Britain NOT a “Christian county” – since when??

(203 Posts)
Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 14:59:00

Generally speaking, when taking a snapshot of any country there are several nation traits most people just know about us that is made up of from a rich history and traditions, and Britain is no exception.

We have a monarchy, we speak English, our currency is the English Pound Sterling (lol), we still eat fish and chips out of a newspaper - and if you asked what our religion is, whether they knew about Henry VIII’s spat with the Pope or not, without the need to be specific they’d say we were ‘Christian’ – ask anyone.

Well not everyone, and certainly not the 55 ‘public figures’ that have accused Cameron for daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious, after nearly 1,000 years of international and domestic wars/conflicts, fought in the name of a ‘Christian’ religion – who accuse him of “mischaracterising” Britain, “fostering alienation” and argue that members of an elected government have no right to “actively prioritise” religion or any particular faith. Wh-at????
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10777270/David-Cameron-fuelling-sectarian-division-by-bringing-God-into-politics.html

They argued that, apart from a “narrow constitutional sense”, there is no evidence to justify describing Britain as Christian, mainly because the 2011 Census saw a dramatic fall in those tick boxing ‘Christian’, wh-at???

Forgetting God for a moment, after several years now most citizens still won’t acknowledge that we have a honking great budget deficit and national debt - and that there has been the greatest recession since the 1930’s, yet there is far more historical and current evidence out there that it all exists - so don’t use dumb statistics of a Census that included those ticking ‘Jedi’ as a religion, to diss 1,000 years of our history.

Now I have no cares for looking into (and then trying to label) their political motives, but it seems rather ‘Leftie’ to me – and far too similar to this little bit of ‘social engineering’, designed to QUOTE “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, by the last government.

“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser”

“Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

So is this YET MORE ‘nose rubbing’ by Lefties into Righties in the name of ‘diversity’, as Cameron was not ‘doing down’ the other religions, who themselves would resist any notion that their OWN countries were secular, so rightly acknowledge that the UK is a ‘Christian’ country.

“David Cameron Christianity claim backed by religious groups”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27105023

Religious groups have backed Prime Minister David Cameron's assertion Britain is "a Christian country".

Hindu Council UK said it was "very comfortable" with the description. The Muslim Council of Britain said the UK was a largely Christian country.

So based on our proud history as an ethnic religiously TOLERENT nation and the role that ‘The Protestant Work Ethic’ had on our prosperity, who is to TELL OUR GOVERNMENT that we are NOT a ‘Christian’ country, or indeed that Christianity still has a role in today’s society - to help solve some of the work ethic problems that have grown within our society, now all the money has gone?

“Niall Ferguson - Killer 'apps': the ideas that propelled the west to world domination (see list at bottom of this link)”
www.theguardian.com/books/2011/feb/20/niall-ferguson-interview-civilization

6. Work ethic: As Max Weber noted a century ago, Protestantism was a form of Christianity that encouraged hard work (and just as importantly, Ferguson adds, reading and saving). It isn't a coincidence, he says, that the decline of religion in Europe has led to Europeans becoming the "idlers of the world" (while the more religious US has remained hard-working). Interestingly, Ferguson also argues that China's embrace of hard work is partly because of the spread there of Protestantism.

We had 13-years of ‘Lefties’ running our government, their Quangocracy, most of our media, our education system, the police etc etc etc.

So (from a lapsed CoE ‘weddings and funerals only’ citizen) god help us as a monarchy, an individual State with proud traditions/rights and our prosperity, when they get back in and finish off the destructive job to the British way of life they started in 1997, and left as a work in progress, in 2010.

Forgettable Tue 22-Apr-14 15:04:12

Sorry cannot work out what you are positing.

Too much blah de blah rhetoric.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 15:06:16

Some might say, qualified home truths, but frankly I don't care, whatsyaname?

TheAwfulDaughter Tue 22-Apr-14 15:08:36

One day we will be secular. I'll probably be dead by then though.

looks out of the window longingly, dreaming of a secular republic...

mymatemax Tue 22-Apr-14 15:13:32

funny that it was all discussed over the Publice "Easter" holidays.
I wouldn't suddenly be Muslim if I moved to a largely Muslim country but I would accept that many of the country traditions, holidays & customs are founded in the religious history of the country.
Just the same here in the UK!

No big deal really, anyone can chose to practice a religion or not, we cant really change history.

CrimeaRiver Tue 22-Apr-14 15:17:20

Sorry, what? Got two thirds of the way through and couldn't make hear or tail.

DrankSangriaInThePark Tue 22-Apr-14 15:22:18

Can you perhaps tell us where you are copying and pasting from and we'll read the original and get back to you?

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 15:24:30

mymatemax...I'm not sure how many Muslim countries that you may have visited in the Middle East, away from the holiday centres, but they are strictly Muslim and even then, you have the Shia and Sunni split.

Furthermore, one may badly handle or criticize the contents of a bible here, not so with the Koran.

My point being we are Christian, we are more tolerant than any other religion I can think of, even ''Jedi', so what is the agenda of those who say we are not.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 15:25:34

Go back to your Daily Mirror's, they've got pictures.

DrankSangriaInThePark Tue 22-Apr-14 15:30:51

?????

Daily Mirror's what?

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 15:36:55

(Lights blue touch paper)

D.S,T.P....If you had trouble with a one liner, you had no hope with the opening post.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 15:40:43

Anyhoo...if I see any sensible debate/points I'll try and get back sometime later, if not, no worries here.

WhosLookingAfterCourtney Tue 22-Apr-14 15:41:17

WTF OP? confused

I can just about divine the topic you're posting about. I think most would accept that Britain is culturally Christian, but there is no place in government for superstition and bigotry, which is all religion has to offer anymore.

DrankSangriaInThePark Tue 22-Apr-14 15:43:11

Likewise, if you have trouble placing an apostrophe, I am guessing the blurb in your posts isn't your original work.

Hence my requesting a source.

CogitoErgoSometimes Tue 22-Apr-14 15:44:34

Britain is a nation with a Christian heritage and tradition, our laws have roots in Christian teaching and our monarch carries the ancient title of Fidei defensor... but that's not at all the same thing as it being a Christian country.

JodieGarberJacob Tue 22-Apr-14 15:48:50

We do have a state religion though whereas the majority of countries don't so I suppose we are technically a Christian country. Unfortunately.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Tue 22-Apr-14 15:53:35

The 'public figures' were not suggesting this is a muslim/whatever country, they were pointing out that most of our residual christianity is of the weddings-and-funerals type as you say.

And hence all this religious privilege with the faith schools and the lords etc is a bit out of date.

Also, fish and chips come in polystyrene trays nowadays. Hell, I'm not even 40 yet and I've never seen it in newspaper.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Tue 22-Apr-14 16:00:25

Interestingly, since you have segued into 'mass immigration' for some random reason, and since we're copying and pasting....

"When the 2011 census was taken, 59 per cent of those in England and Wales described themselves as Christian. But the 2001 census found 72 per cent were nominally Christian.

The net loss of 4.1 million Christians would have been significantly worse had it not been for an influx of 1.2 million foreign-born believers – many from more strongly religious countries such as Poland and Nigeria – coming to Britain."

source: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/is-britain-really-a-land-of-god-furious-debate-after-david-cameron-claims-we-are-a-christian-country-9273542.html

cause I wouldn't want to C&P without attribution, now, would I.

Floisme Tue 22-Apr-14 16:01:12

Last time I looked we had 26 un-elected bishops sitting in the House of Lords so yes, I think that does make us a Christian country. Whether that is anything to be proud of is another matter entirely.

Is that what you were trying to say, op?

slug Tue 22-Apr-14 16:15:31
Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 16:21:25

D.S.I.P….original work/anger, with links/quotes you can read, if I missed anything it was my rubbish education, do your best para by para or leave it, I’ve got it off my chest - I'm now a happy bunny.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 16:30:06

Boulevard…the “mass immigration” quote was re the Labour Party’s intent to change our society, clearly no matter what the consequences were.

The fact that throughout the early 2000’s onwards the immigration inflow figures show TWICE as many NON EU citizens coming in that presumably needed visas/permission, than the mainly Christian EU citizens - again asks more questions of the intent – based on our unemployment and housing shortages over those years.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 16:31:50

Floiseme....I never mention the Bishop's, so no, try harder.

Floisme Tue 22-Apr-14 16:33:30

'Try harder' to do what? I don't understand you.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 16:50:28

Slug....we are a Christian country, it is good to hear that will remain so with Cameron.

Blair was Christian, but was told by his fav spin doctor Campbell, that 'we don't do god' as a policy, well ours anyway.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 16:52:42

Floiseme...you asked me a question, I replied, I know that we are a Christian country, my post is about the ones who don't..

member Tue 22-Apr-14 16:52:58

Ever considered starting a blog Isitmebut?

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 16:59:15

Nah member...I understand ttosca writes one, and I guess you then have to go for quantity over quality of opinions, even if those reading your 'pearls' don't appreciate them. lol

claig Tue 22-Apr-14 18:38:30

I don't think Cameron can be taken seriously. We are a Christian country, but it almost looks as if Cameron is trying to be conservative to win back some votes. Next, he'll probably tell us that he is conservative.

"In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey says many Christians doubt the PM's "sincerity" when he pledges to protect their religious freedoms and accuses ministers of "aiding and abetting" discrimination against believers.

He points to Government plans to legalise gay marriage as evidence of an "aggressive secularist and relativist approach" and argues that Mr Cameron has fed Christian "anxieties" more than "any other recent political leader".

...

Lord Carey expresses alarm about Labour MP Chris Bryant's campaign to turn the 700-year-old Parliamentary chapel of St Mary Undercroft into a multi-faith prayer room so that gay couples can get married there.

Chris Bryant
Lord Carey slammed Chris Bryant's campaign for gay marriages in Parliament

But he also directly calls into question the Prime Minister's actions, saying: "I like David Cameron and believe he is genuinely sincere in his desire to make Britain a generous nation where we care for one another and where people of faith may exercise their beliefs fully.

"But it was a bit rich to hear that the Prime Minister has told religious leaders that they should 'stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation' when it seems that his Government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way.

"At his pre-Easter Downing Street reception for faith leaders, he said that he supported Christians' right to practise their faith. Yet many Christians doubt his sincerity.

"According to a new ComRes poll more than two thirds of Christians feel that they are part of a 'persecuted minority'. Their fears may be exaggerated because few in the UK are actually persecuted, but the Prime Minister has done more than any other recent political leader to feed these anxieties.

"He seems to have forgotten in spite of his oft-repeated support for the right of Christians to wear the cross, that lawyers acting for the coalition argued only months ago in the Strasbourg court that those sacked for wearing a cross against their employer's wishes should simply get another job."

news.sky.com/story/1071641/lord-carey-attacks-david-cameron-on-religion

Floisme Tue 22-Apr-14 18:42:41

Ok op, I just thought you might be interested in discussing whether it was actually good for democracy. Clearly I was wrong, cheerio.

claig Tue 22-Apr-14 18:42:45

And as for Cameron saying that Jesus started the Big Society. This is from the Telegraph

"This plan is directly based on the successful community organising movement established by Saul Alinsky in the United States and has successfully trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama."

