We need to talk about secular humanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.

Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.

When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded. 

[Nearly Sane]

In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.

Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.

When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.

Pish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pish

Your posts are the equivalent of Japanese knotweed.
Any way I'm off.

[Nearly Sane]

Your posts are the equivalent of Japanese knotweed.
Any way I'm off.

Mince

[Sebastian Toe]

Any way I'm off.

Indefinitely?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indefinitely?

Since i'm gone, your not going to know.

[Enki]

In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.

Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.

When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.

It doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to join these two anachronistic and biased systems if you disagree with them. As soon as you do so, you would then rightly be labelled a hypocrite.  Perhaps those supporting such systems want to get humanist organizations on side, so to speak, in order to tar them with the same brush as they themselves are tarred with and, hence, obviate any criticism from that quarter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to join these two anachronistic and biased systems if you disagree with them. As soon as you do so, you would then rightly be labelled a hypocrite.  Perhaps those supporting such systems want to get humanist organizations on side, so to speak, in order to tar them with the same brush as they themselves are tarred with and, hence, obviate any criticism from that quarter.

Apart from making the fallacy of modernity here, there is nothing anachronistic about letting any world view group establish a school or being represented at the highest levels in the house of Lord's.

If there is an anachronism it is the faith schools campaign which is based on not having the opportunity to found schools which has been rectified.

The argument now looks solely like ''we don't want these things not because they are not fair but because we want all schools to be intrinsically secular and humanist.'' That looks a lot darker. You look hypocritical by staying out not pitching in.

The foundation of a new university in London by Grayling and Dawkins among others shows there is no real problem among humanists in educational foundation. So I give credit to them for blowing your argument.

[ProfessorDavey]

In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.

Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.

When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.

You really don't understand what the word 'secular' means, do you Vlad.

Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support establishing humanists schools - why ... because they believe in secularism.

Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support having a token humanist in the Lords Spiritual - why ... because they believe in secularism.

You might as well argue that people who oppose segregation in schools should just set up their own segregated school. Or people who believe that both houses of parliament should be democratically elected should be happy if they are appointed (not elected) to the HoLs.

[Outrider]

In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.

Saddle up!

Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.

Oh, lets... should I get popcorn?

Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

They want children to be educated rather than indoctrinated - it's not enough just to limit that to the children within their own schools, don't all children deserve a free and balanced education? Why do you want to deprive children of a good education?

Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.

If the nature of the institution is broken because it structurally invests excessive influence and power in a select group, inviting different people into that group doesn't fix the issue, it makes them complicit.

When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.

They aren't being offered equality, they're being offered the opportunity to join in the very institutional, structural distortions that they're campaigning against.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

No they don't - I don't think many secular humanists have objections to faith schools - what they object to is that they are tax-payer funded and discriminate on the ground of religion on their admissions criteria.

[jeremyp]

In my opinion there is a pattern, a modus operandii begins to appear in secular humanism.
Let's look at two humanist 'campaigns' as they call them.

Firstly the faith schools campaign. Under the present government it has been possible for secular humanism to sponsor schools and to set up their own freeschool but no. They want to deprive faith schools of their existence.

State schools already are mostly secular. The argument is not that we need more secular schools but that faith schools are divisive and teach children bullshit.

Secondly the House of Lords. When a place for them is suggested say, on this board, it is no. Let's just get rid of Lords spiritual.

When secular Humanists are offered equality they opt for the antireligion route and worse still the route that leaves their view the only view institutionally embedded.

Abolishing the Lords Spiritual is not anti-religion. The Lords Temporal would be abolished as well and we would just have Lords.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really don't understand what the word 'secular' means, do you Vlad.

It is from your and other atheist descriptions, variously the inclusion of all world views or religions or the eradication of religious privilege from the public space what ever that is , or it is the eradication of religion from the public forum.

Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support establishing humanists schools - why ... because they believe in secularism.

That rather puts humanists themselves classing humanism as a religion or faith doesn't it. All secularism means is removing religion(hard secularism)from or getting it to share the public space  with.(soft secularists). Both effectively end up with a place reflecting institutionally the secular humanist view alone. so hard secularists end up with a true indoctrinating secular humanist establishment if they get their way and soft secularists end up qualifying their views by teaching religion as an arm of history or geography.

Of course 'secular' humanists aren't going to support having a token humanist in the Lords Spiritual - why ... because they believe in secularism.

But going by census data their wouldn't be just a token humanist.

You might as well argue that people who oppose segregation in schools should just set up their own segregated school.

