We need to talk about secular humanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

No. I think they would be called upon to ACT like atheists.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but here in the UK, schools are mostly funded by the state.

But founded by the church and in communities where that tradition has been valued. That's before mentioning that the communities which value the traditions and position of the church foundation schools are also taxpayers.

Schools that are funded by the state (which is already secular in this country)

which is funded by the taxpayer. Of course you can override local decisions or wants and that would be in the name of secular humanism.......No God, one people, one doctrine.

[jeremyp]

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.

If you wanted a "proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views of the British people" you would not have the Lords Spiritual, you'd either carefully select everybody in the chamber or you'd leave it to chance like we do with the House of Commons.

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

You're not listening to the arguments. Me starting a secular school would not, in any way, resolve the issue of faith schools which are divisive and teach bullshit and should not be funded with tax payers' money.

[Outrider]

Are you aware of the fallacy of modernity?

Yes, are you? That there is a fallacy of modernity does not mean that there are no anachronistic institutions.

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.

Perhaps not, but the idea that 'spirituality and belief and world views' need reserved seats - indeed, the notion of reserved seats at all - is an anachronistic idea.

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

Does the existence of a secular school in one place somehow alleviate the distorted indoctrination happening in a religious school somewhere else?

Again, a secular school represents unavoidably a secular humanist institutionalised view and that alone.

No, secularism does not lead inevitably to a promotion of humanism. Secularism can quite easily accommodate a range of religious ideas without favouring any one of them - that's the point of secular.

That these campaigns remain happy with segregation on financial terms give lie to any equality/level playing field claims.

Whether the individuals in those campaigns do or do not favour or accept private education is a different discussion.

O.

[jeremyp]

No. I think they would be called upon to ACT like atheists.

No they wouldn't. That's an unbelievably stupid argument. Even now, Lords Temporal are allowed to behave like religiosity if they like.

But founded by the church and in communities where that tradition has been valued.

"Because that's the way it's always been done" is not an argument for carrying on that way.

That's before mentioning that the communities which value the traditions and position of the church foundation schools are also taxpayers.which is funded by the taxpayer.

Communities aren't tax payers. People are tax payers.

Of course you can override local decisions or wants and that would be in the name of secular humanism.......No God, one people, one doctrine.

Nobody is arguing for "one people, one doctrine". We're just saying that faith schools are divisive, teach bullshit and should not be funded with public money.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you wanted a "proportionate representation of the spirituality and beliefs and world views of the British people" you would not have the Lords Spiritual, you'd either carefully select everybody in the chamber or you'd leave it to chance like we do with the House of Commons.

And people who get into the HoL are carefully selected

You're not listening to the arguments.

That's the point Jeremy. I for the first time it seems around here am holding un examined atheist beliefs and up for scrutiny and i'm afraid the egalitarian part of the ''campaign'' is shown to be bullshit, as is the question of fairness and balance.

 What is left is undiluted, naked antireligion.

[ProfessorDavey]

.. presumably it is at least non religious so religious humanists are not definitionally welcome or would feel welcome.

Welcome to what?!?

There are all sorts of humanists - some are religious, some are non religious.

There are all sorts of secularists - some are religious, some are non religious.

That a single organisation, e.g. HumanistsUK defines a specific brand of humanist is no more relevant than the fact that a single religious organisation might define a specific brand of religion. HumanistsUK does not speak for all humanists in the UK, it only speaks for those people who actively choose to follow it as an organisation by becoming a member.

[Enki]

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.

Rubbish as I am not appealing to the novelty of an idea but rather on democratic grounds.

 

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

If that were true(I.e. they could be state funded) then they would simply add to the original anachronism.


 

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.

Again, you are confusing secularism with humanism.

That some individuals want to promote independently funded institutions is a wholly different question which involves the whole argument about public schools for instance.

My position is that no faith school should be a state funded school. Do you agree?

[jeremyp]

And people who get into the HoL are carefully selected

But not on the criteria you cited.

That's the point Jeremy. I for the first time it seems around here am holding un examined atheist beliefs and up for scrutiny and i'm afraid the egalitarian part of the ''campaign'' is shown to be bullshit, as is the question of fairness and balance.