That statement, which beggars belief even in the political fairground we now inhabit, is not taken from some far-out Trotskyite samizdat, but from the official Conservative Party introduction to David Cameron’s Big Idea – the creation of a “Neighbourhood army” of 5,000 full-time community organisers to implement his grotesque fantasy called “Big Society”. If you ever doubted that, under Cameron, the Conservative Party has become ideologically and culturally deracinated, has lost its political compass and is occupied by an alien clique that has disfigured it beyond recognition, here is the incontestable evidence.

Saul Alinsky is here openly acknowledged as the inspiration behind Cameron’s “Big Idea”. Alinsky was the lifelong cultural revolutionary and political subversive whom Barack Obama formerly claimed as his “spiritual mentor”; since Obama hit mainstream politics, however, his supporters have expended a vast amount of effort on trying to conceal that embarrassing history. The aggressively amoral Alinsky believed there was no right or wrong in politics, only what was necessary to seize power (well, Dave and his gang would buy that).

Yet the Conservative Party blurts out this admission in the launch document of Big Society. There is a pedantic debate over whether Alinsky was technically a Marxist, or by-passed Marx as old-hat. What is beyond question is his project to overthrow capitalist society and to do so through infiltration of political parties, institutions and, above all, by the use of “community organisers”. Anybody who thought claims on this blog of Cultural Marxism influencing even the Tory Party were exaggerated can now think again. Alinsky was the first begetter of ACORN, the sinister organisation that tried to gerrymander the American electorate.

What is going on here? Who is running the Cameronian Party – Common Purpose? How is it conceivable that even the most bland, politically correct, centre-right “conservative” party could derive its flagship policy from the thinking of Alinsky, whose seminal work Rules for Radicals was dedicated to Lucifer ?

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100032381/david-camerons-big-society-is-a-grotesque-fantasy-inspired-by-leftist-subversive-saul-alinsky/

ttosca Tue 22-Apr-14 18:46:33

Isitmebut-

> Slug....we are a Christian country, it is good to hear that will remain so with Cameron.

You don't quite get it, do you? You can't make a country Christian or any other religion by decree.

Of course the UK has a strong Christian heritage. That's undeniable. Modern Britain is much more diversified, and has the letter indicates:

"Repeated surveys, polls and studies show that most of us as individuals are not Christian in our beliefs or our religious identities. "

yougov.co.uk/news/2012/02/17/britain-christian-country/

I think that's probably the most important thing - whether its people identify as Christian - when considering whether a country is 'Christian' or not - don't you think?

Follow the link. 50% of people don't consider themselves to have any religion - nevermind Christianity.

ttosca Tue 22-Apr-14 18:48:23

Also, David Cameron is not Christian either. He is using Christianity to shore up support from Christian conservatives.

He's a cunt:

David Cameron's constituency office calls police on food bank campaigners Bishop of Oxford and Reverend Keith Hebden

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-constituency-office-calls-police-on-food-bank-campaigners-bishop-of-oxford-and-reverend-keith-hebden-9274303.html

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 22:45:44

ttosca….it appears that most of the real ‘lefties’ don’t identify themselves with the values and traditions of Great Britain, especially ones with a ‘potty mouth’ like you – who STILL refuse to link Labour’s policies to encourage welfare dependency, Labour’s ‘open door’ immigration that let in a net 2.5 million of mainly NON EU citizens to UK jobs, and Cameron’s food bank claimants – for what, a Miliband-esk (Oxbridge/Marxist debating society) social engineering experiment, the non EU general election votes to keep their sorry ar$es in power, or both??????

Can you still not tell me WHY the Labour in 2004 with over 500,000 16-24 years old unemployed and a housing shortage back then, made worse by Brown’s ‘no more boom or busts’ financial lending explosion - thought that this would help the then multi cultural people of the UK get jobs and homes SO THEY WOULD NOT NEED FOOD PARCELS when Labour’s reckless spending HAD to be reigned in, on the first major recession?

Come on ttosca, what was the ‘joined up policy thinking’ of Labour’s policies on immigration and the indigenous population without jobs and homes consequences of which. were dumped on Cameron?

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/long-term-international-migration-flows-and-uk
“Please note that the LTIM estimates used in this briefing are being revised by the ONS. In their 'Quality of Long-Term International Migration estimates from 2001 to 2011' report published on 10th April 2014, the ONS has revised the total net migration estimates for 2001-2011; this suggests that the total net-migration between 2001 and 2011 was underestimated by 346,000 net-migrants.”

New migration therefore is changed over a decade from just under 2.2 million to over 2.5 million.

Table 1... Inflows (thousands)…...EU……….Commonwealth………Other…...
Average 1991 – 1999……………...60,000………...87,000…………..….86,000
Average 2000 – 2003……….…..…62,000……….101,000………… ...120,000
2004……………………………......…..130,000……….215,000…………..…155,000
2005………………………………........152,000……….180,000………….….137,000
2006………………………………........170,000………..201,000…………….143,000
2007……………………..........….....195,000……....174,000………….…131,000

And here is the report that ADDS to the above EU figures.
“Immigration from eastern Europe was massively underestimated, says official report”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10757336/Immigration-from-eastern-Europe-was-massively-underestimated-says-official-report.html

Or was the "rubbing the rights nose in diversity" really for the votes as EU citizens cannot vote in UK General Elections?

“Million foreign voters could sway result of next general election, warns report”

“A million Commonwealth citizens living in England and Wales should be stripped of the right to vote because they could significantly influence the outcome of the next general election, according to a new report”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10268870/Million-foreign-voters-could-sway-result-of-next-general-election-warns-report.html

“MigrationWatch UK said the general public would be “astonished” to learn how many non-Britons are permitted to take part in elections.”

“The group, which campaigns for tighter immigration, said it was a “hangover from the days of Empire” that citizens from 54 independent sovereign states, including Australia, Canada and India, can register on the electoral roll as long as they have an address in Britain.”

“MigrationWatch’s report said: “One possible reason why Lord Goldsmith’s report was largely ignored by the Labour government of the day is that voters from black and minority ethnic communities, some of whom will be Commonwealth citizens, are far more likely to vote Labour than Liberal Democrat or Conservative.”

“A report last year by the Runnymede Trust showed 68 per cent of black and Asian people backed Labour in the last general election, said the study, which also suggested the Commonwealth vote could be influential in the referendum on European Union membership.”

It makes you wonder why a potential 500 million from Europe wasn't good enough for Labour.

Isitmebut Tue 22-Apr-14 23:02:30

P.S. ttosca is this your ‘leftie’ part in APPEALING to that vote, pathetically citing several dopey Conservative councillors as “the Modern Conservative Party”?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2052280-Modern-Tories-on-rape-Down-syndrome-Pakistani-children-and-black-people

For years under Labour ‘we the people’ were accused on being racist if daring to THINK, never mind write, that Labour’s policies on immigration and everyone else’s religion bar Christianity, was tilting the wrong way for British society.

The damage to Britain’s financial and social infrastructure by Labour is unforgivable, as none of this existed in 1997 when Labour took over, yet you drop the ‘c-bomb’ on Cameron rather than most of the Labour administration currently in opposition? Idiot.

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 00:45:56

Claig, claig, claig…I can’t believe that you or Ukip would have the (national) front to accuse any mainstream politician, never mind Cameron, of not being able to be taken seriously – as Ukip is an empty shell of policies and integrity, who cynically oppose everything for votes and as SHOULD it stand on any issue as it cannot change anything, it is just a ‘protest party’ – and no matter how successful they are in the Euro Elections, that can not change,

So why get so carried away critising the other parties when Ukip have nothing to offer the electorate but ‘protests’, and it wasn’t so long ago they fought a whole General Election on a religious issue, well the burqa, does that count as Ukip’s current moral compass on all things religious?

“Ukip Founder Alan Sked Says The Party Is 'Morally Dodgy' And 'Extraordinarily Right-Wing'”

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-morally-dodgy_n_2190987.html
David Cameron has been under fire for dismissing the UK Independence Party (Ukip) as a party of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists", in a now-notorious radio interview in 2006.

However, he may have won support from an unusual quarter - the founder and former leader of Ukip, Professor Alan Sked, says the party he launched in 1993 has become "extraordinarily right-wing" and is now devoted to "creating a fuss, via Islam and immigrants. They've got nothing to say on mainstream issues."

"Its extraordinary," Sked told the HuffPost UK, "that at the last general election, with the country facing the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, [Ukip's] flagship policy was to ban the burqa."

"They're not an intellectually serious party. Their views on immigrants and on [banning] the burqa are morally dodgy."

And looking at their current poster campaign, having opposed the Conservative mobile advertisements, giving telephone help numbers to those that may want to leave the UK, has anything changed for the one-trick-pony-party????????????

P.S. What is Ukip’s version of ‘The Big Society’ and religion, the same as their cynical view on Syrian Refuges when they thought they could score political points – initially ‘Let Syrian Refugees in’, then when the ex BNP followers of Ukip went vocal, it was ‘as long as they are Christian’. Marvellous.

Boudica1990 Wed 23-Apr-14 00:55:24

I find its very simple to see what religion governs you country or what religion it associates with most.

Walk in to your town centre.... Look at what is smack bang in the middle of the town square....ahhh yes a fricking church hmm

Walk down a street in Afghanistan or Pakistan, wait listen....ahhh yes the call to pray is sounding off.

The head of state is head of the church, in the census report a large proportion registered themselves as Christian. Many of UK law is based on Christian values, we have Christian public holidays.

As for other countries they have their religious holidays are based on that countries main religeon.

As much as a secular Britain is great, it really is. Stripped back to its hard bones its a Christian nation in principle.

Custardo Wed 23-Apr-14 01:07:11

religion should have no place in government. the unelected bishops in the house of lords was a very good point raised that you failed to address

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 01:13:01

Good points....and in my view NOT to acknowledge that we are principally a Christian nation, is going down a slippery slope, especially as it emboldens other nations/religions to try and force their laws into ours - which no doubt the Lefties would encourage, probably campaign for..

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:14:34

What a bizarre thread.

OP if you don't mention bishops, no=one else can? Is that the rule you are attempting to impose?

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 01:28:33

OP, have you considered toning down the formatting a little? Your posts are tricky enough to read as it is.

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 01:36:18

Custardo…are you talking to me on ‘the bishops’, as I didn’t raise the issue and said so – however if there was a point put to me I didn’t get it.

FYI I am a supporter of the upper house, or Lords, as it provides checks and balances to the lower house, just imagine a Labour government with 100-seat majorities in parliament WITHOUT them, by now they’d only need 10% of the vote to get elected.

Re the Bishops-in-der House, I have no objections as we need bright Lords, we can’t have a Lords full of thick ‘class warriors’ intellectually incapable of scrutinising complex legislation.

