17 Burst results for "Emma Park"

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

04:54 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"And I think it's mill who discusses this where it's like, yeah, and you talk about it forever, right? Yeah. You're never going to get you're never going to find it correctly. You always have to allow these other voices in. And as soon as you agree on one thing that's okay, or like one place where the limit should be, someone's going to disagree. And then you have to you're going to do it again. And it never ends. Yeah. I mean, I do. I like that idea where it's not a place that's ever really settled. But it's a constant process of debating and so on. And you never. There's no endpoint necessarily. But you maybe refine your position over time and so on. Well, it can change completely. And that's the problem with, that's the paradox of tolerance, isn't it? Where if you allow intolerant views in, they've been saying, well, yeah. Yeah. And then they locked out completely. Yeah. But I suppose, I mean, we should probably wrap up soon. But I think we've had this conversation before. Yeah, probably, yeah. The thing is, what counts as an intolerant view. And I feel like maybe nowadays, more and more views are counted as intolerant and therefore unspeakable or whatever. And justified to sort of tell divest people. Boycott divest and sanction people. They know about it..

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:57 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"I think that's sort of the social norms around free speech. But even legally like any sort of power dynamic. You don't have no one has free speech at work. It's legally. Cleanly, that's right. Right. Yeah, no, that's true. Your bosses can literally tell you what to say. Yes. And among there are plenty of things that you can not say. So if we're talking about having this project where we shouldn't have any limits to speech or immediately omitting where you spend most of your waking life. That work. And to say that the university is, you know, become part of that. So in the ass, I mean, it's strives to teach people to speak freely. It strives to create, to give that liberal perspective on how we talk about these things. Using lock and mill to talk about the harm principle to talk about what the practical limits ought to be. But it's also a place where every economics program is going to teach you about the market and the market is the best way to solve any problem. You're not going to get a job in the economics department. As a hetero orthodox professor. The right papers on autarky or nationalizing minds. So that it immediately closes off ideas. And we know that. Yeah. I mean, I feel like, in practice, I mean, maybe we should have asked this. But sometimes I feel like people advocating for free speech often line up with conservative positions. Small C conservative, I mean, in terms of, I don't know, it just sort of happens that. No. No. It's whoever feels most aggrieved at the moment. Yeah, that's a good thing. Well, I mean it's really what conservatives didn't make a big deal about that when they're cracking down on anti war activists. When they're out. Yeah. That's true. I've been in positions where I've literally seen police attack..

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:07 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"You've got to look at the specifics. So I would ask, why are they vandalizing a church? What church, what did the church do wrong? I think vandalizing is a really difficult one. I'm generally not in favor of vandalizing, because it just seems like an act of violence, which seems quite unnecessary in general. But you know, one could imagine extreme cases perhaps. In which a church had done something, you know, I don't know, gone out and massacred a bunch of people of a different religion when you might think okay fine while they've vandalized the church doesn't really matter or they needed to do it to make a point. To exercise their free speech. But I think it would have to be in quite an extreme case, I would say. But it does depend on the particular circumstances, and I think it's difficult to make generalizations about something like that. Wow. This has been a lot to take in Emma. I've learned a lot about Britain. I've learned a lot about the politics there, and how not very secular it is. Before we, well, as a part of wrapping up, can you tell us how to find the free thinker and or if people want to contribute to it, how they can how they can get in contact with you? Yeah, absolutely. So it's going to be online from the 5th Saturday the 5th of March at freethinker dot co dot UK. There's a contact form there. For submissions, which please just read my brief submission guidelines, basically. Really interested in people who have know what they're talking about able to write with intelligence and clarity. I don't mind what your political position is. I just want a good argument which will help people to sort of understand something a bit better. Or you can email editor at freethinker dot co dot UK. Well, thanks again, Emma. This is a lot of fun. Great. Well,.

