What secularism is

It was. The current leader, Erdogan, seems to want to roll secularism back, which strikes me as a shame.

Isn't Turkey supposed to be secular? (Being mildly seasonal)

What we are comparing is the way in which an actual secular state operates with a state like the UK which has a sort-of partial state religion. I would have said there isn't a lot to choose between them. You can find examples of unfair discrimination, bad treatment of minorities and inequalities of wealth in every state, and while we're playing this game, North Korea is a secular state, and so is China.

Heaven forbid!

Surely you aren't suggesting that the UK is less egalitarian than France?

What do you think is 'unlevel' in France, lily? From what I read in the news, the French government really does try to make laws apply equally to all its citizens. Such an effort is not always easy and sometimes various sub-sections of society object to changes in laws that they feel affect them unfairly, but that's not the same thing as saying the law actually is unfair.

The thread should not spend too long on personal beliefs. It is about the political separation of the apparatus of government and the hierarchy of religious and spiritual leaders, and the selection of one out of many of those hierarchies.

About 20% of the population of the UK are estimated to be C of E and 23% to belong to other Christian denominations. The one that is tied to the head of state and official government functions is the one instituted by a randy king with no male heir, so that he could legitimately get rid of his menopausal wife and marry his hot young mistress.

(A bit less than 5% are thought to belong to other religions, and about half of the population of the Uk are estimated to have no religion at all.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom

There are too many citizens who are not interested in religion or practise different religions from the established church powers who sit in Westminster making decisions about the lives of all of us. That simply is unfair and dismissive of the large numbers of citizens who want to be represented by MPs they have elected, not some exclusive enclave.

A secular society, with a government completely separated from the church, would be a good start. There is a lot that doesn't get taken to the country to make decusions about, but at least MPs we have elected can be got rid of if they don't perform and represent us effectively.

And France is such an excellent example of 'a level playing field'. I agree the CoE is privileged and that privilege of that kind no longer suits the spirit of the age BUT AS I keep saying on this and other threads, it is one example and if rectified would not provide a solution to the inequalities in society. Only people who have an issue with religion itself would keep banging on about the unfair effects of having an established church (which we don't have all over the UK anyway). Yes, Iran is not a secular state. But Syria and Iraq are.

Exactly! If you want to believe in a god, go ahead. Your choice. But your choice is not everyone else's and should therefore have equal, non political status with all other religious choices in society.

My post yesterday 18.32 feetle !

The core idea of secularism is to provide (warning: cliché ahead) a level playing field - so that no one sector of the population confers privilege on its adherents. It's not a lot to ask, surely...

Somebody asked for an example of a secular state - France is one such.

?? Not B!

? B

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.

That is God less.

That is other religion less.

And that is the idea of secularism.

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

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.

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

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.

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).

Thanks, lily. I understand what you mean now.

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).

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.