Fairness and balance? When twenty four seats in the House of Lords are closed to the majority of the population?

What is left is undiluted, naked antireligion.

Secularism is not anti religion. You're just upset because it is not pro religion either and you don't want your religion to lose its privileges.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fairness and balance? When twenty four seats in the House of Lords are closed to the majority of the population?

Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population.... all are closed in view of election.

Secularism is not anti religion

There is a Hard secularism and a soft secularism. The entry in wikipedia on secularisms outline what Hard and Soft secularism are.

You're just upset

If I am upset Jeremy it is on the banning of the original meaning of secular which is where we get Lords Temporal from. Life under the definition was spiritual and temporal and was seen as balancing the two. Under the present definition you can contemplate a totally secular life and that represents an homonculus. So it is not a case of me not wanting to lose privileges, that is a misconception that permits you to hate. It is a case of diminishing the spiritual aspect of humanity however you define that. If you don't like the word spiritual I am happy with the term ''nontemporal'' or belief or world view.

[Outrider]

Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population.... all are closed in view of election.

And yet we're discussing proposals for a new upper house - as you well know. Sadly familiar attempt at avoidance noted.

There is a Hard secularism and a soft secularism. The entry in wikipedia on secularisms outline what Hard and Soft secularism are.

It doesn't mention either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

One paper referenced in the bibliography talks about 'hard' secularists taking the position that religion is inherently unworthy and attempting to excise it from the public realm - that's not what's being suggested here, no-one is proposing banning religious people from being in the upper house, no-one is even suggesting that religious organisations should not be able to put forward candidates.

If I am upset Jeremy it is on the banning of the original meaning of secular which is where we get Lords Temporal from.

Actually, as is made clear in the paper that was referenced in the Wikipedia article on secularism, 'secular' as a term is a product of religion, something religious organisations took it up on themselves to define to clarify those things that weren't of a religious nature - things like government and politics.

Life under the definition was spiritual and temporal and was seen as balancing the two.

And yet there's no justification for that assumption that anything in life is 'spiritual', nor that even if there were any particular group has a good handle on it.

Under the present definition you can contemplate a totally secular life and that represents an homonculus.

No. Removing privileged seats for religion from the upper house neither removes religious people nor religious topics from that house - it just doesn't predispose the house in any way.

So it is not a case of me not wanting to lose privileges, that is a misconception that permits you to hate.

It's exactly that, because no-one is suggesting anything else. The Church of England currently has a privileged position, by way of reserved seats. You acknowledge that's not politically or socially viable, so you're trying to cling to a part of it by broadening the scope of those reserved seats. The problem is that, although it may well have been the presence of the Bishops that attracted the attention in the first place, many people have come to the realisation that the problem is reserved seats, not the presence of Bishops per se, so your attempt to cling to relevance isn't addressing the underlying issue, just the symptom.

It is a case of diminishing the spiritual aspect of humanity however you define that. If you don't like the word spiritual I am happy with the term ''nontemporal'' or belief or world view.

Call it whatever you'd like; unless you can demonstrate that it's actually a thing, then it carries no more or less weight than anyone else's opinion, and goes out to the electorate like everything else. If you can demonstrate it, then you need to show why it merits different consideration to everything else, or it can just go out to the electorate like everything else.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet we're discussing proposals for a new upper house - as you well know. Sadly familiar attempt at avoidance noted.

It doesn't mention either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

One paper referenced in the bibliography talks about 'hard' secularists taking the position that religion is inherently unworthy and attempting to excise it from the public realm

so hard and soft aren't mentioned......but they are eh, Ourider?

[ProfessorDavey]

Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population....

Actually no they aren't. The constitution allows pretty well anyone to be nominated to the Lords and the appointment process doesn't debar pretty well anyone in the UK. Sure it may be difficult to become a member (but when you've got a few hundred seats for a population of 60 million it is always going to be difficult to actually gain a seat). However no-one (well very few) are actually constitutionally excluded.

There are, however, two categories of HoLs seats that exclude most people - the Bishops and the legacy hereditary peers. I would, of course, like to see both of those groups abolished. And I'd like to see a situation in which no adult, irrespective of their religion, world-view etc can be considered for any seat in the HoL, with no seats automatically held for a particular category of people.

