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.

No, the red cross isn't Christian

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?

No. The red cross is because the founder was Swiss and he inverted the flag. Pity he didn't choose an unambiguously secular symbol.

The Red Cross have worked with the Red Crescent to develop a mutual symbol, the Red Crystal.

The Red Cross is nothing to do with Christianity - and everything to do with non-partisan neutrality in humanitarian endeavour.

Confusion over the similiarity of the cross symbol (which is actually a different kind of cross from a crucifix) led to the creation of the Red Crescent - but the red Cross remains non religiously aligned.

And how wonderful that they can do it all without an iota of proselytising. No strings attached, just goodness.

Grima -

But if you were going to try to separate out the things that the church does that are of general interest and those that are only for the "believers club" you would have to put weddings, funerals (and weirdly, christenings) into the 'bucket' of things that many people value from the established church without actually wanting religious authorities to have any measure of influence over them or to actually join the club (not me, but I know a lot of people like these things for traditional reasons, and the church plays along with them.)

Then there are things like toddler groups and schools that ought to be open to all and there is no reason why they have to involve worship or prostylitizing.

I don't see the need to separate out those things really. Its entirely optional whether you want a church wedding or a christening. There are clubs which allow non-members to participate - what the heck. These are not functions of the State, they are not funded by the State, they are not mandatory.

Schools are are mandatory, are funded (almost entirely) by the State.

Are we in it for the money then? Are we selling our souls and the souls of our children to the church at a price - so the country can stay afloat financially and keep children in school...that's not a nice thought for either party.

Why does conducting an optional funeral service or wedding give any group the right to have direct access to unelected power in parliament?

The church doesn't run crematoriums or council cemetaries, anyway!

Why does conducting an optional funeral service or wedding give any group the right to have direct access to unelected power in parliament?

It doesn't. Other churches/religions do these things. So, for that matter, do Humanists. These functions are irrelevant to the secularisation question.

And yet they are constantly invoked as a reason why the church cannot possibly be separated from state.

I don't have anything against religion per se, I am not one to be found on MN being rude about religious belief. I just think it wrong, struturally, logically, democratically and morally that the church as an institution has the right to a role in our democratic process. And I think if I was a practising Christian I would be embarrassed by that fact.

Yes, the church founded schools so that education could be available for all (and then the catholic church founded catholic schools because of the discrimination agianst catholic children...). That was good. But that is no reason for officials of the church centuries later to be given free seats on our parliament. It's corrupt!

I cannot bear being a citizen (actually 'subject' according to my passport) of a country in which the Head of State cannot be a catholic. That undermines everything about our credibility to operate in a diverse world. How can we lecture the developing world, or other cultures, on human rights and democracy when women cannot take up bishops places in the Lords?

This stuff matters.

Betty - I don't think it is about the money. The church isn't bankrolling the state education system, it is the other way round - the state is bankrolling the churches' education system (and upkeep of it's buildings) and allowing it to fix the rules so that many parents have no choice apart from a church school.

Yes the buildings "belong" to the church - but as Technodad points out that ultimately means they should belong to the people (us) anyway.

I think governments have over the years given in to the church and 'sold our children's souls' as you put it, not for the money, but for a quiet life, because they didn't want to pick a fight with the Bishops and the Daily Mail.

Himalaya I agree but it's a tired old argument trotted out frequently against removing religious influence from schools...but if it were a legit reason, it's a bit off morally.

I agree it's a morally bankrupt argument on both sides "we own the buildings we get to educate your children" - I think it should be pointed out more often just how off that is.

If the church had any integrity over this they would stop the nonsense of religious discrimination in school entry selection (and employment of teachers), teach the same RE curriculum as other schools and let teachers, parents, children and governors decide how much of a religious character they want their school to have. The church could offer it's staff to run extra-curricular Christian Unions which kids could attend if they wanted.

Once again, Canadians, among the citizens subjects of many other countries, manage to have the Queen as Head of State, educate their children, run youth groups, die, get born and get married without having an official state religion. They have churches, mosques, synagogues and temples without any seeming problem. I just don't understand the problem.

"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."

Does it exists for the well being of its non members? How come it discriminates againsts non Christain children in its selection criteria for schools? They'll take atheist and Muslims only after they've given their members priority and need to fill their places. I can't believe this type of discrimination is allowed to continue.

because then the church schools would be just like any other school. They want the school to have a christian ethos so they take students who have come from this background as priority. Alot of christians want their children to attend a school which have these values (nb my DC don't go to a christian school) and are not happy with the secular approach of the local school.

If they gave priority to other faiths then it may as well be a non demoninational school and then the parents would complain about the christian content etc....

