We need to talk about secular humanism.

[ProfessorDavey]

While atheists are free to criticise this policy, realistically it's unlikely to be changed for pragmatic reasons. When the atheists can provide stats and forecasts on alternative organisations that provide similar levels of emotional support to the public, that's when things might change.

The vast majority of charities in the UK are non-religious. And for every religious aid charity, every religious housing charity, every religious homeless charity etc there are non religious equivalents typically larger, more numerous and helping more people. And then there are a raft of charitable areas where the sector is pretty well entirely non religious - good examples being medical research, environmental charitable activities and grass roots sports clubs. So the notion that charities = religion is non-sense.

And the same is true for individuals - there have been many surveys that have shown that engagement voluntary activity (whether formal or informal) to help others is pretty well identical between religious and non religious people.

The issue of charitable giving is complicated by the fact that religious organisations are charities and therefore if you go to church (and therefore want the church to exist for your personal benefit) then the collection money is defined as charitable giving, even though your are actually simply paying for a service you are benefiting from. So it no more surprising that church going appear nominally to give more to charity than other people whose chosen activities that they attend and pay towards aren't charities. So once that is stripped out, again there is no difference in the money religious and non religious people give to charity to benefit others, rather than just to pay for a service they benefit from themselves.

[Outrider]

I don't think there is a problem with some programmes on the BBC being religious because presumably if there is a gap in the market for talking about atheism on TV the producers would commission a series to fill that gap. Is there any evidence of an appetite amongst the British public for such programmes that has been vetoed by the BBC?

Notwithstanding the point made above about there being programming about religion and programming which is just broadcasting religious views or activity, there is also the problem of balance within that. Whilst, within the religious sphere, Christianity is still the majority religious view in the UK (not getting into the breakdown of individual sects) the BBC has improved the balance of its output examining other religious outlooks, it's lagging significantly behind when it comes to representing other religious outlooks. Thought for the day does invite many religions, but Songs of Praise, various radio daily worship segments and the like are disproportionately Christian. It's hard to find anything sharing Islamic worship, virtually impossible to find anything Hindu (especially on television) and the rest...?

I also don't see the issue with religious organisations being given tax breaks - it is government policy to encourage and support charitable activities as that relieves the government of providing the kind of support that many religious organisations provide to the public.

I think the problem is the automatic assumption that anything religious is also charitable. Certainly any number of religious organisations do a great deal of charitable work, but also much of their work is not aimed at the broader community, it's about maintaining there own ongoing operations - is that inherently charitable? Other social organisations have to prove their benefit, and do not always succeed, but slap a 'religion' label on it and no questions are asked.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And who is stopping you from expressing your religion on here or elsewhere?

I think the question is more about who believes it should be limited to zero point in an ideal world

Or are you talking about expressing prejudice born out of religion which is a different and thornier subject?

Actually I'm wondering why you are defending the ''Freedom of, Freedom from'' line when it is basically the sentiment behind something like section 28.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or none.

No. Freedom from religion is that I shouldn't be restricted or disadvantaged because you don't have a firm grasp on reality.

Hard secularism since a soft secularist would claim no absolute monopoly on reality as you have.

[ProfessorDavey]

Certainly any number of religious organisations do a great deal of charitable work, but also much of their work is not aimed at the broader community, it's about maintaining there own ongoing operations - is that inherently charitable?

Absolutely true and if you want to help vulnerable people donating to a church is an appalling inefficient way of doing so as for every £1 donated the vast, vast majority will go towards the upkeep of the buildings, people and other paraphernalia for delivering religious worship, which will include some people who might be considered vulnerable, but the demographics of church-goers indicates that they are more affluent, advantaged and less vulnerable than the population in general.

Bottom line - if you want to help homeless people, give to a homeless charity, don't give to a church.

Other social organisations have to prove their benefit, and do not always succeed, but slap a 'religion' label on it and no questions are asked.

Indeed - to be classed as a charity all you need to do is indicate that you deliver religious worship. And actually many of them don't even need to register as there is a two tier system for charities. For non religious charities if you have income above just £5k you have to register and are subjected to annual reporting. The so-called excepted charity approach means that a church and many other religious charities are given a much higher threshold - £100k, before they have to register.

