https://unherd.com/2022/12/secularisation-is-leading-britain-astray/

[Outrider]

There are two atheist approaches to Christian History that taken by Bamber Gascoigne and Diarmid Mccullough who have researched it and that taken by people like Dawkins, Hitchins, etc. You looked influenced by the latter i.e. not so much a researched position more of an opinion shaped by an envisioned atheist utopia.

Another devastating lack of rebuttal on your part. I think the defence will probably be able to rest at this point.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The advantage is negligible in the face of up to 1000 guaranteed secular members.

What on earth do you mean by a 'secular member' - a large proportion of those so-called 'secular members' will still be religious. So we aren't talking about a situation where 26 'brave' religious members are battling against 1000 atheists, humanists and non-religious people.

While the HoC does not collect data on the religion of MPs we can get an inference on the basis of whether members swear an oath on a religious text when they enter parliament or make a non-religious affirmation. Currently I gather that 75% of MPs consider themselves religious enough to take the religious option rather than the non religious option. So I suspect MPs are disproportionately tipped in favour of religious individuals compared to the general public.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What on earth do you mean by a 'secular member' - a large proportion of those so-called 'secular members' will still be religious. So we aren't talking about a situation where 26 'brave' religious members are battling against 1000 atheists, humanists and non-religious people.

But they will not be there because of there religion will they. They will be there for secular reasons.

While the HoC does not collect data on the religion of MPs we can get an inference on the basis of whether members swear an oath on a religious text when they enter parliament or make a non-religious affirmation. Currently I gather that 75% of MPs consider themselves religious enough to take the religious option rather than the non religious option. So I suspect MPs are disproportionately tipped in favour of religious individuals compared to the general public.

Or not consider themselves atheist enough to go against tradition, the census figures on religion which suggests that their constituents might like it.

Why are 75% of democratically elected MP's religious? Are non religious MP's particularly shit or something?
Or is this a sob story leading to a suggested positive discrimination towards atheists?

[Sebastian Toe]

Why are 75% of democratically elected MP's religious? Are non religious MP's particularly shit or something?

Do you think that the 75% are not shit?
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think that the 75% are not shit?
 

I don't know whether My MP is one of the 75%..........but he is shit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are 75% of democratically elected MP's religious?

Because MPs aren't demographically representative in other respects - most notably being older which positively correlates with religiosity.

And also currently more than half of MPs are tories and tories are more likely to be religious than labour or lib-dems.

Are non religious MP's particularly shit or something?

I didn't make any claim regarding the quality of MPs and their religiosity. I was merely pointing out that MPs seem disproportionately religious compared to wider society - I suspect Lords temporal are too. And yet on top of that apparently religion (well actually CofE) are given 26 automatic places in the HoLs determined by seniority in a completely different organisation - the CofE. There are no other peers appointed in a similar manner.

Or is this a sob story leading to a suggested positive discrimination towards atheists?

Nope I'm not suggesting positive discrimination towards atheists - merely the removal of the current positive discrimination in favour of the CofE.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope I'm not suggesting positive discrimination towards atheists - merely the removal of the current positive discrimination in favour of the CofE.

Well I am, I suppose because there are up to 1000 places for Lords to be placed for secular reasons and 26 for spiritual reasons. That looks pretty positive to atheism to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well I am, I suppose because there are up to 1000 places for Lords to be placed for secular reasons and 26 for spiritual reasons. That looks pretty positive to atheism to me.

Oh dear - here we go again.

There are no places in the HoLs 'placed for secular reasons' - there are however 26 placed reserved for current bishops in the HoLs. And of your claimed 1000 'placed for secular reasons' there are a fair number whose elevation to the Lords (or continued membership of the Lords) seems entirely to be down to their leadership (current of former) or religious organisations.

And you still seem to fail to understand the distinction between atheism and secularism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - here we go again.

There are no places in the HoLs 'placed for secular reasons' - there are however 26 placed reserved for current bishops in the HoLs. And of your claimed 1000 'placed for secular reasons' there are a fair number whose elevation to the Lords (or continued membership of the Lords) seems entirely to be down to their leadership (current of former) or religious organisations.

And you still seem to fail to understand the distinction between atheism and secularism.

The Lords temporal are described by Wikipedia as secular members of the House of Lords Professor and there are a shedload more Lords Temporal than Lords spiritual.

They are there for secular reasons and not specifically or at all for their religion.

Now in an increasingly non religious population they are more likely I would have thought to be atheist and those numbers will be swollen as soon as one's atheism begins to confer higher social status and acceptance in our society.

[Outrider]

The Lords temporal are described by Wikipedia as secular members of the House of Lords Professor and there are a shedload more Lords Temporal than Lords spiritual.