Emma Britain UK freethinker dot co
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:30 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"Yes, I think of true free thinker probably can because I'm a true free thinker is not politically aligned. And I think that politics is very different from philosophy. You know, free thought like humanism probably is a philosophical position. Which looks to sort of universals your looks to the relationships between people on a personal level. For me, at least I don't know politics seems like a pretty much a pragmatic rather dirty game in a way that always depends on the best of the options available which may be a choice of two lesser evils. So I think it would be perfectly plausible to say, well, maybe the monarchy is just the lesser of two evils or the less common evils at the moment. Okay, can a true free thinker support teaching religion in schools? Yes, definitely. And in fact, it would depend how you teach religion in schools. But yeah, not indoctrination now. Right. But you know, religion is a huge part of human culture. In all cultures across the world, and I think that if you ignore it, then you ignore a very fundamental part of our story of all of our stories, historically. So I think it would be, I think it would be wrong to not teach it. It's just a question of how, and which subject is taught in. Okay, can a true free thinker be spiritual? You see, you're asking me this really difficult question, but you haven't told me what spiritual means either. I believe in connections to the Supernatural. I think it's difficult for us, I think probably I would have to if you want me to have a yes or no answer so I'd have to say no because it says Supernatural this is something which, again, I think the free thinking a free thinking has to sort of say, well, what's the most likely explanation? Is it likely that there's anything Supernatural, probably not unbalanced..

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:05 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"Partly parents not having the ability to sort of bring their children up and their own traditions, but against that, not only that, it's more about the children having the choice and the ability to make their own decision and having the information to make their own decision. And not being segregated according to religion. I think that's a problem, particularly for minority faith schools. It's a very difficult topic because you might think, well, why can't Muslim or Jewish parents bring their children up and this is part of the parent's right to bring their children up and their own religion? I think two things. First of all, I'm completely in favor of anyone who wants to found well within limits to found a school that is a private school in a according to a relation or whatever. But when the text pairs funding it, I think that there have to be a lot more common standards. And one of the difficulties that we've been seeing with minority religious schools is that often they end up really dividing children, much more than they should be, according to very specific cultures, so they really get isolated. From other cultures, and I think that's really problematic if we're trying to have a society where people really respect and tolerate each other. So I think that's a problem in particular the minority religious schools. And then indoctrination is a bit of a problem for all faith schools. And it's just a big problem that citizens of the country continue to fund the system indirectly through taxes, even though we're a secularized society where if the people aren't religious and it's very much an interest of society for everyone to appreciate each other to grow with people with different points of view from different cultures. And with that in mind, I think we should move on to the lightning round. Nathan, can you explain how can a true atheist blah blah blah.

Nathan
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:51 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"View that religion is perfectly acceptable if you want to be religious, but religion is a private matter. And the secular public life, the state, public institutions. Education, all of that sort of thing is not a matter for religion to have any influence over, because of its being religious. Now you May of course have people who are religious, who are involved in politics who are involved in education. Who are involved in healthcare, but they should not get any special privileges on the basis of being religious. So I think that's where we are in Britain. It's slightly different, I think, from in the U.S.. Things like climate change, I mean, I think anyone who is safe here and who has a non religious view would say, look at the science and the science is fairly clear. I think that the climate change is happening. So I think people would obviously be concerned about that as human beings. But I think that is only a secularist issue to the extent that it might be something which religious groups are using their political influence to campaign against. So I think for as far as the national secular society goes, which, again, is a different remed from the three thinker. Their concerns are with specific issues where religion is having too much influence on politics and that sort of aim is to campaign for an end to religious privilege. So such things as bishops and the House of lords such things is this very, very strange situation we have where in England and Wales, which has a slightly different system from Scotland and Northern Ireland, a third of state schools of publicly funded schools are faith schools in some way or other. They have some sort of religion in their constitution. They have religious influence from local religious leaders. And that's actually quite incredible, really, in a western and a developed western society that you should have so much religious influence over state funded taxpayer funded education. Especially since I think, you know, it's often the case, but we can talk about this more. I think a lot of parents are quite unhappy with the current situation. But I think education is really a big deal. Also, you know, other issues like assisted dying is quite big. Anything which comes up a recent example of an issue, which is just come up is that during COVID, they changed the law to allow women to have abortions privately at home by taking pills. Which could be sent to them. Before you had to, I think, I believe you had to have a sort of the first one after you'd had a consultation with a doctor and you had to take the first one in the surgery under supervision. They changed that in a way that was much better for women's reproductive rights. But now they're saying they're going to end this sometime later this year, which is a step backwards or aggressive step. So that's an interest of concern to the national secular society. Is there a literature influence behind this? We know that the prime minister has just converted to Catholicism. We know that the Conservative Party is fairly close to the Church of England. What's going on here? So it's that sort of thing, but education is a fundamental concern, I think. Yeah, that's always a big one. Could you tell us a little bit more about I'm not sure what that exactly looks like? What sort of powers to either discriminate or what sort of indoctrination are they able to offer using public money?.

