What secularism is

Penstemmon. I agree that is not how it necessarily works. Indeed, it can put some people off, especially if they are exposed to too much religion.
Or people who say they are religious, but do not do as they say.
It is no guarantee.

An individual person's choice and will comes into it too.

Nature doesnt just happen.

I could not fail to be moved by say seeds turning into things. I could see that man had very little to do with it all.
And if it wasnt man...?

And the sky. Well that doesnt have anything at all to do with man.

soontobe it sounds like you believe in a kind of brainwashing! I went to Sunday School regularly from a very young age, church on Sunday as I grew older, know all about the Bible, studied A level Religious Education etc etc. It did not make me a Christian. That is not how it works!

There are several secular countries where religious practice by citizens is strong.

I think it would be good (though very challenging!) to get rid of schools with a religious bias and just have state schools that taught about religion and belief systems.

We should all have the right to follow the religious/belief system of our choice without fear of discrimination or favour bias from government or fellow citizens

And I am a believer, but agree they should be separated.

Agreed!

My sentiments exactly, Elegran

Nature gets on with living without thinking too much about whether there is a god.

I find the god/nature thing fascinating. I have never understood why living in the country (as I do) should encourage a belief in a deity. What I see around me is extraordinarily beautiful but equally cruel - red in tooth and claw and all that.

I can marvel at what I see - some of which I love and some I hate - but it does not tell me whether there is a god - how could it?

Do you really think that people need the STATE to be a conduit between them and God?

Every little helps

Only one of my parents was a christian.
I lived rurally. I do think that helps as you are surrounded by nature.
I was also surrounded by animals.

Do you really think that people need the STATE to be a conduit between them and God? How on earth did the first Christians manage, when it was worse than not being linked to the state - it was a disreputable and persecuted weird sect! Yet that was the fastest-growing era, in the rate of conversions against total numbers.

You say you have always believed in God. Did you come out of the womb believing and singing Halleluyah, or did you wait to be told of God? You probably don't remember consciously when you first heard of Him, because your parents believed, and you took it for granted and followed them.

I think I have always believed in God Elegran.

Secularism doesn't separate people from god (or gods) either

It can do. That is exactly what it can do.

I don't see secularism as a panacea for removing misery, inequality etc. It is just a step along the road to a fairer state. We still have to have the right politicians in place to tackle all these problems and to do so with vigour.

Because there are other problems to be addressed does not mean that this one should not be. The upper house is in need of reform and getting rid of the right of bishops to be there simply because they are bishops is a good place to start.

The definition of secularism in the OP suggests that separation of church and state (or any other religion and state) would and does result in a happier, more equal and more democratic state. It wouldn't because the causes of misery, inequality and lack of democracy do not have their roots solely in religion. The state of the British constitution is not irrelevant to this discussion. There are other problems which need to be addressed and which are of much more urgency than removing the bishops from the House of Lords. Also, just a thought, you'd have to remove the former Chief Rabbi and the other representatives of various religions, I suppose. And the issue of central government supporting faith schools in England has become so problematic now that anyone can get state funding to set up an academy, it would be extremely difficult to unravel, I'd have thought.

If they have separated church and state, they are secular.
Neither church not state have been abolished, just separated. If God is over everyone, then the people are still under God, although the state is not under the church, nor the church under the state.

soontobe The doctrines of the Christian church, of all the different denominations of it, could be taught alongside other systems of belief, without selecting any one denomination or other belief as the only one which is sancioned by the state If there is merit in Christianity over all the others, then it will show in the comparison.

If there is not any greater merit in it, why should anyone choose it above all others?

How did YOU choose your faith? which others did you reject and why? Did you choose without knowing what else you were rejecting?

Secularism doesn't separate people from god (or gods) either. It only separates government from religion(s) so that a person's religious beliefs or lack of religious beliefs is not relevant when it comes to applying laws.

The preamble to the American constitution is as I stated above. Separation of church and state but not from God.

why would there possibly being fewer christians matter?

Because of everyones souls, and eternity.

Which post, thatbags?

You appear not to have read elegran's posts about how religion would be taught, soontobe.

Besides which, why would there possibly being fewer christians matter? Christians, as a whole, are no holier or better in any way than any other group of faithful or unfaithful people.

Putting aside the wrong-headed and piecemeal approach to constituional reform in the UK aside for a moment, lily, in part because you still haven't specified what the wrong-headedness and piecemealness is exactly, could I ask you to read the NSS post I linked to and pick out exactly what you object to and why? As a favour. To help me understand why you are so opposed to what I see as pure and simple fairness.

Anyone else who has objections can post similarly too, if they wish, and welcome. I really do want to understand where the problem lies.

So, if Christianity, or any other preferred religion, will not be ended by the existence of a truly secular state in which the laws protect people's right to follow whichever faith they like, or none, what's the problem with secularism?

There may be less christians for instance.
There will be some people who never have the oppurtunity to hear about religions.
They may well not know enough to become a christians or whichever religion.

Technically it is, lily. Separation of church and state is enshrined in its constitution. Ditto in republican Frnace.

'One nation, under God' bags? There's no state church in the USA but I don't think you can call it a 'secular state'.

The bishops are elected by the bishops. The hereditaries who are left are elected by their peers. The rest are appointed. This has nothing to do with secularism and a secular state, per se, would do nothing to improve the situation except to remove the bishops from the upper house. The problems of democracy in this state ie the UK, have little to do with it having an established church and everything to do with a wrong-headed and piecemeal approach to constitutional reform. OK, bags?

Following this with interest, as a Cof E having RC convent schooling it left me confused as the school ethos in the mid-60s was that we 'non-Catholics' were definitely second class pupils to be somewhat pitied. The occasional non-Catholic who converted to RC was virtually held up as a potential Saint and showered with kudos........
The concept of secularism was definitely not for consideration!