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.

perhaps it depends on the church. Ours does do things for free such as games nights for kids etc and holiday clubs.

The C of E doesn't represent all christians.

The world is interwoven but GB still has a strong christian heritage and I would prefer it to stay that way but I am probably in the minority on this thread

We can't now remove the UK's history, even if we wanted to, but I've yet to find anyone who makes that claim.

Religion doesn't really have a huge influence on politics anymore, the Bishops need the boot and education needs secularising. Some laws exempting the religious from adhering to the same rules as the rest of society need tightening.

Will you answer my questions alemci?

It is. Bearing in mind the true definition og secularism (please google if unsure , no one is going to be bulldozing St Pauls, destroying religious artworks or banning religious music. Why do you still feel the need to have your religious faith foisted on those who don't want it? Like me. Can't you just do your worship in private, away from me and my children and others who choose not to be a part of it?

Archbishops in touch with real life? Let's take Rowan Williams. Studied theology, lectured in divinity, dean and chaplain of Clare College Cambridge, canon of Christ Church, Bishop of Monmouth etc.

He's spent his entire life in and around the church when he wasn't in academia. Never been on the dole. Never had to worry about where his next meal is coming from or how he will pay the rent (quite likely never had to pay rent at all).

He now experiences the full range of real life and the hardships of his parish from his humble abode in Lambeth sodding Palace where has some very stylish clothes made from gold thread and a natty hat to wear when he wants to dress up a bit. That is, of course, when he's not slumming it at the Old Palace in Canterbury.

My, now there's a man who really knows what life is like for the average English man or woman in these troubling times

Mark Steel said (on Radio 4 - The News Quiz), that he once shared a taxi back from a recording of Question Time with Baroness Warsi. She apparently wouldn?t shut up all the way home and all he could think was that he just wished the car would crash and kill them both so that he could prove her wrong.

I know how he feels?.

Snorbs

Lol. Yes, I bet the poor man is living in one room of that palace because he can't afford to heat the rest. We should email him and tell him to put on layers, maybe he should wear his dress over his jeans and a wooly hat under his pointy job. Poor poor man :sad:

what question Fluffy

Personally I think Rowan is weak and wishy washy, prefer George Carey

I wrote it underneath my request to you.

I do tend to worship in private if that is what you mean and I sometimes go to church on Sunday. I am not an anglican.

Why the sad face Fluffy. christianity is full of positives and sets you free. Don't worry I am not going to bash you with a bible.

I am a secularist, but I can see that this is not straight-forward in a country with an established church, and one which holds huge assets in trust for it's parishioners (which to a certain extent includes everyone not just believers).

Much as I would like to see religious influence privatised, I don't think CoE assets (which includes churches and schools but also loads of farmland, housing and commercial buildings operated as a landlord) can just be privatised to believers.

For example, if the Catholic Church or a sect of Judaism found that it no longer had enough congregants in a particular area I think it would be fair enough for them to close up, sell the buildings and invest their money in assets to serve their congregants elsewhere (evening that means in Israel, Ireland or Rome or wherever). These religions are like private clubs, they can what they like with their own assets. I don't think the CoE can or should do that (e.g. Selling up and transferring assets to Anglicans in Nigeria say).

I am not sure how you solve that so that the church can fulfil it's legitimate role as a club for adherents, without privatising assets that
were meant for the benefit of the people of the country?

The trouble is it can be too much of a temptation for a club that is losing members to use it's assets to retain an unbalanced share of power and influence (...as with school admission rules used to get bums on seats in church..). This relates to Holo's point about "who will run the youth clubs" etc... But holding people to ransome by sitting on national assets is not exactly the moral high ground.

Bother, just wrote a reply to NF's qu and the internte cut out....

Basically - from earliest times Christianity has been a communal endeavour. The idea that it should be kept private is only about 200 years old. the provision of services to communities has always been patr of Christian outreach.

And....no, christians wouldn't stop doing good if the church were disestablished - but what they could do would be lessened - thereby creating a gap in the provision of services, which I doubt could be filled by the Government / other organisations.

Snorbs - you don't have to have experienced something yourself to empathies with / help those who suffer. There are lots of sufferers who are completely selfish.