Out of interest Vlad - if you are concerned about religious leaders being banned from the Lords (and I agree you should be) I suggest you stop demonising secularists, none of whom have ever suggested that Bishops, priests, vicars, imams, rabbis etc cannot be offered seats. You should aim you ire at organisations that do ban religious leaders being represented in the Lords - for example the Roman Catholic Church who (unless things have changed recently) ban their priests from being members of the Lords.

[Outrider]

so hard and soft aren't mentioned......but they are eh, Ourider?

No. The issue of hard and soft secularism aren't mentioned in the wikipedia article at all. I only found the paper because it was in the title - it wasn't why the article had been cited. But don't let little things like having to try to deflect off into irrelevancies stop you from failing to address the points that I made, focus on the other mistakes you made so that you can pretend that at least you've not lost the original argument.

Any explanation for why we should reserve any seats in a new format upper house, yet?

O.

[jeremyp]

Most seats in the Hol are closed to the majority of the population....

No they aren't. The only entry requirement is that you get selected by the government or opposition.

There is a Hard secularism and a soft secularism. The entry in wikipedia on secularisms outline what Hard and Soft secularism are.

I would say the secularists on this board mostly go for the soft variety looking at their definition.

If I am upset Jeremy it is on the banning of the original meaning of secular which is where we get Lords Temporal from. Life under the definition was spiritual and temporal and was seen as balancing the two. Under the present definition you can contemplate a totally secular life and that represents an homonculus. So it is not a case of me not wanting to lose privileges, that is a misconception that permits you to hate. It is a case of diminishing the spiritual aspect of humanity however you define that. If you don't like the word spiritual I am happy with the term ''nontemporal'' or belief or world view.

That's no reason not to abolish the labels in the House of Lords.

[ProfessorDavey]

No they aren't. The only entry requirement is that you get selected by the government or opposition.

Even that isn't required - you can actually nominate yourself. You simply need to fill out a pretty simple form indicating how you meet their criteria and include a cv.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So guys what is driving your secularism?

''Secularism may be categorized into two types, "hard" and "soft". "Hard" secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible.''

 Or is it ''The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;arguing "the attainment of "absolute truth" is "impossible and therefore scepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion"

Source wikipedia: Secularism. My opinion is that you are all coming at this from the Hard Atheist position and that your assault on spirituality and faith schools is mainly motivated by that.

[ProfessorDavey]

So guys what is driving your secularism?

''Secularism may be categorized into two types, "hard" and "soft". "Hard" secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible.''

 Or is it ''The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;arguing "the attainment of "absolute truth" is "impossible and therefore scepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion"

Source wikipedia: Secularism. My opinion is that you are all coming at this from the Hard Atheist position and that your assault on spirituality and faith schools is mainly motivated by that.

Secularism doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the claims of religion are right or wrong, beyond the notion that we don't know. And as we don't know we should not favour any particular religion over any other religion. And we should not favour religion over non-religion or vice versa. Secularism is about fairness not about faith claims.

So as far as I am aware there is no-one on this MB who is anything other than a soft secularist, nor as far as I can see are any of the campaigning groups, e.g. NSS anything other than soft secular. In no way do I think we should 'ban religion' - nope I am a secularist as I think both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are important and the only way you can achieve both is by ensuring that no-one is advantaged or disadvantaged whether or not they are religious, or what religion they might follow. That means that there needs to be separation of the state and religions, similarly there needs to be separation of the state from equivalent non-religious organisations, such as HumanistsUK. That's the only way you can achieve fairness and equality.

And removal of special privileges isn't an 'assault' - it is removing discrimination as if you privilege one person you are, by definition, discrimination another. It is all about fairness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Secularism doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether the claims of religion are right or wrong, beyond the notion that we don't know. And as we don't know we should not favour any particular religion over any other religion. And we should not favour religion over non-religion or vice versa. Secularism is about fairness not about faith claims.

