We need to talk about secular humanism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non-sense - for it to be 'hard' secular (under you rather arbitrary definition) there would need to be an attempt to eradicate all religious education, regardless of whether that is state, private, voluntary, Sunday School etc. I'm not aware of anyone here suggesting that, nor does the NSS, nor did the various historic campaigns as outlined in the history of education piece.

Indeed this is the softest of soft secularism, given that all we are advocating is that there should not be state funding for any school with a specific religious foundation/ethos. I, and the NSS, for example strongly think that there should be RE in schools, albeit they and I would like to see it reformed to be broader, more neutral and better matched to the current diversity of beliefs (religious and otherwise) in the UK today. There is no suggestion that schools in the private sector cannot be religious, nor that churches cannot set up extra curricular education that aligns with their religious beliefs. All fine by me, albeit I'd expect fundamental legal/regulatory expectations e.g. basic safety/quality of provision and adherence to equalities legislation to apply to these schools in the same manner as and other educational provision.

I'm gaugeing Secularism by this reference from Wikipedia

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. The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;[9] 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"

The thing is then that the teaching of RE from a geography, sociology, and history view seems to be hard secularist since religious propositions are deemed in this context illegitimate.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm gaugeing Secularism by this reference from Wikipedia

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. The "soft" variety emphasizes neutrality, tolerance and liberalism;[9] 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"

The thing is then that the teaching of RE from a geography, sociology, and history view seems to be hard secularist since religious propositions are deemed in this context illegitimate.

Firstly - if hard secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible then they won't allow any mention of religious claims (e.g. that christians believe that Jesus was the son of god, resurrected etc) within schools. Why would a hard secularist permit children to learn about propositions they think are illegitimate - they will deny them the space within the school curriculum for those propositions to be heard. So having any RE within schools inconsistent with the definition of hard secularism.

Secondly no-one is talking about RE being taught from a geography, sociology, and history view - no, I (and the NSS) see is as part of education around ethics and philosophy along with other non religious worldview. Have you even bothered to read the NSS on what they think RE should cover. For reference:

We want every pupil to have the same entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about worldviews. We want to see all schools preparing young people for life in modern Britain by teaching pupils about:
- The diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews.
- How people's worldviews may influence their thinking on philosophical, moral and cultural issues.
- Worldviews and rights: how the freedom to manifest religion and belief interacts with the rights of others.

Arguably there is an element of sociology, but this isn't about history or geography - it is fundamentally about exploring religious and non-religious propositions as they apply to philosophy and ethics, and also to explore those propositions within the context of rights of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. None of that would be taught in schools under hard secularism.

So, as so often Vlad, you are completely wrong. The suggestions are the softest of soft secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly - if hard secularism considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate and seeks to deny them as much as possible

Yes

then they won't allow any mention of religious claims (e.g. that christians believe that Jesus was the son of god, resurrected etc) within schools.

That though isn't in the definition. What is in the definition though is ''to deny them as much as possible.'' For me this would come in the form of institutional secular humanism. Christianity comes against Hard secularism less I would imagine than say Islam which has a positive statement of faith rather than a credo.

Why would a hard secularist permit children to learn about propositions they think are illegitimate - they will deny them the space within the school curriculum for those propositions to be heard.

Again the denial need not necessarily be upfront although there is nothing I see to prevent in the past secular heads from preventing RE. How then would a secularist like your self respond to visiting Imans, priests, Ministers, Gurus or vicars giving positive statements of faith and credos?

So having any RE within schools inconsistent with the definition of hard secularism.

again that depends on school leader reactions to the announcement of faith statements and the school's response to them.

Secondly no-one is talking about RE being taught from a geography, sociology, and history view - no, I (and the NSS) see is as part of education around ethics and philosophy along with other non religious worldview. Have you even bothered to read the NSS on what they think RE should cover. For reference:

We want every pupil to have the same entitlement to high quality, non-partisan education about worldviews. We want to see all schools preparing young people for life in modern Britain by teaching pupils about:
- The diversity of religious and non-religious worldviews.
- How people's worldviews may influence their thinking on philosophical, moral and cultural issues.
- Worldviews and rights: how the freedom to manifest religion and belief interacts with the rights of others.

I believe these organisations are wrong about neutrality, though both in the nature of the subject matter and in the nature of their reaction to it.

