Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on July 03, 2015, 04:49:42 PM
-
I know it's from the NSS but Have they got it wrong?
Make up your own mind from the link below:
secularism.org.uk/blog/2015/07/secularism-and-tolerance-go-hand-in-hand
ippy
-
Yes, ippy, I think Steven Evans has got it right/wrong - and therein lies the problem.
I have long felt that a lot of social developments have occurred over time that are 'sold' as secularism, but aren't in reality. At the same time, there have long been attempts by the Church of England (especially) to become less beholden to the secular government, including (as I've noted before) efforts to encourage MPs to agree to disestablishment.
Montgomerie doesn't necessarily speak for the Conservative Party, let alone the Church, as such, he is entitled to speak his mind just as you and I are entitled to question or agree with him.
Finally, I'm unsure about tolerance. Are we a more tolerant society, or are we all simply less interested in other people and their views and beliefs?
-
Yes, ippy, I think Steven Evans has got it right/wrong - and therein lies the problem.
I have long felt that a lot of social developments have occurred over time that are 'sold' as secularism, but aren't in reality. At the same time, there have long been attempts by the Church of England (especially) to become less beholden to the secular government, including (as I've noted before) efforts to encourage MPs to agree to disestablishment.
Montgomerie doesn't necessarily speak for the Conservative Party, let alone the Church, as such, he is entitled to speak his mind just as you and I are entitled to question or agree with him.
Finally, I'm unsure about tolerance. Are we a more tolerant society, or are we all simply less interested in other people and their views and beliefs?
Secularism is very straight forward it's for the freedom of religion and freedom from religion, end of story how you seem to think there are complications in that beats me?
Is it because so many religious privileges are relatively minor but when added together they hold some considerable weight and this is the real reason people like yourself keep on fluffing about around the edges not wanting to recognise these privileges are even there in the first place.
If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.
The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Loss of privilege, sorry not read your link ( no access on my phone ) but a question.
The big three I know of, CoE, CoS and the RC, should they have any privilege, given the fact that our welfare, NHS, would suffer big time without the aboves intervention.
Now please remember I am asking, I don't know.
Gonnagle.
-
If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.
The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.
ippy
There never was any official state church in this country, but during the time of apartheid there was essentially an equivalent de facto relationship between the government and what was probably the largest Protestant denomination. And that church was ineffective, largely ignored and bleeding members at that time.
Since 1994 when it became free from the need to represent 'the apartheid government at prayer' the transformation in that church had been nothing short of amazing. It is now a powerful force for good in this country.
I suspect if your country went fully secular tomorrow it would produce a one day shock wave. And then, horror of horrors, you could well find a new, re-energised church emerging which might just truly make waves in transforming the Christian landscape of Britain.
-
Secularism is very straight forward it's for the freedom of religion and freedom from religion, end of story how you seem to think there are complications in that beats me?
As you say, secularism is very straight forward until it is used as a cover for politically-correct ideas.
Is it because so many religious privileges are relatively minor but when added together they hold some considerable weight and this is the real reason people like yourself keep on fluffing about around the edges not wanting to recognise these privileges are even there in the first place.
I have noticed that you seem very keen on the privileges that some religious people have in this country. ;)
If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.
Actually, apart from Anglicans in England (the Church of England), many religious people in the UK would find themselves losing very few, if any, privileges. After all, most such people have no more privileges than their non-religious compatriots.
The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.
OK, perhaps you can list what privileges a Baptist, Hindu, Jedi, Jehovah's Witness, Methodist, Muslim, Pentecostalist, Roman Catholic, Sikh (to list but a few) have that the general public don't?
-
Dear ippy,
Loss of privilege, sorry not read your link ( no access on my phone ) but a question.
The big three I know of, CoE, CoS and the RC, should they have any privilege, given the fact that our welfare, NHS, would suffer big time without the aboves intervention.
Now please remember I am asking, I don't know.
Gonnagle.
Since a secularist state wouldn't be interfering with any of the operational processes of your big three, they wouldn't be required to disappear.
The religious can help with the NHS or do welfare work to their hearts content only it would have to be without any state support or funding, like for instance hospital chaplains would have to be funded by whatever denomination they represented, not the state, I doubt anybody would want them to go, including myself; it's only that they would no longer be in receipt of any kind of state funding.
