Half of National Secular Society (NSS) Honorary Associates in House of Commons Ejected
This has got to hurt the National Secular Society.
Back in January, I reported on the influence of the National Secular Society exercised through Members of Parliament willing to “work and speak on behalf of the NSS” in politics as “Honorary Associates“, who are:
“our supporters who work and speak on our behalf in politics, human rights, science, philosophy, the arts, writing, journalism and broadcasting.”
Of these eight, four have left the Commons at this Election; two have retired, and two have been defeated.
Ouch!
Tags: Politics, Religion Society
May 8th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
“Secularism supports the individual against the pressure of the group and the individual conscience against the dogma of the group.”
Is the National Secular Society (NSS) not the dogma of a group?
May 8th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
” … and the individual conscience against the dogma of the group”
So how can they justify underming the individual conscience of christianity as a pressure group i.e. the National Secular Society (NSS).
May 8th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
I agree in principle Goy. The NSS appear to me to be as dogmatic as any religious group.
May 8th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
@webmaster
I think they go well beyond arguing for separation of church and state into an anti-christian agenda.
May 8th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
I do agree that there is a fine line and sometimes the more extremist secularists appear to to verge into inquistors…
May 8th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Wasn’t entirely sure what secularism was. So I visited the NSS site and it turns out that I am a very mild secularist myself. You learn something new every day!
British history is of increasing secularism. King Henry II was the first king who moved to separate church and state. Then we had all our historic problems with the Pope and the monarchy, followed by the reduction of the monarch’s powers after the Civil War. Our current situation is a very British compromise, with the Queen titular head both of the state and the C of E, which influences the state only marginally.
England used to be much more homogenous in belief than it is now. Despite Goy’s constant warnings, this isn’t due to imported faith but by lack of faith. The largest group by far after Christians in the UK is non-believers or those who can’t even be bothered to decide either way.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954
Seem to me it is increasingly important not to permit religion to affect government or at least not to influence it more than it does already. There is an increasing tendency towards extremism in more than one major religion and if the state supports even quite inoffensive religious demands it becomes difficult to refuse more divisive claims.
The issue raised recently here about female Muslim hospital staff insisting on disposable sleeves to cover their arms should never have arisen. It’s the result of well-intentioned but misguided attempts to guarantee religious freedom. Everyone should be expected to wear the accepted uniform. Ditto the lady with the crucifix. The state is right to hold firm but it must hold firm against all faiths equally.
If we make special provision for one faith then eventually we will make special provision for any. So yes, I agree generally speaking with the NSS agenda, though I tend to feel the slight Christian bias throughout our system, from Nativity plays in state primaries to Defender of the Faith on our currency is about right and reflects British attitudes well.
May 8th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
@ Goy: I don’t understand your quote. From where did you get it?
May 9th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
@Jim,
Secularism a definition from the National Secular Society (NSS) very own website.
What is secularism? By Muriel Fraser.
Even the least brightest secular political student would recognise the sinister political agenda of this group.
May 10th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Ah. You got me there Goy! Thanks. I guess it proves we’re not all in cahoots, if I don’t even recognise that quote!
The sentence is a bullet point under the heading: “Secularism, like democracy, involves treating people as individuals, not as members of a group.” I would exhort others to read the whole article, to put the quote in its full context.
The NSS is primarily about promoting the separation of Church and State, and in ensuring that individuals are not co-erced by organised religion into actions with which they do not agree. If I substitute the word “religion” for “group” it makes the meaning clearer to me.
I would not describe the political agenda of the NSS as sinister – but then I would say that wouldn’t I. But seriously, that’s just the epithet that some secularists would apply to organised religion! I don’t subscribe to that view, but my point is that it is all too easy to assume that “the other side” is somehow sinister. I’ve been on both sides of the fence, and it does not look particularly like that to me on either side.