Arguably there is an element of sociology, but this isn't about history or geography - it is fundamentally about exploring religious and non-religious propositions as they apply to philosophy and ethics, and also to explore those propositions within the context of rights of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. None of that would be taught in schools under hard secularism.

i'm taking no lessons from you on soft secularism from you Davey in remembrance of your statement of desire of the end of religion.

Secondly the acid test is this. The local imam comes into the school gives the positive Islamic statement of faith There is one God etc, How does the school respond or The vicar comes in and answers a question on how he became a christian or a hindu declaring bakhti. Well, how do you and others including Susan Doris if she's following this thread respond?

Don't invite, or invite and ask them to remove bits that offend, or make a statement afterwards.....If the last, what statement?

[ProfessorDavey]

i'm taking no lessons from you on soft secularism from you Davey in remembrance of your statement of desire of the end of religion.

You will have to remind me of that one Vlad, as I do not recollect making any such statement.

[ProfessorDavey]

How then would a secularist like your self respond to visiting Imans, priests, Ministers, Gurus or vicars giving positive statements of faith and credos?

Well in my experience of non-faith state schools, they go further than that. Rather than invite mans, priests, Ministers, Gurus or vicars into the schools, they are more likely to take the kids to visit the temples, churches, mosques etc and meet the religious leaders on their own patch to get an even better understanding of their religions, beliefs customs etc.

Interesting difference between faith and non-faith schools. While the non-faith schools I've been involved in have taken their pupils to visit these places of worship. By contrast my in-laws kids attend a catholic school - they have never been to any place of worship organised by their school, except the catholic church. Likewise the CofE school my wife taught in - there was a suggestion that they take the kids to a local hindu temple - it created a massive stink amongst governors and parents.

[ProfessorDavey]

Secondly the acid test is this. The local imam comes into the school gives the positive Islamic statement of faith There is one God etc, How does the school respond or The vicar comes in and answers a question on how he became a christian or a hindu declaring bakhti. Well, how do you and others including Susan Doris if she's following this thread respond?

I would expect the school to be completely neutral to the claims - neither indicating them to be right, nor to be wrong. I would expect there to be the opportunity for the students to discuss the claims, to ask questions, to try to understand what the religious leader believes and why. And to engage in the discussion in a two-way respectful manner. In other words that the students should be respectful of the views of the religious leader and that the religious leader should treat the questions, comments etc of the students with respect to.

The whole purpose being for the students to understand more about the faith position of the religious leader regardless of their own views on the matter.

I should add that the school needs to be careful to ensure balance and neutrality - so it wouldn't be reasonable to have the local Imam invited into the school (or inviting the students to the mosque) every couple of weeks if the local rabbi is never engaged.

[ProfessorDavey]

I believe these organisations are wrong about neutrality, though both in the nature of the subject matter and in the nature of their reaction to it.

Well that's your opinion, but then you complaining of others being non neutral is real pot/kettle territory. Given that secularism is fundamentally about freedom of religion and freedom from religion is is inherently neutral - fundamentally neither favouring nor disadvantaging people on the basis of whether or not they have a religious belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't invite, or invite and ask them to remove bits that offend, or make a statement afterwards.....If the last, what statement?

See above - invite, get them to tell the students about their beliefs, allow the students to ask questions and discuss their beliefs. And that's it.

I mentioned respect previously - so in the spirit of respect it wouldn't be reasonable for the students to treat an imam as if he was a terrorist, because of islamic terrorism. But similarly it would not be appropriate for a RC priest to come in and claim that homosexuality is evil as there may be gay students in the room. So yes, there may be opinions that the school would not expect to be discussed as they have a duty of care towards their students and that would include a duty of care not to expect a gay student to be subjected to such views within the school environment. That said, it would be a pretty stupid priest who would use the opportunity to discuss their faith with a group of students to use it for a homophobic rant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well that's your opinion, but then you complaining of others being non neutral is real pot/kettle territory. Given that secularism is fundamentally about freedom of religion and freedom from religion is is inherently neutral - fundamentally neither favouring nor disadvantaging people on the basis of whether or not they have a religious belief.

The idea that you can have freedom of religion and freedom from religion is pure Cake-ism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See above - invite, get them to tell the students about their beliefs, allow the students to ask questions and discuss their beliefs. And that's it.