But there are still 'Lords Spiritual' that you're failing to justify. There aren't Lords of Sport, there aren't Lords Scientific, Artistic or Culinary...

They are there for secular reasons and not specifically or at all for their religion.

But their remit doesn't exclude religion.

Now in an increasingly non religious population they are more likely I would have thought to be atheist and those numbers will be swollen as soon as one's atheism begins to confer higher social status and acceptance in our society.

Why should they suddenly not be representative of the populace at large? Why is an increase in atheist representation, presuming that your prediction is correct, be a problem, if the society they represent is increasingly atheist? You're still failing to explain why spirituality gets a special place, and within spirituality why the Church of England gets to be special.

O.

[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But there are still 'Lords Spiritual' that you're failing to justify. There aren't Lords of Sport, there aren't Lords Scientific, Artistic or Culinary...

But their remit doesn't exclude religion.

Why should they suddenly not be representative of the populace at large? Why is an increase in atheist representation, presuming that your prediction is correct, be a problem, if the society they represent is increasingly atheist? You're still failing to explain why spirituality gets a special place, and within spirituality why the Church of England gets to be special.

O.

The Lords was set up I would move to reflect the life of the medievel individual who's life would be partly spiritual and mainly secular and not be predicated upon there being secular humanists and religious people.

Now of course, thanks partly to the work of the British Humanists, National secular society we have come to view society along that crude division and it's certainly the model that humanistUK, atheists etc work from intending as they do to reduce the model to fit their homonculus of humanity as sociopoliticoeconomic units.

A better model is a reformed version of what the individual is i.e.what the person is to themselves including weldbilts and what they are in terms of the nation in sociopoliticoeconomic terms. And that division should institutionally be enshrined IMHO. If it isn't we are selling people short.

[Sebastian Toe]

The Lords temporal are described by Wikipedia as secular members of the House of Lords Professor and there are a shedload more Lords Temporal than Lords spiritual.

They are there for secular reasons and not specifically or at all for their religion.

Now in an increasingly non religious population they are more likely I would have thought to be atheist and those numbers will be swollen as soon as one's atheism begins to confer higher social status and acceptance in our society.

I have a picture in my head which I can't shake off.
It's about a member of this board, checking for atheists/antitheists under his bed every night!

 

[ProfessorDavey]

The Lords temporal are described by Wikipedia as secular members of the House of Lords Professor and there are a shedload more Lords Temporal than Lords spiritual.

You said they were placed there for secular reasons - they aren't, they are 'secular' in so far, and only in so far as they are not placed there for religious reasons. If the bishops didn't exist then there would be no reason to describe them in this manner.

They are there for secular reasons and not specifically or at all for their religion.

Being placed for secular reasons infers that their purpose is to promote and promulgate secularism - which is not the case. Indeed there are plenty of Lords Temporal who have clearly been placed in the HoLs for religious reasons - e.g. ex-ABoC, ex-ABoY, Chief Rabbis etc. I would imagine Lord Carey would argue pretty strongly against your view that he has been placed in the HoL as a member of the Lords Temporal for 'secular reasons'. Likewise John Sentamu.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You said they were placed there for secular reasons - they aren't, they are 'secular' in so far, and only in so far as they are not placed there for religious reasons. If the bishops didn't exist then there would be no reason to describe them in this manner.
Being placed for secular reasons infers that their purpose is to promote and promulgate secularism

Not necessarily they are there to represent and lend expertise on secular areas like work and entertainment

Indeed there are plenty of Lords Temporal who have clearly been placed in the HoLs for religious reasons - e.g. ex-ABoC, ex-ABoY, Chief Rabbis etc. I would imagine Lord Carey would argue pretty strongly against your view that he has been placed in the HoL as a member of the Lords Temporal for 'secular reasons'. Likewise John Sentamu.

Or they've been put there for both secular and religious expertise since Bishops and chief rabbis have administrative and organisational experience that would be the envy of many a secular organisation.

[Outrider]

The Lords was set up I would move to reflect the life of the medievel individual who's life would be partly spiritual and mainly secular and not be predicated upon there being secular humanists and religious people.

I've just looked outside my window, and I don't see many peasants. I know why the Lords Spiritual were there, you're supposed to be explaining why you think it still should be.

Now of course, thanks partly to the work of the British Humanists, National secular society we have come to view society along that crude division and it's certainly the model that humanistUK, atheists etc work from intending as they do to reduce the model to fit their homonculus of humanity as sociopoliticoeconomic units.