So clear double standards - so my choral society, which is a charity has an income of about £13k per year - so we have to register and we have to make annual submissions to the charity commission. One of our 'chosen' charities, that we raise money for throughout the year is a local homeless person's support charity. They have an annual income of about £30k - so they have to register and we have to make annual submissions to the charity commission. Yet we sometime rehearse (and pay market rates for hire) in a local church - they are a charity and have an income of approx. £90k so they are permitted to gain the benefits of being a charity without having to formally register, nor having to submit annually to the charity commission. How can that be right?

[Aruntraveller]

Actually I'm wondering why you are defending the ''Freedom of, Freedom from'' line when it is basically the sentiment behind something like section 28.

In what way?

Section 28 or Clause 28 was a legislative designation for a series of laws across Britain that prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities.

You do understand what the definition of prohibition is?

I see no equivalence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean all those people who felt they couldn't speak up before, now can? You mean they have a degree of freedom to speak their mind in a way they didn't when the country was more overtly religiously oriented...? If only there was a word for that sort of political environment?

The country hasn't been overtly religiously oriented for decades. You hold a revisionist past.

Why do you need to be 'free' from humanism, given that it's not incompatible with religious belief? https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Christian_Humanism#:~:text=Christian%20humanism%20is%20the%20belief,faith%20and%20classical%20humanist%20principles.

O.

Has any body followed my link to a case of extreme hard secularism? If so have they been surprised by how much they support the type of secularism espoused?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way?

The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.

[Aruntraveller]

The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.

That was not the basis of Section 28.

[Nearly Sane]

The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.

Idiotic drivel

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have no issues with charities getting tax breaks to incentive and support their work. My issue is that there are certainly tax breaks which are provided to religious organisation with charitable status that are not available to any other charities. These provide an unloved playing field where a charity that is also religious is placed in an advantageous position compared to a charity that isn't religious. Two examples being higher threshold exemption from needing to apply for charitable status and exemption from onerous reporting and also complete exemption from business rates, while other charities have only a partial reduction.

There is a broader argument whether delivering religious worship alone should be a charitable aim, regardless of whether that organisation does any broader charitable activities. But that is an argument over the appropriate scope of charitable aims, rather than very clear and very specific special privileges that religious charities benefit from that non religious ones don't.

I wasn't thinking of support purely in monetary terms of charitable fundraising. Many religious organisations provide emotional support and a feeling of family and community and the government encourages that kind of support because the comfort they provide cannot be exactly replicated if you take out the religious element, and the facilities that the government currently fund and the non-religious organisations would not meet everyone's needs if the religious organisations stopped doing what they do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Idiotic drivel

Evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence?

'The basis of section 28 was freedom to be homosexual but society was to be free from expressions of homosexuality in the public sphere.'

[Outrider]

Hard secularism since a soft secularist would claim no absolute monopoly on reality as you have.

No, hard secularism would be that you should be put in care because of your infirmity, soft secularism is that I shouldn't be put in prison because of your infirmity.

O.

[Outrider]

Actually I'm wondering why you are defending the ''Freedom of, Freedom from'' line when it is basically the sentiment behind something like section 28.

I'm so glad I'm the one with the flaky grasp of the historical context.... 

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I wasn't thinking of support purely in monetary terms of charitable fundraising. Many religious organisations provide emotional support and a feeling of family and community and the government encourages that kind of support because the comfort they provide cannot be exactly replicated if you take out the religious element, and the facilities that the government currently fund and the non-religious organisations would not meet everyone's needs if the religious organisations stopped doing what they do.

So do many non religious organisations VG - and while I accept that only a religious organisation might be able to support the religious emotional needs of individuals it is also the case that they may be ill equipped to support the needs of those who are non religious who may actually treat a religious charity with a level of scepticism for fear of evangelising etc.

So non religious emotional needs are, to my mind, better served through organisations that have no religious ethos and mission so to speak. And let's face it most people in the UK do not consider religious to be important so I'd argue that those with specifically religious emotional needs will represent a very small proportion of those with emotional needs.

And it will be certainly true that non religious charities will have much greater impact in terms of the number of people needing emotional support that they are able to help.

[jeremyp]

Hard secularism since a soft secularist would claim no absolute monopoly on reality as you have.