Re mixing religion in government, I have my own views on that, starting with getting them up to speed on what a Great Recession is - and breaking it to them that there are ‘poor people’ who spend more on fags and booze and tech equipment than food - and having had a child solely as a means to an end of obtaining a social home, often their pets eat better than their children. IMO.

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 01:41:25

CorusKate ...no.

fidelineish .....if that's the best you can do, I'm going to bed, knock yourself out with your picky $hit with someone else.

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:42:20

I get emails resembling these posts when my lovely bi-polar friend has problems with her meds. (Which is meant to be an illuminating rather than offensive observation and well, sod it look at the time it is).

If you could slow down, post more sparingly and, as corus says, dimplify formatting, it really would help smile

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 01:43:47

Oh god, don't tell her to dimplify it; she'll find a way to get a recessed effect or something, too.

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:44:29

X post.

Maybe it is actually the aggression it looked like, after all [confused[

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:46:11

My typos are getting worse blush

But, hey, texturised posts might be interesting! I'm not going to hold my breath for intelligible on this one, so interesting would be something.

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 01:48:31

Possibly, fidelineish - I wouldn't worry too much about the mental well being of someone who one minute criticises others for having a "potty mouth" and dropping the "c-bomb", and the next spouts aggression directly at someone and uses the word "shit" (yes, it's still shit even if you use a dollar sign, just like c**t is simply an alternative spelling of cunt - it all decodes to the same thing).

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 01:49:24

I like dimplify, as a word.

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 01:52:07

fidelineish...it's funny how you read about trolls who try to stifle anti-leftie views, the measure of them is the quality of their argument or input on a number of issues - and funny old world I don't remember you - so frankly I don't give a flying what you think.

And the more comments/insults I get like that from the bottom-wipes, the more I know I getting my message across - and feel a strong need to get more things off my chest.

Everyone worry about their own input, if you don't like mine, don't read it.

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:52:25

You may have a point smile

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 01:53:47

Yes dear, 'night.

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:54:00

Your reasoning is only equalled my your charm IsIt

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:54:44

I'll amend that Corus; you definitely have a point grin

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 01:55:29

Help yourself to 'dimplify' BTW

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 01:56:45

"Don't give a flying" implies "don't give a flying fuck", as you well know - whether they want to hear it or not, your post just put the word "fuck" in people's heads. Try and be a bit more considerate with that potty-mouth, eh?

Your message, such as it is, is unsophisticated and badly put forward. I doubt it's getting across to people how you intended.

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 01:59:06

Anyway, I'm off to dimplify my pillow. Night all.

kickassangel Wed 23-Apr-14 02:02:58

The US doesn't have an official state religion and last time I checked they still had autonomy and respect from other nations. They might not be universally liked, but they're not being stomped upon by all the other countries.

Other countries which don't have an official religion but still seem to be holding out OK would include China.

Hmm. Perhaps it is OK not to have an official state religion?

Also, I'm pretty sure that England (for want of a better definition) became Christian during the time of roman occupation somewhere around 200 AD. I could google it but I can't be arsed.

Floisme Wed 23-Apr-14 08:03:37

I was the one who raised the issue of bishops. You gave me a very flippant answer so I decided it wasn't worth discussing with you. However, as you're now saying you didn't understand my point, I'll try one more time:

We have (I believe) 26 C of E bishops sitting in the house of lords so yes, although you brushed off my contribution, I was actually agreeing with you that we are a Christian country. However I personally think it is wrong to have unelected clerics (of any faith) in government. I don't think it is democratic. Do you?

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 11:10:40

Floisme …… originally YOU stated that in YOUR opinion that having bishops in the House of Lords MAKES US a Christian country and then asked “Is that what you were trying to say, op?” – and it wasn’t, the bit about 1,000 of years of history covered that, even if apparently I was short 500-years – I didn’t know how many times or ways I had to say it.

Asking my opinion on unelected clerics in the Lords is different, so I’m happy to give you my view.

Although as mentioned earlier I fully agree with the FUNCTION of the House of Lords, the calibre of many of those within scrutinising important and often complex legislation is highly questionable, as often I.Q. is the last consideration when ‘elevating’ some apparatchik for services to the party, which could just be moving out of a safe parliamentary seat for someone a lot better.

Some get to the Lords for Cash to political party coffers and will have mixed abilities and agendas, but are also likely to be voting along partisan lines re the base ideology of the political party they felt so strongly about, they chose to fund them.

However in my opinion, while the Bishops will have political views, they are generally more intelligent, have less of an agenda and due to their ‘day job’ are unlikely to vote along ideological party lines, no matter how bad that legislation is, as clearly happens now e.g. not allowing the people a referendum on the EU.

As to whether ‘electing’ anyone into the Lords improves the quality of person in our upper chamber, I doubt it, and as far as bishops go, as far as I’m concerned if you’ve heard one, you’ve heard them all.

In conclusion; we could do a lot worse.


“Attorney General: Rise of fundamentalism is 'damaging' Christianity”

“The rise of religious fundamentalists with a 'deep intolerance' to other people's views has made Christians reluctant to express their beliefs, Dominic Grieve warns”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10781259/Attorney-General-Rise-of-fundamentalism-is-damaging-Christianity.html

“Christians are increasingly reluctant to express their religious views because they are being “turned off” by the “disturbing” and “very damaging” rise of religious fundamentalism, the Attorney General has said.”

“Dominic Grieve said that atheists who claim that Britain is no longer a Christian nation are “deluding themselves” and must accept that faith has shaped this country’s laws and ethics.”

“He said that 1,500 years of Christian values are “not going to disappear overnight” and said that many people remain believers even if they choose not to go to Church.”

Apparently the meek shall inherit the earth, as long as the non believers who use the media to shout loudest, allows it.

Floisme Wed 23-Apr-14 11:15:02

So to sum up, you agree it is undemocratic but you don't mind?

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 11:35:06

Floisme …. While I cannot argue that it is undemocratic, I would point out to you that there are FAR WORSE examples in the House of Commons that I feel having some integrity above in the Lords, makes me sleep a little easier whether the bishops are elected or not.

Tell me, democratically are YOU comfortable with a Labour Party that needs only 36% of the popular vote to get a working majority in parliament to again do what they want – so heavily supported and cash funded by the trade union movement, right up to Miliband and the majority of the shadow cabinet’s offices – whether they are attempting to exclude any other ‘interests’, for their own interests, in the Commons or not???
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2045534-Labour-to-ban-external-working-MP-s

You see to me poster, THAT and not the bishops stinks to high heaven.

If YOU can justify that, I’ll see you over on that post/thread and we’ll debate it further.

Floisme Wed 23-Apr-14 11:43:06

Why are you asking me questions about the Labour party?

One more time, am I correct in concluding that a) you agree it is undemocratic to have unelected clerics in governemt but that b) you don't mind?

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 12:07:56

Floisme....the subject I started here is regarding whether we are a Christian country or not; YOU raised the subjects of the bishops and YOU raised the subject of whether unelected bishops are democratic and 'do I mind'.

So I widened the debate along YOUR democratic lines in Westminster to tell you what I really mind about, which it is far worse for the future economic and social direction of this country, than 20 odd bishops who as far as I'm concerned have not been radicalized and are tolerant to others faiths and won't use their 1000 odd year Christian position to 'put down others.

So in DIRECT answer to your post, on your subject, on what clearly worries you; NO I DON'T CARE.

Floisme Wed 23-Apr-14 12:16:03

You don't care. That wasn't so hard was it?
Thank you.

AWombWithoutARoof Wed 23-Apr-14 12:23:12

But are we really a Christian country? None of my friends have any faith, and I can't believe we are a rareity.

If people respond to the question "Are you a Christian?", they are likely to say yes if they have been baptised, or went to Sunday School as a child, or have parents that go/went to church etc.

If people respond to the questions "Do you believe in god?", "Do you pray?" "Do you attend church?" I'm certain that many more people would answer no.

slug Wed 23-Apr-14 12:41:20

Meh, most of the Christians round my way are only Christians for the school places. the vicar, however, is a nice bloke who knows only too well that many of his congregation stop attending the minute their school places are secure.

JakeBullet Wed 23-Apr-14 12:47:54

I would have less issue with DC's description of "a Christian country" if he and his ilk were acting remotely "Christian" (ie following the teachings of Jesus Christ).
As it is we have rising food bank use, the poorest in society being shafted right, left and centre and the disabled losing out due to benefit cuts. Add to that the refusal to look at WHY food bank use has increased and I see nothing "Christian" about this country at all.

What would Jesus do?

Not act like this bunch that's for sure.

Just saying.

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 12:53:40

I'm really, really trying here to understand what the hell is going on...

But to try and answer the question (not that there was much of a question in the original post), imo Britain is historically a Christian country, and much of the organisation of the state reflects the fact that it is historically a Christian country, with bishops in parliament etc - but it isn't particularly a Christian country any more when Christianity is on the decline (see the 2011 census figures).

You're confusing the issue of immigration and the subsequent introduction into the UK population of individuals who practice other religions, and the simple fact that there is a significant increase in people who would now identify themselves as atheist or agnostic. Again, the 2011 figures show that there was an increase from 15% to 25% of the population who describe themselves on the census as having no religion.

Threetimesfive Wed 23-Apr-14 13:02:37

If people respond to the question "Are you a Christian?", they are likely to say yes if they have been baptised, or went to Sunday School as a child, or have parents that go/went to church etc. If people respond to the questions "Do you believe in god?", "Do you pray?" "Do you attend church?" I'm certain that many more people would answer no.

I'd say don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that many people are atheists, maybe agnostic. Why can't we be a Christian country that is tolerant? Frankly people who do not believe in anything spiritual/ god worry me a bit. If you strip down the Christian faith to its basic principles it's really quite a lovely and worthwhile religion promoting love and good ethical principles. Better than the sheer greedy materialism that a lot of people feel forced to be part of.

Threetimesfive Wed 23-Apr-14 13:06:10

Ah, I also think that diluting one's culture to the point of no identity is empty and potentially dangerous. I know what I'm talking about as I /my fa family come from a wide range of backgrounds. People seek a sense of belonging and identity. What would replace the Christian foundations of this country then?

Also is this a question between occident (us) and orient?

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 13:09:01

JakeBullet…..as others have said, you don’t need to go to church regularly to be Christian, many can just use it at a time of family crisis, who is to judge?

But as Prime Minister whether you’re a communist/atheist or not, in my opinion it is the responsibility of the position to ensure our faith is protected, especially if in not doing so it emboldens other more radicalized faiths to ‘try it on’.

Re Cameron and food banks, and shafting to poor, we did not have the Great Recession on his watch, Labour have said they’d cut more from welfare/benefits, so in the real world as come May 2015 people will have two options from which one will form the next administration; Labour or Conservatives, one broke the country again, the other one is trying to fix it again - and if anyone had some miracle where the use of a few loafs of bread and wine can feed those using food banks, they should have spoke up before now.

JakeBullet Wed 23-Apr-14 13:13:12

I would say the same about Labour.....and no I realise you don't HAVE to go to church etc. But to claim you are "a Christian country" while acting totally opposite to what this means says to me that they haven't a fucking clue about what they are saying. It's all a load of bollocks just being said for effect.....and I would say the same if it was Ed Milliband saying the same while acting so appallingly.

