DS Forums

 
 

Secularism and why Christianity has alienated people


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2016, 17:01
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
Surely a more pertinent question is to when we're going to stop needing food banks in the first place?

What role do you think the Church and its many members could play in that?
Apart from founding "Make Poverty History" and countless, issuing documents with titles like "The Common Good" and constant camaigning on issues of social justice, international trade, and leading the campaign on modern slavery.
When was the last time the Secular Organisations issued a document that was about something other than whining about how unfair things are for them?
And my original question is still pertinent .... When are one of the secularist organisations going to step up to the plate and open food banks? It would be one hell of a good way of demonstrating that they have a superior philosophy. Or even a morally equivalent one.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-12-2016, 17:11
shaddler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,476
When are one of the secularist organisations going to step up to the plate and open food banks? It would be one hell of a good way of demonstrating that they have a superior philosophy. Or even a morally equivalent one.
Why would they? Secularism isn't a philosophy or a set of rules for right behaviour. It's like asking why there aren't more Christian tapdancers.
shaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:21
Cornish_Piskie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Penzance, Kernow
Posts: 1,933
Should work like this in my opinion: we should have freedom of religion, and freedom from religion.

Why on Earth we should all dance to the tambourine of a religion or God we don't believe in is beyond me. Blasphemy laws really did do a great deal of damage for religion too, but sadly, I wonder if - in the worthwhile pursuit of harmony - we're starting to fall back into adopting it again.

Secularism can be the only way forward. Having a state religion usually goes one of two ways - it dictates everything, and the inevitable clash between freedom, human rights etc. is called into question, or you have it where it's there in name but no-one is arsed by it, even a great many of the apparent adherents (e.g. Church of England). The latter seems harmless enough until you consider the role it still plays in politics, education, etc.

Secularism is as good for religion as it is for non-religion.

The argument can be made about how good laws are introduced or influenced by religion - which is fine - but it conveniently ignores that a great many good laws were made in spite of it, and a great many bad laws were made with its blessing.

Whether laïcité is the way to go or not, well, that's up for debate. But surely, it's got to be a system that applies equally. I'm no fan of religion, but I find it utterly absurd how some would advocate the banning of religious apparel for one faith, but not another. That can't work. As soon as you issue 'preferred faiths', you're acting outside of secularism.

But certainly, religion should abide by society, and not the other way around.

But we don't have a State religion in the UK. The Church of England is probably the majority faith here, but it isn't an official state religion. We do not live in a Theocracy.

The title Defender Of The Faith was conferred by the Pope on Henry VIII in the 16th century and has kinda lingered ever since. It is true that the monarch is the head of the Church of England but that is more a matter of tradition, not an ecclesiastical post.

We have freedom of religion in Britain. People are free to worship whatever faith they believe in and although I have no religious belief myself, I fully accept the right of those who do to worship as they believe. This is a fundamental freedom of the British people and shouldn't be restricted in any way.

Secular law already does take priority over religious conviction, as we have recently seen in the prosecution of bakers in Belfast who refused, on religious grounds, to bake a cake with a pro-homosexual message. The ruling by the court specifically stated that religious belief, no matter how deeply held, cannot be used as an excuse to ignore anti-discrimination law.

There have been repeated attempts by clergy,through the democratic process, to obtain an exclusion from anti-discrimination law on the grounds of religious conviction and all have failed. It is quite clear that we already have a legal system based on secular principles.

Something that might be worth discussing here though is the matter of representation in the House of Lords by leaders of the major churches. The Church of England, The Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim Council of Britain, and the Chief Rabbi are all represented in the House of Lords.

