AIBU to ask why Christians seem to make everyone so angry?

[Bardette]

Any post involving Christians or the church seem to attract an extra level of venom from some and I wonder why?

It is a valid point really. We would never label all Muslims as terrorist as a result of the actions of a few. It is important to remember thats the views of some individuals no matter how powerful don't represent the views of all, or even the majority.

Sadly, lots of people do just that, sirzy.

Unless people belonging to a particular religion are actively speaking out against wrongdoing in their own church and challenging cover-ups and excuses, who's to know what their views are on these matters?

If they stay silent and remain members of that church, I think it's reasonable to assume they are ok with what's being done in their name.

The last 2 Lords I met were muslim and jewish respectively. Not a 'religious' privelege but more a 'boys club' thing. Just saying.

I don't like generalisations. Sadly with all groups, it's the most vocal/outrageous that get heard.

With regards to schools around here, the CofE ones are mainly muslim, whereas the other 'religious' ones are mostly of that religion only.

Nicename members of the House of lords who are there because they have a title can be whatever religion (or none) they want; these people are called the Lords temporal. However there is a complete category of members known as the Lords Spiritual - these are the bishops who's title is actually Lord Bishop.

So they sit in the House of Lords and can vote there specifically because they are high ranking churchmen in the CofE, no other reason.

Another example of religious privilege, allergic.

Any any attempts to remove these privileges are shouted down by the religious as "discrimination".

Children cannot chose the church/religion they are brought up in (if they are brought up in one) anymore than their citizenship.

nicename you know about the seats reserved specifically for Christians in the Lords don't you? They are in addition to any Lords who just happen to be Christian anyway. They are extra seats to ensure the continued power of the church.

Being say French doesn't make you responsible for everything French people do, but actively supporting an organised religion is something else. If you give them money and campaign for them you share some of the responsibility for their crimes. If you tell other people's children that this organisation is good and safe and to be trusted then you must accept some of the responsibility for the outcome.

Since there are a lot of threads about how Christians have a right to force the children of atheists (and Muslims) to worship the Christian god I think it's quite appropriate to remind them of their responsibility.

Children cannot chose the church/religion they are brought up in (if they are brought up in one) anymore than their citizenship.

They can choose how they act when they are adult. I don't know if you know this, but a Christian can become an Atheist, a Pagan, a Muslim or anything else. We don't have a law against it like some countries.

But I take your point that compulsory worship for children makes it harder. You will be against it then?

By that token, every voter in the UK should be held responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, for shipping children overseas to the colonies in the 1950s and for colonialism in general. It is a dangerous notion.

Actually we do share a certain responsibility for the past actions of our society. It's not a great one because we can't go back in time and change it, but anyone who glorifies those days, anyone who speaks of "returning to the British Traditions that made us great" and so on is aligning themselves with those actions.

If our current government (or the last one as they were just as bad) treats people badly then the voters share some responsibility for that and more so if they praise them as it happens. If they shout down any objection and say that "It's Tory bashing' then they are helping them carry on doing it.

Nothing wrong with responsibility. I think more religious people should give it a try

Kisses are you saying that, for example, the Quakers formed their own Society of Friends because the Church they were leaving wasn't nasty enough? You really can't be serious!

New denominations form when a group of Christians disagrees strongly with the teachings of the existing Church. No other reason than that. Many try to go back to the original teachings, stripping away all the oppressive rules that make following certain denominations so arduous.

The same problem has occurred with almost every religion: the origins are simple and straightforward, a Truth that many understand and agree with. Then along come the rule-makers and agenda-dealers that distort that original message. Just look at how the original 10 Commandments of the Jewish faith was expanded into books and books of petty little rules that must be followed to the letter.

Tanith, some church groups that have left the mainstream have been less oppressive than the church they left and some more oppressive. There isn't anything intrinsically better about being a member of a non conformist church.

And the Ten Commandments are not a good basis for a system of morality.

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife"

Indeed, almond

No need for the snideness Back.

I don't think it's as simple as people consciously choosing to belong to a religion. The C of E is England's state religion. This does associate the spiritual with the temporal in England. There are laws recognizing it as the established church and giving it a privileged status. I don't know if many western countries have a specific established church, but England does, not just historically, but right now. Whether you agree or disagree with this is an entirely different matter. If many people felt strongly, maybe there would be a campaign to disestablish it. Or maybe the electorate would vote in parties in which the disestablishment was part of their manifesto.

What percentage of people tick C of E (or is it Christian) on the census form? I think it's quite high in relation to real adherence. I don't they are all consciously choosing to 'believe' in their church doctrine any more than they are choosing to be English. Many people tick the box of the religion they were brought up in, even if they have in the world to do with it anymore. It's a tribe thing. They may choose to have christenings, marriages and funerals in churches, but these are handy and ready made hatch, match and dispatch venues and ceremonies.

As the C of E is the established religion, their school network is so large it is like a state school system. Are there many truly non-denominational primary schools in England?

It may be less entangled other European countries France .

I should proof read. Nothing in the world. entangled in.

I'm not venomous about Christians, but I do object to the amount of influence the Church of England has. It should have been disestablished by now, there should not be bishops in the House of Lords, there should be no such thing as faith schools and non-denominational schools should be secular, not "broadly Christian in character."

I like many of Jesus's teachings (and try to follow them) but I just don't believe any religious belief should override the law- I feel the same about Muslims, Jewish, any religion btw. Fine for people to practise it up to the point where it crosses the line with the law- then no allowances. No discrimination against women, gay people or whatever because your religion tells you to.

Of course it's true that the numbers of practising Christians is quite small and people do just tick the box. I'm not sure that changes anything.

If someone is not really Christian, but just assumes they are because their parents were then it's up to them to decide what they want to be.

If they openly identify themselves as Christians then at the very least they are helping those who say things like "There are a billion Christians in the world and therefore we should be able to break the law if we want".

If they are not identifying themselves as Christians and don't consider themselves really Christians then they can't really be offended by remarks about Christian behaviour.

If they are offended they can come on and say "no you are wrong. Christians are good and the church should be encouraged" but then they must take some responsibility for any consequences.

That's what I'm saying, Almond. I'm countering Kisses' claim that new denominations always leave because the existing Church isn't nasty enough.

I wasn't aware we had a "state religion" in England, bird

I work in two non-denominational primary schools, bird.

Thank God

The C of E is recognized by law as the official religion of England. That is a state religion.

Real and hard core absolutely non-denominational? And not just one, but two! Are you in England?

We do indeed have an official religion, suburban. Look it up. Just because you didn't know doesn't make it any less true. Also I think you'll find your non-denominational school is breaking the law if it doesn't provide education of a Broadly Christian Character.

I think you'll find your non-denominational school is breaking the law

Yes it is. If children want an education in this country then the price is to worship the one true god.

And when many Christians say it must stay like that it helps answer the question in the thread title.

Katnip you may possibly be misunderstanding the law though. It requires worship not education. Education is separate and no one seems to object to that.