The country has a Christian look to it with old church buildings and such, but Christianity is only important to the few remaining Christians.

This was never an argument over whether it looked Christian. This was about "Do we still think Christians should have extra rights" and most of us don't think so. Our beloved leader was trying to trick some Christians into voting for him by pretending he thought they should.

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 13:15:23

Communist/atheist? hmmgrin

it is the responsibility of the position to ensure our faith is protected

Just yours right? Cos yours is the one true faith.

and grin at Communist/atheist.

Threetimesfive Wed 23-Apr-14 13:18:58

Communist/atheist?

God or anyone help us.

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 13:20:12

Thurlow....I'd argue that a country's faith is deeper than the 2011 Census, especially as mentioned in that opening post, not only did it define much of what we are today, including tolerance of others faiths who often don't accept 'non believers' in their - but arguably the lack of the old Protestant Work Ethic in todays society, is a problem within todays society.

fidelineish Wed 23-Apr-14 13:21:05

<still struggling to get off the blocks> OP you think DC is communist/athesit?

ivykaty44 Wed 23-Apr-14 13:25:16

My point being we are Christian

who's the we? the 59% of the christians that said so on the census?

strange how you use a generic term we to describe an entire nation based on what you want to think and not facts, which are that 41% of the we are not christian.

Have you heard of the expression speak for yourself? please try and think about who you are speaking for before you in compass people that are not with you on this and don't want to be included. Are quite happy to be left alone to get on with their own thing

How on earth you can talk about tolerance and wars in the same post I have no idea - wars are not started due to tolerance

So... all non protestants are lazy then. Have you told the pope this?

ivykaty44 Wed 23-Apr-14 13:44:20

But as Prime Minister whether you’re a communist/atheist or not, in my opinion it is the responsibility of the position to ensure our faith is protected, especially if in not doing so it emboldens other more radicalized faiths to ‘try it on’.

grin not suspicious then of radicalised faiths..thats so tolerant

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 13:44:48

When criticising Cameron’s motives for defending this country’s, rather than the individuals withins faith one has to ask the question, would a Prime Minister with Marxist leftie roots, with leftie supporters, support the leftie critics writing the ‘open letter’ that generally want to assimilate this country and it’s traditions into some European superstate - or speak up for Christianity within this country as Cameron has – I mean its not as though the ‘oppose everything’ Labour/Miliband man won’t say anything to get re elected, and then do the opposite?

Even his party are asking what he stands for, rather than what he opposes.

Just saying.lol

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 13:46:14

Hello CorusKate….re your previous posts, on this please don’t worry about me, I’m really not used to it, there are quite a few other posters here who can’t string five words together (including profanities) that are in more need of your literary help, so best concentrate on them – I’ll worry about my input on subjects and look forward to learning from yours.

FYI I do not think swearing on posts is necessary as no matter how ignorant a person is, it adds nothing to the debate – and there are numerous examples of my posts, especially on the ‘Politics’ board, that proves I can qualify my opinions on subjects that I feel very strongly about, with words other than the c-bomb (sorry, maybe it’s a generation thing), “vile” or “scum”.

But I have to admit that if faced with profanities and/or someone being rude to me because they don’t want me to express my opinion, I go back to my roots and unfortunately, as you noticed, I can be dragged down to others levels and give as good as I get whether using swear words or not.

It’s not big, I’m not even overly offended, but I revert to ‘do unto others’, whereas I should just turn the other cheek as other posters can see what they are doing, so rest assured I’ll work on that.

P.S. Nice to see you contributing to the actual subject.lol

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 13:47:25

Isitme, why are you still going? I can't take you seriously, what with all the "everyone's a leftie" and wanton sprinkling of incongruous "lol"s everywhere.

CorusKate Wed 23-Apr-14 13:49:08

Hello CorusKate….re your previous posts, on this please don’t worry about me, I’m really not used to it, there are quite a few other posters here who can’t string five words together (including profanities) that are in more need of your literary help, so best concentrate on them – I’ll worry about my input on subjects and look forward to learning from yours.

I don't understand what ^this means.

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 13:52:35

ivykaty44...I never said that I wasn't suspicious of radicalized faiths, but as I've said I'm not overly Christian in my beliefs, but I know that I can't go to Muslim or other countries and tell them they are NOT a country of Muslim or ant other faith - can you name one that I could?????????????????????????

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 13:52:35

I'm also confused by the whole 'leftie' issue. Does being left-wing mean you are automatically not religious, and being right-wing mean you are religious?

That's what I'm struggling with re your posts here - the confusion of debates about whether the UK is still a Christian country, what David Cameron has said, immigration/multiculturalism, and also 'lefties'/Marxists/communists confused Which issue in particular are you after discussing here? They don't all go together.

You can be a traditional Tory voter (i.e. not a "leftie") who supports multiculturalism, continued immigration, further 'assimilation' into a European 'superstate', and and an atheist.

You can also have morals, tolerance, charity and a work ethic whilst being an atheist.

I love these threads. People who shriek and bluster in defence of the superiority of their religion have helped make this country what it is today - mostly atheist.

grin

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 14:11:23

Glancing through the authors of the open letter, and the response on here, I can be forgiven for confusing religion with politics - as whatever Cameron would have said, clearly would have been wrong, despite his right to say it, to those who despair at the erosian of what it meant to be British, for cynical political ends.

For that we have 13-years of Labour to thank, and come 2015 they'll be back in to finish the job.

Clearly everyone has their own opinion on THIS subject for whatever motives, I've given mine, so go with your god, or not.

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 14:27:07

Can you not be British but also not a Christian? confused

Only Tories can be Christian because Labour represent the anti-christ.

And it shall come to pass that a man will arise and his name will be Milliband.

Asator Wed 23-Apr-14 14:51:32

Why do we worry you?

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 15:02:23

Fuck it. Does that mean I have to vote Labour? I've never voted Labour. I've obviously missed the whole atheist-Marxist conspiracy. I'll go and change my colours now...

kim147 Wed 23-Apr-14 15:15:37

OP -

What would a Christian country look like?
What values would it have?

Do you think Jesus, if he came back, would say - yes, this is a Christian country where the lessons I preached and the morals I taught have been listened to and followed?

Asator Wed 23-Apr-14 15:20:16

"I'd say don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I don't think that many people are atheists, maybe agnostic. Why can't we be a Christian country that is tolerant? Frankly people who do not believe in anything spiritual/ god worry me a bit. If you strip down the Christian faith to its basic principles it's really quite a lovely and worthwhile religion promoting love and good ethical principles. Better than the sheer greedy materialism that a lot of people feel forced to be part of."

Why do we worry you?

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 15:27:48

I only just noticed that, asator. Can you explain any more, threetimesfive? What's worrying about people who don't believe in anything spiritual?

kim147 Wed 23-Apr-14 15:30:07

The reality is that a large majority of people in this country do not "have" a religion. They do not believe in a God.

The other reality is that the CofE has a power in this country which is disproportionate to its members.

The last 1400 years of history in the UK has been built on Christianity and Christian "values" - let's just ignore slavery, killing non believers or killing people who are not the right kind of Christians.

But - somehow societies which are not Christian based seem to have created basic rules for a fair society - whilst others have also adopted the intolerance some Christians have.

I have no issue with DC talking about religion and the power for good people can do. But don't label us all Christians. Because most of this country aren't.

kim147 Wed 23-Apr-14 15:33:23

"If you strip down the Christian faith to its basic principles it's really quite a lovely and worthwhile religion promoting love and good ethical principles. Better than the sheer greedy materialism that a lot of people feel forced to be part of.""

You should look at Buddhism. That's got loads of principles.

Do Christians get it that just because you are not Christian, you can still have principles?

And I'm sure some good Christians also have greedy materialistic views - such as the Conservative party.

ivykaty44 Wed 23-Apr-14 16:38:52

Isitmrbut, sorry the sarcasim was lost on the screen and your post did show very clearly your suspicion and intolerance

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 17:45:27

IvyKaty44 …I worked within an international/multi cultural environment/companies for over 30-years and travelled the world, spending at least 10-years frequently visiting the Middle East and debating many issues with very senior people, including religion and counted them as friends – but fast forward, if anyone doubts that there are Islamists to be suspicious of, they have their own head firmly wedged up their bums..

FYI MY PROBLEM, or intolerance, is with the Labour Party and their policies, as it takes a special type of incompetence to take the British economy in 1997 and turn it into a financial and social basket case, especially when they had the best decade in a century to make social changes for the better.

You see it matters not what any little people say on here or elsewhere, as Cameron said and no one here has argued against (despite posters reading what they want to) we are historically and remain a Christian country with EVERYONE free within to have their own religions and worship their own gods in peace – end of story.

Maybe when Labour gets in it will be a different story, they will trade away our history without a second thought.

Before 1997 we had a UNITED KINGDOM, but in that little devolution experiment they thought they could control for votes/seats in Scotland, for the first time in 400 or so years, there could be a break up.

Before 1997 we had an EU, but to be seen as good little Europeans within the EU experiment, we sold around half our gold to buy the new Euro currency and accepted up the rear end ANYTHING politically the EU wanted from us, including Blair giving back most of the Thatcher Rebate, looking to individually get on the EU top table in some sinecure with huge prestige.

Before 1997 immigration was controlled, with no “diversity” experiments where “the rights noses had to be rubbed in” and twice as many general election NON EU citizens are waved into the UK under the cover of membership of the EU, for political gain, despite the shortage of jobs and homes for the then indigenous multi-cultural citizens.

After 2015, no doubt if the EU decides everyone should be catholic, or worship France’s Hollande as some socialist god, that has seen the capitalist light, Labour would sign up for that as well.

I reiterate, if there were votes or power in it Labour would sacrifice anything of what Britain valued over centuries, tomorrow.

Again I've stated my case, this post and others are self explanatory to the issues involved, not about me, but good deflection, but it won't work.

So is your "wh-at" point about the census that lots of Christians didn't tick the box to say that they were Christian? I know that different individuals and different institutions have different qualifications for who they would consider "a Christian" but being prepared to say that you are a Christian seems a pretty basic qualifier by anyone's standards.

Your posts aren't "self explanatory", by the way. A good proportion of them are borderline incomprehensible because you seem to have followed a stream-of-consciousness style, without reviewing what you've written, and many of your sentences don't make sense.

For example, the sentence: Before 1997 immigration was controlled, with no "diversity" experiments where "the rights noses had to be rubbed in" and twice as many general election NON EU citizens are waved into the UK under the cover of membership of the EU, for political gain, despite the shortage of jobs and homes for the then indigenous multi-cultural citizens

What's a "general election NON EU citizen"? And what does the rest of that sentence mean?

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 18:04:14

So actually your thread isn't about Christianity at all, but rather about how much you hate Labour? So your title is disingenuous?

And no, your posts aren't self-explanatory at all. I'd also like to know what a general election non eu citizen is...