But you do have to be well in touch with oyour own humanity.

and the type of thinking that goes on in churches and universities helps people be well in touch with their humanity. This 'ivory tower' nonsense is just plain rubbish.

Hi Himalaya!

William Temple (20th c. Archbishop of Canterbury) said that the church is the only organisation which exists for the well-being of its non-members.

Right, I'm off out now!

And....no, christians wouldn't stop doing good if the church were disestablished - but what they could do would be lessened

You say that as if it were a certainty. I genuinely cannot understand why that would be the case. The Roman Catholic church was disestablished with extreme prejudice four hundred years ago and that doesn't seem to be struggling too much in providing baptism/marriage/funeral services or social clubs.

As for academia, I work in a university. I know how out of touch with reality many academics are, particularly the ones who have spent their entire working lives in such institutions. That goes double for Oxbridge academics such as Rowan Williams, who are surrounded by centuries of often bizarre tradition and typically the most wealthy of students. I imagine he fits right in amongst many of the rest of the Lords but I bet he hasn't a clue how much a pint of milk costs.

Apart from heritage, history etc, can anyone give a really good reason why there shouldn't be a seperation?

What right do the bishops have to sit in the lords? Why shouldn't I be able to have a secular education for my child?

I see the queen's at it today, 'the importance if the church' blah blah blah, of course it's important to her, without it she'd be worse than useless!

Why does anyone assume that a call to secularism is a call to man the barricades for some sort of cultural revolution in which statues are torn down, churches razed to the ground and history books burned?

A council or parliament that says Christian Prayers as part of it's official proceedings is clearly aligining itself in a religious context. We haven't voted for this, it is therefore undemocratic.

I daresay many bishops are suitably fine individuals - they are there as the male-only representatives of a church, and have not ever been voted for by me (or in fact the congregations of the CoE) .

It quite simply goes against democracy.

"....no, christians wouldn't stop doing good if the church were disestablished - but what they could do would be lessened"

Only if what they do is against the wishes of the electorate!

Of course it does.

My post was in reference to blu's original post.

Much as I would like to see religious influence privatised, I don't think CoE assets (which includes churches and schools but also loads of farmland, housing and commercial buildings operated as a landlord) can just be privatised to believers.

Who paid for these assets and who dies in the process of building them? The people of the united kingdom.

There should be no question as to ownership of this land and assets. Built for the people, by the people!

Hi Holo -

Yes that's what I meant. I guess universities are another institution that exist for the public good beyond their direct membership - publishing research and expanding knowledge etc...

The ancient universities had religious roots but have basically managed to secularise so that they don't privilidge religious views or authority. I wonder if the same is possible for other culturally Christian parts of the CoE - schools, weddings, funerals, village halls, and the assets held in trust for the nation. And then the other stuff - Sunday mornings and Alpha courses etc... could be spun off,

Western civilization has it's origin in ancient Greece. Democracy, philosophy, science, medicine etc. Also someone said that Islamic civilization contributed a lot too. They preserved the Greek work that was destroyed by early Christian society and this was knitted back into the western world eventually.

Hima - I don't think there's any need for the status of weddings or funerals to change. These are already secularised in that there are plenty of alternatives and no-one is now forced into the religious options. The ridiculous rules about where one could marry which existed when I tied the knot have gone, thankfully.

William Temple (20th c. Archbishop of Canterbury) said that the church is the only organisation which exists for the well-being of its non-members.

When he said that he was wrong and he's even more wrong today. Have you never heard of the International Red Cross? Amnesty International? Médecins Sans Frontières? The European Court of Human Rights? I could go on.

He he, holo might campaign to ban heathens from churches after the separation, no more fancy church weddings for us.

(I opted for registry office anyway, not surprisingly)

Snorbs - you could add the NHS and Social Services. Perhaps he was nearer the truth if he'd said club rather than organisation - but even then, there are clubs like Rotary and Lions which (AFAIK) are primarily aimed at helping others.

Isn't the International Red Cross a Christian organisation, hence you also have the Red Crescent and Magen David Adom to differentiate the Muslim and Jewish equivalents?