But are Secular Humanists opposed to segregation in schools or just faith schools i've noticed posters who are quite comfortable with private schools. It is called the faith school campaign after all ,not the school segregation campaign.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is from your and other atheist descriptions, variously the inclusion of all world views or religions or the eradication of religious privilege from the public space what ever that is , or it is the eradication of religion from the public forum.

Secularism is the separation between religion and the state - in effect that the state is neutral in regard of religion, neither privileging religion nor disadvantaging religion and people on the basis that they do or do not follow a particular religion. So no secularist worth the name is going to support state funding faith schools and nor would they support state funded humanist schools either, as to do so would similarly privilege one group and therefore disadvantage others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They want children to be educated rather than indoctrinated

They want their children and others in an institution that has secular humanism implicit in it's constitution and they want to avoid having to found schools with this implicit constitution

- it's not enough just to limit that to the children within their own schools, don't all children deserve a free and balanced education? Why do you want to deprive children of a good education?

Straw man argument. I want children to get a proper liberal education of course, your thesis about faith schools being the equivalent of Madrasses is, I think an incorrect one.

If the nature of the institution is broken because it structurally invests excessive influence and power in a select group, inviting different people into that group doesn't fix the issue, it makes them complicit.

Confusion over how all lords are appointed, exaggeration of the possible power and influence of 3.4% of the HoL. Misunderstanding of the foundational and continuing ethos of the HoL, hijacking a desire for reformation of the house of Lords to make it institutionally aspiritual and hard secular.

[ProfessorDavey]

But going by census data ...

As far as I am aware the census is completely silent on secular humanism - it isn't on of the tick box categories on the leading 'What is your religion' and seeing is it isn't a religion it wouldn't be appropriate for someone to indicate it on the 'write-in' box. And to infer that all people who answer 'no religion' are somehow secular humanists is muddled thinking in the extreme.

... their wouldn't be just a token humanist.

See above - but even if we did have census data on secular humanists and that indicated, lets say, that 70% of the UK population were secular humanists someone who is secular would still be very unlikely to support the notion of automatic places for leaders of secular humanist organisations in the HoLs - because it is fundamentally opposed to secularism which no more supports special privilege for non religious people as for religious people. Secularism is about neutrality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism is the separation between religion and the state[/quote - in effect that the state is neutral in regard of religion,.

Unfortunately that interpretation implies, unavoidably, a state that is institutionally secular humanist.

[ProfessorDavey]

They want their children and others in an institution that has secular humanism implicit in it's constitution and they want to avoid having to found schools with this implicit constitution

Eh - what are you on about Vlad. How do you work that one out Vlad.

I cannot speak for all humanists, but I guess I am broadly humanist in outlook. Do I want to send my kids to a humanist school - nope. Could I send my kids to a humanist school - nope (well certainly not in the state sectors), because there aren't any humanist schools. What I did was send my kids to a non faith school - that is no closer to being a humanist school than it is to being a jewish school as it favours neither humanism nor judaism in its constitution and mission. It is (as far as it can be within the current law) neutral with regard to religion and other philosophical '-isms'.

[ProfessorDavey]

Unfortunately that interpretation implies, unavoidably, a state that is institutionally secular humanist.

No it doesn't - you do understand that secularism and humanism are different things. You do recognise that you can be humanist without being secularist and that you can be secularist without being humanist.

So on secularism - sure if a country is secular it is ... err .. institutionally secular. Duh!!! But just because a country is secular doesn't make it humanist and indeed I think it would be very difficult for a country to be institutionally secular and institutionally humanist because the latter would nullify the former as the country would no longer be neutral with regard to religion if it is privileging a non religious philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

State schools already are mostly secular. The argument is not that we need more secular schools but that faith schools are divisive and teach children bullshit.Abolishing the Lords Spiritual is not anti-religion. The Lords Temporal would be abolished as well and we would just have Lords.

I disagree. You can't have lords that are not temporal as soon as you steer them away from focussing on world view issues and the world view level. Any segregation is divisive and more significantly so. Look at the issues that Eton and Winchester have thrown up. Secular humanists don't found schools yes but is that partly also because they are  insufficiently charitable. As I said humanists recently had no compunction in founding a university.

[Outrider]

They want their children and others in an institution that has secular humanism implicit in it's constitution and they want to avoid having to found schools with this implicit constitution Straw man argument.

No they want children in a school with a secular approach to education. Whether they teach humanism amongst the other faith positions is a question for the curriculum advisors, but the pastoral approach should not be using state-funded education to indoctrinate children into one particular faith or another.

