Less than half the population in England and Wales is Christian

[ProfessorDavey]

British secularism is indistinguishable from atheism and humanism IMV.

Well that just demonstrates your ignorance Vlad. I think you will find that some of the main 'asks' of secularism in the UK, e.g. removal of automatic seats for bishops, opposition to state-funded faith schools etc have very strong majority support, which will include support from people who aren't atheist, aren't humanist, and in many cases are actually religious (at least in census terms), if not actively.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So equality of pay regardless of whether a person is male or female is a special privilege for women is it Vlad, or privileging feminists? Complete non-sense.
No it is a very good analogy because prior the process that aims to embed equality men held special privileges within the public form in many regards. But actually few of those privileges were as overt as those still afforded to religious organisation and individuals today.

The claim of 'removal from the public forum' is simply a sop to try to justify continued privilege. No-one is stopping anyone expressing their religious belief in public - the point is that the expression of religion, nor of lack of religion should have no bearing on the development of public policy in a manner that privileges people whether or not they are religious. It is all about a level playing field Vlad.

Anyone? On an individual basis? That of course is a very individualistic view of religion, what of the church bazaar, or Christian aid week or Hindu procession or the Salvation Army?

The House of Lords looks like it’s finished on the grounds of Tory Sleaze so the lords spiritual looks on the way out. The education thing will foment a divide between moderate secularist and the swivel eyed antireligionists. Outside that, how far do you want to go with your eradication of religion in the public forum?

Under my own scheme the non religious would get 37% of the 23 seats and Christianity 46%.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyone? On an individual basis? That of course is a very individualistic view of religion, what of the church bazaar, or Christian aid week or Hindu procession or the Salvation Army?

Of course religious people can get together and plan and participate in organised activities in exactly the same manner as non religious groups. But that is the key point - in exactly the same manner, level playing field. So if a church can organise a bazaar, so should a health club or a school or a community group under the same rules. If a christian charity can organise a charity collection then that should be under exactly the same rules as a non religious charity. If Hindus want to organise a procession aligned to their religion it should be under the same rules as a procession organised by a non religious group.

But the point is that currently there are plenty of examples where religious groups and individuals are afforded privileges under the law that don't apply to non religious groups - that's the issue.

[ProfessorDavey]

Under my own scheme the non religious would get 37% of the 23 seats and Christianity 46%.

But no-one (except you) is suggesting that a revised second chamber should have membership determined on the basis of the census religious question. That would be bonkers, not least because other types of identity are available, and of course for the vast majority of people those other forms of identity are much more important than their nominal census religion.

But, for the sake of arguments, if you actually went down that route to be representative you'd actually need 37% non religious people, 40% nominally christian (probably reflecting their upbringing and heritage) but not actually committed enough ever to attend christian worship and 6% worshipping christians. That would better represent England and Wales.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course religious people can get together and plan and participate in organised activities in exactly the same manner as non religious groups. But that is the key point - in exactly the same manner, level playing field. So if a church can organise a bazaar, so should a health club or a school under the same rules. If a christian charity can organise a charity collection then that should be under exactly the same rules as a non religious charity. If Hindus want to organise a procession aligned to their religion it should be under the same rules as a procession organised by a non religious group.

But the point is that currently there are plenty of examples where religious groups and individuals are afforded privileges under the law that don't apply to non religious groups - that's the issue.

An exaggerated issue and as we have seen eradication from the public forum is an ideological goal rather than anything that can be satisfied by anything short of total as you will find out once the House of Lords is consigned to the litter bin.

What do you do about those who want a literal interpretation of freedom from religion?

I can understand how the exaggeration has come about. The people at the top of secularising movements are transatlantic celebrities who see the US a lot

[Gordon]

Perhaps it would have been useful to have a subquestion to ask those who said they had a religion the extent to which they were active/frequent participants in religious observances, such as attending churches and mosques etc, so as to indicate the difference between the nominally religious from those who were actively religious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But no-one (except you) is suggesting that a revised second chamber should have membership determined on the basis of the census religious question. That would be bonkers, not least because other types of identity are available, and of course for the vast majority of people those other forms of identity are much more important than their nominal census religion.

But, for the sake of arguments, if you actually went down that route to be representative you'd actually need 37% non religious people, 40% nominally christian (probably reflecting their upbringing and heritage) but not actually committed enough ever to attend christian worship and 6% worshipping christians. That would better represent England and Wales.

It will be moot very soon, i’m not going to get my Lords world view and you are not going to get your successful Humanist campaign to rid the Lords of the bishops.... it’s all going.
It seems you still have a job persuading those in the closet to come out as non religious. What’s the problem?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps it would have been useful to have a subquestion to ask those who said they had a religion the extent to which they were active/frequent participants in religious observances, such as attending churches and mosques etc, so as to indicate the difference between the nominally religious from those who were actively religious.

Some religions observe at home or at work. I’ve worked with colleagues who brought prayer mats in. And then there is praying and being in church...which only happens for many one day a week.
It depends then how you are defining religion and should it be the non religious or the religious who get to do that?

[jeremyp]

But when does the secular view being the prime driver for policy and legislation become a special privilage for the secular view?

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "secular".

You talked about half life shortening that doesn't happen in radioactive decay

Correct. Imagine that Christianity has a decay rate that is faster than exponential decay. That's how serious the problem is.

[jeremyp]

Yes, but how do you explain the just in just 46% of respondents identified as christian?

Actually, when you consider how the census is conducted, the 46% becomes even more wobbly - never mind PD's accusation of leading questions. Typically, one person fills in the census for the entire household. If you are a Christian man and you know that your wife and three children dutifully attend church every week with you, what are you going to put down for their religions? For the 1971 and 1981 censuses, my parents' household would have shown four Christians, but I'm sure my brother was really non religious even then.

