What secularism is

? B

?? Not B!

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.

My post yesterday 18.32 feetle !

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Heaven forbid!

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.

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

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

I think, on paper, Turkey is secular but Erdogan is a strong Islamist and seems to some to be moving Turkey in a repressive and regressive direction.

That's what I thought! It's a pity. Last time I visited last year, there were many more hidjabs to be seen.

In my mind there are two axes. One is the totalitarian/freedom axis and one is the theocratic/secular axis. Think of them crossing at right angles in a two-dimensional space (piece of paper). History and current events show that theocratic states tend more to totalitarianism and states with more freedom for individuals tend to be more secular. You can pick out examples that refute this in greater or lesser ways without actually knocking it down. That is what is happening here.

Axes Bags? Whose head are you after?

soontobe I believe in France that many schools close early on a day a week for children to be instructed in the religion of their family. It then becomes the responsibility of parent/church/synagogue/mosque/gurdwara etc to teach children about their family religion. All fair all equal.

That sounds great. But in reality, many many children would not then hear anything about God or another religion at all.

You can hardly call the UK a 'theocratic state'. And what about my example of N Korea and China. Whatever your graph 'proves' bags the reality is that the most repressive states in the last century have been entirely secular and in a number of cases have allowed some religion to exist under severe restrictions.

Just read this interesting thread. Yes France is a good example, but it's also a strongly socialist state. The legal system mostly from the Napoleonic laws, which came after the french revolution. I thinks that's the derivation.
As for education, there are state schools, but also faith schools, many are catholic.
I suppose it does work, but there's still a lot of racial/religious hatred, mainly against N. African immigrants. The french are much more racially outspoken than the british.
Another secular state, I think, is Israel. And they have problems with it.

The trouble with France is that it does not allow people to hold to their religious customs,eg, girls are not allowed to wear the hijab in school I believe.

Children willnhear about their family's God at their home or church, or wherever anyone wishes to introduce a deity; it will inevitably crop up in literature. It is not the responsibility of the state to ensure it happens, nor should it be.