Thurlow Wed 23-Apr-14 18:06:20

Oh, and there are plenty of Christians I'm worried about too, far more than radical Islamists. Anyone who is pro-life, for example. Catholicism is Christianity, but I find many Catholic opinions very worrying indeed.

GurlwiththeCurl Wed 23-Apr-14 18:34:54

Yes, it is you.

ivykaty44 Wed 23-Apr-14 18:42:02

well at least you don't discriminate you don't tolerate anyone that doesn't think the same as you

hackmum Thu 24-Apr-14 09:36:04

"we are historically and remain a Christian country with EVERYONE free within to have their own religions and worship their own gods in peace – end of story."

It's not really true to say that historically everyone has been free to have their own religions and worship their own gods in peace. Only a few hundred years ago Catholics were being burnt at the stake. And more recently than that, the only two universities in the country, Oxford and Cambridge, were closed to Jews and other non-Christians.

So tolerance of other religions is a relatively recent thing. And that increasing tolerance has gone hand-in-hand with the decline of Christianity in this country. Perhaps 70 or 80 years ago the majority of people in this country were practising Christians; now, only a tiny minority are. You can still call Britain a "Christian country" if you want, but only in the sense that the church and state are closely aligned, not in the sense that most people are Christians.

kim147 Thu 24-Apr-14 09:42:05

This is Clifford's Tower in York.
Looks nice - in 1190AD, 150 Jews killed themselves in there because of a Christian mob who wanted to kill them.

kim147 Thu 24-Apr-14 09:45:14

And this is Margaret Clitherow

A Catholic Martyr in York. She refused to renounce Catholocism so she was executed by having a sharp stone put under her back, her front door put on her body and stones placed on the top.

Only 430 years ago. So religious tolerance has not always been present.
And let's not mention Catholics and the throne.

Now that's what I call a Christian country and we need to return to these traditional values.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 15:19:35

Ha ha ha….do you have anything a bit more ‘current’ on Christian atrocities within the UK, than Margaret Clitherow of “only” 430 years ago, as if you want to pathetically deflect from the current, debate, on the current Christian status and values of the UK – I could show you endless newspaper examples of indiscriminate NON CHRISTIAN atrocities all in the name of religion, in numerous other countries NOW and for decades before, as they ain’t new.

Based on that, I'd suggest people are safer here under a Christian umbrella.

Still it makes a change from seeing a deflection citing Margaret Thatcher of around 33-years ago for all this nations ‘problems’, even after 13-years of Labour.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 15:21:11

Ivykaty44 …..”think” has nothing to do with it, I discriminate against Labour due to FACTS, for their incompetent record whilst in power - and then cynically blaming the coalition for try to sort out the aftermath.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2049409-Do-you-think-Labour-DESERVES-to-get-a-majority-in-2015

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 15:36:08

DebbieofMaddox….I find it very interesting people are citing census results re Christians, as it almost looks as if the lefties are following them to ascertain voting patterns e.g. what would it cost Labour in votes to strip the UK of it’s Christian label, for political gain, after all we have (secretly) been socially engineering our ‘diversity’, dating back to 2001.

But re my opening post and your post quoting an example of diversity;

“Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser”
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

“Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.”

"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett."

"He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".

“As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.”

“Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.”

We then look at the ‘Commonwealth’ and ‘Other’ on the Chart I provided on Page 2 of this thread I believe (provided again below), which I carry on to ask why (from the 1991-1999 average) we felt the need to increase those numbers, other than for their voting patterns, when we were opening up our borders to the EU workforce already back then with significant unemployment and a lack of homes?

Table 1... Inflows (thousands)…...EU……….Commonwealth………Other…...
Average 1991 – 1999……………....60,000………….87,000…………….86,000
Average 2000 – 2003……….….....62,000………..101,000…………..120,000
2004……………………………….........130,000……….215,000……………155,000
2005……………………………….........152,000……….180,000…………….137,000
2006……………………………….........170,000……….201,000…………….143,000
2007……………………..........….....195,000………..174,000……………131,000

And the relevance of a NON EU immigrant's right to vote in General Elections (whereas mainly Christian EU citizens can not)this will not be lost on Miliband’s new advisors who used the ethnic vote via ‘Operation Vote’ to get a policy short Obama re elected in 2012.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/politics/2057186-Labour-signs-up-Obama-s-Axelrod-No-We-Can-t

So is it totally inconceivable for the lefties to attack a simple statement by Cameron on the obvious, the UK is historically Christian, for political ends?

Well recent political history mentioned at the top of this page re the countries within the UK, the EU, and immigration - screams that nothing within these isles is sacred to ditch for Labour votes/power.

Thurlow Thu 24-Apr-14 15:44:18

You know you keep saying your posts are understandable and self-explanatory?

You said, yesterday, and twice as many general election NON EU citizens are waved into the UK under the cover of membership of the EU, for political gain...

Which apparently translates as... a non-EU citizen's right to vote in a general election? Is that right?

Can I ask for some proof of what you are saying other than your own second thread...?

I could show you endless newspaper examples of indiscriminate NON CHRISTIAN atrocities all in the name of religion, in numerous other countries NOW and for decades before, as they ain’t new.

Absolutely. It's not just one religion, but religion itself that is the problem. That's why no one in their right mind would put religion in charge of anything more important than a boot sale.

Actually I take that back. You'd probably get complaints that the Christian stall owners were refusing to serve Jews or anyone who looked gay. So not even a boot sale.

Why can't it be a country for the people who live here anyway. Why does it need to be defined as belonging to one group or another?

kim147 Thu 24-Apr-14 16:13:38

Can someone explain what this thread is about? I keep seeing stuff about Labour etc.

If we are going to talk about Christian values - well, let's look at more recent history.

It was legal to rape your wife until the 1970s.
It was illegal to be gay until recently.
If you were unmarried but had a child,you were likely to be ostracised. To have your baby removed or sent to a place for unmarried mothers.

We could talk about Christianity and parts of Africa where LGBT people are executed or sent to jail. Promoted by Christian missionaries.

But as the power of the church has receded, gradually more minority groups are being recognised and their rights recognised.

kim147 Thu 24-Apr-14 16:16:22

OP

What would a Christian country with Christian values be like?

What would Jesus make of this country?

fidelineish Thu 24-Apr-14 16:16:51

Can someone explain what this thread is about?

grin @ kim

kim147 Thu 24-Apr-14 16:18:32

Do you think the Christian church has been a force for good in this country?

In what ways has the Christian church been a force for good?

Are there any Christian values you'd like us not to have? You might want to think of some from the past that have gone - such as intolerance and attitudes towards women, homosexuals etc.

kim147 Thu 24-Apr-14 16:28:06

Channels inner Monty Python

"What has Christianity ever done for us?"

JodieGarberJacob Thu 24-Apr-14 16:30:25

How can it be good for the country when it treats women as second class citizens? The women bishops fiasco was outrageous and no other organisation would get away with such blatant sex discrimination. Bah!

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 17:07:20

Thurlow ....IS THIS proof enough - read it through.

www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/who_can_register_to_vote.aspx

ErrolTheDragon Thu 24-Apr-14 17:21:39

>Do you think the Christian church has been a force for good in this country?

well, perhaps they used to do some good - caring for the sick, aiding the poor - but they were funded by tithes. So essentially, they were taxing the population to provide a (limited) welfare state. If they hadn't gone and spent a lot of their money on fancy buildings it'd look rather leftie...

And now some of the things they do of benefit outside their own congregations are things like food banks - making up for deficiencies in our currently non-leftie state.

While the CofE has been caricatured as 'the Conservative party at prayer', the lines really aren't drawn like that.

hackmum Thu 24-Apr-14 17:27:03

"Ha ha ha….do you have anything a bit more ‘current’ on Christian atrocities within the UK, than Margaret Clitherow of “only” 430 years ago."

I don't think you've really understood the point that kim147 and I are making, which is that if you associate Christian values with tolerance, you are wrong. In fact, as this country has become less Christian, it has become more tolerant.

Let me remind you what you said:

""we are historically and remain a Christian country with EVERYONE free within to have their own religions and worship their own gods in peace – end of story."

You used the word "historically" to try to demonstrate that people have been free to practise their own religion for a long time. Kim147 and I have attempted to explain that historically, that has not in fact been the case.

If you meant that today Britain is a Christian country and that its tolerance is a direct result of its Christianity, you should have said so. You'd still be wrong, of course.

Thurlow Thu 24-Apr-14 17:27:58

I don't see what the issue is. You are allowed to vote in this country if you have residency or permanent leave to remain etc.

What, specifically, is your issue?

And while you're back on here, I would still love to know whether this thread is about Christianity or Labour. You keep mentioning Christianity, but then just rant away about how much you dislike Labour. Which is fine - public forum, your opinion etc - but I don't get what hating Labour has to do with a thread entitled "Britain is NOT a Christian country since when?" or, alternatively, I don't get why the question "Britain is NOT a Christian country since when?" can simply be answered with 'I hate Labour'.

ErrolTheDragon Thu 24-Apr-14 17:47:19

Thurlow, I think this thread arises from confusion - an anti-leftie 'reds under the beds' mentality, presuming there must be some party political motivation for a letter from what is actually a diverse group of people concerned about divisive attitudes.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 17:48:01

If the UK wasn’t Christian and had Christian values, we would not be as multicultural as we are, and if other European countries that maybe Christian, had our value, maybe all the millions of non-Christians (and political asylum seekers) that fly here could save time and money and get off a plane long BEFORE they reach the UK.

If anyone wants to cite woman’s rights from India, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Afghanistan or many other non Christian country that are more equal than ours – give it a shot – also listing the western countries deemed to have better women’s right than the UK.

If anyone can cite a non Christian country where the non indigenous population could insist they denounce their countries religious for something more ‘politically correct’ - and NOT either be jailed as blasphemous or told to sod right off – please do.

If anyone can name a country in the Middle or Far East where Christians live as a community practising their faith and can feel safer from potentially serious persecution than non Christians here, please let us know.

If anyone can list countries that have recently called themselves multi faith, let us know.

If anyone can name a country where Christian Missionaries have lived (and died) and on the whole did not make lives better for their sacrifice, let us know.

In conclusion; the UK heritage in being Christian, unlike other religions in other countries neither harms or promotes anybody, so if it ain’t broke, it don’t need fixing – but the danger remains socialist that care nothing for our heritage/sovereignty like to change hundreds of years of our traditions for something to do, they find those constitutional ‘reforms’ easier than building the Private Sector/prosperity - but fail to come up with better alternatives.

The danger of opening the subject, for whatever reason, is it becomes divisive, and funny old world suits those on the left of politics, than those on the right.

“Break Church and State link, says Clegg”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/10784676/Break-Church-and-State-link-says-Clegg.html

“Deputy Prime Minister calls for disestablishment of Church of England, saying two should no longer be "bound up" together”

So bring it up again under the next Labour administration and you'll no doubt get your way.

hackmum Thu 24-Apr-14 18:10:02

"If anyone can name a country where Christian Missionaries have lived (and died) and on the whole did not make lives better for their sacrifice, let us know."