[Outrider]

An exaggerated issue and as we have seen eradication from the public forum is an ideological goal rather than anything that can be satisfied by anything short of total as you will find out once the House of Lords is consigned to the litter bin.

We're discussing religion, it has to be about ideologies, because there is nothing else. It's not like you can point to the evidence...

As things stand, we have an explicitly established sect of a one particular take on one particular group of religions, and whilst the (current) occupants of that sect might claim that their priveleged places in the Lords are to represent 'all religion', not only is there nothing compelling that, but that's also increasingly giving special voice to a diminishing overall group (the religious), even if you take them at their word. It still fails to address why 'religion' is special enough to warrant different treatment in parliament from every other concern, and even the 'it's important to a large number of people' argument is starting to fail.

What do you do about those who want a literal interpretation of freedom from religion?

Try to accommodate their desires as far as possible without unduly impinging on anyone else's freedoms, just like we strive to do with, for instance, people who want to discriminate in employment because their invisible friend doesn't like certain groups.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "secular".Correct. Imagine that Christianity has a decay rate that is faster than exponential decay. That's how serious the problem is.

I certainly think the seriousness of this is a topic of discussion.Since you have raised it I wonder in what sense you think it’s serious, given the opportunities here for argumentum ad populum.

[jeremyp]

I certainly think the seriousness of this is a topic of discussion.Since you have raised it I wonder in what sense you think it’s serious, given the opportunities here for argumentum ad populum.

It is serious because it means that in about 30 years time, there will be no people in England or Wales identifying as Christian.

[Alan Burns]

The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history.  It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend.  Considering the constant bombardment of secular views on social media I am heartened that almost half our population still consider themselves to be Christian.  I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to ensure the survival of the Christian faith until the second coming.

I will be with you always, even until the end of time
Matthew 28:20

[ProfessorDavey]

It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend.

I think if you actually understand the reasons for the decline in the UK then you would understand that this will continue for decades.

The only caveat being immigration which certainly sured up catholic mass attendance briefly in the years following the liberalisation of immigration from, largely, Poland. This didn't produce an increase in mass attendance, but stopped its decline for a few years, but then the decline started again as immigration levels stabilised.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is serious because it means that in about 30 years time, there will be no people in England or Wales identifying as Christian.

Is that a problem for you? I think that’s an unlikely scenario. I’d rather go with Davey’s 6% than nobody. That will depend on 40% of the adult population coming out as non religious. What further will entice them to do that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think if you actually understand the reasons for the decline in the UK then you would understand that this will continue for decades.

The only caveat being immigration which certainly sured up catholic mass attendance briefly in the years following the liberalisation of immigration from, largely, Poland. This didn't produce an increase in mass attendance, but stopped its decline for a few years, but then the decline started again as immigration levels stabilised.

I tend to go with the Copson/Dawkins analysis on nominality and they have been successful in persuading a more honest Census response.

But what that might mean is that they may have had the larger fraction of the new non religious already.

[Gordon]

The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history.  It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend.  Considering the constant bombardment of secular views on social media I am heartened that almost half our population still consider themselves to be Christian.  I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to ensure the survival of the Christian faith until the second coming.

I will be with you always, even until the end of time
Matthew 28:20

Given the continued decline that these results show it looks like this 'Holy Spirit' you mention has lost its touch - so it looks like you have faith in something that is failing. 

[Nearly Sane]

The Roman Catholic church in particular has seen several rises and falls throughout its history.  It would be wrong to presume that the current decline in Christianity will continue on a downward trend.  Considering the constant bombardment of secular views on social media I am heartened that almost half our population still consider themselves to be Christian.  I have faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to ensure the survival of the Christian faith until the second coming.

I will be with you always, even until the end of time
Matthew 28:20

When the Roman Catholic Church was hiding and covering up for child rapists, was the 'Holy Spirit' having a long lie?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given the continued decline that these results show it looks like this 'Holy Spirit' you mention has lost its touch - so it looks like you have faith in something that is failing.

I think it's wrong to liken something like God, to something like scottish nationalism.
We know the nation is failing since it has thrown up Brexit and Boris Johnson and the like. There are relationship difficulties all round.. Pubs are closing, Hospital wards are closing, what isn't closing down? The land of irreligious milk and honey failed to materialise.

[BeRational]

Actually atheism isn't up to 37% - the numbers ticking 'no religion' in the census are up to 37%. This will, presumably include atheists, but also people who are agnostic etc.

We are continuing to see the same trend in the census as in other surveys such as the Social Attitudes Survey, but the census lags other surveys that don't ask leading questions that imply that people have a religion.

I thought it was a binary position. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. Agnostic is not inbetween as there is no inbetween?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought it was a binary position. You either believe in a god or gods or you don't. Agnostic is not inbetween as there is no inbetween?

It's the Black and white minstrel show.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's wrong to liken something like God, to something like scottish nationalism.
We know the nation is failing since it has thrown up Brexit and Boris Johnson and the like. There are relationship difficulties all round.. Pubs are closing, Hospital wards are closing, what isn't closing down? The land of irreligious milk and honey failed to materialise.

So in the 2000 years of Christianity, where and when was the golden age?

[BeRational]

It's the Black and white minstrel show.

Do you think there is a half way position?

You either accept it, or you don't.

If you are undecided, then you don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think there is a half way position?

You either accept it, or you don't.

If you are undecided, then you don't.

I think you can be in a state of not knowing because you are not convinced either way.
Atheism or theism demand commitment and a leap of faith. You have struck out on your chosen path with conviction it seems.