How can you possibly believe in a benevolent God

[partialderivative]

Once more, acts of 'god' have left communities blown apart.

Does any one really feel these vilages deserved it?

God's a bit of a cunt at times.

So what is your view on the individual examples of structural privilege mentioned on this thrwad? Not God reflected in the state - the state giving preferential treatment to Christianity. Different thing.

I don't have a particular view Jassy.

Potentially, it could be good or bad, as I have explained earlier. Whether it has been would require a lot of investigation but even that could inform on past events and past circumstances.

There is room for corruption within all human institutions.

It's not a hypothetical - these are existing situations. There is no 'could' about it - the situations and their impacts are well documented.

Imagine it the other way around. There were seats in the HoL for Hindu priests, with none for Christians. Hindu children were given preference over Christian children in school admissions. Hindu prayers were said in schools and at local council meetings. If you had to give evidence in court, you were asked to swear on Hindu scripture. If you wanted spiritual aid in hospital, the NHS only funded Hindu chaplains.

Would you feel excluded? Or would you think it was fair enough?

And of course, because if the influence of Hindus in the legislature and outside, laws that affect you - healthcare, social policy - are often reflective of Hindu beliefs and at odds with your own belief system.

Would that feel just? Or would you say - hang on, might be time to change this?

Well put, Jassy.

In fact there's a rather good example of that at the moment - 20 children in Leeds have been offered a primary school place at a Sikh school:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32449101

Apparently it's a free school (another one of this government's great ideas, ho ho) and it "is not a faith school, but it is run with a Sikh ethos."

For some reason, the non-Sikh parents aren't very happy about this. Can't imagine why.

Jassy non Christians do not have to swear on the Bible in court.

If I lived in a country where the state institutions were formed at a time where a particular religion was prevalent and a particular religion was prevalent until the comparatively recent past, I would fully expect those institutions to reflect that particular religion. Even if this religion was not my own I would be able to appreciate why the state was run in a particular way.

Whether I wanted change or not would be a different matter but I would understand why people could feel differently about it to me.

Jassy And if I wanted spiritual aid in hospital or at anytime I would request it from God. I could believe in faith that my request would be granted according to my beliefs. (Spiritual aid does not have to come in the form of a particular person).

No - but the state currently provides Christian chaplains in hospital. I'd rather that money was spent on healthcare.

The bible is offered as the primary way to take an oath - reinforcing that the state sees Christianity as the norm, despite only a minority of the population believing in any god.

When I was a Christian I lived in a country that had much lower structural privilege for Christianity. It was fine. I was frankly shocked when I moved here - and particularly when I learned that it actually helps to entrench social inequality and disadvantage and that Christians are apparently unbothered by this, because... I don't know. God has granted them special privileges because they are lucky enough to be Christians in Britain? Because heathens deserve less? Because they actually don't care about others?

It was a shock after the social-campaigning churches I was used to, I can tell you.

I don't believe it does help to 'entrench social life inequality and disadvantage', as you put it, though, Jassy.

Which country did you live in Jassy? The one with 'lower structural privilege'? Was there no social inequality and disadvantage there?

^^ social inequality not social life inequality. Typo.

I've shown you the evidence previously about how religious selection by faith schools excludes the least advantages children and disproportionately benefits the middle class, for example, as well as indirectly leading to greater racial segregation in education. Lots of data out there on this and more, much that you've previously seen. If you choose to disbelieve the data - well, that's head in the sand stuff.

In addition, there are more pernicious effects on those seen not to be 'the norm' when the state sets up and promotes a norm not reflected in reality. Not good for social cohesion.

Jassy- I would give up if I were you. You'll only end up with a headache from bashing it against an an immovable object.

Jassy I have never claimed to agree with selective religious admissions criteria. I believe in inclusive admission criteria and have stated this on here (many) times before.

Our local hospitals provide a multi-faith chaplaincy service, as do most hospitals. Chaplaincy services are generally widely used and much appreciated by patients and staff.

The House of Lords needs full scale reform, with public input. I find people being able to buy their way in, far more disturbing then a few bishops getting seats. However, proper reform would solve these issues.

As for Faith schools/prayer in schools, this must be the umpteenth thread on Mumsnet complaining about this, yet there never seems to be any active campaigning. If you're so unhappy about it, why not work to change things? However, you might find that most people are happy with things as they currently are...

No, caps, I know you don't. I was using it as an example of the negative impacts of structural religious privilege. The fact you don't support that part of the structural privilege doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and that it (and other structural privilege) isn't damaging. you claimed it wasn't, I pointed out you were incorrect.