Whilst I can't be sure there is no god, I am 100% certain that Christianity is false. The central concepts are incoherent and do not stand up to scrutiny. You may take offence at that but I don't care. There's no fundamental right not to have your feelings hurt. Furthermore, if you are offended by my pointing out your religion is based on a lot of nonsense, you are offending all muslims by insisting Christianity is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people.

Like Ricky Gervais?

[Outrider]

The country hasn't been overtly religiously oriented for decades.

And yet much of the structure that we have now still comes from there, you see why this is an issue?

You hold a revisionist past.

On the contrary, you seem to have failed to see how much of the past is still holding us back.

Has any body followed my link to a case of extreme hard secularism? If so have they been surprised by how much they support the type of secularism espoused?

Was that the one about the American Atheist complaint regarding the Bible reading during the Apollo  landing? Not really, I agree with her point, I don't think it was a good case to take to court if it was worth taking one at all. The school-sponsored Bible readings that she contested and won was a good choice, and certainly one I'd agree with.

O.

[Outrider]

Whilst I can't be sure there is no god, I am 100% certain that Christianity is false. The central concepts are incoherent and do not stand up to scrutiny. You may take offence at that but I don't care. There's no fundamental right not to have your feelings hurt. Furthermore, if you are offended by my pointing out your religion is based on a lot of nonsense, you are offending all muslims by insisting Christianity is true.

To be clear, of course, I'm not claiming to have the definitive grasp of what reality is, just enough of a sense of it to know that Vlad's definitely considerably further away from it than I am!

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet much of the structure that we have now still comes from there, you see why this is an issue?

On the contrary, you seem to have failed to see how much of the past is still holding us back.

Was that the one about the American Atheist complaint regarding the Bible reading during the Apollo  landing? Not really, I agree with her point, I don't think it was a good case to take to court if it was worth taking one at all. The school-sponsored Bible readings that she contested and won was a good choice, and certainly one I'd agree with.

O.

Yeh, I had you down as a hard secularist anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whilst I can't be sure there is no god, I am 100% certain that Christianity is false. The central concepts are incoherent and do not stand up to scrutiny. You may take offence at that but I don't care. There's no fundamental right not to have your feelings hurt. Furthermore, if you are offended by my pointing out your religion is based on a lot of nonsense, you are offending all muslims by insisting Christianity is true.

so do you think your 100% certainty steers you toward Hard or soft secularism?

[Aruntraveller]

Yeh, I had you down as a hard secularist anyway.

He's got a list.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think there are two types of religious programming - the first being programmes about religion, with the aim of informing and educating the audience about some aspect of religious belief. I don't think such programming is controversial, provided is is done in an appropriately balanced manner.

The second type of programme is, in effect, broadcast worship of some form or other, specifically aimed at meeting the religious needs of religious people. Here is where greater care needs to be taken. While I have no great issue on principle care needs to be taken for a public service broadcaster such as the BBC, who needs to be impartial, from being seen to support or even promote particular religious views without balance or challenge. So if within the broadcast of a religious service a minister of religion is permitted to make a statement of faith and opinion (which they will often do within a sermon) which may go well beyond pure religious views, then in the form of balance the BBC needs to ensure that those views can be balanced by other views and challenged appropriately.

In the world of politics, while the BBC might broadcast a minister's speech at a party conference, it will ensure balance by also broadcasting speeches from other parties and having some editorial opinion/challenge from BBC journalists. This never happens with religion. And of course the most egregious example is Thought for the Day - a slot smack in the middle of BBC radios prefer news show, which allows a person to promulgate a specific view, uninterrupted, without balance and without challenge. And that person is not permitted to be someone who is not religious. It is the equivalent of having a 3 minute slot every day where a politician from one of a number of right wing parties can provide any opinion they wish, completely unchallenged, but a left wing politican is never allowed to give their view (or reverse the left/right). That simply isn't right.
The BBC has been challenged repeatedly to open up Thought for the Day to non religious people who may have just as 'valid' moral and philosophical 'thoughts' pertaining to the issues of the day compared to religious people. The notion has been repeatedly vetoed by the BBC who continue to ban non religious people from the slot.

Given that secular humanism is these days, antireligious, I'm wondering what there is in it above atheist titillation and ''campaigns'' that is spiritually or morally uplifting or philosophically edifying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He's got a list.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Where are you on quoting the bible in secular spaceships?