Well, in a lot of cases, Christian missionaries brought European diseases such as measles with them, thereby wiping out indigenous populations who had no resistance.

The advent of Christian missionaries had a devastating effect on the Australian aborigines by imposing Christianity and outlawing traditional religious practices (see e.g. www.aiatsis.gov.au/collections/exhibitions/missions/background.html) and in many other countries.

CorusKate Thu 24-Apr-14 18:22:04

Christian missionaries also brought the highly infectious memes of Christianity, which outcompeted local beliefs/traditions etc. in many areas and infected societies all over the world with absolutism, black and white thinking, human exceptionalism, the concepts of sin and salvation, and a whole load of other nasty mental habits which come with Christianity as a matter of course. Not that existing cultures and religions were necessarily superior, or that they were completely wiped out by the proselytising monotheistic religions of Christianity and Islam, but those religions have been successful because they mesh particularly well with how our brains like to work and effectively inoculate people against other ways of thinking. They are some of the most pervasive and pernicious belief systems ever come up with, and have spread through the world like wildfire.

JodieGarberJacob Thu 24-Apr-14 18:24:37

Go CLEGGY! He's gone right up in my estimation.

If anyone can name a country where Christian Missionaries have lived (and died) and on the whole did not make lives better for their sacrifice, let us know.

How much time have you got? The answer is pretty much all of them.

Of course if you define 'better' as becoming subservient to a church hierarchy then I guess they were often successful, but if you're allowed to make up your own definition then someone could claim that Poland was 'better' once it was invaded.

the UK heritage in being Christian, unlike other religions in other countries neither harms or promotes anybody

Fetch a camp bed, food and a big notebook. If you are unaware of the damage religion does in this country then we're going to have to start with basics and your education could take months or years.

Have you considered having a daily paper delivered so you can learn a little about the society you live in?

Oh and as for the "Christianity is nicer cos we don't kill you for being atheists/infidals" that's bullshit too. Christians used to kill people for those reasons all the time. You couldn't get away with it now because if you tried it the backlash would give us a secular state overnight.

Hmm might be worth it if you want to have a try?

ErrolTheDragon Thu 24-Apr-14 21:39:29

'neither harms or promotes anybody' - no, that's what secularism does. Comparing one religion against another misses the point - we don't need the country to 'be' any religion.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 21:46:24

The subject is of the UK as a historic Christian roots that shaped our society, with Cameron’s speech to commemorate 400-years of the St James’s Bible - that 55 people believe the PM of this country shouldn’t as HE was stirring ONGOING religious issues, rather than their very public attempt to create an issue from a non inflammatory speech.

We are not on trial for all things Christian for hundreds of years before, like the stupid, nay PATHETIC accusation missionary’s intended to spread measles and small pox in the course of their work – and certainly to any religions that like to spread their word to non believers by violence to this day.

So do you think this lot are still running riot, spreading diseases and not really helping people??
christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm
Missionaries and Christian Workers:

"In the unevangelized world, there are 20,500 full-time Christian workers and 10,200 foreign missionaries."

"In the evangelized non-Christian world, there are 1.31 million full-time Christian workers."

"In the Christian world, there are 306,000 foreign missionaries to other Christian lands. Also, 4.19 million full-time Christian workers (95%) work within the Christian world."

Even if you don’t, if they’re not too radicalized and/or using guns and explosives to force their words to others, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

BTW you seem to be cherry picking my list above peeps, based on your accusations of peoples ‘rights’ in this country; I look forward to your answers on the UK’s other ‘crimes’ which makes us such a nasty place to fly to, be allowed to settle, and live in relative peace.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 21:57:13

ErroltheDragon...who is 'WE' and why do you think that you speak for the United Kingdom, or even the majority of people?

WE are currently a Christian UK that hurts no one, and certainly don't need to be changed as that is not want countries do (provide examples for your case), certainly the main countries from the other main religious groups here - and 'we' would be very annoyed if it was as that would be UK politicians caving in on constitutional issues for votes, like they have been.

CorusKate Thu 24-Apr-14 21:58:50

I was stopped in the street by a missionary the other day. I didn't realise that by trying to get me to join and pay into his church he was "helping" me. grin

ivykaty44 Thu 24-Apr-14 22:08:53

But of course he was helping you lighten your load..!

Thurlow Thu 24-Apr-14 22:27:02

A.Christian UK that hurts no one? Really? Really? What about the illegal war in Iraq? What about the mistreatment of Gurkas who fought for us? What about the continual.degradation of aboriginal people in Commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand?

ErrolTheDragon Thu 24-Apr-14 22:36:23

I meant simply that 'we' as in 'anyone' don't actually need the country to have a religion. In the same way that the people of the USA don't need a national religion, for example. I certainly don't presume to speak for the UK ... as you appear to in some of your posts.

'WE are currently a Christian UK that hurts no one'.
But it does. It hurts children who are discriminated against so that they can't get a place their local school, to give a blindingly obvious example. It hurts teachers who are discriminated against in finding jobs in areas with disproportionately large numbers of faith schools. Until very recently it hurt homosexuals who wanted to marry.

CoteDAzur Thu 24-Apr-14 22:57:05

"I can't go to Muslim or other countries and tell them they are NOT a country of Muslim or ant other faith - can you name one that I could?????????????????????????"

Turkey - its state has no religion. Constitution says the country is a secular republic.

Rantiness is bad enough on its own but it's really bad when coupled with ignorance.

As for your idea of the UK as a Christian country - Have you noticed that about 25% of the population says they have "no religion"?

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 23:32:50

CoteDAzur ......you mentioned ignorance, do you want to tell me the 'mix' of religions of Turkey, or shall I tell you?

Hah, you've been so obnoxious I can't keep it to myself;

Turkey has 99.0% registered as Muslim, and did the the other 1% forget to register? lol

Re the 'no religion' we have already gone over that, some put 'Jedi', who is to say why they put that?

CorusKate Thu 24-Apr-14 23:36:40

Isitme, you seem to have spectacularly and hilariously missed Cote's point there.

CoteDAzur Thu 24-Apr-14 23:41:47

Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

Please do tell me the 'mix of religions' in Turkey. Or anything else you think you know about the place, really. I'd love you to teach me about the country I grew up in hmm

"Forgot to register"? You seem to think you are funny.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 23:44:34

Thurlow....based on the subject, the religion of this country, you are starting to look stupid with your non related subjects.

I have no interest in getting in a bun fight of who has killed more people of any religion over the past few decades, as many of the conflicts were (and still) Muslim vs Muslim, Sunni versus Shia - how civilized was the pictures of the battlefields of dead Muslims still lying there on arab TV during the Iran vs Iraq war I'd have to watch on the news in Kuwait?

Stick to the subject, why should the UK change it's religious status when other countries would not even think about it, never mind change their religious status - especially as it will influence the laws of those States.

CoteDAzur Thu 24-Apr-14 23:46:17

Thurlow isn't looking stupid at all, on this thread or any other that I can recall.

You, on the other hand... shock grin

BillyBanter Thu 24-Apr-14 23:49:01

Oh do fuck off you bigoted cunt.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 23:55:54

CoteDAzur ....you grew up in Turkey and didn't think that the fact it is a Muslim State meant it was a rubbish example (re the very multi cultural UK) to get aggressive to me about about?

Now that is what I'd embarrassing, and shame they didn't pass on their sense of humour as I used to visit senior government people there and entertained them back in the UK - and the people I met could laugh at themselves.

FYI Boris Johnson's family on one side was involved and was murdered for opposing Turkey's secular status, it was on Who Do You Think You Are, one of the best I've seen.

CoteDAzur Thu 24-Apr-14 23:57:34

"why should the UK change it's religious status when other countries would not even think about it, never mind change their religious status - especially as it will influence the laws of those States"

(1) Your logic is faulty - Would you say UK should change it's 'religious status' (what?) if other countries were doing it? Would you not then say "We don't care what they do, we are a different country and we do things our way? So what are you talking about here?

(2) Not all countries have state religion, not even all Muslim countries have a state religion, as I tried to teach you with the example of Turkey which has a Muslim population but is secular (i.e. state has no religion).

re UK: The point people are making is that the UK is not really a de facto Christian country anymore, with a large chunk of its population (about 25%) believing in no religion and a significant portion (about 10%) following religions other than Christianity.

Isitmebut Thu 24-Apr-14 23:57:45

BillyBanter .... a man of few words and they are all profanities. Bless.

CoteDAzur Fri 25-Apr-14 00:00:02

"you grew up in Turkey and didn't think that the fact it is a Muslim State meant it was a rubbish example"

IT IS NOT A MUSLIM STATE hmm

Look up the word "secular".

Let's use it in a sentence: Turkey is a secular republic.

That means, It Is Not A Muslim State.

<waits to see if OP gets it>

BillyBanter Fri 25-Apr-14 00:01:16

I call a cunt a cunt. smile

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 00:13:58

SillyBilly, I know, but it's not big or clever, so ask the nurse to up your meds.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 00:14:36

CoteDAzur…I guess you have come in late as we keep going over the same issues and I made my case over 6 pages now.

The case FOR changing something that has existed here for around 1,500 years appears to be the 2011 Census, where only 10% you say are alternate religions, which means we should change our constitution and whatever else? Would that mean the Uk changing it’s laws to include Sharia Law and any other religious laws so they don’t get left out?

CoteDAzur Fri 25-Apr-14 00:15:31

"I used to visit senior government people there and entertained them back in the UK"

Of course you did grin

"FYI Boris Johnson's family on one side was involved and was murdered for opposing Turkey's secular status"

Your ignorance is complete, it seems.

What Boris Johnson's great-grandfather opposed was Turkey's independence movement, which was obviously successful. He was working to make Turkey a British protectorate through Ingiliz Muhipler Cemiyeti (Anglophone Society). He was lynched as a traitor, but I sympathise with your BBC program which would of course have tried to show it in a more positive light and has as a result has managed to completely confuse you. "Opposing Turkey's secular status"? What, you think Boris Johnson's great-grandfather wanted sharia? grin

CoteDAzur Fri 25-Apr-14 00:21:34

"I made my case over 6 pages now."

You don't have a case. What you have is a long-winded rant.

"The case FOR changing something that has existed here for around 1,500 years appears to be the 2011 Census"

The point which you are spectacularly missing is that the change has already taken place. The UK can't be called a Christian country, simply because 25% have no religion and 10% of the remainder are not Christian.

That means 35% of the country is not Christian, and that is a very sizeable portion of the population. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the UK population is Christian.

"Would that mean the Uk changing it’s laws to include Sharia Law and any other religious laws so they don’t get left out?"

No, that is not what it means.

What it means is that UK is not a Christian country. It is a country with a Christian majority, a sizeable non-religious population and a significant minority of people adhering to other religions.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 00:38:16

CoteDAzur….semantics, they could call Turkey’s religious status Utopia….but if they are at least a 99% mix of Muslim and only teaches one sect at school, there have been relatively recent challenges to the secular title and the majority of Muslims would call themselves that, it is a rubbish example of why the UK should change it’s status.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 00:42:32

Hahaha..why does the 25% go on the Christian 'debit' column?