national secular society House of lords Britain Northern Ireland U.S. Wales Scotland England Conservative Party Church of England
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

03:17 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"A change in what the secular population focuses on in British society? I think it's very difficult to talk about the secular population because we're talking about over half the country of 65 ish million people. I think a lot of people just don't care, they just religion is not part of their lives. They just get on with their normal lives and they just don't think about it. It doesn't really affect them much. So I think we're looking at its people may be atheist, but that's it, whatever. I think that there was a very sort of strong active atheist movement with the new atheists like Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and stuff in the 2000s. And that coincided with the most secular most liberal period, I think, for Britain, ironically, because Tony Blair was obviously a very strong Catholic, but nonetheless, his spin doctor Alastair Campbell famously said we don't do God. Because Britain was so secular, he could say that. But I think actually, although people are increasingly less religious, the discourse in the media and in politics has become more religious in the last ten years because it is gone with this sort of tightening of attitudes, this distrust of free speech, which is really taken root especially since 2016. When it was considered that we voted 52 to 48 to leave the EU because of a lot of misinformation. So people have really got sort of been worried about free speech. And with that, I think it's been easier for religious groups and all sorts of other reasons where she can go into later to have more influence. I think in terms of what secularists want, what atheists want, what humanists want. That depends on who you talk to. I think the two main organizations really the two national organizations in Britain are the humanists, humanists, UK, and the national secular society. Now, I may be biased because I've been working for the national secular society. I'm not a member of humanist UK. I am of the national secular society. The reason why I chose the one rather than the other was because I actually, as a free thinker, don't really want to sort of belong to a group on the basis of its philosophy. But I think that the national secular society performs quite useful, a useful political role. For me, secularism is about politics, whereas free thought is about philosophical views. Humanist UK is a bit different because they want to advocate for a philosophical position, which is also political. So they include secularism in their mandates. And they're sort of very much on the progressive end. I don't want to speak too much for them. But they seem to be, you know, they're interested in all sorts of ethical issues. I believe they're interested in environmental issues. They're interested in not the same stuff as the national secular society, education, constitutional reform. That sort of thing, but they also have a wider remit. And they were interested in things like humanist weddings. Humanist funerals. So that's sort of advocating a specific philosophy with representation representatives on the base of that philosophy. Secularists, secularism, as it is today, as represented by the national secular society, obviously different people have slightly different views. But I would say it is fundamentally about.

national secular society Britain Alastair Campbell Christopher Hitchens Dawkins Tony Blair UK EU
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

