last ten years.