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.

Grimma -

Yes exactly religion in schools is this drip, drip, drip that there probably is a god, theologians and religious leaders have a special kind of knowledge and wisdom, their authority is legitimate etc...

It's not that it turns out a lot of little Anglicans but a lot of people who get to adulthood thinking that criticising religion is rude and that religious leaders have a greater insight into ethical matters than milkmen.

Bugster - you could equally well ask why does the church continue to foist itself people though state schools and parliament etc... If none of it benefits the church as an institution?

...it's like the argument that no one ever started smoking because of Marlboro ads (....so why did they bother advertising?)

It is either:

drip drip drip, in which case it is an utter waste of schooling time when we have literacy problems to be dealing with. Why are you so intent on keeping something so ineffectual, just grow up,

or

it is full-on down your throat, in which case it must be stopped immediately.

Either way, there should be no place for it in schools - end off story!

TechnoDad thank you. There is either a religious reason for prayers in schools, council meetings etc. or there isn't any reason for it. If there isn't a point, why do it? If there is, stop doing it to my children and I.

my pleasure!

Women bishops? They're certainly working on it, Slug. Many people in the church are frustrated it's not moving more quickly, and would agree with you.

Bugster - I am more than happy to continue to try and have a rational discussion with you, however, I am going to have to request that you actually partake in the argument rather than making wild statements with very little argument or indeed, evidence for your argument.

I have already, numerous times, throughout the thread, explained why in fact, Christianity DOES affect our laws. I really don't like repeating myself endlessly, so read back if you're confused rather than repeating yourself and failing to provide any argument behind your point. I think that could be what is frustrating people. Its certainly what is frustrating me.

FYI most democratic countries have democratic second chambers (e.g. America, most European countries that have two chambers etc).
The fact that Bishops are a minority doesn't mean they don't have power (consider the benefits cap, which I happen to agree with their stance on, but which does prove the power they hold, and it is of course not always wielded for good). Read a book called "Veto Players" on how minority groups can hold power in different systems.

There are plenty of ways to provide a less populist balance (the word you're looking for isn't conservative though). If you do indeed mean conservative - then I merely need to point out that mindlessly keeping things the same for "tradition" is just as bad as mindlessly changing things, and would reference the Lords position of Fox Hunting (defended on the grounds of "tradition" not to mention the upper houses wild class bias). In any case, you are right that traditionally the Lords does provide a Conservative balance precisely because of it's upper class make up (fun fact; the parliament act has only been used once by a Tory government).

Finally, and most importantly, saying that Bishops in the Lords is better than Totalitarian Communism isn't an argument; it what is currently know as a straw man and restricting the options. (i.e. setting up a weak argument to defeat it) No one is arguing for a Totalitarian Communist regime, just a democratic, secular state. Your argument makes about as much sense as retorting to someone who expresses regret at getting hit by a car "well it's better than being hit by a bus" clearly there preferred option was to not get run-over!
It's people like you, who through 5 minutes on Wikipedia could double you knowledge of politics in this country, that make it a miserable place to live and cause subsequent governments to fuck up again and again in the name of "what the country wants".

A further question for supporters of prayers in council, parliament and schools.

Aren't these acts totally at odds with what Jesus told his followers in Matt 6:5-6? Aren't the secularists - advising quiet prayer before the public meeting - not only legally but also more scripturally correct?

MushroomMagee - you have an amazing way with words - respect!

I ask myself why do the self-defined rationalists lose all sense of reason when they condemn religion or what they believe faith to be. For example, they focus on the 12 CofE bishops in the House of Lords but ignore the hundreds of other appointed people in that self same Chamer, including a handful of convicted fraudsters.

Their attack on regligion has all the bile as one might expect of a fundamentalist of any kind and yet they are brazen enough to play the theologian (and generally completely misunderstand the insight) in interpreting the faith and bahviour of adherents (that is ordinary people like themselves) that they clearly so despise. What makes me smile is just how literal they are. (Clearly they haven't had a good Jesuitical education).

Some of the posts here paint a vision where, those who have uniquely recieved the Epiphany of godlessness, would stamp out the beliefs, and not just the practices of Christians. Why is their vision of a country without Christianity so reminiscent of the Soviet Union (without of course the stupendous grain harvests that the country achieved). Why are they so joyless in describing what they aspire to in this life (as of course they will tell us there is no other).