Is this a good thing? Should they not be allowed to influence the law making process, or is it right to hear what they have to say when discussing proposed changes to legislation?
Cornish_Piskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:31
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
,,,,
There have been repeated attempts by clergy,through the democratic process, to obtain an exclusion from anti-discrimination law on the grounds of religious conviction and all have failed. It is quite clear that we already have a legal system based on secular principles.
,,,,
According to Christianconcern.com there is 'an exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination for religious organisations'.

http://www.christianconcern.com/site...vice-proof.pdf

Indeed it is clear that the state is far from completely secular. England by law still has an established Church for instance.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:36
Cornish_Piskie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Penzance, Kernow
Posts: 1,933
According to Christianconcern.com there is 'an exemption to the general prohibition against discrimination for religious organisations'.

http://www.christianconcern.com/site...vice-proof.pdf

Indeed it is clear that the state is far from completely secular. England by law still has an established Church for instance.
According to Christian Concern indeed. They can make any interpretation of the law they like on a website. What they are allowed to do is, as an organisation, promote their religion and argue for their version of "freedom of conscience." And there has never been any law against that.

The exemption only applies to religious organisations promoting their faith, and lays down very specific criteria as to what that entails. It does not apply to individuals.

It allows, for example, this or that church to exclude,say, homosexuals from their membership, but that's an issue that applies to any membership oriented group. It's not illegal for a golf club to exclude women from the club house. A club can choose whatever membership it likes, or restrict participation to certain elements.
Cornish_Piskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:47
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
According to Christian Concern indeed. They can make any interpretation of the law they like on a website. What they are allowed to do is, as an organisation, promote their religion and argue for their version of "freedom of conscience." And there has never been any law against that.

The exemption only applies to religious organisations promoting their faith, and lays down very specific criteria as to what that entails. It does not apply to individuals.
Indeed that is what I said; but thank you for your agreement.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:47
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
Why would they? Secularism isn't a philosophy or a set of rules for right behaviour. It's like asking why there aren't more Christian tapdancers.
Not a philosophy? So not a way of thinking or viewing life.
Not a guide to behaviour. So not about how people or institutions should interact.
So what exactly is it?
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:52
shaddler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,476
Not a philosophy? So not a way of thinking or viewing life.
Not a guide to behaviour. So not about how people or institutions should interact.
So what exactly is it?
You know what it is. And you know I wasn't talking about how institutions interact in my previous post
shaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:56
Cornish_Piskie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Penzance, Kernow
Posts: 1,933
Indeed that is what I said; but thank you for your agreement.
You're welcome.

Just highlighting the point because, as often happens on DS, the finer nuances of a point are often missed by subsequent posters who then go veering off in all sorts of directions.
Cornish_Piskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 17:58
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
According to Christian Concern indeed. They can make any interpretation of the law they like on a website. What they are allowed to do is, as an organisation, promote their religion and argue for their version of "freedom of conscience." And there has never been any law against that.

The exemption only applies to religious organisations promoting their faith, and lays down very specific criteria as to what that entails. It does not apply to individuals.

It allows, for example, this or that church to exclude,say, homosexuals from their membership, but that's an issue that applies to any membership oriented group. It's not illegal for a golf club to exclude women from the club house. A club can choose whatever membership it likes, or restrict participation to certain elements.
State funded schools are allowed to use religiously discriminatory admissions criteria. I would call this a fairly significant exemption from principles of equality.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:01
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
You're welcome.

Just highlighting the point because, as often happens on DS, the finer nuances of a point are often missed by subsequent posters who then go veering off in all sorts of directions.
Indeed so lets focus on some pertinent features of this 'secular' State.

The Head of State must be a member of one particular religion.

Members of a particular faith hold 26 seats in our legislature by right. No other organisation has such a privilege.

The law grants exemptions from humane animal killing for members of particular religions.

Around a third of state funded schools are faith schools that are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds both in selecting pupils and staff.

State funds are used in both the NHS and our armed forces to pay religious ministers.