So as far as I am aware there is no-one on this MB who is anything other than a soft secularist, nor as far as I can see are any of the campaigning groups, e.g. NSS anything other than soft secular. In no way do I think we should 'ban religion' - nope I am a secularist as I think both freedom of religion and freedom from religion are important and the only way you can achieve both is by ensuring that no-one is advantaged or disadvantaged whether or not they are religious, or what religion they might follow. That means that there needs to be separation of the state and religions, similarly there needs to be separation of the state from equivalent non-religious organisations, such as HumanistsUK. That's the only way you can achieve fairness and equality.

And removal of special privileges isn't an 'assault' - it is removing discrimination as if you privilege one person you are, by definition, discrimination another. It is all about fairness.

First of all the manifestation of secularism in the faith school campaign is not about fairness because humanism has no inherent qualms about segregation by financial means of the parents. It denies the offer of equality in the foundation of schools and in the context of schools wants all schools to be institutionally secular humanist

Therefore because of it's focus on religion and it's aim that there cannot be religious schools the motivator is hard secularism as described in the Wikipedia article.

You attempt to seperate the hard secular from the humanist but a belief in hard secularism IS the basic belief of the humanists. That's why they are called secular humanists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they aren't. The only entry requirement is that you get selected by the government or opposition.

So these are political appointments favouring the political class or those who will show the correct political focus. That is too narrow a view.

I would say the secularists on this board mostly go for the soft variety looking at their definition.

I'm sorry but the aims and behaviours fit Hard Atheism namely the assumed invalidity of the religious. I would like to see a case put on this thread or another why most secularists on this board are soft rather than hard secularists. My thinking is whatever our world view or belief we are given to thinking were the good guy moderates rather than an unpleasant fundamentalist version and we have to keep that in check or at least 'fess up to it.

That's no reason not to abolish the labels in the House of Lords.

I think we are going to have to agree to differ on that one. Not least because Lords Temporal will always be temporal whether they are the only type left in the Lords or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

First of all the manifestation of secularism in the faith school campaign is not about fairness because humanism has no inherent qualms about segregation by financial means of the parents. It denies the offer of equality in the foundation of schools and in the context of schools wants all schools to be institutionally secular humanist

Absolute non-sense. Secularism is about separation of state and religion, so of course a secular campaign will always be about the involvement of the state in schooling, in other words state funded schools. Whether or not private schools are permitted isn't something that secularism will concern itself about. That doesn't, of course, mean that secularists won't also have a view on that and many will also object to private schools. However if they think that private schools should be allowed they (including me) will have no issue with some of those private schools being faith schools, providing their is a level playing field on assessment of the basic quality and safety of those schools.

Therefore because of it's focus on religion and it's aim that there cannot be religious schools the motivator is hard secularism as described in the Wikipedia article.

Non-sense again. Where have I said there cannot be faith schools - I haven't, see above. What I have said is I don't agree that there should be state funded faith schools. Classic soft secularism if you like the term. And this is absolutely about fairness. Despite the fact that everyone pays taxes for state funded schools parents who are non religious are clearly discriminated against in the current system - both direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. Removing that discrimination, which is the aim of the secular campaign, is about fairness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any explanation for why we should reserve any seats in a new format upper house, yet?

Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.

There are therefore no real objections to labels in the House of Lords.

Now the Law Lords became a separate supreme court. Now I don't know about you but how does a UK supreme conclave of world views sit with you? Why, if you baulked against the idea, do you not baulk against a supreme court. Answer? Hard Secularism.

I would also have doubts based around the house of lords being institutionally hard secular and that the temporal Lords no longer act as a check and a balance on the Lords world view. Would you not want the Lords spiritual to be a mere 3.4 % in a house of Lords than a 100% great ass big throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief?

[Gordon]

Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.

There are therefore no real objections to labels in the House of Lords.

Now the Law Lords became a separate supreme court. Now I don't know about you but how does a UK supreme conclave of world views sit with you? Why, if you baulked against the idea, do you not baulk against a supreme court. Answer? Hard Secularism.

I would also have doubts based around the house of lords being institutionally hard secular and that the temporal Lords no longer act as a check and a balance on the Lords world view. Would you not want the Lords spiritual to be a mere 3.4 % in a house of Lords than a 100% great ass big throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief?

