What secularism is

Sausage roll, anyone? Just made and rather good. Most have gone in the freezer but I have kept out a few to munch.

We will eat them on Thursday - all of us but daughter-in-law who doesn't touch pork, or any other treif food. She will eat our family Christmas meal with us, but with the turkey, the gravy, the sausagemeat stuffing, and the pigs-in-blankets replaced by kosher food. She will share the vegetables, the bread stuffing, the bread sauce, the redcurrant jelly, the trifle and custard and the cheese and biscuits. She will drink fruit juice or kosher wine, and will bringing some kosher fizz to drink before we eat.

She is of our family, but also of her own family, and her own faith. She spends festivals with her parents. Her faith is not one which is the British established faith, but it is till going strong. Children are raised in the old traditions, learnt at home and at the synagogue. There is a thriving community, and the state has nothing to do with it.

If her faith were the established one, 26 rabbis would have a right to sit in our legislature. No bishops.

She is lucky. Her parents have put a lot of effort in.

But she is *not unique*-no disrespect Elegran- there must be thousands or millions of devout citizens who are not members of the "established" church. If having an established church as the foundation of our society is the best we can do, well it's hardly good enough. Can you honestly say the UK today is a Christian country?
I think we would all benefit from a clear line between Church and State instead of merely paying lip service to religion. Children today do not go to Sunday School the way we might have done but that is not down to the state. I'm sorry soontobe but I do not think you have grasped what thatbags was getting at! I have the greatest respect for Archbishop Justin Welby but also loved Rabbi Lionel Blue- why should one over the other occupy a seat in our legislative body?
Secular does not mean anti-religion or anti- Christianity.

I get what she is getting at.
I just dont agree with it on many levels.

But you saysoontobe " nature doesn't just happen". - it does and has done so in a developing form for millions of years!
Not actually relevant to the argument anyway is it? And what on earth does your comment about the sky have to do with the price of bread?
That is why I think while you have sincere beliefs and I mean no disrespect to them, but that is -NOT what this is about.

Personal beliefs are one thing, and, on the whole, to be respected, but when just one set of beliefs holds political sway, then that is wrong. That, I think, was / is what is under discussion here?

The state does not educate us in our spiritual lives. It has nothing to do with our religion, and yet it has a formal link with ONE of the many Christian denominations and non-Christian faiths (plus humanism agnosticism and atheism) followed by the citizens.

The original connection with the Church of England came about because the head of the Catholic Church - at that time the universal Christian church - would not grant Henry VIII a divorce from his wife. It suited Henry to align himself with the growing Protestant movement and declare himself the head of the Church in England.

I will repeat again what many have said but some have not understood - a secular state is not a godless state. it is a state where the functions of state and church are separated. Separated and amicable, not divorced and set against one another and fighting over custody of the children.

I don't see why the complicatedness of the issue is a reason not to try to improve things. Improving things piecemeal, making things fairer for everyone piecemeal is a good way to proceed, I reckon. Besides, what's the alternative? Violent revolution? That's certainly how the French went about securing a secular state but I can't say I favour that method.

I agree that there are lots of other urgent, even more urgent, things we need to be getting on with in society, but that's not a reason not to be working towards greater justice and fairness via secularism at the same time.

I can just about understand a reluctance to take on something so complex but I cannot understand a reluctance to accept the principle we are talking about here. The principle can be accepted even if one thinks that in practical terms it's monumentally difficult. The principle it was wrong had to be accepted before progress could be made in abolishing slavery. The same applies to many things that have changed over time in our society. No-one is saying that a separation of church and state is the only thing that needs to be reformed.

Just as a matter of interest, what else would you like to reform Bags?

Conversations and debates meander Soutra.
And I was asked questions.

I would have thought that most people know that a secular state is not a godless state, as in totally without God.

But it would be God less.
And other religions less too.

It is incorrect to think that a secular state as described in the OP would be god less. I suspect that this is because you are comparing a secular state such as the NSS describes with a communist state which suppresses religion. The two are not the same by a long chalk.

As an illustration, the USA is a secular state as far as laws go but it has a much more religious population than the UK has.

Anyone who think secular means godless or god less doesn't understand what secular means. I suggest such people read the link in the OP.

I did read the link.

When did teaching less of something, ever increase knowledge of it?

We will have less history taught today please.
That is sure going to help kids to know more about history?

I also think the future lies with a disestablished CoE, but I repeat!!! that I don't think the kind of society described in the OP will result, nor do I think that whether to secularise the UK is the most pressing issue we have to address in pursuit of that society. And the two countries quoted as being secular states, France and the US, are neither of them very good examples of fair and equal societies with no religious dissension. I admit we could learn some lessons in democratic process from the US but I suggest this has nothing to do with secularism.

Since you read the article, soon, you will be fully aware that nowhere in the article does it say there would be less teaching of history. Nor does secularism espouse the teaching of less about religion(s).

Thanks, lily. I understand what you mean now.

Why should there be no religious dissension? Wherever there is more than one religion, there will obviously be areas of dissension. Dissension is not a necessarily bad thing, be it religious or otherwise (political, for instance).

Where have I, or anyone, said that they think the distestablishment of the C of E is the most urgent thing we need to do?

I haven't said it because I don't think it. I just think it's something we need to think about and to do in due course. Something we need to move towards, piecemeal, along with a gazillion other unconnected things.

Elegran we've just celebrated Hannukah with our Jewish DDiL's family and will shortly be celebrating Christmas with them.

Actually, I'd be scared of a society that removed all dissension. Some of my earliest political awareness arose as a result of hearing about dissenters in the Soviet Union when I was very young.

There would be less talk of God and other religions in public places.

That is God less.

That is other religion less.

And that is the idea of secularism.

Public places are part of society. They do not exist in a bubble. The general population do not merely live and exist in their homes.