What about other faith schools whilst we are on this subject?

Do they really want a school with a Christian ethos or an Ofsted Outstanding with excellent exam results - I'm willing to bet most parents want a good school, I'm willing to bet that lots of parents attend church to get their kids into a good Ofsted Approved school and when they get in suddenly their new found faith disappears - if these parents really wanted a Christian upbringing for their kids, their faith would last longer than a couple of years before admissions. The whole thing is a sham, imo.

Alemci - who is the "they" ?

They (the church) want the school to have a Christian ethos because they can't get the majority of people to go to church on a Sunday, so this is a way to reach them anyway.

They (the parents) want the school to have a good ethos and be good educationally.

Some Christians and people of other faiths might like faith based schools (or hospitals, universities, playgrounds, housing estates for that matter) ....but it doesn't make it the states business to support discrimination in public services.

NotFluffy, it's funny that you see me campaigning to keep people out of church!

I do think it's a ridiculous and unedifying thing for families to pretend to be more religious than they are to get their dc in to schools. I am not all that passionate about churh schools, tbh - I think that the home is a far greater influence on dc's thinking.

If any of you wants to see women bishops in the H of L (or anywhere else, for that matter!), write to newspapers, talk to people on Synod (if you know anyone), make it known publicly that you are fully okay with this and would like to see it happen soon.

Snorbs, you get institutionalised people in any kind of workplace, esp. those who have never worked outside that context (teachers who go to school, then university, then back to school to teach are v. likely to be similarly institutionalised). In fact, any institution with a high sense of its own identity is likely to engender institutionalised people (the poilce another example - yet most police officers do know how much a pint of milk costs!) But not all teachers are institutionalised, or all police, or all people who work for Waitrose, or any other institution. Saying that someone is irrelevant because they have worked in particular places just comes across as prejudiced.

"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."

Well that's hardly credible is it? I bet Bill Gates has nice things to say about his organisation; probably Pinochet did too. If you're looking for objective appraisal, you can hardly ask the Chief Exec, can you?

As explained above the Church does not exist for the well-being of its non-members. It is a very exclusive social club with a complicated and stringent admissions procedure. Members have more rights, not only within the club, but also within the wider society, than non-members.

Secondly, what about charities? What about all kinds of pressure groups? What about the Green Party? What about all manner of different organisations?

If this is the level of argument I'm afraid I don't see how my opinion could possibly be swayed.

Tess, tbh I agree with whoever it was who said that there are lots of other groups who could say the same - I was going to say that earlier but was dashing out.

What kind of church has strict entry requirements? There are some Protestant non-conformist ones who do, admittedly....what do you have in mind?

I'm not rabidly pro-Establishment - from my POV, the church would not lose anything by being disestablished. But there are aspects of it that I see lots of value in (churh schools actually being quite low down the list). So I'm afraid if you're looking for someone to try and persuade you that Establishment is a great idea and the whole world shoul do it, it's not going to be me!

...but I can see the point of the CoE is for the whole country line (as an atheist and a secularist)...

As I said if the catholic church chose to sell off some of it's buildings and repatriate the money to Rome, that's the business of Catholics. But if the CoE decided to sell a load of village churches, halls, schools etc.. to private developers and use the funds for believers only activities in the UK (or in Nigeria or wherever there are a lot of true believing Anglicans) I think it would be fair enough for a lot of non-members and non-believers to say 'that's not on'. (equally when a local inclusive church hall toddler group gets taken over by evangelical leaders it is fair enough for people to be put out). That's the difference with a national church with a mandate for national benefit.

Removing bishops from the Lords is relatively easy, I think the hard part is all the assets. If we make the CoE a private members club do we say it can keep the bibles, relics and faithful, while the community keeps the buildings, land and public services. I don't think the church would be too happy with that.

Or we say the church can be members only AND keep all the assets it's held in trust for all (...including Oxford St property, acres of prime farmland etc...) That doesn't seem fair either.

Well it would have to be subject to some serious negotiations I suppose.

they - the parents and yes I agree that some people do attend church for this reason but then there are some people who want to go to church and sometimes they don't go to the 'right' church and cannot get there children into the C of E secondary in the area.

Haven't read whole post (just first and last pages) so don't know if it has already been said but.
I assume when you say country you mean the UK? If so it isn't a christian country.
Church in england is disestablished in northern ireland and wales and as such they don't have an established church and so no state religion.
Scotland have the kirk as a national church but it isn't the state church. So scotland does not have a state religion either

England is the only one of the 4 to have an establish - state - church and so the only one that could be said to be an official 'christian country'

Because of that and because of various other laws and such the UK has no state religion and no state church