Like every secularist I know of; we all support your right to have the freedom to follow any religion of choice.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Hospital Chaplains!! Sorry but I am talking about foot soldiers, feeding the poor, visiting the elderly, dealing with alcoholics, kids who live in poverty, battered wives, battered husband's, adoption, retreats for carers, carers, the list is endless, yes endless!!
Just asking ???
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
Hospital Chaplains!! Sorry but I am talking about foot soldiers, feeding the poor, visiting the elderly, dealing with alcoholics, kids who live in poverty, battered wives, battered husband's, adoption, retreats for carers, carers, the list is endless, yes endless!!
Just asking ???
Gonnagle.
Little muddled there Goners, I get the impression that you haven't got the faintest idea of what secularism is all about.
As far as I know religious bodies are free to do any kind of charitable work they want to, your post suggests that a secularist state would want to shut all of the present religion based charities down? If that is what you are thinking it might be best if you left the subject alone until after you have done some serious reading up of all you can find about what secularism actually is and what it stands for.
If you do read up about secularism and manage to get a full understanding of the subject, perhaps it might help if you could pass any books about it on to Hope he has the same trouble that you appear to have.
ippy
-
The religious can help with the NHS or do welfare work to their hearts content only it would have to be without any state support or funding, like for instance hospital chaplains would have to be funded by whatever denomination they represented, not the state, I doubt anybody would want them to go, including myself; it's only that they would no longer be in receipt of any kind of state funding.
Oddly enough, many religious charities are supported by the state on the grounds that they do work that a local authority should be doing but doesn't/can't, and with no reference to their religious background. However, rarely are they supported by the state 100% - which isn't always the case with non-religious charities.
I understand that should a law be introduced to ban the state from supporting religious charities, there would probably be a court case based on discrimination - different organisations doing similar, perhaps even identical, work being treated differently.
-
If you do read up about secularism and manage to get a full understanding of the subject, perhaps it might help if you could pass any books about it on to Hope he has the same trouble that you appear to have.
Gonners, it would be worth passing it on to ippy, as he seems to have some weird ideas about secularism as well.
-
Dear Hope,
Well ippy is right, I am a bit muddled over what secularism is, but he has not answered my question.
Never mind, maybe ippy is looking for a career in politics.
Dear ippy,
Sorry in case you forgot, privilege is the question, not what secularism is.
Gonnagle.
-
If we were to go secular tomorrow completely, all religious privilege ended at exactly say 12 midnight I think the general public would be staggered when they read about how the process went, the biggest shock would be the sheer amount of privileges the religious would be having to give up, no doubt listed in and on all of the media outlets.
The above is what I think worries the religious people and their organisations the most about secularism, rather than the split hairs of one reporter or another writes in a paper or journal, comments like your post just after the OP on this thread.
ippy
There never was any official state church in this country, but during the time of apartheid there was essentially an equivalent de facto relationship between the government and what was probably the largest Protestant denomination. And that church was ineffective, largely ignored and bleeding members at that time.
Since 1994 when it became free from the need to represent 'the apartheid government at prayer' the transformation in that church had been nothing short of amazing. It is now a powerful force for good in this country.
I suspect if your country went fully secular tomorrow it would produce a one day shock wave. And then, horror of horrors, you could well find a new, re-energised church emerging which might just truly make waves in transforming the Christian landscape of Britain.
I can see where you're coming from DM, you give me the impression that you think we might follow the US example/model if we were lucky enough to become a fully secular state.
Well of course I don't know what your connection is with the UK or if there is any connection other than the usual sources; but although we share a common language with the Americans but they are still very foreign in lots of their ways to us here in the UK, if the religionists were to try their ludicrous TV stuff here, you would probably hear the laughter all the way down there in SA.
At the moment here if you can imagine one of those sometimes flat line screens where it can be a wavy line, well the wavy line would be approximately centre slightly above and below the line that's how it is here at the moment with the religious believers and the non-religious, I don't think that compares with the States just for starters.
Generally here at the moment is how the religious even some you would think have a bit more savvy than most really don't understand secularism and I get the feeling if you were to put them on a six year intensive course about the subject they still wouldn't get it.
We already have secular states here in Europe and even so there is nothing similar happening in them that even faintly resembles the US or your description of how religion has developed in SA either.
ippy
-
Dear Hope,
Well ippy is right, I am a bit muddled over what secularism is, but he has not answered my question.
