What secularism is

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.

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

Trouble is that God exists!

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".

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

That is good. Thank you, bags

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"

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.

Why do you assume that people do not understand?