03:16 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"So I think really in a way it needs to the change needs to go with full scale reform. Can you reform the House of lords without having a whole wholesale constitutional reform? Possibly. I think that a lot of people ever since Brexit in 2016 ever since the Brexit vote, a lot of people have been really strongly calling for a lot of constitutional reform. Because in the last 6 years, we've seen so many so many unsatisfactory aspects of our political system. We've seen Boris Johnson in 2019 pirogue parliament, we've seen judges called the enemies of the people. It seems as though the system of constitutional conventions in an unwritten constitution which we've had has been tested to its limits, and it seems like it's time to maybe. Make the rules a bit clearer. So I think that there is an appetite for constitutional reform the question is, will we ever get it? And the other thing is, do we keep our strange electoral system of first past the post? Which means that you often very often get part in government with quite a landslide of seats, but they still because of the peculiar mathematics represent about 30% of the electorate in terms of the party that they voted for. So there are all sorts of issues. Are they going to happen when are they going to happen? Will any party bring them in? Because the labor and and the torus and the Conservative Party. For both of them, the system benefits them in the end because it's always got to be either labor or the conservatives one way or the other. So they're the two main parties. Are they ever actually going to change from the first past the post system? Because they know that one day, even if they have to wait for a bit, they'll get empowered again, probably. So I think there are all sorts of issues there. It's a bit of a creaking old system, I think it's definitely time for change. Bishops in a way are only a small part of that. Well, then maybe we should change the scope a little bit and think about this as Britain has gone through this increasing secularism, where now it appears that a majority of Britons are not religious. How has that changed what people sort of focus on and what they want and what they see as a good moral outcome. So let me give you an American example. The old atheist sort of focus was things like prayer in schools and in God we trust on the money. And when you talk to religious people about atheists, they think like, oh, that angry person who doesn't want to open the town meeting with a prayer. But when you talk to atheists these days, what you find is that it's really focused on sexual freedoms, reproductive rights, and environmentalism. Has that has the change in England sort of followed that as well, where the focus for people who are not religious, it's not really about bishops in the House of lords. And it's not really about the old woman with the fancy hat in the big house. It's become either these sort of day to day issues or access different existential crises like the environment..

House of lords Boris Johnson Conservative Party Britain England
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:04 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"Shocking. Yeah. A constitution in this country is very, very strange. I mean, it seems pretty liberal and forward thinking in the 19th century, but unfortunately it hasn't really changed since the 19th century and I think that's part of the problem. So we have a head of state who is a hereditary head of state. Which is bizarre. And because she's hereditary, she can't really do anything. She has little power she might in sort of situations of crisis, but generally she doesn't have much power. So the power is really all the prime ministers, because if the prime minister has a majority, he can basically push to basically whatever he or she wants. Because the House of lords ultimately, if parliament really, if the House of Commons really wants an act to go through, it will go through and the House of lords can not use its veto permanently. I think they get two shots at rejecting the act and then if they rejected the third time it still will be pushed through. So they have limited power. The House of lords is itself an extremely problematic chamber and I think one point made by many people about the bishops. Is that getting rid of them would work best as part of a wholesale House of lords reform. In this sense, so at the moment we have 26 bishops from the Church of England who are entitled to sit in the House of lords, have 5 bishops from an archbishops who sit there by virtue of the seat Winchester, Durham, York, London, Canterbury, I think it is. And then we have the rest, the other 21 sort of take turns, I think, on a basis of their expertise or interest. They don't always sit there all the time. I think they rotate unless there's a matter on which they are un particularly interested, for example, I think they strongly opposed the reform to assisted dying of the assisted dying Bill, which was proposed last year, and which is now sort of fallen dead in the water, which is a shame..

House of lords House of lords reform House of Commons Church of England Winchester Durham Canterbury London York un
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:03 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"We wanted to sort of list some things like what we talked about at the start, for example, like having the Church of England as the established church and to just if Emma, if you could rate from one to ten, the possibility of these things say in our lifetime being abolished, for example, so say disestablishing the Church of England, for example. Like, say, from one being the least likely to ten to the most, what would you say for that to happen in our lifetime? Gosh, giving percentages. I think this is like a highly scientific. The problem with disestablishing the Church of England. I was talking actually to an Anglican about this the other day. And he said, well, you know, I think quite a lot of anglicans would be quite happy to disestablish the Church of England. Because we feel that religion is a private matter, which is what secularism is all about anyway. The problem with it is that it is incredibly legally enmeshed in British law and British society, British life. And the legal complexities of disestablishing it would be an absolute nightmare. Within my lifetime, so what, I guess, being sort of optimistic the next 50 to 60 years. I'm going to be hopefully and say 6 out of ten. Okay. All right, okay. But yeah, I mean, I think it would depend on having a strong liberal government with some competent individuals with a good, a really good legal ability who could sort of work out all the technical details and to the political will. I think a lot of the electric just don't care, which is why it hasn't been high on people's agenda on any of the political parties agenda. I think I'm not sure that any political party is in favor, possibly the Lib Dems might be, but yeah. I think it's definitely a long-term thing. Yeah. So as an American, I'm still fascinated that by the existence of the monarchy. In coming from the editor now of a Republican magazine, is that still going to be a platform? Is that one of the planks? Oh yeah, definitely. Oh yeah, yeah. Yeah. Always been a good part of secularism, definitely. Where would you put the odds on that one? Is that something that there's any popular taste for abolishing it? Is there you just said it's part of a secular issue, is it still a realistic goal that people are.