Anyone got any idea whose posts Jumjum was reading to infer what she did just then because I haven't.

Many secularists are also pro-reform of the HOL but that's not what we're discussing here.

A few attack religion in general. As to interpretation - well that varies so much that sweeping generalisations don't cut it. (Mine come from having been a Christian in a very Christian family and a lovely church.)

I haven't read anything that remotely suggests anyone wants anything like the Soviet Union.

GrimmatheNome - you are all so certain, so fundamentalist in how you see the world - black and white, not grey. You are what you claim to despite in others. Some posts imply that schools/parents that promote Christian values are in some way abusive; others tell us what articles of faith mean; and generally you all seem not the sort of people who would be good fun over a glass of wine in a pub. Soviet Union destroyed the physical signs of faith, prevented parents from passing on Christianity to their children - including exile - and that is where I fear the hate on this thread would lead too (with our without the fantasic tractor output).

Perphaps your lack of self awareness of what these posts are saying is the most worrying factor. What was it that Dawkins said on Radio 4 the other day when he was perplexed....... oh yes: Oh God!....

That is such a wild generalisation, jumjum.

generally you all seem not the sort of people who would be good fun over a glass of wine in a pub

Oh dear. That's about the closest you've got to a hit. I usually manage to be good fun with a coke but prefer beer if by luck I'm not driving.

Can I get one thing absolutely straight. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't hate Christians. I have no desire to stop people following their religion or teaching their own children about it.

I'm sorry but your strange comments about people wanting Soviet-style enforced atheism have come out of - well, I don't know where exactly - but not from anything I've read on this thread.

GimmaTheNome - a coke is good too.

OK let me take you to a UK where the CofE is disestablished, state (part) funded Church schools outlawed, bishops removed from HofL and Queen not head of CofE; Monarch allowed to marry who they like (inc Catholic); no mainly Christian assembley in school; the expression of faith in the much vaunted "public square" outlawed etc etc - what positive differences would I experience as a citizen in this country - and what if any are the risks?

1. disestablished CofE would be freer. It would be on the same footing as all the other denominations. Some benefit, no risk.

2)The faith schools issue is a bit of a different thing (because its not just CofE, its not a disestablishment question). The benefit to many of us would that our children would not be discriminated against in schools applications. Teachers who weren't the right flavour of religion wouldn't be discriminated against when applying for jobs.

3. bishops. No unearned automatic privelige. Bishops could of course still become lords by whatever means the upper house is elected/appointed come the revolution reforms. Benefit - fairness, their voices would have more validity if on the same footing as other Lords. Risk - none.

4. queen - I already said I can see no reason she can't still be gov of the CofE. But if she wasn't - no particular risk or benefit, pretty irrelevant.

5. MOnarch marry who they want - risk none, benefit personal.

6. no mainly christian 'collective worship' in schools - Benefit - no imposition of one faith on everyone. No child excluded from part of the school life because parent opts them out. Risk none - parents can take their children to church/mosque/whatever.

7)'the expression of faith in the much vaunted "public square" outlawed ' - I'm not sure what you mean by this phrase so can't comment. I'm happy for people to express their faith.

Presumably you've a list of risks/benefits too?

jumjum you might not experience positive differences because the status quo might work for you. Sometimes undemocratic things work for certain members of a group. That doesn't mean it should continue. For myself, I would really rather not have to choose between being a joyless atheist who removes her child from assembly and letting her stay and participate in something I don't choose for her. I want her to participate fully in a non-religious educational environment.

BTW about half of the people I regularly drink hang out with are religious: Christian, Muslim and Jewish. The fact that they have faith is great for them. I also have Tory friends. Yuk. This thread is about the separation of church and state. Some posters seem to think we are obsessed and hateful. I haven't read a lot of hate on this thread. I'm not talking about banning religion, that would be ignorant and counterproductive. I just don't want me or my child to participate.

GrimmaTheNome - Understanding a UK without a special place, or however you describe it, for Christianity would be like trying to understand say France if the French revolution hadn't happened. You tick off all the reasons why taking Christian heritage out of UK institutions, law, proceedure etc would make little or no difference. I don't know how you can be so certain - where does that faith come from?.

You may not want any Christian influence in schools, courts, Parliament, Monarchy, Councils, etc but are you certain that what may fill the vacuum will be any better.? My fear is that relativism, expedience, equivalence, utilitarianism and pragmatism would become even more prevalent forces in society, politics and our institutions.