Never mind, maybe ippy is looking for a career in politics.
Dear ippy,
Sorry in case you forgot, privilege is the question, not what secularism is.
Gonnagle.
Well Gonners amongst other things secularism is against privileges like:The bishops in the Lords
Chancery legislation
Tax relief for places of worship, council tax relief for the same
The religious invited to the Remembrance Day Ceremony 11-11, non-religious representation denied
The religious are allowed to discriminate with employment legally at denominational schools
Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing
There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).
There's plenty.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Thankyou for that clarification, so they don't deal in feeding the poor, fighting poverty, no thought for, there for the grace of, oh sorry you don't believe in God.
Anyway, how does secularism fight greed!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Hope,
Well ippy is right, I am a bit muddled over what secularism is, but he has not answered my question.
Never mind, maybe ippy is looking for a career in politics.
Dear ippy,
Sorry in case you forgot, privilege is the question, not what secularism is.
Gonnagle.
Well Gonners amongst other things secularism is against privileges like:The bishops in the Lords
Chancery legislation
Tax relief for places of worship, council tax relief for the same
The religious invited to the Remembrance Day Ceremony 11-11, non-religious representation denied
The religious are allowed to discriminate with employment legally at denominational schools
Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing
There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).
There's plenty.
ippy
I agree such privileges should be extended to explicitly atheist organisations.
-
Yes ippster, your secularism is working well in France. Muslim girls dropping out of school or attending makeshift Muslim schools because they are banned from wearing head coverings. Yippee for you ippy and your tolerant secularism.
-
Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing
We've had this debate before, ippy, and as I said then, of all the hospital chaplains I know/have known - numbering in the 70s or 80s - none have been paid for exclusively by the state. I agree that in some cases, their pay has been subsidised by the state - and I think the biggest proportion I know of is 50%, but since they work with patients who are neither Christian or even religious - as well as Christian patients - I see nothing wrong with that. After all, they are often employed by the local health board/authority. That is not a privilege; that is a pragmatic use of money, or are you suggesting that they ought to do what may be a full-time job as an unpaid volunteer?
There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).
The only such examples I know of are councils who run a school bus service and service all the schools in their area.
-
Thank all for illustrating my point so well.
Ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Hospital Chaplains!! Sorry but I am talking about foot soldiers, feeding the poor, visiting the elderly, dealing with alcoholics, kids who live in poverty, battered wives, battered husband's, adoption, retreats for carers, carers, the list is endless, yes endless!!
Just asking ???
Gonnagle.
But Gonners there is no evidence that religious people in the UK are more likely to engage in voluntary work than non religious people. There have been several studies looking at this and the proportion of people volunteering either in a formal way (e.g. through engagement ipwith a charitable organisation, which might be a church) or an informal manner (e.g. giving a lift to an elderly person to hospital appointments etc) is basically identical between the religious and non religious within the population.
But of course none of that is relevant to secularism - religious people will be able to engage in voluntary good work if they choose under a secular society exactly as they do so today. Secularism would simply ensure that they don't receive some specifical privilege as a religious people that isn't a available to the non religious or to people of another religion.
Simples.
-
But of course none of that is relevant to secularism - religious people will be able to engage in voluntary good work if they choose under a secular society exactly as they do so today. Secularism would simply ensure that they don't receive some specifical privilege as a religious people that isn't a available to the non religious or to people of another religion.
And, from a volunteer's pov, just what are those privileges that you believe they currently enjoy?
-
Thank all for illustrating my point so well.
Ippy
And what was that point, ippy? Several of the posts that precede this one of yours seem to disagree with your pov
-
OK, let's look at these a little more carefully:
Well Gonners amongst other things secularism is against privileges like:The bishops in the Lords
The vast majority of religious people here in the UK are not represented by anyone in the House of Commons or Lords in this way. In fact, not even all the Anglicans in the UK are!! I think that you needd to be a little less generalistic, ippy.
Chancery legislation
Perhaps you could expand on this since Chancery legislation covers such a huge number of issues.
Tax relief for places of worship, council tax relief for the same
There are plenty of organisations which qualify for tax reliefs; why should religious ones be picked on particularly?
The religious invited to the Remembrance Day Ceremony 11-11, non-religious representation denied
I'll give you this one, though things are changing as far as I'm aware.