Ministers of certain religions are allowed to legalise marriage. (not just hold wedding ceremonies) but to act in effect as registrars.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 18:16
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,619
I think the churches I attend are full to bursting at the weekends. I absolutely think the state should be secular but Christianity isn't dead yet and I doubt it ever will be.
I agree. Even if I had the power to, I'd never ban religion because it brings comfort to some people out there. I do think that religion should be kept well away from politics though.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 19:26
jayjay33
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 79
Personally, I agree. I think street preaching, especially hate should be an unlimited fine and / or prison. Jehovah's Witness....I'd go far as criminalising them as it's a sect and with all the alleged abuse etc, it'd be one way to put a stop to them, perhaps some sort of de-programming service for members and the ones that are responsible for abuse, a one-off return for the death penalty?

We should be a 100% secular country, do what France does and embrace secularism.
Jehovah's witnesses are not a sect as they in openly mix in society many of its members work in secular places offices shops ect and their places of worship are also open to the public they preach from door to door because they are following the example of Jesus who done the exact same thing and it was one of his commandments. You might be interested to know that Jehovah's witnesses have been banned and criminalised and were put to death in several countries over the years including Nazi Germany were they refused to heil Hitler because they put God before any human rulers and refused to join in the war and openly spoke out against the Nazi regime. They were also under ban in Russia and Poland during the Communist reign were deported and sent to Siberian work camps were many died.. despite this, when these regimes ended there were more Witnesses and it grew in numbers even more when they were under ban than when they were not
They have never taken up arms in any conflict or would do no harm against those who persecute them because once again they follow Jesus command that they must love their enemies, in fact their behaviour was so noticeably peaceful that even some of those Nazi soldiers who were guarding them became Witnesses So go ahead put them to death. put them in prison ...others have tried and failed, there are over 8 million Jehovah's Witnesses world wide so you will need a big prison and it wont stop them preaching, because they always find a way if not by word, then by their christian conduct
jayjay33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 19:38
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
You know what it is. And you know I wasn't talking about how institutions interact in my previous post
If it isn't a philosophy - a way of thinking or a set of values.
And it isn't a way of acting - either as individuals or as a society ...... what is it?
I can't think of what else it can be.
So no, I don't know what it is.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 19:44
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
I agree. Even if I had the power to, I'd never ban religion because it brings comfort to some people out there. I do think that religion should be kept well away from politics though.
Do you think that religious leaders should speak out when the government is oppressing the population. Thinking here of dictatorships etc.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 19:51
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
Do you think that religious leaders should speak out when the government is oppressing the population. Thinking here of dictatorships etc.
Anybody & everybody should & they can. No one should be given a privileged voice because they happen to hold a particular belief system however.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 08:37
droogiefret
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: looking for tinned loganberrie
Posts: 17,502
I would suggest that a far more significant and harmful muddying had been that which allows almost entirely State funded Schools to be described and managed as Faith Schools.

Or perhaps the muddying created by calling a government consultation document 'Schools that Work for Everyone' when it proposes removing the 50% limit on faith based admissions and allowing 'Faith' schools to select all its pupils on faith criteria.

This consultation therefore proposes that we replace the ‘cap’ for faith free
schools – including for existing schools – with a series of strengthened safeguards to
promote inclusivity, thereby allowing free schools with up to 100% faith-based admissions.


https://consult.education.gov.uk/sch...20%20FINAL.pdf

If this dreadful proposal is accepted we will soon be seeing new schools opening with totally religiously segregated pupil bodies and we will all be paying for this.
10. Faith schools. Faith schools make up a third of all schools in England. The government currently applies a 50% cap on the number of children admitted by faith for oversubscribed new free schools, in order to foster inclusivity. However, the evidence suggests that this rule does not achieve inclusivity and in fact prevents some high- performing faith schools from expanding or establishing new schools. We want to deliver real inclusivity in schools, while increasing the number of good school places, including at new faith schools.
Yes - that sounds awful - and feels like cronyism. The recommended measures to ensure inclusivity feel very weak ... 'Consider setting up....' etc.