I think there still would be 'a special place'. Christianity is embedded in our culture which no-one wants to dismantle. My background is a family of Non-conformists - staunch Christians, but who proudly remember Dissenters having to found their own colleges because they were barred from universities. Now of course that doesn't happen - the Anglican Church still stands. So, if along the same lines schools are no longer allowed to discriminate - how does that damage the Anglican church? People who want their children to be raised with a 'Christian ethos' will just have to take them, (beyond the preschool and yr5 epiphanies).

What 'vacuum'? I'd replace morals derived from a religion by good ethical principles. (and some religious morals are ethically fine ).

MrsTerryPratchett - you make my point.

You can take your child out of a religious assembley (perhaps others do as well) and yet you still want to stop the assembley for others who choose to attend. You could also choose a school - most state schools - where the assembley "mainly" Christian in character is the exception not the rule.

No one is forcing you to participate (and it seems your child is not) - that seems ok to me, more so than you banning such assemblies for all children becuase you have an objection that may not be shared by others.

GrimmaTheNome - but if the diveristy in UK publicly funded bodies (eg schools) in your worldview of the future is reduced how do we protect ourselves against new discriminations? I find it sad that your dissenter heritage, where you had to fight against the established institutions to gain access, education and equality is so easily surrendered on the hope that it isn't like that now.

Why do you see Christian schools as discriminating, as opposed to providing an educational offer - including faith formation - to support parents that would not otherwise be available.

I am not talking about BANNING assemblies. Can anyone tell me why children need to pray at school? I don't know if you have read the whole thread but I was one of those children who left assemblies. Luckily, I am pretty resilient but what if your choice with your child is to take them out, knowing they are shy and would hate it, or leave them in. If I randomly decided to make it law that your child had to prostrate to Mecca 5 times every day at school, what would you think? I would feel about that, exactly how I feel about Christian prayers at school. What if I put it in the agenda for Council meetings and made 20+ imams part of the House of Lords? Just because it is your religion of choice, why should it be imposed on the rich tapestry that is the British population?

You can pray with your children in Church, in your house, in McDonald's and in Trafalgar Square. Why does Christianity have to be part of state funded education? I feel that religion is something you opt into not out of.

Jumjum - I see Christian and other schools as disriminating because they discriminate.

I am not sure what else you would call it when a public service gives priority (which in practice often means excluding others) to children whose parents are practicing members of a particular religion. In any areas of public service that would be called discrimination.

Personally I am not calling for outlawing anything (other than discrimination). I would allow individual schools and their local governors to decide how much prayer, worship, observance of religious festivals etc... they think is right for their whole school. At the moment this is not the case, as the law requires predominantly Christian worship etc... and gives the church the mandate to determine religious character of the schools it directly controls.

I don't think 'faith formation' should be the business of state education. Religious instruction is available for free any Sunday morning all over the country. There is no lack of availability.

If my child in a state school and it was the law or practice to pray to Mecca I would not send my child to that school (or opt out if that was possible). As you do now,

On the one hand you say you don't want to ban assemblies but then cry out IN CAPS against why children need to pray at school. I can understand your heartfelt desire not for your children to be involved in religious assemblies etc but not that all the rest of us have to bow to your desires form the specific to the general. Sounds like UK has got the balance about right?
There are of course Muslims in the HofL - Lords of which none of whom whatever their religion or particular expenses wheeze were elected by any of us.
Finally, you have it the wrong way round: Christianity is not so much part of state funded education as state funded education riding on the backs of the land, buildings, teaching, revenue funding of VA Christian schools.
Let's just beg to differ.

Himalaya - by your definition grammar school, fee paying schools and specialist schools all "discriminate" by dint of IQ, income/wealth and aptitude. State Chrisitan schools don't discriminate on these bases but do allocate places, when and only if oversubscribed, on the basis of critiera that may give preference to faith. That seems an ok bargain between state and church the latter who is often providing the land, buildings, some captial funding, governance etc of the schools. Tear it up in your post-Christian UK but don't expect the assets or many of the pupils to follow into the utopian successor state schools.
I feel your anger is misdirected: against Christian schools that generally provide a good education to their pupils, compared to some community schools which which don't. Even if you were right in theory you are wrong in practice.