The religious are allowed to discriminate with employment legally at denominational schools
This is a very fine distinction, ippy. The most they are able to discrimate in is by requiring applicants to agree with the ethical position of the school. They are not allowed to specify that an applicant must share the faith position of the school (though I think this may not apply in Muslim and Jewish schools)
Denominational chaplains are financed by the state instead of whatever denomination they are representing
There are still various councils providing and funding transport for children to denominational schools, children of non-religious parents do not get similar funding away from the denominational and to state schools. (This is gradually going).
Covered in a previous post
-
Dear Prof,
If you note from my posts on this thread, I am asking, I am not arguing for or against, simply enquiring.
Should we have Bishops in the House of Lords, my gut instinct says no, but the amount of good works done by the CoE could warrant that, but then maybe we should have a rep for the Salvation Army in the House of Lords.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
If you note from my posts on this thread, I am asking, I am not arguing for or against, simply enquiring.
Should we have Bishops in the House of Lords, my gut instinct says no, but the amount of good works done by the CoE could warrant that, but then maybe we should have a rep for the Salvation Army in the House of Lords.
Gonnagle.
Secularism is the state isn't it? And right now the state's definition of good works is radically different from the church's. How therefore can a secular replacement for church charity possibly replace it?
-
Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.
-
Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.
Surely not even you could suggest that were the trifling privileges mentioned be removed
everybody will be on a living wage etc, etc, etc.
-
Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.
Surely not even you could suggest that were the trifling privileges mentioned be removed
everybody will be on a living wage etc, etc, etc.
No, the things are entirely separate, distinct and discrete.
Would removal of HoL bishops, disestablishment of the C of E - full secularism in other words - guarantee a living wage for those at the bottom of the pile and an end to the persecution of the physically and/or mentally ill (principally by that alleged Catholic, Iain Duncan Smith, so passionately and articulately, even I would say fiercely challenged and criticised by other Catholics)?
No.
Would it make, over all, for a fairer, more just and egalitarian society? I say yes. An end to entirely unwarranted, unjustified and indefensible privileges is not what I regard as trifling. As I think Nearly Sane (not sure; dredging the memory here) said only the other day with regard to America's explicitly secularist Constitution, you have to stand up for the smaller examples in order to defend the greater overarching principles.
-
Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture, but not a secular state.
Surely not even you could suggest that were the trifling privileges mentioned be removed
everybody will be on a living wage etc, etc, etc.
No, the things are entirely separate, distinct and discrete.
Would removal of HoL bishops, disestablishment of the C of E - full secularism in other words - guarantee a living wage for those at the bottom of the pile and an end to the persecution of the physically and/or mentally ill (principally by that alleged Catholic, Iain Duncan Smith, so passionately and articulately, even I would say fiercely challenged and criticised by other Catholics)?
No.
Would it make, over all, for a fairer, more just and egalitarian society? I say yes. An end to entirely unwarranted, unjustified and indefensible privileges is not what I regard as trifling. As I think Nearly Sane (not sure; dredging the memory here) said only the other day with regard to America's explicitly secularist Constitution, you have to stand up for the smaller examples in order to defend the greater overarching principles.
I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentried, non political but more pastoral aspects of life and therefore more than warranted, justifiable and indeed defensible.
Is there much evidence that increased secularism isn't concomitant with increased antitheism and
increased acquisitive materialism?
-
I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentried, non political but more pastoral aspects of life and therefore more than warranted, justifiable and indeed defensible.
In a capitalist society there is no such thing as "non-economic."
If you think that HoL bishops represent anything "non-gentried, non-political" you don't know much about the history of Christianity in Britain.
Is there much evidence that increased secularism isn't concomitant with increased antitheism and
increased acquisitive materialism?
I don't share your monomaniacal obsession with anti-theism so am not bothered about that. Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
-
I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentried, non political but more pastoral aspects of life and therefore more than warranted, justifiable and indeed defensible.
In a capitalist society there is no such thing as "non-economic."
If you think that HoL bishops represent anything "non-gentried, non-political" you don't know much about the history of Christianity in Britain.
Is there much evidence that increased secularism isn't concomitant with increased antitheism and
increased acquisitive materialism?
I don't share your monomaniacal obsession with anti-theism so am not bothered about that. Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?