Until they are asked would they liked to be called Christian or secular, there is no case.

Christianity is not just a meaningless title, it's entwined in our laws etc.

Anyway, I'm off to bed, play amongst yourselves.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 00:45:59

P.S. it was the Turkish Central Bank, it was a long time ago, I probably still have their business cards,but don't worry yourself it matters not.

CorusKate Fri 25-Apr-14 01:05:46

SillyBilly, I know, but it's not big or clever, so ask the nurse to up your meds.

Ah, a mental health jibe. How sophisticated. So very preferable to simply calling someone a cunt.

CorusKate Fri 25-Apr-14 01:19:22

Isitme, society has moved on and left you behind, it seems. These days, most people I know would be far more disgusted by your clever little "meds" quip than by someone swearing. Your hypocritical objections to swear words (which you're seemingly happy to sprinkle your posts with) seem rather irrelevant when you're coming out with things which let us all see how ugly the inside of your mind really is.

hackmum Fri 25-Apr-14 07:45:21

OP, you really aren't very bright, you are also clearly uneducated and you are very ignorant about the subject that you are getting so worked up about. When you're arguing from such a weak position, it makes little sense to abuse people who are much better informed than you are as "stupid". Why not listen and learn? A lot of people on here have been very polite to you, under the circumstances. Look at Cote - she grew up in Turkey and knows far more about it than you do.

And just come back to your answer to me earlier:

"We are not on trial for all things Christian for hundreds of years before, like the stupid, nay PATHETIC accusation missionary’s intended to spread measles and small pox in the course of their work – and certainly to any religions that like to spread their word to non believers by violence to this day."

Neither I nor anybody else said that the Christian missionaries intended to wipe out populations with smallpox, but in fact that is what happened. I was answering your question, which was whether there were any countries that were worse off after they'd been visited by Christian missionaries. I'm sure you'll agree that a population that has been wiped out by smallpox is worse off, rather than better off. Of course, as others have pointed out, missionaries caused a lot of damage in other ways too.

If you are interested in modern examples of Christian intolerance, then consider Uganda, in which the majority of the population is Christian, and which has recently introduced viciously anti-gay laws.

kim147 Fri 25-Apr-14 08:07:59

OP.

There's a lot of data about Christian beliefs in this country.
You could look at the single question in the census or you could look at the more detailed surveys where they ask lots of questions.

What do you think the effect of disestablishment would be in this country?

Would it have a negative or positive effect?

kim147 Fri 25-Apr-14 08:13:29

OP

Why should a country have a religion?
What does it mean to a country to have its own religion?
Should that religion have extra powers in State affairs?
What percentage of a country need to be followers of that religion for it to be declared a state religion?

Look at this map. See how many countries don't have state religions

ivykaty44 Fri 25-Apr-14 08:21:54

Hahaha..why does the 25% go on the Christian 'debit' column?

Until they are asked would they liked to be called Christian or secular, there is no case

The 25% that stated in 2011 census that they have no religion don't need to be asked whether they want to be Christian or secular, they are not Christian and therefore by default they become secular.

I stated myself on the census I have no religion due to the fact I have no religious belief and that would include Christianity. No person would tick the no religion box if they were a Christian as there was a box to tick for Christian.

The Jedi was used in the 2001 census as a protest to the fact that you were unable to state you were of no religion the way the census forms were produced so in 2001 this was altered to allow people to declare they didn't have any religion.

kim147 Fri 25-Apr-14 08:30:00

Clegg said:

""We should remember one of the greatest Christian values is tolerance. We are open to people of other denominations and faiths and none, and that sense of fair play and tolerance is what makes our country very special.""

Tolerance? Really. History and the modern Christian view in Africa does not show that.

Thurlow Fri 25-Apr-14 09:33:13

OK, you probably won't answer this as I'm now apparently too stupid for you to engage with, but let's go and look at the statistics.

Why should the UK change its religious status?

This is something that has to be looked at in terms of the changing beliefs of the country, not just the demographic.

An analysis of the 2011 census statistics shows that:

People with no religion had a younger age profile than the population as a whole in 2011. Four in ten people with no religion (39 per cent) were aged under 25 and over four in five (82 per cent) were aged under 50. This compares to 31 per cent and 65 per cent for the population of England and Wales respectively.

What the statistics clearly show is that the younger population in Britain is increasingly non-religious. People who identify themselves as Christian are more likely to be older:

Over one in five Christians (22 per cent) were aged 65 and over. This is higher than the overall population in 2011, where 16 per cent of the population were aged 65 and over.

This is showing a gradual change in the population. What it means is that over the next few decades Britain will in all likelihood become an increasingly less religious country, particularly a less Christian country.

The ties of church and state in the UK will become increasingly irrelevant. I do truly believe that the church - in fact, all religions - have an enormous role to play with the smaller and larger community as a whole and are generally a force for good. But as the population increasingly defines themselves as "not religious", why should a country, a state, then cling to historic beliefs rather than changing to reflect the actual and current beliefs of its population?

And to answer your question why does the 25% go on the Christian 'debit' column?, well, you've answered that yourself. If Britain is predominantly and historically a Christian country, then it only makes sense that the vast majority of that 25% goes into the Christian debit column.

CoteDAzur Fri 25-Apr-14 11:48:18

Isitme - re "CoteDAzur….semantics, they could call Turkey’s religious status Utopia….but if they are at least a 99% mix of Muslim..."

You still don't understand the difference between people being religious and state having a religion. Please do look up the word 'secular'. At least you will come off this thread having learned something. This may help.

"it is a rubbish example of why the UK should change it’s status"

Do you have problems with English comprehension? I didn't say "UK state should declare it is secular because Turkey already has".

I gave Turkey as an example of a country with Muslim population where the state does not have a stated religion - i.e. a secular republic. And I gave that example because you asked for it:

Isitmebut Wed 23-Apr-14 13:52:35
I know that I can't go to Muslim or other countries and tell them they are NOT a country of Muslim or ant other faith - can you name one that I could?????????????????????????

Grennie Fri 25-Apr-14 12:09:23

<finds I have wandered by mistake onto the pages of the Daily Mail..>

HelicopterDad Fri 25-Apr-14 12:27:25

Our "recent" history (past 1700 years or so) is dominated by Christianity. Before that, I 'm sure there were many other forms of superstitious beliefs and rituals practised on this island.

All of our current "religious" festivals are reinventions/usurpations of pagan celebration dates - unless it was just a coincidence that the birth and death of Jesus is now said to have occurred on the same dates as the pagan winter festivals and spring equinox. It was a very well executed religio-political fudge many many years ago.

If it wan't for the the middle classes pretending to be practising Christians to get their kids into faith primary schools (you know who you are), the churches would probably be completely empty on a Sunday.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-Apr-14 12:28:16

kim - interesting map - I'd like to see it bigger and with the legend, is there a web page link for it please?

HecatePropylaea Fri 25-Apr-14 12:35:45

Is this a christian country? Yes. C of e schools, state and church entwined. Culturally christian. Bankmholidays also christian religious events. I think it is clear that the country operates alongside christianity in many ways.

however, are the people who live in this country actual practising christians? Attending church, praying, observing christian traditions? Living in accordance with christian teachings? No. Not the majority, I honestly believe that most people in this country may say they are christian but they arent actively christian. Iyswim. Christmas is a good example. Distinct lack of jesus in chrismas for a great many people.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-Apr-14 12:45:56

> Culturally christian. Bankmholidays also christian religious events

(As I may have noted before, but perhaps on a different thread) - even there, culturally we're multifaith. Christmas as we all know was superimposed on the pagan midwinter festivals (roman and Nordic); Easter has a pagan name and the symbols of eggs and bunnies comes from that. Halloween is a Christian/pagan mix. Can't think of any other 'christian' religious events celebrated by the population at large.

MinesAPintOfTea Fri 25-Apr-14 12:55:46

I quite like how the OP is dismissing historic attrocities as irrelevant to her rant argument but wants to celebrate the King James Bible.

I'm happy for the church to drift out of public life. Most of our laws are based on Roman law that predates Christianity, not biblical law anyway.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-Apr-14 14:20:38

Yes... from the OP 'So based on our proud history as an ethnic religiously TOLERENT nation' ... our history is deeply religiously intolerant. Apart from the more obvious atrocities, catholics and nonconformist protestants were barred from universities; not sure about catholics but nonconformists were excluded from from holding civil or military office ... that's just the Anglicans fellow-Christians, let alone 'heathens' or atheists (Shelley was expelled from Oxford university for publishing The Necessity of Atheism. Tolerant? confused

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 14:25:21

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 14:26:20

Kim147 ..it is immaterial to this debate which countries DON’T have a religion and may call their differences something else, along tribal lines – WE DO, and it is not just something that can be wiped away in a moment without repercussions e.g. within law and the State.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 14:28:43

CoteDAzur ….Re Turkey, firstly is it really secular, regarding the separation between the religion and State.

Next, why did the Turkish Constitution and Ataturk promote secularism, for political reasons e.g. a restriction on Muslims in government, as well as for ‘freedom of religion’ which we already have.

Immaterial, the point I was making was that I saw no evidence of any country recently changing its historic religious status, due to a recent Census, or increases in those of other religions within the country – and that would include Turkey, where the ‘other’ religions are a rounding error of less that 1%.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 14:32:12

Thurlow….I don’t think that you are stupid, just ‘selective’ in what you chose to take in, once you get the answer to your question.

Regarding your points, first that “it has to be looked into due to the changing beliefs of the country”, I would argue strongly that if we already have freedom of religion and our Christianity does not affect non Christians within this country one iota, nothing ‘needs’ to change.

IMO there are too many ‘intelligent’ people who feel the need for our cultural ‘change’, or a different perspective on our history, where they’d like to teach/preach about what we did wrong, and dismissing all our successes as it might offend someone.

Too many politicians and academics think our culture, parliament, religion, sovereignty, a kingdom that is united for hundreds of years, can all be discarded for something better (including votes for them), but the details of these ‘big picture’ ideals don’t matter, as how can they be wrong wanting change (to something that wasn't broken)?

One has to wonder when Britain’s nose has truly ‘been rubbed into diversity’ and we lose our national culture and become a massive lump of assimilated ‘gloop’ , what these bright people will do with themselves.

Anyhoo, back to the subject, to put things into perspective, 60% of this country considers themselves Christian, the next largest religious group is under 4.8% of our population (at 2.7 million) which are the Muslims, which only seems to have risen from 1.5 million OVER 10-YEARS.

So taking the 25% of ‘no religion’ into account, please correct me if I’m wrong, without asking if any of the ‘no religions’ ticked that box because they are not practising a religion, as a religious protest for being asked (whether optional or not), or for any other reason, we have 60% of the Uk’s population currently Christians and 15% non Christians – so in affect, unless the ‘no religions’ have an opinion on the subject other than don’t care, we would CURRENTLY change our status for 15% of the population, with freedom to worship.

