National Secular Society

I just joined because their vision seemed worth standing up for:

We want a society:

In which those who have no religious beliefs do not suffer discrimination or disadvantage as a result. We want to ensure that religion is not allowed to dominate those areas of society that we all have to share – education, health care, social services and the political arena. We think religious views should be accorded only the respect they earn, not what they simply demand.

Where free expression is recognised and valued as the very bedrock of a democracy, and where it is vigorously protected.

Where people are allowed to make up their own minds and allowed to freely change their beliefs or abandon them if they want to.

In which education is objective and free from ideological manipulation. We want our education system to be secular, so that children can make up their own minds about what they believe. ‘Faith schools’ have no part in such a system.

In which human rights are paramount and can never be sidelined by religious demands.

With a clear separation of church and state so that no religion or denomination receives special privileges.

Comments

[padawan]

Kudos for standing up!

[YGG]

Great idea! Where can I apply?

[Euan W Semple]

The image is a link

[Mike Armstrong]

Welcome to the NSS.

[Stephen Collins]

I think this is a great idea, Euan. We should be lucky to have an equivalent here in Australia.

That said, I send my daughter to the local Catholic primary school for several reasons:

- it's demonstrably the best school in the local area, in terms of breadth and depth of curriculum, in quality of resources and in quality of teaching staff
- as non-Catholics (and with me as a known atheist), my daughter is still completely welcome at the school. Additionally, as a member of the school board, my views are actively sought by both the teaching and pastoral staff.
- in paying for her education rather than the free government school, I buy the right to be heard immediately should I have an issue with the school
- the school curriculum, while obviously having a faith component that is present in the interpretation of the material taught, is actually not intrusive and feels more ethics-based rather than strictly faith-based
- non-Catholic students (approximately 5-10 per cent of the student population) are introduced to and participate in faith activities, but only as far as the students themselves and their parents are comfortable
- at 5th grade and up (my daughter is halfway through 5th grade now), age appropriate comparative religion appears

Strange but true, and my experience may not be reflective of the UK one nor others even in Australia. I just wanted to make the point that all faith-based education is not problematic per se.

[Euan Semple]

My kids also go got the local C of E school and as with you it is because it is local and well run. In England these days the only price to pay is some mumbo jumbo at assembly and an over average number of towel wearing beardy blokes in the illustrated books.

[david cushman]

Believing in something beats believing in nothing over and over...

[Euan Semple]

You mean like "believing" that mankind is better able to work things out for itself if it does so unhindered by "belief" in unsubstantiated fairy stories propagated by minorities with vested interests?

The society is at pains to point out that it is not denying people's right to hold certain beliefs but that these beliefs should not be allowed to impinge on public life for the rest of us.

[davidcushman]

nope, I mean the secular society has clearly expressed its beliefs, and that's what motivated you to both sign up and share.
"I just joined because their vision seemed worth standing up for"

It has a purpose, the fire inside, that Herdmeister discusses in his book.

The kind of thing that's hard to discern in the enterprise.

[Euan Semple]

In that case I misunderstood your original comment!

[davidcushman]

No worries Euan, I should have been clearer in this contentious context!

[Steve Nimmons]

I believe in equality of rights, but I wouldn't be happy about being preached to by self-righteous atheists who set out to impose their rejectionist vision on others. At the next meeting, ask for a show of hands for those married in church and those that had their kids christened and took oaths to raise them under the faith and church. You may be surprised!

[Euan Semple]

No one in the Secular Society seeks to impose anything on anyone -merely to resist the attempts of others to do so.

I got married in a church and my wife wanted the kids christened. In order not to "impose" my views on her I went along with the ceremonies which I believe have meaning as social institutions despite their rather whimsical origins.

Your use of the word atheists is inappropriate. Secularists tend not to use it and for me I feel no need to define myself by a lack of belief in something for which there has never, ever, been a shred of evidence.

[Steve Nimmons]

I think we're on the verge of a discussion that requires the electronic equivalent of a bottle of whiskey and the Beatles White Album. I have no wish to use pejorative terminology, and apologies if that read badly. Suffice to say that evangelicals would consider such societies a cause for lament, not celebration.

[Euan Semple]

I am tee-total, don't like the Beatles and we wouldn't need societies like the National Secular Society if we didn't have evangelists but I appreciate the sentiment!

[Steve Nimmons]

I'll stop preaching (soon) :-) Sometime have a little ponder about whether evolution requires faith. It becomes an interesting brain teaser. [no more soapbox theology I promise!]

[Euan Semple]

You'd have had much more success coming back at me with arguments about man's instinct for religious feelings or science's inability to explain soul Steve.

Evolution requires no faith. Faith is, by definition belief in something that cannot be proved. Evolution can - the nonsense in the Bible can't.

I reckon we should agree to differ.

:-)

[Steve Nimmons]

Agreeing to differ is the cornerstone of civility, but I'm surprised you think that evolutionary belief requires no faith whatsoever. Some fairly spurious intra-species observations do not prove species to species evolution or indeed provide any adequate proof of our emergence from primordial slime.

I respect your "absolutist" view, but I wonder if this is a society where intellect is sometimes a barrier to wisdom.

[Euan Semple]

There is nothing "absolutist" about the science behind our current understanding of where we came from Steve. Unlike religions scientists rarely, if ever, claim to have the absolute answers but keep pushing to explain through experimentation and validation of theories, to the best of our abilities, why things happen.

There may be things that science has not yet explained, or indeed may never explain but to sweep away the consistent and increasing validation for Darwin's theory with the sentence " Some fairly spurious intra-species observations do not prove species to species evolution or indeed provide any adequate proof of our emergence from primordial slime." is frankly bonkers.

Unlike religions I respect the right of those who disagree with me to do so and will defend that right. I also enjoy debating with those who hold different views to my own. However I am beginning to think this particular exchange has run its course.