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.

Utilitarianism? Don't you think that religious freedom contributes to happiness? Do you think that current laws concerning belief contribute to unhappiness?

As for separation of church and state: thankfully our Christian country upholds the rights of all Christian and non Christian people's. Our laws, while not perfect, allow for expression of religious and non religious belief and grants rights to the individual while ensuring that individual religious belief does not curtail the freedoms of others.

I doubt even the queen believes in God.

A friend of mine is a vicar and isn't sure.

Figgy I doubt its changed as much as you might hope it has, particularly in the more rural area - though I've moved into a city in the last year so am not so affected.

When my DC start school it will be to one of the 3 CoE schools in the catchment area, there aren't any others. When they attend they will be with mostly Muslim children, many who don't speak English - its seems totally daft for it to be a CoE school. It doesn't serve the community that it is in at all.

Moving isn't an option for us, we are here because of DH's job and will be here for 5 years at least, its just a case of put up and shut up sadly. I don't like the idea of my DC having to go to a CoE school, probably a fair few of the Muslim mothers aren't too chuffed about it either.

TBH the schools thing isn't my main reason for wanting a separation of state and church, its more for all the well put reasons that Mushroom stated.

And yeah, given the choice I bet QueenLiz would choose to be head of state over head of church. Its a no brainer.

Or maybe she could have a little principality in Windsor and be like the Pope!

I suspect if you're unsure about God being a vicar is a natural job to take. I mean if you're utterly sure on way or the other, it'd probably interest you less.

That's a really good point Jericho, I hadn't thought of it like that.

I've never dared ask my vicar ... just going off what it sounds like when I hear vicars talk about it all.

They must also discuss doubt with parishoners a lot.

I know two vicars socially, neither seem overtly religious. In fact, the one thing they have on common, is that people (even strangers) always get the overwhelming feeling they (the vicars) want to hug them. It must be instinctive.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed. Interesting chat, lovely to make your acquaintance. :)

And yours Heady, excellent chat. :)

Ah, Shag, its a pleasure!

It was lovely to chat. Night all.

Another mushroom fan here.

Regarding people putting their religion down as Christian in surveys, I remember asking my mum what I should put in the Religion box on a hospital form I was filling out when I was 13 or 14 as I didn't have any real beliefs but I wasn't sure how to express that in a little box. She said "Oh, just put down CofE". I suspect a lot of people continue to do much the same even if they don't give any thought to god from one month to the next or have any real religious beliefs. It's a handy default statement but it is often largely meaningless.

Arguing that we should continue with having one particular version of one particular religion as the preferred religion because that's what we've "always" had is nonsense. For a very long time it was traditional that women weren't allowed to vote. And you could make a convincing argument that that state of affairs was at least partly encouraged by the sexism in the Bible. We've got past that particular example of muddled thinking and I'd like to see us do the same for a state religion.

I don't care what people choose to believe. What strongly gets on my wick is when one person's superstitious beliefs are used as a reason to restrict what another person is allowed to do. If the religious could be relied upon to just follow their beliefs while letting other people get on with their own lives and without demanding special favours then great. Sadly that does not seem to be possible in a lot of cases.

Having one particular version of one particular religious belief as one marked out as receiving special favours - as is the case with the Church of England - is divisive in what is, and always has been, a multi-cultural society.

The Queen's involvement is irrelevant as she is effectively a powerless figurehead. We could very easily remove the requirement for prayers in school assemblies (while still keeping RE as a subject), remove the perks afforded to the CofE and make this a secular society without affecting the Queen's position or forcing anyone to stop believing what they like. All it would do is stop this nonsense about having a special state religion.

Utilitarianism? Don't you think that religious freedom contributes to happiness? Do you think that current laws concerning belief contribute to unhappiness? First point, absolutely but you don't need a state religion to have religious freedom. In fact, I would argue that religious freedom includes my right to be free of religion and therefore have no state religion. Second point, I think that the current law regarding collective worship in schools makes me unhappy. Does it make enough people happy that it counteracts this?