Church of England Emma
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:39 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"The people in charge of the people with power, who will make those decisions and the more power you give them to make those decisions, the more they will be able to stop speech that they personally don't like. So I think it's very difficult once you start having a lot of restrictions on free speech. Not have it sort of bound up with who happens to be empowered at the time. So I think it's much better to sort of come to a communal census about consensus about it. But to allow all sorts of different points of view to be shared. And you know, the other thing is that, of course, it's really bad when speech and science violence, but at the same time. If you don't allow views to be aired, I think they get worse often because they fester away. I think there's been a lot of resentment in Britain over the last 20 years. Among some people that they feel like political correctness or wokeness or whatever have stopped them from speaking out. Now that may or may not be true, but I think that if it's not allowed in the mainstream media, that's not allowed in the discourse, then they just go and sit on Twitter or they go and set and their private accounts or whatever. And it gets worse. It gets more extreme. It pushes people away. So I think you have to have a way of trusting people and letting them speak together. Somehow, I don't know how exactly, but I think one can only keep trying really. Yeah, from the sound of it, it seems like you're trying to build the free thinker into that sort of cultural spot where you can have that mixing of ideas where we can experiment with how far we can stretch freedom of speech and freedom of expression and how we can learn where these limits ought to be if we feel there are. Yes. I think so. In a positive way though, not just being nasty or horrible or abusive or inciting violence. But using argument using logic, bringing clarity to the discussion, but not being afraid to make arguments which might be censored for some reason. Are there any.

Britain Twitter
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

05:39 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"Yeah, I mean, I guess we want to get later on to more about the challenges for secularism in Britain. But maybe we can just talk a little bit more about this issue about individuals versus the collective. And maybe you can say more about where do you see these threats coming from, I guess, towards free expression and so on. I think there are numerous threats to free expression, I think free expression is the weapon of the individual, and it's not only the weapon of the individual, but it is an essential part of the ability of the individual to determine their own existence and to live life the way they want to because free speech free expression and free thought are two sides of the same coin. You can not think freely unless you can express yourself freely. And unless you can think for it, you can not be a full individual with the ability to live life the way you want to. So that for me is what is crucial. And I think there are endless pressures on us in the modern world to think like other people. Advertising, that's a huge thing which is pressurizing us to think the way other people want us to think. Any social media company is going to sort of nudge you in a certain direction. Religion, of course, any dogmatic religion, of course, you know, there are under dogmatic approaches to religion, fine. But any established institution is going to have its dogmas it wants to impose on people. Political authorities of the left to right, they're going to want to impose their dogmas. Even in the pandemic, we've seen the authorities or, you know, I don't know the health companies, anything like that..

