to think there is nothing wrong with saying britain is a christian country

[Slutbucket]

I have no strong opinion about David Cameron but I don't think h e has said anything wrong in describing Britain as a christian country. Our main holidays are Christmas and easter, the head of state needs to be protestant and much of our history and traditions are based around the christian religious calendar. We are moving to a more secular society but I can't see these traditions dying out. I live in a very multi cultural area where all festivals are celebrated. I have friends from many cultures who are not alienated by the christian festivals. Many send Christmas cards as a mark of respect (and some just celebrate Christmas because they like the festival) some people are not religious but will celebrate these festivals in some form ie buy an Easter egg for their children, celebrate pancake day.

Churches every mile or so in any populated area. Christian festivals celebrated on television, radio and in the vast majority of schools. Bibles freely accessible. I am really having trouble understanding how anybody would feel that their ability to be a Christian was somehow under threat.

Is the problem that historically Christianity thrived as an outcast religion and people like to pretend its like the olden days?

I don't like Cameron and I'm not religious but I can't see anything wrong with saying this is a Christian country. We swear on the bible in court, recognise Christian holidays. I would rather we were Christian than started trying to accommodate Sharia law etc.

I don't think we should swear on the Bible in court. I have no Christian faith (or any other religious faith) and so for me, swearing on the Bible wouldn't mean a damn thing. I could happily do it and then lie.

Sharia law has some interesting things to contribute, IMO, particularly on the issue of borrowing/lending money.

you don't have to swear on a bible in court - I didn't

If DC is so keen to be Christian is he going to start listening to the leaders of the Christian church in the UK when they tell him his policies are immoral and damaging?

Oh and as to Birmingham - that's what happens when you take power away from the LEA and allow anyone to open a school - another Tory policy

gordy, then I stand corrected and am quite relieved that, this being the case, I WOULDN'T be able to lie in court!

I totally agree that if he's going to talk the talk he needs to look to his actual behaviour and policies.

You're dead right about the school thing too. Chickens coming home to roost.

Whatever the history or 'tradition', I shudder at the premise of a modern politician conflating any independent self-governed geographical area with a dominant religion.

I also utterly reject the premise that religion = good moral character.

What is the situation regarding Birmingham. Can a wise mumsnetter fill us in?

He knows that he can state a fact - "Britain is a Christian country" - which, in some senses, is indisputable, for which his clear subtext and implication is "It is morally right that Britain is a Christian country, and we should maintain the Christian power structure and have laws that favour Christianity".

YES YES YES to this. Thanks for articulating something that I couldn't have begun to.

I took some of his subtext to be that as he shrinks the state so the Church can fill the void. The Big Society.

yes - the Church already does ...with things like food banks - which his supporters attack at every opportunity

Yanbu and I agree totally.

Corus has nailled it, I think.

Merrymouse- why would we yield to the strongest faith group, you ask.

Because when the vocal, agitating groups are the only ones who are bothered, they get their way.
Why do we have halal meat served in our schools? many of us disagree with the halal method of killing animals, but we don't gat to influence the decision. just one example.

When people say "this is a Christian country" it's generally code for "it's a DECENT country, not like those countries full of Jews, Muslims and Hindus"

and yes it's often followed by a claim that Christians shouldn't have to obey the law and treat people fairly.

In this case though our beloved leader is just playing manipulative games to swing votes. He probably despises Christians too, or at least the working class ones.

"Because when the vocal, agitating groups are the only ones who are bothered, they get their way."

I think that is democracy. Nothing to stop anybody being vocal, agitated or bothered.

Atleast schools selling halal meat probably aren't serving horse. It hasn't been an issue for me as my children have always attended schools where there is only a packed lunch option. I think that argument would be stronger (children forced to eat halal meat) if we didn't have a long tradition of serving meat of dubious origin (turkey twizzlers) to our children without any one batting an eyelid.

