To think it is about time to stop being a Christian country.

[ShagOBite]

On the council prayers debate, lots of people have said "but we're a Christian country". Why are we? Should we be? How do we go about changing this? It seems so inappropriate and unnecessary in this day and age.

notfluffyatall - I certainly don't get Dawkins. How can such an intelligent man write such dreadful books - books full of fury and prejudice, and without balance and genuine challenge to faith. Now let me play his errring and ahhing again from The Today Programme, choice

Tesstikular how disappointing. You sound like a Lib Dem. Equality of opportunity in a world of such disparity means nothing, Christian believe that the rich cannot get into heaven anymore than a camel get through the eye of a needle,

.

I'm not a Lib Dem.

Equality of opportunity is perfectly possible in this country, if only the privileged would let go of some of their control.

You say that Christians believe the rich can't get into heaven? Well, assuming that heaven doesn't exist, what difference does that threat make? And how can you explain the vast wealth of the Vatican?

And where are your 'Christian values'? It took me ages to write that!

Noooooooo, don't askba Christian that! It inevitably leads to preaching

right, iPhone down, I'm going to sleep.

No! I don't mean "what are your beliefs"!

I mean "I am offended by your rude tone. That's not very (supposedly) Christian of you."

Night fluffy. :)

What I always wonder, when the boo-hoo buckethead type of Christian starts complaining that their superstitions are disrespected and marginalised, is what exactly they are so bothered by? Because sometimes it's a matter of thinly-disguised racism; they are upset about all these dark-skinned people getting 'extra' privilege for their superstitions; this type of Christian is very supportive of discrimination when it's in their own favour, though.

Tesstikular how disappointing. You sound like a Lib Dem. Equality of opportunity in a world of such disparity means nothing, Christian believe that the rich cannot get into heaven anymore than a camel get through the eye of a needle,

You asked Tess for his/her values and you got them - and all you can do is use a patronising attempt at an insult rather than trying to understand them!

Your reply about the rich not getting to heaven is exactly the problem here in my view and why the OP is NBU.

Since most people in the UK think that religion is a load of old tripe (which it is), what possible control will the idea that "the rich cannot get into heaven anymore than a camel get through the eye of a needle" be to someone who isn't religious. Is that really going to stop a wide-boy banker from Basildon putting it all on black - NO. The rules and laws will do. The answer is NOT to try to force everyone to believe in an old made up story though as this is a loosing battle!

The world has had its eye off the ball for ages now. Religion has been (thankfully) becoming less and less relevant, but because the parliament (or equivalent across the world) have not acted quickly enough to replace, the country no-longer has a common value.

I think Tess' values are fine and much better than some old irrelevant text from the past! You strive to be a good person in my view!

I like Tess' post about her values

jumjum

You don't have to get Dawkins, al though it'd be good if you did. Making personal slurs against a man I don't even know is a waste of your effort. I'm not too keen on Jesus, but I've kept that to myself

I didn't see him on tv yesterday but I'm sure he wasn't nearly as polished as your preacher. He's a scientist not a celeb.

Excuse spelling, on iPhone :-)

This all assumes Anglicans are actually Christians, and not lentil weavers in funny clothes - there was a great Not The 9 O Clock News sketch about Anglicans thinking Devil Worship was a "theologically grey area"

Says it all :o

If we're going to talk about values, I think atheists and Christians alike should be judged on actions, not professed beliefs. There are Christians who spend their lives campaigning and working on behalf of the poor and dispossessed, there are others whose concerns for others don't go further than their own family and some whose religion seems to mainly be about being judgemental about sexual behaviour. And do you know what? Atheists also come in all these types. Religion does not have a monopoly on morality.

See, I'm loathe to get into a discussion about where we get our moral values from too, that just opens up the whole thing where theists start talking about how they 'interpret' the bible, no two interpret it in the same way but can be unanimous in telling atheists they're interpreting it wrongly.

jumjum, I asked bugster a straightforward question that was on-topic and polite. She answered it (thanks, bugster!) You are, of course, free to regard that as "bullying and browbeating" if you wish but to do so would be stretching the truth so far it's in danger of breaking.

But thank you for raising the point about syncretism. You're right, Christians being expected to pray to Vishnu would go against your god's requirements of you. (We'll leave aside the issue about how celebrations such as Christmas and Easter are highly syncretic).

But a five year-old child cannot be regarded as emotionally developed enough to make a considered and informed decision about what religion she wishes to follow. It's as nonsensical to talk about a 5yo "Christian" child as it is to talk about a 5yo "Marxist" child. Children are born atheist and apolitical. As such, it is a contradiction to their existing beliefs to impose any religion upon them.

Fair enough, if that's what parents want to do in their own homes then that's up to them but as a mandatory part of all school life in England? That doesn't sound right to me. If a parent wants to raise their child into a Christian tradition then they have lots of time at home to do so. And RE lessons give at least a basic grounding in all the major religions. But imposed worship of one particular form of religion is very different and, to me, morally wrong.

Odd, the only other time I've heard the term "Dawkinists" used was in a discussion with an American conservative Christian. I think she was so wedded to the idea that you have to have a spiritual leader who tells you what to think and how to behave that she simply couldn't get her head around the idea that atheists, um, don't.

