We need to talk about secular humanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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 secular Humanism.....it's in the thread title.
Something else you missed was the description of Hard and soft secularism in the article on wikipedia. Indeed I quote from it on this thread but you seem to have failed to see that also.

[Gordon]

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.

As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are. 

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.

So we can add that one to the list of fallacies you don't understand.

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

From the guy that wants to bypass democracy so as to drop some religious people/clerics into political governance arrangements by default - the irony here is one of your best efforts yet. 

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?

Certainly - I move that there are just secularists, and that they have a range of views.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are. 

So we can add that one to the list of fallacies you don't understand.

From the guy that wants to bypass democracy so as to drop some religious people/clerics into political governance arrangements by default - the irony here is one of your best efforts yet. 

Certainly - I move that there are just secularists, and that they have a range of views.

Thanks for the information in the first point you make.
Points two and three are shit.
Point four I feel don't add much.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

Nope it was outwit secularism.

Let's set aside the fact that the Law Lords haven't sat in the Lords for well over a decade for a moment and ask the following questions.

1. Was it a requirement that you had to be from a particular religion? Answer - NO
2. Was being a Law Lord open to anyone regardless of their religion or lack of religion - Answer - YES.

Hence the issue of the Law Lords, prior to 2009 had nothing to do with secularism so why would an organisation whose mission is to campaign on issues relating to secularism campaign about the Law Lords, when there is no secularism element. You might equally challenge the RSPB on their lack of campaigning on faith schools, or the Guide Dogs Association for their lack of campaigning on reform of the House of Lords.

Oh, and by the way the Law Lords satting in the Lords was wrong - not on any secularism grounds, but because it failed to provide clear distinction between the legislature and the judiciary.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are.

I think that is merely an issue of terminology.

As far as I'm aware the same issues exist in Scotland. Specifically faith/denominational schools (call them what you will) which are state funded, established with a specific religious ethos and mission and with governance involving major representation from an organised religious denomination. In addition that those schools are able to discriminate in their admissions policies in favour of children who are of a particularly religion (or more realistically whose parents are), for example requiring evidence of baptism and/or regular church attendance which attains a higher ranking in the admissions criteria.

I think Scotland has an additional problem, which isn't the case in England - in that local authorise education boards are required to have three religious appointments on the board, which must involve RCC and Church of Scotland.

[Outrider]

we are talking about secular Humanism.....it's in the thread title.

The content of the conversation has been almost entirely about secularism - humanism has barely featured. The title could say 'Wankfantasy', but that wouldn't change what the conversation was actually about.

Something else you missed was the description of Hard and soft secularism in the article on wikipedia. Indeed I quote from it on this thread but you seem to have failed to see that also.

Still haven't explained how it's relevant, given that no-one is advocating a hard secularist position. Still haven't actually attempted to justify your point, rather than sniping at perceived off-topic errors from other people.

Something you missed in your argument appears to be your argument, but hey, keep on with the shitgun shotgun approach.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Something else you missed was the description of Hard and soft secularism in the article on wikipedia. Indeed I quote from it on this thread but you seem to have failed to see that also.

I didn't miss it - but I've not seen anything on here that could be characterised as 'hard' secularism, nor from UK secular organisations such as NSS, whose mission statement is:

'The National Secular Society champions the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone's human rights so no one is disadvantaged, nor privileged, because of their beliefs.

We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all. We promote secularism as the surest guarantor of religious freedom and the best means to foster a fair and open society, in which people of all religions and none can live together as equal citizens.' - my emphasis.

Sounds like the fluffiest, softest of soft secularism (to use your terms). Hardly fits with your non-sense notion that this is all about banning religion - how can you be wanting to ban religion if your mission is a state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think Scotland has an additional problem, which isn't the case in England - in that local authorise education boards are required to have three religious appointments on the board, which must involve RCC and Church of Scotland.

Why is that a problem? It seems to me it would only be a problem for a Hard secularist. As long as others are represented on the board I think this is the ideal soft secularist scenario.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't miss it - but I've not seen anything on here that could be characterised as 'hard' secularism, nor from UK secular organisations such as NSS, whose mission statement is:

'The National Secular Society champions the separation of religion and state and equal respect for everyone's human rights so no one is disadvantaged, nor privileged, because of their beliefs.

We campaign for a secular state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith, change it, or have no faith at all. We promote secularism as the surest guarantor of religious freedom and the best means to foster a fair and open society, in which people of all religions and none can live together as equal citizens.' - my emphasis.

Sounds like the fluffiest, softest of soft secularism (to use your terms). Hardly fits with your non-sense notion that this is all about banning religion - how can you be wanting to ban religion if your mission is a state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith.

Certainly softer than the man who thinks religious representatives on the education board is somehow a problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sounds like the fluffiest, softest of soft secularism (to use your terms). Hardly fits with your non-sense notion that this is all about banning religion - how can you be wanting to ban religion if your mission is a state in which all citizens are free to practise their faith.