I want children to get a proper liberal education of course, your thesis about faith schools being the equivalent of Madrasses is, I think an incorrect one.

I have a five year old coming home and telling me about the things that Jesus did and what God wants. That they aren't beating his feet with sticks for not memorising the catechism doesn't mean that they're not depicting faith positions as fact, which is a difficult thing to try to get a five year old to wrap his head around.

Confusion over how all lords are appointed, exaggeration of the possible power and influence of 3.4% of the HoL. Misunderstanding of the foundational and continuing ethos of the HoL, hijacking a desire for reformation of the house of Lords to make it institutionally aspiritual and hard secular.

Not institutionally aspiritual, but not institutionally beholden to a particular spiritual sect. What's 'hard secular', atheist? Is anyone suggesting that religious people be prohibited from sitting? Or are you strawmanning out of your arse at a rate of knots again?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't - you do understand that secularism and humanism are different things. You do recognise that you can be humanist without being secularist and that you can be secularist without being humanist.

So on secularism - sure if a country is secular it is ... err .. institutionally secular. Duh!!! But just because a country is secular doesn't make it humanist and indeed I think it would be very difficult for a country to be institutionally secular and institutionally humanist because the latter would nullify the former as the country would no longer be neutral with regard to religion if it is privileging a non religious philosophy.

Apparently Davey secular humanism is a thing. presumably it is at least non religious so religious humanists are not definitionally welcome or would feel welcome. What do we know about them, these secular humanists....they have campaigns against religion and they are against educational establishment except founding universities.

[Enki]

Apart from making the fallacy of modernity here, there is nothing anachronistic about letting any world view group establish a school or being represented at the highest levels in the house of Lord's.

It is entirely anachronistic that the lords spiritual are still allowed to function in all their undemocratic glory due in no small part to the power and influence of the church in centuries gone by. It is entirely anachronistic that at least one third of state funded schools are faith schools long after the influence and responsibility of the church schools has been superseded by the state.

If there is an anachronism it is the faith schools campaign which is based on not having the opportunity to found schools which has been rectified.

Not an anachronism at all,  as the idea of state funded schools not being subject to religious bias is grounded on balanced and egalitarian ideas.

The argument now looks solely like ''we don't want these things not because they are not fair but because we want all schools to be intrinsically secular and humanist.'' That looks a lot darker. You look hypocritical by staying out not pitching in.

It's called a level playing field, Vlad and your bias is showing yet again. Yes I want them to be secular. Why not? You do understand what 'secular' in this context means, don't you? Humanist, no, apart from it being a normal part of the curriculum,

The foundation of a new university in London by Grayling and Dawkins among others shows there is no real problem among humanists in educational foundation. So I give credit to them for blowing your argument.

On the contrary, that supports my argument. It is not state funded, Vlad. That is the point.

[jeremyp]

I disagree. You can't have lords that are not temporal as soon as you steer them away from focussing on world view issues and the world view level.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Is it your assertion that without the Lords Spiritual there would be only atheists in the HoL?

Any segregation is divisive and more significantly so. Look at the issues that Eton and Winchester have thrown up.

What issues would those be? On second thoughts, don't answer that: it would derail the thread.

Secular humanists don't found schools yes but is that partly also because they are  insufficiently charitable. As I said humanists recently had no compunction in founding a university.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but here in the UK, schools are mostly funded by the state. Schools that are funded by the state (which is already secular in this country) should not be divisive or teach bullshit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is entirely anachronistic that the lords spiritual are still allowed to function in all their undemocratic glory due in no small part to the power and influence of the church in centuries gone by. It is entirely anachronistic that at least one third of state funded schools are faith schools long after the influence and responsibility of the church schools has been superseded by the state.

Are you aware of the fallacy of modernity? Now, a Lords spiritual comprising of solely Church of England, bishops as representing the spirituality of the British people IS an anachronistic nonsense. But the idea of a proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views   
of the British people is not.

Not an anachronism at all,

That's not true, humanist and atheist movements can now I believe start their own establishments.

It's called a level playing field, Vlad and your bias is showing yet again. Yes I want them to be secular. Why not? You do understand what 'secular' in this context means, don't you? Humanist, no, apart from it being a normal part of the curriculum,

On the contrary, that supports my argument. It is not state funded, Vlad. That is the point.

Again, a secular school represents unavoidably a secular humanist institutionalised view and that alone.
That these campaigns remain happy with segregation on financial terms give lie to any equality/level playing field claims.