So in an effort to try to work out how atheists tick she decided that we must all be following Dawkins in the way that she followed Billy Graham

Religion doesn't even deserve to be a subject in it's own right. It should be merged with history, geography and cultural studies. It's importance needs to be removed. That would go some way to addressing the sense of entitlement that seems to go hand in hand with being a christian in this country.

I started a new job and on the very first day in that job a discussion ensued about euthanasia (it was a topical discussion to the work environment). Immediately after I gave my view that euthanasia should be legalised a woman began with the statement "Well, I'm a christian and as a christian I don't believe in euthanasia, suicide or abortion". Its truly as if she expected that her christian status held some sort of authority and therefore trumped all other opinion.

There is a brilliant Australian comedian called Jim Jeffries who said people who start their sentences with "As a christian....", need to realise that starting a sentence like that shouldn't make them expect that he's going to find the rest of their sentence any more valid than the start. He's the funniest comedian I've seen in a long time, lots of sweary words so if you want to watch the link get rid of your kiddies for a few minutes

"So in an effort to try to work out how atheists tick she decided that we must all be following Dawkins in the way that she followed Billy Graham "

I think the thought of not having a spiritual guide terrifies them so much that they project it onto EVERYONE. Atheism is NOT a religion, there is no great leader.

Morning all. sorbs I would agree that imposed worship of one form of religion is wrong, but I just don't think it really is imposed. children, councillors etc don't have to pray and worship actively, they have just been exposed to it. There's a difference between having something imposed on you and being exposed to it. I would have thought that any children or adults who don't want to join in prayers can just quietly listen or use the time for their own reflection, to think about the common aims of council meetings etc. Does it really harm anyone, to witness someone praying?

There is a brilliant Australian comedian called Jim Jeffries who said people who start their sentences with "As a christian....", need to realise that starting a sentence like that shouldn't make them expect that he's going to find the rest of their sentence any more valid than the start.

When someone starts a sentence "As a Christian...." I usually assume that what they are about to say is much much less valid than someone who has made a personal effort to think about what they are about to say!

But a five year-old child cannot be regarded as emotionally developed enough to make a considered and informed decision about what religion she wishes to follow. It's as nonsensical to talk about a 5yo "Christian" child as it is to talk about a 5yo "Marxist" child. Children are born atheist and apolitical. As such, it is a contradiction to their existing beliefs to impose any religion upon them. - SPOT ON!

I would agree that imposed worship of one form of religion is wrong, but I just don't think it really is imposed. children, councillors etc don't have to pray and worship actively, they have just been exposed to it. There's a difference between having something imposed on you and being exposed to it.

I disagree. A 5 year old child is not equipped to decide what elements of their schooling is fact and what is opinion. Besides, my son was told on the first day of school that he MUST put his hands together and pray (when he was sitting quietly during prayers). He is too scared to not do it now - I would say that is enforced!

As I said earlier, children in my DC's standard non-denominational primary school were taught the Lord's Prayer. And, according to my children, they had to join in. That's not witnessing someone else praying, that's being forced to actively pray to a specific god of a specific religion. That is as unreasonable to me as your children being forced to pray to Vishnu, Thor or Zeus is to you.

Do you really expect a 5yo to have the presence of mind and forcefulness of spirit to argue the point that they should not have to join in with prayers in such a scenario?

But my Dd is 5, bugster. She doesn't have any real idea that it's at all optional, and no, of course I'm not going to stop her being in the school play. But she's singing about her maker, listening to the minister tell her to behave as god wants - she's being presented with being a Christian as a default. And of course she wants to do what her teachers say.

Now, I had 18 years of catholic teaching and came out an atheist, so you might say so what - I just want to know why the law imposes worship on 5 year olds. At that age they really are not choosing at all.

bugstar

Your assertion that essentially we should just all suck it up and think about something else brings me back to my (f**king) question, why can't you just do it in private? If it's before a meeting and you think god has some spare time from killing African babies to ensure your meeting goes well, then pop into a wee corner somewhere, on your own or with your kind, before the meeting is due to start so as not to inconvenience those who don't want to pray, and have a word with your god in private.

And I fully agree with Technodad about the kids, don't put my child in this position, it should be my choice not to have my children subjected to something I perceive as false. Let christian parents take their kids to church and pray in their own momes and in their own time.

Here's a question, that I really don't know the answer to. If the C of E and RC church pulled all their funding for primary and secondary schools in the UK (and the praying in schools disappeared overnight), would the government be able to afford to keep those schools open? Having lived through the trauma of my dc's outstanding state (non-church) primary school being shut down so that land could be sold off for property development, I do wonder if the government would be able to cope without church schools...

Maybe the churches could start paying tax, that'd cover education and a few hip replacements to boot

Hey Holo

Please don't bring up transcendence, pretty please?

....and on the same kind of theme, if the C of E stopped taking the 70% of funerals they take currently in the UK, who would do them?

....and if Christian churches stopped running the 80% of all youth clubs in the UK, who would make up that shortfall? Would anyone, really?

.....and if the 26 C of E bishops' seats in the House of Lords were re-allocated, is there any equivalent type of person with the same personal investment in, and knowledge of what real life in the UK is like, who cuold take their places? If so, who?