Plenty of social problems in the country I came from, caps. Please stop misquoting me if you're going to use quote marks (twice in two posts!) - I said lower structural privilege for Christianity, not full stop. Plenty of structural privilege of other sorts, and attendant problems.

However, despite lower state blessings for Christians, Christians didn't find themselves persecuted, Christianity hummed along nicely even without trying to indoctrinate small kids at school, and Christian churches actually did a better job of helping and campaigning for the disadvantaged.

Hak, c'mon, I'm enjoying myself.

Pity, I do campaign if that helps to lower your blood pressure. Why the sneery assumptions about what people do outside MN?

The National Secular Society campaigns on the subject - and on the subject of NHS funded hospital chaplains. I've no objection to chaplains in hospitals as long as they are funded by the faiths they represent (co-funded if multi-faith).

There's a decent argument that highlighting issues on social media also helps campaigning by highlighting issues to a wider audience. Always a surprise how many parents aren't aware that Christian worship is compulsory for all schools, for example, or that faith selection disproportionatelt benefits the middle classes. Awareness-raising is an important part of campaigning.

My blood pressure is fine thank you and I wasn't sneering, merely curious. Many people are interested in educational reform and reform to the HoL, so I always expect to see links to ongoing campaigns and petitions on these threads, but they are never there.

I am aware of the NSS campaign on NHS chaplaincy, it has been around for several years and yet has achieved very little. Do you think that just because people don't know about the campaign, or do you think that it's because the majority of people are happy with things as they are?

This is quite an old poll (2005) but found that two thirds of people believe faith schools should not be funded:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/aug/23/schools.faithschools

Here's a 2013 poll showing the same thing:

www.secularism.org.uk/news/2013/09/opinion-poll-shows-big-opposition-to-faith-schools

I don't quite get the "why don't you campaign to change things?" angle. For a start, you don't know that people aren't campaigning. Second, they may well have good reasons for not campaigning - they're busy doing working or bridging up their family or they're involved in campaigns on other issues. It doesn't seem at all relevant.

The reason I don't campaign on it is that it's pretty futile - in the majority of faith schools, the buildings are owned by the churches, so no government is going to abolish them, because they'd have to build a whole load of new schools, which would be enormously expensive. The most you could hope for would be to make the admissions system more equitable. And even that would be fraught with difficulty because people don't give up privilege easily.

I referenced the NSS campaigns upthread. Not sure why it hasn't got as much traction as say faith school admissions which is a big priority for me personally. Probably a combination of lack of awareness, inertia and those who honestly don't care.

On faith admissions - there are well-documented problems and plenty of evidence that people would prefer it to be changed. But unfortunately vested interests, including the main Christian churches, are powerful. And there are always voices on faith admissions threads claiming removing faith selection would somehow be discriminatory against Christians and is part of an attack on Christianity (rather than Christian privilege).

I treat online discussions as an important part of campaigning and activism. I usually come armed with facts and everything, which sometimes upsets people.

As an atheist, I think all state schools should be non-religious by default. Same with hospitals and other council-run facilities. It would be better for all council and government run buildings to be on neutral territory for all. That way there is no reason to complain.

Faith is a choice, not a fundamental need such as food and water. There is no evidence that anyone has died through lack of faith, so the money spent by the government on chaplains in hospitals should be spent on providing better care for patients and more care assistants to help feed those who cannot feed themselves. If people want chaplains, then they can ask their church to provide them.

Christianity has had it's turn to control the masses. I think that era was called the Dark Ages. People were literally murdered for not believing in this deity called God. So many could conclude that people don't need a god to be good and moral citizens. Anyone who believes otherwise, needs to take a good look at the majority atheist/secular countries like Sweden who are doing rather well with a minority of religious people.

I forgot to mention that anything in the bible should not be taught to children as fact, in schools. The bible is not a book of scientific facts that can be robustly tested and retested.

If the church wants RE or RI taught in schools, they should either start paying taxes like the rest of society, to have their say, or leave the state schools alone to teach facts, not fiction.

"There is no evidence that anyone has died through lack of faith"

There's no evidence for a lot of the patient services provided in hospitals, but patients appreciate them and so they are provided. I work in the NHS and can think of far greater wastes of money than a service that provides a lot of support to people when they most need it.

As for
"Not sure why it hasn't got as much traction as say faith school admissions which is a big priority for me personally. Probably a combination of lack of awareness, inertia and those who honestly don't care."

So it's not because the majority don't agree with you then?

As for these threads being important activism, how? They are always among the like-minded and never produce anything tangible.