Christian Grans

Tcha! It's clear enough what I mean, isn't it?

Bags - I don't think set theory was taught when most members were at school!

elsiejoy, it'd really help if you could enlighten us on this.

Ah! [light bulb]

But, but, but!....

There's a difference between the 'set' that could be called "a lack of religious posts" (Set A) and the 'set' that could be called "irreligious posts" (Set B). At least, I think there is.

For example, posts about knitting could go in Set A quite happily, don't you think, without any contention, whereas it's quite hard (for me anyway) to think of a post about knitting that could go in Set B.

So which did the OP mean – non-religious posts, which will include the vast majority of posts on gransnet, or irreligious posts, which will be a small proportion of the whole?

You can hardly blame the atheists because the believers choose not to post. Why are people still making accusations of hostile posts without giving examples of what they mean? Nobody has made any personal comments, we have simply stated our own beliefs. We have had these vague allegations before, never substantiated, but fortunately it has not succeeded in preventing us from continuing to give our sincere opinions.
Surely it is not too hard to understand the difference between opposition to an organisation and hostility towards individual members. I loathe the Conservative Party but I don't hate everybody who votes for them. (I may think they are totally misguided, but that is not hostility).

That's right, Bags! Or to put it another way, she was saddened by the number of irreligious posts.

I read them through, Greatnan. How is it contentious of ElsieJoy to say seeing so many secular posts is saddening, absent? She's a newcomer, a Christian and went to a topic titled 'Religion and Spirituality'. I had the same experience last year. I even counted up the posts and found 2/3 were broadly negative. Elsie thought she would find some kindred spirits. She didn't. And I think, considering the reaction she got, it's brave of her to continue to post!

Lily says: "The very long entry in the OED gives several definitions of 'secular' one of which is 'not religious' and which I gave earlier. Since then, others have posted with similar definitions from other dictionaries. 'Secularism' has a more limited meaning and is the movement to separate the state from religion. But SECULAR isn't restricted to that meaning."

OK, lily. I accept this for, I think, the third time. I do understand, and agree, with what you're saying about the meaning of secular. I now also see what you are getting at with regard to the OP. At least, I think I do. Tell me if I've got this right. Here goes.

The OP said: "Saddens me reading so many secular posts" and then went on to say some things about being a born again christian, washed in the blood of the lamb, and so forth.

I picked up on the use of the word 'secular' in that sentence because, it seemed to me, that what she was referring to as making her sad were posts about atheism, by atheists.

I think, if I understand you rightly now, that you are saying that is not what she meant – that she was saddened by the relative lack of religious posts.

Is that correct?

Could you let us know which posts you think were hostile?

absentgrana I will admit that your posts have not been hostile, but others definitely were and I also happen to think that the 'robust' response to the OP was less than gracious.

Oh, Lily, I am touched by your interest in my posts - I am afraid I really don't remember yours nearly as well.

I think by "your" thread, Ceesnan, Greatnan meant one dedicated exclusively to Christians and barred to non-Christians.

ElsieJoy was quite happy to "shout" her faith so it would be absurd of her to resent people with different opinions responding. She also said that "reading so many secular posts" saddened her – a contentious remark that was bound to provoke a response.

I have absolutely no idea what she was asking for and was not hostile. This site is called Gransnet – that implies that we are all mature people, not children needing protection.

Greatnan The parish council is part of the administrative structure of local government. The parish in some areas is an local administrative unit. The Parochial Church Council is the elected body which deals with the ecclesiastical affairs of the CoE parish. I never came across a member of any faith who objected to prayers of another faith. Prayers shouldn't have been on the agenda of a secular meeting because they weren't part of the business of the meeting. In my view, if people don't want to be present for the prayers, they can go elsewhere. Or do what you said you did at a wedding, sit through them in silence. How can they hurt you?

Let/s get this straight - it's not 'my' thread. I only got involved in this as I could see what the OP was asking for and couldn't understand why the atheists//agnostics/whatever were so blatantly hostile. It was her first post, what a wonderful impression to give her.

Oops, last post was meant to be on another thread. We do need delete/edit buttons!

And I thought only Catholicism inculcated guilt!

Yes. You are asking for discrimination on religious grounds. Would you like to ban people of faiths other than Christianity from 'your' thread too?

greatnan in reply to your remark of this morning - something along the lines of how could non Christians be stopped from contributing -I would have hoped that basic courtesy would play a part or is that too much to hope for?

You answer your own question, Lily. They are not appropriate in a meeting meant for all denominations and none. I don't care what people do at their Parish meetings, as presumably everybody attending would be a member of that particular church. I am not sure how I am ever going to persuade you that I have no interest in preventing believers worshipping in any way they want - just so long as they do not seek to impose their beliefs on me via the state.

Bags I'm beginning to think you haven't read the other posts! The very long entry in the OED gives several definitions of 'secular' one of which is 'not religious' and which I gave earlier. Since then, others have posted with similar definitions from other dictionaries. 'Secularism' has a more limited meaning and is the movement to separate the state from religion. But SECULAR isn't restricted to that meaning. I can understand why feetlebaum wants to do away with taking the oath in court if he believes that affirming might lead to discrimination. Lots of people don't take the oath for all sorts of reasons , some of them religious, so I think it's unlikely. But as for prayers Greatnan, if they have no meaning for you, why do you object to them? There was an issue about prayers being on the agenda of a secular meeting and I agree that is not appropriate. A parish council meeting might be a tricky one to make a ruling on...

Bags Lewis Carroll was a C of E deacon, therefore presumably Christian.

I would like to see prayers (always Christian) banned from council meetings and Parliament. I also affirmed during my divorce case and I did wonder whether it would prejudice the judge against me.
These are some examples of what I mean by wanting a secular state - one in which everybody is free to practise their own religion, but not to have any religion involved in the mechanism of the state. I do not understand how anybody could find fault with this.

That is a very good point feetlebaum Did you know, by the way, that underneath the bit where the PM leans his elbows during PMQs, there's a Bible? Not that it's stopped a succession of them lying through their teeth.

Where's the DELETE button??!?

Sorry - I double posted...

'Secular' just implies a level playing field, with no religious privilege.

I would like, by the way, to see the religious oath in courts abolished, in favour of the affirmation that I elect to use. That way, my affirming is not going to prejudice religious members of the jury, or the bench, against me.