What are the limits to the practice of it? What is the secularist definition of practice?

[Outrider]

Why is that a problem? It seems to me it would only be a problem for a Hard secularist. As long as others are represented on the board I think this is the ideal soft secularist scenario.

No, the hard secularist would object to the option of a religious board member, the soft secularist objects to the REQUIREMENT for one.

Why is a religious representative a requirement?

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

What are the chances of getting in to the HoL without the backing of the government or the opposition?

[jeremyp]

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

It's true that I'm not against private schools, but I don't oppose religious organisations setting up their own private faith schools. I just don't think tax revenue should be going to schools that promote divisive views and teach bullshit to children.

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.

So what? In what way could it possibly matter if you apply the label "hard" or "soft" to certain secular ideas?

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

No, this is you attempting a cheap trick. Stop obsessing over labels and concentrate on the ideas.

[jeremyp]

As far as I'm aware we don't have 'faith schools' in Scotland: we have some denominational schools, mainly RC, but they are open to non-RC pupils, the majority of schools in Scotland are non-denominational. 'Faith schools' seem to be a feature of the education system where you are. 

Your description of "non denominational schools" pretty much fits the definition of faith school in England. You do have faith schools.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the hard secularist would object to the option of a religious board member, the soft secularist objects to the REQUIREMENT for one.

But effectively both positions are against religious involvement in the public forum...which is Hard secularism. Soft secularism would not want exclusive religious representation.

Why is a religious representative a requirement?

Because of religious foundation, Because these schools were run for the benefit of the public prior to a consultative and mutual nationalisation, because the communities they serve have a religious component, because of the experience in educational matters by diocesan boards of education.

Now, here's one for you....why not? 

O.
[/quote]

[ProfessorDavey]

No, the hard secularist would object to the option of a religious board member, the soft secularist objects to the REQUIREMENT for one.

Why is a religious representative a requirement?

O.

Exactly.

And all other board members are elected members of the local authority in question - there are no other non-elected board members except for the automatic and required religious representatives, which must include at least on automatically appointed by the RCC and another automatically appointed by the Church of Scotland.

This is clearly a special privilege that directly benefits organised religious organisations in controlling the running of schooling and education. Removing that special privilege is clearly something that a soft secularist would expect, noting that there is no suggestion that the elected members aren't representative of the religious breakdown of their local area, so will likely also include people who are actively religious and are, of course, free to bring that perspective to discussions on schooling.

[ProfessorDavey]

What are the limits to the practice of it? What is the secularist definition of practice?

These will be based on balancing the right of freedom of religion, with the equally valid right to freedom from religion.

So if one person's freedom to practice their religion impacts upon another's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion then a judgement call needs to be made as to whether that is appropriate or not.

And similarly if one person's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion impacts on another's freedom to practice their religion then a judgement call needs to be made as to whether that is appropriate or not.

The state takes a neutral view and looks to protect both groups freedoms and rights equally.

[ProfessorDavey]

What are the chances of getting in to the HoL without the backing of the government or the opposition?

If you applying to become a non party affiliated peer then the backing of either government or the opposition is irrelevant and would be like be considered negatively as it would imply a party political bias.

Nominations for applications to become a so-called cross-bencher are taken by an independent Appointments Commission, based on merit. Support from the government or opposition is completely irrelevant as I mentioned above.

Anyone can apply - you can even self-nominate.

[Outrider]

But effectively both positions are against religious involvement in the public forum...

No, they aren't. One of them is, one of them is about not favouring religion. They both, arguably, seek to reduce the current religious privilege - which is a good thing - but one of them wishes to go further.

which is Hard secularism.

Which would be hard secularism, if that was what was happening, but it's not. It's as much 'Hard Secularism' as it is 'Islamic Extremism'.

Soft secularism would not want exclusive religious representation.

Absolutely. Hard secularism wouldn't, either.

Because of religious foundation, Because these schools were run for the benefit of the public prior to a consultative and mutual nationalisation, because the communities they serve have a religious component, because of the experience in educational matters by diocesan boards of education.

None of which prevents a school OPTING to have a religious board member, none of which bans religious people from taking part in the organisation of a school, but equally they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so.

Now, here's one for you....why not?

Because children deserve to be educated in a space that doesn't favour religion over non-religion, or one religion over others. Because being an organised religion doesn't offer any particular insight into education or child welfare.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because children deserve to be educated in a space that doesn't favour religion over non-religion, or one religion over others.

So you would favour non religion over religion....... and the answer to someone who questions religious representation must be yes

Because being an organised religion doesn't offer any particular insight into education or child welfare.

