What secularism is

Why do you assume that people do not understand?

A good description, thatbags. The bit that could be quoted whenever religious people get aeriated about secularists is

"Secularism is not atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Secularism simply provides a framework for a democratic society. Atheists have an obvious interest in supporting secularism, but secularism itself does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief, neither does it seek to impose atheism on anyone."

There is no need for the state to be tied to a religion, whichever faith it is, but that does not mean that separating church and state would automatically suppress that faith. It might even give it a new impetus, when it is not the default entry on forms.

DJ I am sure YOU understand, but in the threads where this has ben discussed, it is clear that many people do not. They equate "secular" with "atheist"

That is good. Thank you, bags

Secularism is not the answer. I would hesitate to support the disestablishment of the CoE until the proposal is part of a proper process of constitutional reform. The nibbling round the edges that is going on at present has left us in a right mess. House of Lords - thousands of the b****rs all being paid generous expenses, unelected except for the bishops and the hereditaries. And now Devomax, threats to return power to Westminster from Ulster if they don't behave. And the coalition is reinventing regional and metropolitan administrative areas as a solution, and none of this has been taken to the country.

Thanks for the link b. I like it's clarity and straightforwardness.

I do not know that secularism is intended to be the answer to anything in particular - it is just a rational and fair way of a society operating, with people free to pursue their religious leanings (provided these are in keeping with state laws) and the state having no religious affiliation. It is hard to see how anyone could find the objectionable in any way. The rights of both the religious and the non-religious are upheld and defended.

Secularism would mean that religion is not taught?
That would then be a challenge to religion.

So your dad, thatbags, didnt want catholisism taught? Because christians of other denominations do.

Can anyone give me an example of a secular state - according to the definition - operating as suggested? And I think the implication is that where there is a state religion it is that fact that will prevent democracy, equality, fraternity, etc etc from flourishing.

soontobe, in a secular society, parents are free to teach their children about their own faith, as well as about any other faith if they choose to do so. Churches are also free to carry on preaching and teaching as normal.
That is part of "freedom of religion".

Trouble is that God exists!

The post was to Lilygran, but it is equally true to thatbags.

Secularism would not prevent each church or denomination from teaching their faith within their Church or Sunday School, but "All state-funded schools should be non-religious in character, with children being educated together regardless of their parents' religion."

"Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others."

"26 unelected bishops of the Church of England ... sit in the House of Lords influence laws that affect the whole of the UK" How can we condemn countries where the state is hand-in-hand with fundamental Islam when representatives of religion (just one denomination of it) are part of our law-making process?

Chrtistian ethics would guide those who are both members of a Christian church and part of government, without them having preferential treatment over elected members of parliament. and non-Christian ethics would guide those without a religious connection, or with a non-Christian one.

Parents may be free to teach, but if they dont know much themselves, the sum total of their teaching may be miniscule.

I don't think, lily, that the "nibbling round the edges" that you mention (could you be more specific, please? I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean) is the cause of the generous expenses that you also mention. There is clearly a fault somewhere in the organisation of paying expenses to people in our parliament (both houses), but the idea that this is the fault of secularism is new to me. I had always thought it was the fault of bad rules about paying expenses, rules with too many loopholes that MPs and Lords can use to get hold of more taxpayers' money.

In short, I don't see the connection between secularism and government individuals' expenses.

I do see a connection between however many unelected bishops there are in the House of Lords and proper democracy.

If secularism isn't the answer to greater fairness in democracy, to the establishment of laws which do not affect any person, whatever their faith or lack thereof, differently from any other person, what is?

Trouble is that God exists!" Nowhere has God stated that those who follow one particular form of worshipping him must have precedence over all others in forming and administering laws on non-religious matters.

In fact, one of His manifestations is quoted as saying "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" - so Thatbag's father was not the first secularist, by many years.

Surely that is the parents' problem, soontobe? If, say, Muslim parents don't know enough to teach their children about the muslim faith, perhaps they don't actually think it matters all that much? Otherwise, presumably, they'd make an effort to find out?

In any case, don't all religions have priests or their equivalent to do such teaching?

durhamjen I think a lot of people confuse secularism with a desire to abolish religion.

Lilygran I agree that the situation in the House of Lords is a "right mess" but I believe that the automatic inclusion of Church of England representatives is part of that mess.

I don't know that much about how the House of Lords is constituted but I wasn't aware that anyone is "elected" in the normal understanding of the word.

Parents can show an example of how to live their lives ethically, and attribute their ethics to the doctrine that they have been taught by their theological leaders. They do not necessarily have to teach the details of their religion unless they want to, that is for their religious guides and pastors.

Schools can give general ethical guidance without making it religious. Ethics are universal, there is no need for one section of the community to take possession of them.

Surely that is the parents' problem, soontobe

No, it becomes the childrens'.

Elegran. I dont think many christians will say that the state must teach in a way that christianity is taught in preference to other religions.

I do not think that secularism precludes the teaching of religion in schools alongside all the other subjects that help a child to understand how the world works and how the people in that world think, feel and behave. It would be a huge oversight in a child's cultural education if they did not know about world religions - this study would come into geography, history, philosophy, art, music, drama etc.

Secularism would stop schools, governments and other institutions that citizens cannot easily opt out of from having a religious bias. That does not mean that children would not learn the important role of religions in shaping societies. They would just have greater freedom to choose their own path. They might wish to follow their parents' religion or they might take a different route altogether. But hopefully they will have had the chance to grow up without prejudice or guilt.

Elegran, your post made me smile.
There are not that many young christians who have solely become christians through their religious guides and pastors.
Oh, if it were only that easy!

The existence or not of god is not the issue. What is under discussion is whether any one particular religion's path to their deity should be institutionalised in an educational and governmental system. Secularists believe that it should not be and I support that view.