Agreed

I mentioned respect previously - so in the spirit of respect it wouldn't be reasonable for the students to treat an imam as if he was a terrorist, because of islamic terrorism. But similarly it would not be appropriate for a RC priest to come in and claim that homosexuality is evil as there may be gay students in the room. So yes, there may be opinions that the school would not expect to be discussed as they have a duty of care towards their students and that would include a duty of care not to expect a gay student to be subjected to such views within the school environment. That said, it would be a pretty stupid priest who would use the opportunity to discuss their faith with a group of students to use it for a homophobic rant.

Yes but someone still has to have that chat with Father
Ted to check that he's on the same page.

[ProfessorDavey]

The idea that you can have freedom of religion and freedom from religion is pure Cake-ism.

No it isn't - it is secularism. There of course need to be checks and balances to ensure that the freedom of one group or individual to practice their religion doesn't unreasonably impact on another group or individual's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion. But that is no different to the checks and balances that we have on freedom of expression vs hate speech etc. Hardly rocket science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is secularism. There of course need to be checks and balances to ensure that the freedom of one group or individual to practice their religion doesn't unreasonably impact on another group or individual's freedom to live their life free from the influence of religion.

That just makes ''freedom of religion and freedom from religion'' a slogan but one that leads us to examine, hopefully, any compromises that must be made and what compromises we are prepared to make and how we disappoint both sides.

But that is no different to the checks and balances that we have on freedom of expression vs hate speech etc. Hardly rocket science.

But it is dangerous to think that is a done deal. I'm still, along with people like Rowan Williams and those of minority religions he said changed his mind on disestablishment, suspicious of the phrase ''Freedom from religion''. That can't be just paranoia, since it sounds rather like an advert for cleanser particularly from the more swivel eyed of your fraternity. Perhaps you can put us at ease as to what ''freedom from religion'' looks like to you and why I should believe that all others of your stripe take as less extreme interpretation of the phrase

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm still, along with people like Rowan Williams and those of minority religions he said changed his mind on disestablishment, suspicious of the phrase ''Freedom from religion''.

I this the same non-sense you came out with on another thread implying that minority religious groups supported the Bishops being in the House of Lords:

'... from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.'

This is flat out untrue - there hasn't been much research on this, but that which has been conducted has shown that people from every single religious group (where there were enough people surveyed) opposed the presence of the Bishops in the HoLs. So jewish people were opposed, muslims were opposed, hindus were opposed. For crying out loud, even christians were opposed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I this the same non-sense you came out with on another thread implying that minority religious groups supported the Bishops being in the House of Lords:

'... from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.'

This is flat out untrue - there hasn't been much research on this, but that which has been conducted has shown that people from every single religious group (where there were enough people surveyed) opposed the presence of the Bishops in the HoLs. So jewish people were opposed, muslims were opposed, hindus were opposed. For crying out loud, even christians were opposed.

As all very well as this maybe, what on earth does freedom from religion mean if not your life being completely religion free. I keep asking You and those of your stripe fundamental questions like this but like the freemasons you wish to preserve your mystique.

[ProfessorDavey]

As all very well as this maybe, ...

So is that the closest we will get to you and Rowan Williams lying when you claim that people of minority religions want to retain the Bishops in the HoLs since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.

For the record this is the proportion of people from the various religions (where there were sufficient numbers to draw conclusion) who do not want to retain the Bishops position in the HoLs (proportion who want the Bishops is brackets).

Christian - 70% (26%)
Muslim - 53% (33%)
Hindu - 69% (18%)
Jewish - 59% (25%)
Other religion - 80% (17%)

For the record the results for no religion were 83% (13%) with overall 74% opposing and just 21% supporting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So is that the closest we will get to you and Rowan Williams lying when you claim that people of minority religions want to retain the Bishops in the HoLs since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.

For the record this is the proportion of people from the various religions (where there were sufficient numbers to draw conclusion) who do not want to retain the Bishops position in the HoLs (proportion who want the Bishops is brackets).

Christian - 70% (26%)
Muslim - 53% (33%)
Hindu - 69% (18%)
Jewish - 59% (25%)
Other religion - 80% (17%)

For the record the results for no religion were 83% (13%) with overall 74% opposing and just 21% supporting.

I don’t believe that I or Roman Williams made any claim involving numbers .He reports that he knows people in minority faiths who see the House of Lords spiritual as a bulwark against hard secularism and that made him rethink his position on disestablishment. I think similarly.
You seemed to have turned that into some kind of argumentum ad populum. At no point have I claimed any or majorities or numbers.