What people seem to be saying to you, and what you seem to be struggling to comprehend, is that the archaic and undemocratic HofL should be dispensed with - and if there is to be a second chamber to replace it then it should be filled via regular elections (possibly using a form of PR): with no reserved seats for anyone on any basis.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What people seem to be saying to you, and what you seem to be struggling to comprehend, is that the archaic and undemocratic HofL should be dispensed with 

We're talking about secular Humanism. It's in the thread title. We are talking about it in the context of faith schools and the house of Lords.
You want to abolish the house of Lords, fine, we have discussed that in full. I believe we have touched upon your fallacies of modernity in other threads too.

What I may have an interest in discussing with you is your apparently limited conception of democracy.

Now, back to the thread where people I think are trying to justify why they are soft secularists rather than hard secularists. Care to contribute?

[Outrider]

Until 2009 there was another type of Lord, the Law Lord. There were no humanist or secularist campaigns against this division because it was outwith hard secularism.

Perhaps it was rather that there was considered to be a valid purpose to having qualified judges sit as Law Lords, given that it was the highest court of appeal in the land at the time. As soon as that function was passed to another body, those Law Lords were excised from the house.

There are therefore no real objections to labels in the House of Lords.

Carrots weren't objected to as green things, therefore my kiwi fruit are fine in this bolognese sauce...

Now the Law Lords became a separate supreme court. Now I don't know about you but how does a UK supreme conclave of world views sit with you? Why, if you baulked against the idea, do you not baulk against a supreme court. Answer? Hard Secularism.

We have laws, and we therefore need a system of arbiters of those laws - hence the courts. Those courts have a hierarchy, and the Supreme Court (arguments regarding some broader jurisdictions like the ECJ) is at the peak of that.

We don't have established in any firm way that there is 'spirit' or 'magic' or 'gods' and therefore we don't formally need to represent those in the legislature.

I would also have doubts based around the house of lords being institutionally hard secular and that the temporal Lords no longer act as a check and a balance on the Lords world view.

So would I, so would pretty much everyone here, it seems. You're pushing on an open door, no-one is trying to advocate for the removal of religious people from the institutions of power.

Would you not want the Lords spiritual to be a mere 3.4 % in a house of Lords than a 100% great ass big throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief?

I'd want the 'Lords Spiritual' to be a concept rather than an Act of Parliament - I'd want as many religious people in the upper house as the electorate sent there, on as much or as little religious posturing as got them elected.

As to a '100% great ass throbbing UK supreme council of Faith and belief' - you mean a panel of theological and ecumenical representatives capable of giving informed advice to the Lords? No, have as many of those as you'd like, and we'll trust the Lords to put their presentations into context, that's the point.

O.

[Outrider]

We're talking about secular Humanism.

We're talking about secularism, and when it's relevant secular humanism (the humanism bit hasn't been that relevant, so far). You appear to be talking about your favourite boogeyman, the Vlad-patented 'Anti-Theism'^TM and their campaign to eradicate religion from all walks of life.

We are talking about it in the context of faith schools and the house of Lords.

Again, we are, you aren't. No-one is trying to remove religious people from the upper house, no-one is attempting to prevent teaching about religions in schools. We are talking about removing structural artefacts that skew institutions in favour of religion, and in favour of one particular religion.

You want to abolish the house of Lords, fine, we have discussed that in full.

So did you, as it stands. You wanted a different structure, too, it was just a different different structure to what we were suggesting.

I believe we have touched upon your fallacies of modernity in other threads too.

No, you've mentioned the fallacy of modernity (but failed to explain how you though anyone was engaging in it) in an attempt to justify clinging to anachronistic ideas like 'Lords Spiritual'.

What I may have an interest in discussing with you is your apparently limited conception of democracy.

*ping* went the irony meter, once more. I even put that one on the James Webb Space Telescope in the hope that the distance would give it a chance, but alas...

Now, back to the thread where people I think are trying to justify why they are soft secularists rather than hard secularists. Care to contribute?

Care to listen? Why does anyone need to justify being one rather than the other? I believe in equality, hence the secularism. I believe in equality, hence not the hard secularism.

O.