2: Yes Bishops were gentrified in History but then so were the gentry and you seem to have no problem with that. That was though History and we can be assured that todays Lords spiritual are indeed lords pastoral.
3: Do you honestly still think the UK will get a high standard of living all round, more social liberalism. a strong welfare state and high levels of donation to what are now deemed as parasites on society if there were no episcopal presence.....................
-
1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?
Secularism doesn't entail that religion is "out of the public forum." With regard to England specifically (Wales and Scotland having seen sense long ago) it means or would mean that not Christianity, not even Protestant Christianity, not even Anglican Protestant Christianity but the Church of England specifically would have no greater or lesser share of the public forum pie than Wicca or Satanism. I'm very happy with that. Have a table big enough to have everyone at the table, or take a chainsaw to the table and don't even pretend to bother with the concept of tables.
2: Yes Bishops were gentrified in History but then so were the gentry and you seem to have no problem with that.
What on earth gives you that entirely false impression?
3: Do you honestly still think the UK will get a high standard of living all round, more social liberalism. a strong welfare state and high levels of donation to what are now deemed as parasites on society if there were no episcopal presence.....................
A question you've asked before which I've answered before in #29.
-
1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?
Secularism doesn't entail that religion is "out of the public forum." With regard to England specifically (Wales and Scotland having seen sense long ago) it means or would mean that not Christianity, not even Protestant Christianity, not even Anglican Protestant Christianity but the Church of England specifically would have no greater or lesser share of the public forum pie than Wicca or Satanism. I'm very happy with that. Have a table big enough to have everyone at the table, or take a chainsaw to the table and don't even pretend to bother.
2: Yes Bishops were gentrified in History but then so were the gentry and you seem to have no problem with that.
What on earth gives you that entirely false impression?
3: Do you honestly still think the UK will get a high standard of living all round, more social liberalism. a strong welfare state and high levels of donation to what are now deemed as parasites on society if there were no episcopal presence.....................
A question you've asked before which I've answered before in #29.
If Christianity had ''equal shares'' with Satanism that would not be ''representative'' would it?
I'm all for having a second house done by lot.
-
If Christianity had ''equal shares'' with Satanism that would not be ''representative'' would it?
Yes.
-
If Christianity had ''equal shares'' with Satanism that would not be ''representative'' would it?
Yes.
Expliquez moi
-
Pas de probleme.
Have everybody, or have nobody. There are Christians (I mean actual ones - believing, practising ones and not nominal, pissed-up-on-Christmas-Eve, bloody-hell-is-it-the-census-again, tick-the-box-because-I-was-baptised Christians) and there are Satanists. And Sikhs. And Wiccans. And Jains. And Heathens. And Zoroastrians.
I can't think of any argument based on sheer numbers for excluding any group from equal consideration and representation.
-
Vlad: we live in a predominantly non-religious society and culture ...
Do we, Shaker? Even if the number of professing atheists is at the 51% of the population as some have quoted over the months, I'm not sure that the term 'predominantly' is quite the right term to use.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'predominantly' means "Mainly; for the most part"
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
-
Do we, Shaker?
Yes.
Even if the number of professing atheists is at the 51% of the population as some have quoted over the months, I'm not sure that the term 'predominantly' is quite the right term to use.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'predominantly' means "Mainly; for the most part"
Yes, that's the sense in which I understand the word too.
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
You would have to provide some evidence of that.
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
You would have to provide some evidence of that.
I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.
-
Wikipedia states that As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...
According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%
a total of 53%. This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly. Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK. Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that). If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden
-
Best of ;)
-
1: In a country where religion is out of the public forum what is then to stop unbridled capitalism in the UK?
Same thing as in the UK: the rule of law.
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
If that's the case then it gives the lie to the idea that secularism is bad for religion. You should be advocating a secular society.
-
If that's the case then it gives the lie to the idea that secularism is bad for religion. You should be advocating a secular society.
jeremy, if you bother reading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist. I believe that in some ways, that is what is happening in the UK - after all, several so-called supporters of secularism take great pleasure in quoting the growing proportion of atheists in the UK population. In a truly secular society, the proportion of adherents to this belief system against that one is irrelevant.
-
jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.
Why?
-
jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.
Why?
Because an atheist society places atheism in a predominant position, thus denying the point of secularism.
-
jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.
Why?