What doesn’t help of course are statements like “freedom from religion”.....what would you say is the non threatening version of that particular call for eradication?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t believe that I or Roman Williams made that claim. He reports that he knows people in minority faiths who see the House of Lords spiritual as a bulwark against hard secularism and that made him rethink his position on disestablishment. I think similarly.

Death by anecdote - the implication when someone makes that kind of comment is that the faith community in general supports Bishops in the Lords, rather than some random individual they spoke to in the street (or more likely the central lobby of parliament). That you can find an individual within a faith community with that view is irrelevant - what is relevant is whether the faith community (in other words the sum of those individual views) is in favour or not. And very clearly they are not.

Indeed I it is very rare to find a question with almost unanimity of response when you breakdown the opinion by various sub-demographics.

So:
Christians - opposed
Muslims - opposed
Jewish - opposed
Hindu - opposed
Other religions - opposed
Non-religious - opposed

Male - opposed
Female - opposed

Every single region across the UK - opposed
Every single age group - opposed
Every single socio-economic grouping - opposed

But hey, Rowan Williams (and Vlad) chatted to a muslim who was in support, and uses it to claim some generalised support for the Bishops within minority faith communities. Disingenuous and, frankly, rather pathetic and sad.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seemed to have turned that into some kind of argumentum ad populum. At no point have I claimed any or majorities or numbers.

So you therefore accept that not only is there strong opposition to the Bishops overall, there is also strong opposition across the various faith groups. And in doing so your argument that:

'... from what I understand and this I think is from Rowan Williams was that some in some religious communities are grateful even for that since it acts as some kind of bulwark against a malevolent secularising antireligion.'

Is completely meaningless because most in those religious communities don't want the Lords Spiritual to exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

He reports that he knows people in minority faiths who see the House of Lords spiritual as a bulwark against hard secularism and that made him rethink his position on disestablishment. I think similarly.

But that is completely lazy thinking - and rather disingenuous from a person and an organisation that benefits from the status quo. Weird that he seems only to be listening to the minority in those faith communities who want his bishops to remain, but ignoring the majority who want them gone. Why isn't he listening to them and rethinking his position'.

And frankly do we have any evidence that Rowan Williams ever opposed the Bishops in the Lords (given that he was one). This is a classic disingenuous trope whereby someone claims that a compelling argument from someone else changed they mind, when that supposedly new position was likely always their position and is highly advantageous to them.

[Aruntraveller]

What doesn’t help of course are statements like “freedom from religion”.....what would you say is the non threatening version of that particular call for eradication?

You are taking that out of its usual context. "Freedom of religion & Freedom from religion". They go hand in hand. It has always meant to me that you can choose the religion you wish to follow or you can choose not to follow any religion. Any thoughts that eradication may flow from part of that statement are purely a product of your own overactive and somewhat sensationalist imagination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are taking that out of its usual context. "Freedom of religion & Freedom from religion". They go hand in hand. It has always meant to me that you can choose the religion you wish to follow or you can choose not to follow any religion. Any thoughts that eradication may flow from part of that statement are purely a product of your own overactive and somewhat sensationalist imagination.

yes the freedom to choose is of course straight forward and right...but adding a stinger...freedom from religion IS a call for eradication and defending it is turdpolishing.

[Aruntraveller]

Freedom to choose cheese & freedom from cheese.

It's the new movement to eradicate cheese.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Freedom to choose cheese & freedom from cheese.

It's the new movement to eradicate cheese.

Trivialising and sneering and crap analogy.
Try saying “Freedom from atheism”. And then ask minority atheists how they feel about that...

Or “Freedom from (insert name of any religion)” which is effectively what you ARE saying.

[Outrider]

yes the freedom to choose is of course straight forward and right...but adding a stinger...freedom from religion IS a call for eradication and defending it is turdpolishing.

I don't like Brussel sprouts, I'd like to be offered meals without Brussel sprouts, I don't think schools should force children to eat Brussel sprouts... can you explain where, in that, I'm advocating that Brussel sprouts should be banned, because I'm missing that seemingly significant step that you're finding.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't like Brussel sprouts, I'd like to be offered meals without Brussel sprouts, I don't think schools should force children to eat Brussel sprouts... can you explain where, in that, I'm advocating that Brussel sprouts should be banned, because I'm missing that seemingly significant step that you're finding.

O.

Are you blaming Brussels for your obvious brain fart here?