I discussion is kind of moot. Various studies have shown that we are becoming more secular so religion has less influence on our lives. I mean. how many of us will be going to church tomorrow? Not a lot, judging from the number of shoppers that I see at Bluewater on Sundays.

So whether people choose to describe the UK as a Christian society has no real impact on most people's lives so why get worked up over it?

Pushy Because everything you say is correct, I'd rather that the leaders of a church that very few of us have any connection to don't have any influence on what legislation can be passed here.
The more secular we become the more daft it is that the church has any role in passing laws.

I think it matters. when If I go to courts accused of something, I would be far happier knowing the country trying me believes in proof rather than beardy wizards sitting on clouds.

How can we be a modern country when we (the country) thinks the world is 6000 years old, dinosaurs are a big test and the Himalayas were put there because beardy wizard man thought they would be good feng sui?

Disagree it is a fundamental to our identity

MrsTP, please excuse my ignorance, what is the law pertaining to worship in schools?

The fact the state has a religion does not prohibit you from not having one, nor does it prohibit others from practicing other religions. Yet you seem to be proposing that your beliefs should prohibit the state from having a different one. Is that correct?

TiggyD, where do you live?

I'm on my phone so I can't link but I linked to the law on collective worship further up the thread. Essentially I object to "broadly Christian collective worship" in State schools. I also object to state funding of Christian schools.

I don't think lack of a religion or atheism is a 'belief' in the same way that religion is. You don't have to have faith in taxation and law and education which are the proper functions of a state. Therefore I think the proper state is there to run the big ticket organising and not to endorse a religion.

There's a story on the BBC website where the former arch bishop of Canterbury is whinging on about how Christianity is being "marginalised". Note that this chap is Lord Carey, an honorific he gained purely by virtue of being a Christian. How terribly marginalised he has been

why thank you :o

Dione: I thought I had defeated all those points earlier?!

Utilitarianism? Don't you think that religious freedom contributes to happiness? Do you think that current laws concerning belief contribute to unhappiness? Again, you are actually arguing on "my" side, yes religious freedom does contribute to happiness, hence why we should actually have religious freedom guaranteed! Currently, we actually don't: whilst we are not as fundamentalist as some other countries, religious views do impact on our laws. Which does not allow for full religious freedom. I am not free to practice what I believe in as the laws in the country which I live has laws regarding for example, fertility treatment that is not influenced by science, evidence or research but by christian ethics.

As for separation of church and state: thankfully our Christian country upholds the rights of all Christian and non Christian people's. Our laws, while not perfect, allow for expression of religious and non religious belief and grants rights to the individual while ensuring that individual religious belief does not curtail the freedoms of others. Again, its not a christian country. No they don't allow rights to non christian people fully, as we cannot escape laws which are based on Christian principles. I can't say: "could I be exempt from that law because I don't support that ethic and think it SHOULD be allowed" they apply to eveyone, Christian or not. Despite the fact that they are based on principles that are relative to Christians but perhaps not Muslims, Hindu's or Sikhs. That means that whilst not individual, a minority religious belief does in fact impact rather a lot on the majority.

Also, the state is not a person, therefore it does not have and is not entitled to a "religion" or a personal belief system in the same way that you or I can. It is there to enable the population to live as freely as possible, and its lack of a religion does in no way inhibit other people from practising theirs, however, if it were to "possess" a religion then that DOES affect people from practicing theirs. For example, if I disagree with the use of contraception due to my belief, I am free to not use any. This in no way affects another member of society. However, if the state also possesses this ethic, and enacts a law that prevents anyone from using contraception, that means no one can use contraception and is forced to live by that set of morals, whether or not they subscribe to it.

Pushydad: The point I'm making is that is does impact on everyone's lives, whether or not you are aware of it, the laws in this country are directly affected by Christian ethics, despite the fact that less than 30% of the country are actually Christian.

Which religion would you like? ShagOBite?

how about no religion Goingforgoalweight?