Because an atheist society places atheism in a predominant position, thus denying the point of secularism.
I'm very happy with a society that places atheism in a predominant position, but moreover don't see how this denies the point of secularism which is to give precisely equal "airtime" (so to speak) to all religions without fear or favour to any.
I'm not convinced that you know what secularism means. Or atheism, come to that.
-
Thank all for illustrating my point so well.
Ippy
And what was that point, ippy? Several of the posts that precede this one of yours seem to disagree with your pov
What would be the point of trying to explain something that you either, really don't want to understand or are unable to understand, I suspect the former.
Read Proff D's post Hope, it's really as simples as he has said.
ippy
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
You would have to provide some evidence of that.
I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.
-
Wikipedia states that As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...
According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%
a total of 53%. This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly. Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK. Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that). If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden
The most recent and highly respected WIN/Gallup International survey which looks at religiosity across a very large number of countries in the world found Sweden to be one of the very least religious countries, with over 80% saying they are 'not religious' or they are 'convinced atheists'. Only China and Japan of the 65 countries surveyed had a smaller proportion of people who say they are religious.
I gather that regular church attendance in Sweden is estimated (always rather difficult to get definitive figures) to be about 2-3% of the population, so probably a little lower than in the UK.
-
Secularism is the state isn't it?
No - it is an approach to the constitutional position of the state.
And right now the state's definition of good works is radically different from the church's. How therefore can a secular replacement for church charity possibly replace it?
What are you on about - you clearly have no understanding of secularism if you think it would require church charity to be somehow replaced. Under a secular system church goers can remain as charitable (or uncharitable) as they are right now. The only difference might be that a few privileges that are provided to religious charities (e.g. a higher level of turnover before they have to register with the Charities Commission) might be removed to provide a level playing field for all charities regardless of whether they claim a religious ethos or not.
-
I would argue that having Bishops in the house was and is an attempt to represent the non temporal, non economic, non gentries ...
Err have you checked out the background of the current leader of the Lords Spiritual in the HofL, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perhaps you are unaware of his achingly establishment backgrounds, exemplified by the school he attended. In case you aren't aware during his later time at school he might have encountered some younger boys by the name of Boris Johnson and David Cameron.
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
You would have to provide some evidence of that.
I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.
-
Wikipedia states that As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...
According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%
a total of 53%. This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly. Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK. Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that). If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden
The most recent and highly respected WIN/Gallup International survey which looks at religiosity across a very large number of countries in the world found Sweden to be one of the very least religious countries, with over 80% saying they are 'not religious' or they are 'convinced atheists'. Only China and Japan of the 65 countries surveyed had a smaller proportion of people who say they are religious.
I gather that regular church attendance in Sweden is estimated (always rather difficult to get definitive figures) to be about 2-3% of the population, so probably a little lower than in the UK.
And we all know how reliable those things are!
-
Hugely secular countries such as the Scandinavian ones - Sweden especially - have a very high standard of living, social liberalism, a strong and effective welfare state, high levels of personal donation to charities and good causes and a high foreign aid budget. Is this what you meant?
And a higher church attendance than we have here in the UK, if I remember correctly.
You would have to provide some evidence of that.
I'll see if I can find the source that I seem to remember reading this in - ironically, provided some time ago by ippy, iirc.
-
Wikipedia states that As of 2014, about 65% of Swedish citizens are members of the Church of Sweden, compared to over 95% in 1970, and 83% in 2000. ...
According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012, the religions in Sweden are the following:
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%
a total of 53%. This is not what I remember reading, as that suggested about 9% attended church regularly. Wikipedia suggests that only 4% of the membership of the Church of Sweden attend church regularly, but the other denominations are probably a higher proportion, in the same way as here in the UK. Estimates for regular church attendance fluctuate from 3-7% here in the UK (probably as the phrase 'regularly' has no definitive figure attached to it - most church statisticians take it as at least once a month, other statisticians seem to accept less than that). If you add even a third of the other 12%, one is up to 8%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sweden#Church_of_Sweden
The most recent and highly respected WIN/Gallup International survey which looks at religiosity across a very large number of countries in the world found Sweden to be one of the very least religious countries, with over 80% saying they are 'not religious' or they are 'convinced atheists'. Only China and Japan of the 65 countries surveyed had a smaller proportion of people who say they are religious.