But if one tries to speak out against, for instance, halal meat, there are accusations of racism If the present law system - based on 'Christian' values is not considered fit for purpose, would you shrug off the adoption of Sharia Law, as 'it isn't an issue ' for your children as they won't be affected?

When people say "this is a Christian country" it's generally code for "it's a DECENT country, not like those countries full of Jews, Muslims and Hindus"

EXACTLY. And possibly also 'this is a white country.' This is what I find problematic about Cameron's little stunt (as well as all the other things I find problematic about it).

RandomInternetStranger

we don't HAVE to have a Christian monarch, we have in the past had Catholics and a Puritan and I see no reason a different religion couldn't come into it again down the line once this line ends

Apart from the fact that Roman Catholics are Christians, and Puritans were a sub-type of Protestant (i.e. more of a movement within the Church of England), there's a very good reason why we have to have a Church of England Christian on the throne.

It is illegal for Roman Catholics to be British monarchs. Act of Settlement 1701. Anyone who even marries a Roman Catholic removes themselves from the line of succession. The most recent example of this is Prince Michael of Kent, whose wife, Princess Michael of Kent was/is Catholic.

Unless that Act is repealed, we will never have a monarch who isn't a Protestant Christian.

Surely that would be discrimination and against the European Convention of Human Rights which supercedes all domestic laws? Even royals have those. I can't see that holding any weight if it ever actually came down to it. And I know they're all much of a muchness but if followers really believed Catholicism and Puritan... (Puritanism? Puritanicalism? Puritanitartanism??? Whatever you know what I mean!) were truly the same then Mary wouldn't have had such a problem with heretic Elizabeth, Cromwell wouldn't have started his little hissy fit and Ireland wouldn't have battering the shit out of each other for decades. They have some very different beliefs, some in clear juxtaposition with each other. I see no reason why a Muslim or Jew couldn't one day head the monarchy, stranger things have happened! As long as they accept our traditions and ways for what they are and don't suddenly try to outlaw bacon. I don't think any country should suddenly switch religions because of the leader, but then I don't think any religion has any place in the running of a country but there you go! A person's private belief is their own business but I don't think it should be influential over an entire country of citizens of various beliefs. I don't like God Save The Queen and think we should stick to Long Live the Queen, I don't like the God Bless closing, I don't like the religious ceremonies televised as if all the country should be joining in, I don't like the assumption that all Royals should be raised Christian, I think it should be their choice and business and private matter.

yes - another way of reading 'this is a Christian country' is 'you can;t be British and not Christian' - as mentioned above

The ECHR doesn't supersede all domestic laws quite so clearly as the media would have you believe. Even if it did, there's nothing in it that says it is someone's Human Right to be a monarch of a country! It's more of a a "torturing's wrong, mmmkay" agreement than a "all signatories lose their legislative powers" agreement.

Domestic discrimination legislation has specific exceptions built into the legislation. For example, a Chinese restaurant is legally able to specify that they want Chinese/of Chinese descent applicants only in adverts for waiters, because their business may depend on an authentic atmosphere.

I'm not saying Roman Catholics and Puritans are the same, but they are both branches of Christianity. The fact that theists have beaten each up for centuries for belonging to the wrong branch and paying the Virgin Mary and the saints too little/too much honour is a black mark on religion as a concept. It doesn't mean we should buy the P.R. of particular groups.

Sadly, to this day, yes, too many Protestants and Catholics think that only their branch of the tree is Christianity, which is why it is the more imperative that we remember that they are Christians. Sectarian bigotry ruins countries.

I'm baffled that anyone found it significant enough to organise group letters to the Telegraph about it.

Perhaps you (or your children) have never fallen foul of Christian privilege? Perhaps you've never come across the false equating of Christianity with possession of an ethical compass?

I've actually only just read the original article in the Telegraph ... what a load of woolly-thinking drivel.

The letter is here, if anyone hasn't seen it yet.

Here's another, shorter letter:

SIR – We have a Prime Minister who only “does God” in the sense that he gets on his knees at the approach of an election.

I too am with Tim Minchin.