Also brought to my attention that many independent schools enjoy charitable status. Awful and elitist.
droogiefret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:14
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
Anybody & everybody should & they can. No one should be given a privileged voice because they happen to hold a particular belief system however.
Is there such a thing as a "voice for the voiceless?" Sometimes religious leaders are the only ones who speak in defence of the most marginalised.
I was responding to a post saying that religion should keep out of politics, which I think is a ludicrous proposition - unless you hold the view that the churches should not have come out against the Iraq war, or campaign against structural poverty, unequal trade, modern slavery or the death penalty etc. Should religious leaders use their access to the media to speak out about these things?
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:27
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,619
Do you think that religious leaders should speak out when the government is oppressing the population. Thinking here of dictatorships etc.
I doubt Britain would ever have a dictator but, you never know. Anyone can speak up about anything that has been decided by the government. I was talking about religion not having an influence over anything that goes on in politics. For example, I wonder how much religion played a part in the right to die law being rejected? I'm not against religion, I just think politics needs to have impartial minds when it comes to making decisions.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:34
lordOfTime
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: County Durham
Posts: 15,061
I personally believe that people should be able to hold whatever faiths and beliefs they want but in NO way should they impose them on other people. Religion etc should be kept out of schools and all workplaces.

It certainly has no place in how the country is run, and there should be no religious exceptions when providing services to anyone.
This exactly, if people want to learn about religion then there are certain establishments to do so, nut jobs preaching on the street should be outlawed & the door knocking from the people in suits, should also be made illegal.

If some religious nut job quotes me a verse from their chosen fairytale, then I quote them an almighty bollocks in return.
What about secularism? Should that be imposed on people?

That's what will happen if you force Christians to keep quiet.

I agree that street preaching can be counter productive but we have freedom of religion in this country. Christianity by definition cannot just lie down and wait for new people to join the flock.
lordOfTime is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:38
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
I doubt Britain would ever have a dictator but, you never know. Anyone can speak up about anything that has been decided by the government. I was talking about religion not having an influence over anything that goes on in politics. For example, I wonder how much religion played a part in the right to die law being rejected? I'm not against religion, I just think politics needs to have impartial minds when it comes to making decisions.
Why would anyone speak out about anything if weren't trying to be heard?
On contentious issues like right to die, it isn't usually only religious people who are against change. They tend to cop the blame, but in that case there were plenty of lawyers, health professionals and hospice workers who were against it. Law makers listened to all sides before deciding, and thats how it should be, I reckon.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 09:43
zx50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: County Durham
Posts: 78,619
Why would anyone speak out about anything if weren't trying to be heard?
On contentious issues like right to die, it isn't usually only religious people who are against change. They tend to cop the blame, but in that case there were plenty of lawyers, health professionals and hospice workers who were against it. Law makers listened to all sides before deciding, and thats how it should be, I reckon.
I wonder how many in the House of Lords are very religious? That would definitely have played a part in how they voted.
zx50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 10:01
alan29
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 20,484
I wonder how many in the House of Lords are very religious? That would definitely have played a part in how they voted.
Not all religious people think the same way about stuff.
True, that.
alan29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 11:27
molliepops
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: woking
Posts: 21,660
I wonder how many in the House of Lords are very religious? That would definitely have played a part in how they voted.
And why not ? People use all sorts of thinking to make decisions. A religious person may use their belief and also other things to make decisions.

As a religious person I often find the religious in high places don't represent my thinking at all, right to die etc being one of them. I don't argue they should not speak out though as everyone has a right to speak on these things.

It's important to hear all sides of arguments IMO
molliepops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2016, 12:22
Marispiper
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 267
Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, Anglican (low and high) Pentecostals - they're all Christian (in that they believe in Jesus, as the Son of God) but very different in their traditions.
To my mind, the problem arises with any religion, when they believe they have THE truth.
I'm RC and I have MY truth which I do my best to live by.
Fundamentalist Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems...all those who believe they have THE truth and condemn others outside their beliefs are the ones who are alienating IMO.
Jesus in front of Pontius Pilate says "all those on the side of truth listen to my words" and Pilate replies
"Truth? What is that?"
Marispiper is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:50.