Which is why they're the ones that have been campaigning for equality and rights for all, whilst the Lords Spiritual try to restrict access for 'nonconforming' lifestyles, because it's the atheists and humanists who are trying to squeeze people into homogenous blocks?

A better model is a reformed version of what the individual is i.e.what the person is to themselves including weldbilts and what they are in terms of the nation in sociopoliticoeconomic terms. And that division should institutionally be enshrined IMHO. If it isn't we are selling people short.

So we should have specialist Lords Scientific, Lords Musical, Lords Artistic? Where does the specialism end? Do we get special Lords Musical for Opera? How many Lords Football do we need before the number justifies a Lord Sailing? Does Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson sit with the Lords of Sport, or the Lords of Wales, or the Lords Disabled or the Lords Wheelchair, or the Lords Spina Bifida? Doesn't sound like a workable system to me.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I've just looked outside my window, and I don't see many peasants. I know why the Lords Spiritual were there, you're supposed to be explaining why you think it still should be.

Which is why they're the ones that have been campaigning for equality and rights for all, whilst the Lords Spiritual try to restrict access for 'nonconforming' lifestyles, because it's the atheists and humanists who are trying to squeeze people into homogenous blocks?

So we should have specialist Lords Scientific, Lords Musical, Lords Artistic? Where does the specialism end? Do we get special Lords Musical for Opera? How many Lords Football do we need before the number justifies a Lord Sailing? Does Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson sit with the Lords of Sport, or the Lords of Wales, or the Lords Disabled or the Lords Wheelchair, or the Lords Spina Bifida? Doesn't sound like a workable system to me.

O.

To be fair, of late we have had a set of Lords of Corruption

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've just looked outside my window, and I don't see many peasants. I know why the Lords Spiritual were there, you're supposed to be explaining why you think it still should be.

I'v looked out of min and I see more and more people who are being turned into peasants

Which is why they're the ones that have been campaigning for equality and rights for all, whilst the Lords Spiritual try to restrict access for 'nonconforming' lifestyles, because it's the atheists and humanists who are trying to squeeze people into homogenous blocks?

Nothing wrong with good works but organisations such as humanist UK have only succeeded in othering the religious or suggest everything would be fine if only everyone were a secular humanist IMV,

So we should have specialist Lords Scientific, Lords Musical, Lords Artistic? Where does the specialism end? Do we get special Lords Musical for Opera? How many Lords Football do we need before the number justifies a Lord Sailing? Does Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson sit with the Lords of Sport, or the Lords of Wales, or the Lords Disabled or the Lords Wheelchair, or the Lords Spina Bifida? Doesn't sound like a workable system to me.

O.

The point was the division was between Lords spiritual and Lords Temporal. To just have Lords temporal or perhaps we should call them Lords Short Term interest merely represents the bleak homonculus created by intellectual secular humanists

[Outrider]

I'v looked out of min and I see more and more people who are being turned into peasants

Lords Spiritual not an effective defence against that?

Nothing wrong with good works but organisations such as humanist UK have only succeeded in othering the religious or suggest everything would be fine if only everyone were a secular humanist IMV,

As opposed to a church that spent centuries telling people that it didn't matter that they were being treated like shit, it would all be OK in the next lift (by the way, give me your money). Humanist UK doesn't 'other' the religious, there are religious people within HumanistsUK - that they campaign against the historical privelege of religion, and the Church of England in particular, does not equate to 'othering' the religious, and that they identify institutional homophobia and misogyny in religious groups doesn't 'other' those religions, it lets those religions 'other' themselves.

The point was the division was between Lords spiritual and Lords Temporal. To just have Lords temporal or perhaps we should call them Lords Short Term interest merely represents the bleak homonculus created by intellectual secular humanists

Or we could rename the Lords Spiritual as 'Lords Yesterday' and leave them and their recidivism in the 20th century where it already didn't belong? Or we could stop trying to come up with funny names and just accept that religion is as adequately represented as any other interest in the Lords, and doesn't need special reserved seats (and never did).

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lords Spiritual not an effective defence against that?

There are only 26 of them.

As opposed to a church that spent centuries telling people that it didn't matter that they were being treated like shit,

That is not the gospel message in fact Jesus makes it clear about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the next more permanent life.

Humanist UK doesn't 'other' the religious,

Of course it does in the way it's patrons do

  there are religious people within HumanistsUK

In the dungeons perhaps?

- that they campaign against the historical privelege of religion,

They are essentially historical revisionists who should be reading people like Paxman for some proper perspective

Or we could rename the Lords Spiritual as 'Lords Yesterday'.

Fallacy of modernity.

[Outrider]

There are only 26 of them.

There are STILL 26 of them, not 'only'.