Britain
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

04:52 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"So he was in a really, really, he had to really suffer for his free speech. But after that he came back and he carried on published publishing blasphemous things and he was never prosecuted again. So that's the foundations of the freethinker. It's always been radical or it's long been radical. It's long been extremely anteriorly. And quite very, very sort of, you know, from the perspective of what then would have been called the ordinary working man. I think it's changed over the years. I think one problem that secularists faced even in the late 19th century. Was that society was becoming secularized and because of that religion was actually becoming less of the key issue. Socialism was taking over as like the really big working class movement. And Brad law and the secularist who remained secularist were many of them, especially Brad Lou himself, and I think probably foot as well were not socialists, because they were very much individualists. And for me, actually, free thought and the traditions of the free thinker are very much individualist. Rather than thinking about the good of the collective they think about the good of the individual and how the individual even may achieve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness effectively. So they've always been a minority organization. So Emma, you make it, it sounds like it comes from a more radical liberal perspective. Yes. That's how it has been. Is that where you're going to keep the focus? I think we have to, I think I'm going to have to change it a bit because I think in the 21st century we have to really think where do we stand and what is the sort of focus of secularism and free thought today. And in the sort of spirit of the 19th century, but dealing with the problems that need to be faced. And I think today, Woodward is actually important in general is the individual against all the many collective things which are trying to sort of, I don't know, delete the individual or just make the individual most like a statistic or a point of data collection for the tech companies or whatever. I think so the motto that we're going to have from now on is going to be liberty reason humanity. With a very much a focus on the rule of law, democracy, civil liberties, in general, but in particular freedom of expression. And I think that the idea of freedom of expression is absolutely crucial to the flourishing of a democratic society. Freedom of expression about everything about really challenging all preconceived opinions. I mean, the free thinker was about being anti superstition. And today I think we still have superstitions. We still have a lot of dogma and dogmatic ways of thinking, but they're different dogmas and they're different dogmatic and narrow minded ways of thinking. For me, what I want is to foster a culture where people can talk freely and where they can challenge receive views about any topic..

Brad Lou Brad Emma Woodward
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

04:30 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"Has really made me aware of actually how religion in Britain is more entrenched than normal people who don't know anything about it, but a sort of, you know, if you're a sort of average not very religious person in Britain, you might think, well, religion is just, you know. It's just a few bishops in the House of lords and that's about it. Actually. It's much more entrenched in our institutions and in our society and in sort of government and local authorities and general attitudes than you might have thought. So I think it's definitely something that needs to be drawn attention to a bit more. Well, before we get into that, can you tell us more about the free thinker itself? Because you've just taken over as the editor, can you tell us more about the publication what its mission has been historically and what the focus will be going forward? Yeah. So the free thinker is quite a distinctive publication. It was founded in 1881 by George William foote, who was part of the 19th century secularist movement, and had been and later would be a close associative Charles bradlaugh, who was the president of the national secular society at the time. And spearheaded the secularist movement. I think it is important to be aware that secularism in Britain in the 19th century was a bit different from, well, there are so many different concepts of secularism. In 19th century Britain was an incredibly radical movement. They were on the radical end of the liberals. They were very reformist. They were very much working class, but they're also individualist, and I think their main thrust was we want to get rid of religious privilege. We want to get rid of privilege in general. We want to get we want to abolish the monarchy, so it was always Republican, but religion is one of the really biggest problems in our society. And in 1880, Charles bradlow had tried to enter parliament, but it basically he had been elected, but he had been not allowed to take his seat because first of all, he said he didn't want to swear an oath on the Bible to God to say that he would undertake his duties and so forth. Then they said he couldn't affirm, then he said, okay, well, the oath doesn't mean anything to me, so I'll just wear it anyway, then they say can't do that. So he was elected several times more. But it took him till 1886 before he was actually able to take his seat, so it's quite remarkable that just for being known to be an atheist. He wasn't allowed to take his seat in parliament for effectively 6 years. But I think it was partly not just because he was an atheist..