Looking to the future, as it is likely that we WILL remain in Europe (with open door EU immigration and restricted non EU immigration) and the high birth rates of those that arrived in the 2000’s, despite the falling Christian numbers in the 2011 Census, those numbers could significantly change.

But that does not matter too much as there is no direct link between retaining our Christian identity and whether we practice or not – and without the instruction from ‘the people’, which government has the time and recourses to work out all the legal and constitution changes that would be needed to become a state without a religion before then – when there are so many more important issues that actually affect our everyday lives?

I would suggest that if we even half consider changing our Christian status, as we are a democracy we include the definitive question in the next Census.

And that’s all I have to now say on this issue.

CorusKate Fri 25-Apr-14 14:34:18

Isitme, I haven't put words in your mouth; I've copied and pasted your actual words. If you have a problem with those words, the fault lies with you, not with me.

Floisme Fri 25-Apr-14 14:41:09

I think this should stop now. It is beyond embarrassing.

Thurlow Fri 25-Apr-14 14:46:56

our Christianity does not affect non Christians within this country

Only it does. Church and state are intertwined. Schools, for example, include religious education, because of this. It affects me because I would give my right arm for my DC to be bought up without any suggestion of a religious education which pushed one religion over another. RE is good; learning about all the different religious is good; a school, a state, saying this is what you should believe, this is what our country says is the default religion and you should learn more about than other religions... I don't like that at all. That affects me.

Thurlow Fri 25-Apr-14 14:48:06

Also I've reported your comment to Corus because that was personal and offensive - especially you have previously had a go at other posters for making personal comments.

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-Apr-14 14:57:44

>I would suggest that if we even half consider changing our Christian status, as we are a democracy we include the definitive question in the next Census.

Of course, the answer would depend on exactly what question was posed - 'Christian status' could mean various entirely different things. No-one is wanting Christian culture to be discarded as far as I'm aware.

The specific question might be 'should the Church of England be disestablished' but unfortunately I'm not sure many people would really understand what it meant. Simpler, more specific,questions might glean different answers, but they're not the sort of thing that the census gets into (.

How about this:
'Should any group be either discriminated against or privileged on the basis of any religious belief.'

ErrolTheDragon Fri 25-Apr-14 15:01:14

>our Christianity does not affect non Christians within this country

You appear to be trying to speak on behalf of all non-Christians.hmm Thanks but we can manage that for ourselves. Individual believers Christianity does not significantly affect me; state-imposed religious privileges do.

Isitmebut Fri 25-Apr-14 15:51:08

Are only "mental patients" (not my words) with or without nurses on meds?

Interesting how some people try to discredit people for their views, radical or political, I wonder.

I'll take my "state-imposed religious privileges" (yeah right) elsewhere, or from from this thread anyway,

TheHammaconda Fri 25-Apr-14 15:52:38

You're doing a pretty good job of discrediting yourself TBH OP.

Floisme Fri 25-Apr-14 16:01:22

Op there are a number of regular posters who hold anti-secular, anti-immigration or anti-labour party views (although not necessarily all 3 together). Yet I don't think a single of of them has come on here to support you, even though this thread has been running for several days. I wonder why not? Please think about it.

kim147 Fri 25-Apr-14 16:15:00

60% consider themselves Christian?

I take it that's based on the census - you seem to be ignoring more reliable survey data.

What real difference will it make to our lives if we don't have a State religion?

Maybe - children won't be expected to do an act of collective worship.

Maybe faith schools won't be able to take state funding and exclude children who aren't born to religious parents.

Maybe the Monarch will not be the Head of the Church. Perhaps that could fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury rather than a Monarch.

I'm sure our country is perfectly capable of joining the rest of most of the modern world in not having a state religion.

All these pages of replies and no-one's pulled OP up on the "still eat fish and chips out of a newspaper" statement? Good analogy for Christianity in today's Britain though...

slug Fri 25-Apr-14 16:38:01

I know quite a few Christians, including one Vicar, who are members of the National Secular Society because they oppose the damage that privileging Christianity above other faiths or none does to UK society.

hackmum Fri 25-Apr-14 17:48:49

"All these pages of replies and no-one's pulled OP up on the "still eat fish and chips out of a newspaper" statement? Good analogy for Christianity in today's Britain though..."

It's funny, actually, I remember intending to respond to that but didn't. When did chip shops stop using newspapers to wrap up fish and chips? It must have been years and years ago. Still, one quality the OP doesn't possess (among a lot of others) is a sense of historical perspective.

CorusKate Fri 25-Apr-14 19:00:24

OP, now who's putting words in other people's mouths? I never said "mental patients" (though you put it in quote marks to imply that you were directly quoting - naughty naughty), so, actually, yes, those are your words.

grin

We are not on trial for all things Christian for hundreds of years before,

Well, OP you tried to take credit for 1000s of years of Christian activity so it's a little late to back out of it now. grin

Btw I'm pretty sure the Labour Party traveled back in time and killed Jesus if you want another reason to hate them.

turtleback Sat 26-Apr-14 20:18:50

Is Gabbyloggon back?

Gabby is that you??

Isitmebut Sun 27-Apr-14 15:46:06

Floisme….frankly I don’t care who “supports” me, especially if other posters either accept my basic view that there is no democratic reason to change our religious status, or I might have upset them on other issues elsewhere. Lol

As I said I’m not big on any of the changes being hoisted on this country due to bad political judgement; from basic economic incompetence, the selling of our already small gold reserves, any political attacks on our monarchy, giving up our sovereignty by being in the EU superstate without knowing all the facts from both sides - and losing Scotland from within the UK, although totally accept if that is their will, it has been democratically arrived at.

But what seriously bunches my undies, even more than not being given a vote on serious issues that I know about, is a far reaching governmental policy that as they know it will be ‘unpopular’, they decide to keep it secret amongst themselves.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

So the rest of my points ON THIS POST/THREAD re immigration and Labour, were a warning to those who share my views with some FACTS (not blind political hatred as ‘spun’) on the last administration, as they have form on attacking things British for political and/or power gains.

We know in 2001 at the latest that Labour had chosen mass immigration to add diversity to this country and make a political statement to the Right and the increased non EU immigrant figures I’ve already given here on a table, despite our domestic shortages of jobs and homes at the time – which funny old world, also enhances their re election chances.

Yet no one has either justified or excused this policy TO ME e.g. the 2000’s social benefits of that ‘in touch’ Labour policy, or the jobs/homes shortages consequences – and I find that more telling than ‘the meek’ , standing up against those with louder and deflecting voices, on here.

“The rise of religious fundamentalists with a 'deep intolerance' to other people's views has made Christians reluctant to express their beliefs, Dominic Grieve warns”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10781259/Attorney-General-Rise-of-fundamentalism-is-damaging-Christianity.html

“Christians are increasingly reluctant to express their religious views because they are being “turned off” by the “disturbing” and “very damaging” rise of religious fundamentalism, the Attorney General has said.”

kim147 Sun 27-Apr-14 18:40:52

What evidence do you have to state that there is no democratic reason to change our religious status

Most people in this country are not Christian.

So why should Christianity have such power?
Why should faith schools receive state funding?
Why should we have Bishops in the House of Lords?
Why should the PM choose senior Bishops?
Why should the Monarch be Head of the CofE?
Why should schools have a daily act of collective worship of a mainly Christian nature?

If you could answer those - without a rant about Labour and immigration, that would be interesting.

Floisme Sun 27-Apr-14 18:54:27

If you don't find it strange that not a single person has come along to back you up then fair enough. You are however contradicting yourself when you state that there is 'no democratic reason to change'. You acknowledged several pages back that the current system is undemocratic but you said, ''I DON'T CARE' (your caps not mine).

I am not interested in talking about the Labour Party. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

HecatePropylaea Sun 27-Apr-14 22:10:27

re the 60% Christian. My understanding is that about 60% described themselves as Christian, yes, but when asked a supplementary question "are you religious" that figure fell to 29%. I think from that it is clear that people call themselves Christian because they feel that this is a Christian country, rather than that they have a faith and belief in Jesus as their personal saviour. iyswim.

https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/

www.whychurch.org.uk/trends.php
www.brin.ac.uk/figures/#ChurchesandChurchgoers
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22426144

ErrolTheDragon Sun 27-Apr-14 23:25:52

>I am not interested in talking about the Labour Party. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

well, the subject is on the card (ie in the OP) ... most of the posters on this thread are interested in a serious debate about the opening gambit of 'Christian country', from a secularist perspective - but the OP has a general anti-'leftie', anti-immigration agenda.

I think she has seized on the 'Christian country' thing in an 'us vs them' way. In fact, the various non-Christian faith bodies are happy to keep the status quo of religious privilege - because they get a part of it. They get a seat on 'interfaith' groups; they get to open their own religious schools; the rules currently allow for schools to be converted to faith status by a governors coup; they get representation which the large proportion of religiously unaligned don't benefit from.

If she wants to defend against fundamentalists, she would do better to espouse the secularist cause and do away with all this privilege and discrimination.

anonacfr Tue 29-Apr-14 13:02:32

May I direct your attention to this fabulous website?

fstdt.com

Hours of fun/horror/disbelief.

It's rather appropriate in the context of this thread.

HecatePropylaea Tue 29-Apr-14 13:14:25

Thank you for that link. Any chance I ever had of getting off the internet at some point this year has just gone. grin grin

anonacfr Tue 29-Apr-14 18:41:17

I know. grin

Seriously some of these comments are fabulous. I remember a long rambling post about what would happen if you were raptured away while driving your car.

The verdict was that it wouldn't matter because the people left behind would clearly be sinners so crashing into them would be irrelevant.

The best thing about the site is that you get the direct links to the crazy fundie forums.

Isitmebut Wed 21-May-14 18:12:34

Noting Ukip’s prominence come this election and the frightening thought that Farage believes that Ukip could hold the balance of power in the next General Election.

IF repeat IF the UK politically felt the need to change it’s ‘Christian’ designation for votes now and in the future (see link below), on some misplaced view that people in this country don’t care, it would be a grave mistake for the obvious reason.
“Ethnic minorities 'could be almost a third of UK population by 2050', claims think-tank”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ethnic-minorities-could-be-almost-a-third-of-uk-population-by-2050-claims-thinktank-9325660.html

Do not forget that it was the open door immigration issue, EU and other more ‘secretive’ agendas from Labour that gave Ukip (and initially the BNP with splinter groups setting up since) their growing support and where we find our self today, having to listen several times a day to a political party with dodgy motives and few real policies.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

So I can’t think of a better future Recruitment Sergeant for the likes of Ukip than a UK government deciding that society ‘needs’ to change Britain FROM a Christian religious umbrella where all other religions are free to worship, to something far more convoluted – needing time consuming constitutional change – especially if sprung on the electorate mid term, rather than applying for a mandate through a general election manifesto.

Furthermore, what religious can of worms would be opened if each non Christian religion were to somehow be represented in, say, parliament, as there are many cases here and throughout the world where there is strife intra religion, just think of the time consuming political bun fights both intra and inter, as they al vie for position as the Uk tries to fix what ain’t broke - as If schooling is the issue, people are free to set up their own.

Just saying.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now