That is not the gospel message

I don't care. The history of what they have done is far more relevant than your individual opinion of what they should do or should have done.

...in fact Jesus makes it clear about how difficult it is for rich people to enter the next more permanent life.

Or, at least, the people who selected the works chose works that allege what Jesus had to say about it, let's not oversell it.

Of course it does in the way it's patrons do

By giving them equal voice with everyone else?

They are essentially historical revisionists who should be reading people like Paxman for some proper perspective.

You can cite Paxman claiming that religion has not been privileged historically?

Fallacy of modernity.

Pointing out that the church was outdated in the last century is not the 'fallacy of modernity'. I'm not suggesting that it's beyond practical use as part of the state apparatus BECAUSE it's old, I'm suggesting that it's no longer relevant because the world has moved on and there is no longer a place for the privelege of religion in general, let alone one particular cult.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

The point was the division was between Lords spiritual and Lords Temporal.

Sounds like partiality to me.
Doesn't the NT have something to say about that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are STILL 26 of them, not 'only'.

I only say ''only'' to contrast that with the hundreds suitable to the two secular denominations HumanistUK and the NSS.

I don't care. The history of what they have done is far more relevant than your individual opinion of what they should do or should have done.

I do understand why your average english person is going to have a problem with the established Church of England and it's regulation of the unwilling is seared into the collective consciousness. That's why I initially was pro disestablishment. But todays patrons of Humanist UK are powerful and frankly antitheist and people of religion are in, I fear real danger from them and their exaggerated response to an imagined history. I can therefore find myself supporting american atheists against christian fundamentalists and nationalists but here see the dodgy antitheist agenda of the Humanists.

Or, at least, the people who selected the works chose works that allege what Jesus had to say about it, let's not oversell it.

By giving them equal voice with everyone else?

That's not what the game is and you know it. The prime aim of Secularists is the removal of religion from public life and having a complete secular bandwith.
They are play acting at being reasonable.

I see no Dog collars on the same platform as Copson, Roberts etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But todays patrons of Humanist UK are powerful and frankly antitheist and people of religion are in, I fear real danger from them and their exaggerated response to an imagined history. I can therefore find myself supporting american atheists against christian fundamentalists and nationalists but here see the dodgy antitheist agenda of the Humanists.

Pretty bizarre paranoia here, even by your standards. What on earth “danger” do you think Humanist UK pose to anyone exactly? Unless I suppose you consider it a “danger” that various theistic groups might lose the special but unwarranted privileges they currently hold in the pubic square?
 

That's not what the game is and you know it. The prime aim of Secularists is the removal of religion from public life and having a complete secular bandwith.
They are play acting at being reasonable.

Utter bollocks. In a secular state theists are a free to practice their rituals and the like as publicly as they wish – just like any other private members’ club can. A secular state merely requires that theistic groups don’t have access by right to various levers of state and civic affairs. Nothing more, nothing less.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Pretty bizarre paranoia here, even by your standards. What on earth “danger” do you think Humanist UK pose to anyone exactly? Unless I suppose you consider it a “danger” that various theistic groups might lose the special but unwarranted privileges they currently hold in the pubic square?
 
Utter bollocks. In a secular state theists are a free to practice their rituals and the like as publicly as they wish – just like any other private members’ club can. A secular state merely requires that theistic groups don’t have access by right to various levers of state and civic affairs. Nothing more, nothing less.   

The church is not a private members club Hillside.

As has been pointed out on this thread postulating a totally secular state involves a distorted atheistic homoncularisation of the citizen.

The right of access to power switches de facto from theist groups to secular groups like HumanistUK laundered of any theists by it's promotion of atheism vis the atheist bus campaign. There is nothing equal about it.

And it's all done by word piracy and definition diddling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The church is not a private members club Hillside.

Whoosh!

No it isn’t – but that’s effectively what it would be in a secular state. That's the point.

As has been pointed out on this thread postulating a totally secular state involves a distorted atheistic homoncularisation of the citizen.

What on earth is that even supposed to mean?

The right of access to power switches de facto from theist groups to secular groups like HumanistUK laundered of any theists by it's promotion of atheism vis the atheist bus campaign. There is nothing equal about it.

Utter gibberish. Did this mean something in your head when you typed it?

Secularism doesn’t deny the “right of access to power” to anyone; it just denies the automatic right to that power because of religiosity – ie, it merely says that religious people shouldn’t have that power solely because they happen to be religious. If, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury wanted to stand for election to a political or civic office he’d be as free to do so as would anyone else.

Good grief.   

And it's all done by word piracy and definition diddling.

Meaning what? Your random word generator seems to have kicked in again here…