Britain George William foote Charles bradlaugh House of lords national secular society Charles bradlow
"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

Beyond Atheism

04:38 min | 9 months ago

"emma park" Discussed on Beyond Atheism

"Welcome to the beyond atheism podcast, with me, Nathan Alexander, and my co host taught Tavares. Moving beyond questions of God's existence. This podcast asks, what's next in a world without God? If you're enjoying the show so far, make sure to like and subscribe, rate and review, and consider supporting us on Patreon. Despite the fact that now over half of British people are non religious, Britain is still far from being a secular state with an established Church of England, a monarch who is the founder of the faith and seats a lot of it in the House of lords for bishops and even publicly funded faith schools able to discriminate based on religion. To discuss the paradox of state of secularism in Britain, we are joined by Emma park, the new editor of the free thinker magazine. Emma, welcome to beyond atheism. Hi, hi, both of you hi, Todd and Nathan, great to be here. Thanks for inviting me. Super glad to have you here. Yeah, thanks, Emma, looking forward to talking with you. Can you just start just tell us about your own background? What was your own religious background? And how did you get into secular activism and how did you come to be the editor of the freethinker? It's quite a long story. I went to a religious school, especially between the ages of 13 and 18. A very sort of Church of England school. We got a lot of preaching, a lot of him singing. And I think by the time I was about 15 or 16, I just sort of reflected on it quite a lot and just realized, oh, decided that it wasn't for me. I was quite into physics at the time in particular, and just sort of thinking about the universe and what we didn't and know about science, it just felt as though the idea that there might be an anthropomorphic good seemed extremely extremely earth centered given that we're one tiny planet in among billions and billions. So it started from there, really. Then at uni, I studied classics and did a PhD in one of the two authors I focused on for my PhD was lucretius, the Roman poet of the first century BC and he has this whole poem from a sort of almost non religious point of view, which is quite amazing 2000 years ago where he sort of sets out this view of the world based on epicurean philosophy that everything is made up of atoms and void and the gods if they do exist as just sort of made of super fine atoms and float around an empty space. But I was just really interested to see how this poem, which was even considered somewhat radical in its time, was suppressed really a lot for centuries by the Catholic Church and it was sort.

Nathan Alexander House of lords for bishops Emma park free thinker magazine Britain Emma Tavares Church of England school Nathan Todd England Catholic Church
"emma park" Discussed on National Secular Society Podcast

National Secular Society Podcast

02:07 min | 1 year ago

"emma park" Discussed on National Secular Society Podcast

"You're listening to episode forty-eight the national secular society podcast produced by emma park. The jehovah's witnesses are an organization of evangelical fundamentalists then notorious for their secrecy exclusivity and refusal of blood transfusions. In life threatening operations the latter has led to a number of court cases especially where young people who still legal minus are concerned these cases in mcewen's novel the children act in which a high court judge has to decide whether to order hospital to give a teenage boy a transfusion against his wishes. One thing mcewen did not consider however the role played in these situations bicycled. Hospital liaison committees. These groups of jehovah's witness elders are allowed access to patients in need of a transfusion. And we'll put pressure on them to refuse it as reported by the nss last year the jehovah's witnesses bolted on their best to obstruct investigation into allegations of child abuse within their organization. In two thousand fourteen marks. You'll an elder of the jehovah's witnesses sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment for raping a woman known as mississippi in his house and indecently assaulting girls under fourteen mississippi and sued the barry congregation of jehovah's witnesses and to which she had been baptized.

fourteen years two thousand last year emma park mcewen fourteen national secular society jehovah One thing mississippi children act forty-eight fourteen marks
"emma park" Discussed on National Secular Society Podcast

National Secular Society Podcast

02:36 min | 1 year ago

"emma park" Discussed on National Secular Society Podcast

"How you define religion but if you define it likely due for surveys and censuses. We are definitely becoming with every year a less religious country. You're listening to episode forty four the national secular society podcast produced by emma park in this episode. I'll be considering the place of religion in britain today and in particular its place in our education system. A number of people in britain who identify as religious is decreasing yet by in particular. The number of people who consider themselves christian and especially who attend church has been on the decline for over a century. There are a large number of adherence today. And one hundred years ago to use including judaism. Islam hinduism sikhism but they are still in a small minority in the country's a hope this all raises. The question of how.

one hundred years ago emma park Islam four the national secular soci today over a century hinduism christian episode forty britain