I gather that regular church attendance in Sweden is estimated (always rather difficult to get definitive figures) to be about 2-3% of the population, so probably a little lower than in the UK.
And we all know how reliable those things are!
Yes we do - very reliable - this is a properly conducted opinion survey conducted by one of the most respected organisations using established methodologies to ensure a demographically representative sample. Typically the margin or error is +/-3%.
Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.
-
Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.
I believe that this 'reliability of bona fide surveys' was taken for granted prior to two recent national elections.
So, it's not that we question them "only when (we) don't like the results".
-
Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.
I believe that this 'reliability of bona fide surveys' was taken for granted prior to two recent national elections.
So, it's not that we question them "only when (we) don't like the results".
Which two would that be Hope.
If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.
-
Dear Prof,
There is a bona fide scientific survey on another thread which you seem to think is a load of rubbish ::) :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
There is a bona fide scientific survey on another thread which you seem to think is a load of rubbish ::) :P
Gonnagle.
Where - surely you don't mean this one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3512686/Children-are-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html#disqus_thread
Given that the article refers only to a lecture he is going to give and a provides a quote from an interview with the BBC then I think I can readily conclude that there is no study as yet, or certainly not a bone fide scientific academic study which would be subjected to proper peer review prior to publication.
All he has done is posited a claim - that isn't evidence, merely his opinion. And this article (along with a few others, e.g. in The Guardian came out in 2008). Yet interestingly, despite having 7 years since those articles he never seems to have actually published a proper research paper on the topic. Hmm - I wonder why.
-
Which two would that be Hope.
If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.
That's not what they were saying at the time, and groups like YouGov have stated that they will have to radically rethink their processes in order to get back into that acceptable statistical margin.
The other was the Israeli General Election 6 weeks earlier.
-
Given that the article refers only to a lecture he is going to give and a provides a quote from an interview with the BBC then I think I can readily conclude that there is no study as yet, or certainly not a bone fide scientific academic study which would be subjected to proper peer review prior to publication.
The article also refers to the fact that he, and his colleagues, have looked at and collated the findings of previous studies (the figure is given more pre-eminence in the Science Daily article that Rose uses in her OP on the 'Children: religion the default position' thread).
-
Which two would that be Hope.
If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.
That's not what they were saying at the time, and groups like YouGov have stated that they will have to radically rethink their processes in order to get back into that acceptable statistical margin.
The other was the Israeli General Election 6 weeks earlier.
YouGov's final pre-election poll suggested Con 34, Lab 33 - actual result Con 37, Lab 31 - sounds pretty well within the +/- 3% mating of error to me.
But actually election polling is more complicated than the sorts of surveys we've been talking about here. Why, because you have to take account not just of the opinion (which party a person is likely to vote for), but also likelihood to vote. There is no equivalent filtering for 'likelihood to vote' if you are asking people whether they are a religious person, not a religious person or a convinced atheist - which was the question on the Gallup survey we've been discussing.
In Israel there is a moratorium on publishing polls in the last few days so a late swing may not be picked up.
-
jeremy, if you bother rading my posts, I'm not against a secular society, but I am against a society that claims to be secular, but is, in reality, atheist.
Why?
Because an atheist society places atheism in a predominant position, thus denying the point of secularism.
I'm very happy with a society that places atheism in a predominant position
It's ''The Big Non'' and would amount to a loss of something. That's where antitheism would creep in........It happened to you after all.
-
What on earth are you babbling about?
-
I think it would be a fair comment to say that Hope's had a comprehensive drubbing on this thread, I wish I could take the credit for that but without a doubt it has to be a, Well done Proff D.
ippy.
-
I think it would be a fair comment to say that Hope's had a comprehensive drubbing on this thread, I wish I could take the credit for that but without a doubt it has to be a, Well done Proff D.
ippy.
It's usual. He's been the ginger stepchild on the 'extended Sunday opening hours' thread as well, also at the hands of the good Prof.
-
Interesting how some people cast aspirations on the reliability of bone fide surveys only when they don't like the results.
I believe that this 'reliability of bona fide surveys' was taken for granted prior to two recent national elections.
So, it's not that we question them "only when (we) don't like the results".
Which two would that be Hope.
If you mean the 2015 General Election as one of them the result was within the standard margin of error for the final polls.
The exit poll was pretty much spot on.