But we know for instance that the backbone of the primary system at least are schools founded by religions. Diocesan boards of Education are part of the repository of educational expertise.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you would favour non religion over religion....... and the answer to someone who questions religious representation must be yes

Only if you support non-religious representation (i.e. someone specifically appointed to represent non-religion) - and of course none of us are calling for this. So all we are saying is that there should be neither formal and automatic religious representation nor formal and automatic non-religious representation. That is about having a level playing field that neither favours religion over non-religion, nor non-religion over religion.

Of course committee members will bring their own religious and non-religious perspectives, based on their individual beliefs to the committee and that is absolutely fine, but in neither case is their appointment on the basis as acting as a formal representative for religion or for non-religion. As often happens with public bodies we'd want to be mindful of diversity on the committee, so we might have concerns if the committee ended up predominantly RCC or atheist etc, etc in the same manner as we might have concerns if a committee was entirely male, entirely white or entirely middle aged etc. But the approach then would be to encourage a broader diversity of people to put themselves forward for election/appointment as appropriate.

[Outrider]

So you would favour non religion over religion...

On a purely personal level I'd like education to be able to focus on something useful, but the state of the world is such that children need to be taught about some of the predominant religious viewpoints. I don't see a need for religious organisations to be involved in the running of schools, and certainly I object to religious organisations using them as tools of indoctrination. I advocate for religion not having preferential treatment.

.... and the answer to someone who questions religious representation must be yes

And, yet again, because you seem to have some sort of fetish for this particular straw man, no-one is arguing against the OPTION of religious representation - in schools or in the upper house of parliament - we're arguing against it being an institutional requirement.

But we know for instance that the backbone of the primary system at least are schools founded by religions.

Hardly the backbone, but there are certainly a number of schools which were founded by religious organisations, and many which are still funded by religious organisations and which operate within premises owned by religious organisations - none of which is a good argument for requiring them to be involved the educational or pastoral decisions of those schools.

Diocesan boards of Education are part of the repository of educational expertise.

At best, questionable. If particular individuals are, then by all means consider those individuals for a place, but that doesn't mandate the requirement that school boards have religious representation.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only if you support non-religious representation (i.e. someone specifically appointed to represent non-religion) - and of course none of us are calling for this. So all we are saying is that there should be neither formal and automatic religious representation nor formal and automatic non-religious representation. That is about having a level playing field that neither favours religion over non-religion, nor non-religion over religion.

A level playing field would be say 3 religious bodies represented and 3 non religious bodies being represented

Of course committee members will bring their own religious and non-religious perspectives, based on their individual beliefs to the committee and that is absolutely fine, but in neither case is their appointment on the basis as acting as a formal representative for religion or for non-religion. As often happens with public bodies we'd want to be mindful of diversity on the committee, so we might have concerns if the committee ended up predominantly RCC or atheist etc, etc in the same manner as we might have concerns if a committee was entirely male, entirely white or entirely middle aged etc. But the approach then would be to encourage a broader diversity of people to put themselves forward for election/appointment as appropriate.

In an educational board there might be one or two diocesan board representatives but then there would be several more secular educational organisations represented because that, in the here and now, is where the expertise resides. Any lay individuals might carry a religious view or not. Are they there for their religious or non religious view or just to remark in a secular non religious way about secular non religious issues? Secondly, how does election confer expertise? That sounds like magical thinking to me.

[Outrider]

A level playing field would be say 3 religious bodies represented and 3 non religious bodies being represented

Which bodies? Why? A level playing field would be appointed people to a school because of their background in education, ignoring their religious beliefs and affiliations entirely.

In an educational board there might be one or two diocesan board representatives but then there would be several more secular educational organisations represented because that, in the here and now, is where the expertise resides.

You are phrasing those two - religious and secular - as though they are opposites, and that's not the case, they are positions on different issues. You can, and do, get religious secularists.

Any lay individuals might carry a religious view or not. Are they there for their religious or non religious view or just to remark in a secular non religious way about secular non religious issues?

They should be there in an educational and pastoral framework to comment about education and pastoral matters - you know, stuff to do with schools.

Secondly, how does election confer expertise?

How does being in a church confer expertise in education? An election puts the assessment in the hands of those with a vested interest, so that they can select based upon whichever criteria they decide is most relevant and significant.

That sounds like magical thinking to me.

FFS, how far up do I have send an irony meter...?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On a purely personal level I'd like education to be able to focus on something useful,

Yes and we all agree with that. The trouble of course comes when we come to what we personally view as useful and the trouble is look where the fallacy of modernity, the throwing out of the baby with the bath water and the law of unintended consequences has
got us to.

but the state of the world is such that children need to be taught about some of the predominant religious viewpoints.

and of course because that is their own communal heritage, believers and the culturally religious are part of their community and kith and kin. I suppose you are as keen to see your kids educated in your culture.

I don't see a need for religious organisations to be involved in the running of schools,

Why not?

and certainly I object to religious organisations using them as tools of indoctrination.

I don't see the church of England primary which probably comprise the bulk of primaries as a tool for indoctrination.