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.

But a law still has to be repealed, or else it still 'holds weight', whether or not there is uproar.
Oh, sorry, forgot you don't want me to speak to you.

I'm not actually that thick, I do know a law would need to be repealed and shockingly I also know how that would have to happen with green papers and readings and HoL and HoC and Royal assent yadda yadda, my point is it would not be unheard of or impossible or even improbable. As history recent and long passed has proven. You just want to feel superior and need to put others down to do so well find someone else because I'm not your little leg up.

With a bit of luck, in sixty years time, there will be no monarchy!

As you are clearly knowledgeable, why ask the question 'why would it hold weight'?
I was just answering your question, which is what I was criticised for not doing earlier!

It was the 'giant dyno-rod' comment that put the frighteners on me.

Most people, in 2014, don't truly honestly believe in the virgin birth, resurrection and god, do they?

And yet people who do believe these things are in positions of great power over how we make our laws and what we teach our children.

WhosLooking it's a terrifying thought isn't it!

Nightmarish Random!

Sashh - yes yes this was what I meant about paying lip service to being Christian, hypocrites by not going to church but also not following their own supposed values/rules.

The church itself doesn't help I have several friends who have made a big song and dance about getting their born outside of marriage children christened, and the minister doesn't bat an eyelid ?

A large proportion of those who identify with the Christian faith do so because their parents did but actually were never taken to church by their parents and 'learnt' about their religion at school - maybe this is what scares Christians about secularising schools, they would lose huge numbers who's parents couldn't be bothered taking them to church on Sundays !

Haha lol. I'd love for George to turn our gay, and marry a nice handsome muslim.

Better than that would be Britain waking up to what a scam the whole 'Royal Family' BS is in the first place, and be gone with them.

I'm quite surprised how Royal-Family centred this thread has become, there is far more to a country's religion etc than whoever is wearing a pretend sparkly crown.

Errol I did, yes!

I haven't read any of the thread, just the title, but my thoughts are;

Cameron has only spouted this to try and appease the traditional Tory voters he has pushed over to UKIP.

If he were genuinely Christian, he would not be hammering the poor and most vulnerable through things like the bedroom tax, the benefits cap and the 'fit to work' assessments, whilst cutting tax for the most affluent in society.

Actions speak louder than words.

^^what lily says.

I can't understand why anyone was upset by it. I found his talking about leaning on the church when his son died touching, and not cynical. I'm NOT either a Tory voter or a fan of DC but I thought, fair enough. I hope I never have to find out what I need to lean on when losing a child. The Christian churches here and elsewhere don't just hurt people, they do also support many vulnerable people, sometimes that gets lost.

I agree it's nebulous and open to interpretation, I'd agree with others just that we broadly celebrate Easter and Christmas.

Laws are given strength by the consensus of the people to whom they apply and the ability of those in charge to enforce them.

No consensus and no power and they are just words. There is nothing at all to prevent george from being a gay Muslim king except the will of the people and those with more power than him.

About the RC being specifically barred from the throne. It was only a two horse race in those days (after Henry broke with Rome, it was obviously only RC before that) so other religions or none were not in the mix. It was about power really, wasn't it. If one lot (courtiers, grace and favour, plum positions) came back in, the other lot would lose their position and lands again. By making it illegal for RC's to come back in, the incumbents of the time, the lot whose fortune was allied with C of E, cemented their position. I read somewhere they skipped the next 52 (all RC's) in line to the throne after Anne, who had a greater claim to the throne than George 1. I'm not sure about the exact number. In light of this, I have to laugh when people say they can't possibly skip Charles to go to William (disclaimer: not that I care either way)

Yes, the head of state is Anglican for 500 yrs. But the monarch was much longer an RC.

Many religions have come and gone (from mass adherence). Druidism and Roman Gods and Woden etc. Then Celtic church, then RC, then C of E. Wonder what it'll be next?

It is nice to be free to choose how you want to explore your spirituality, without a specific belief system being imposed. I know a few people who are quite taken with some elements of Buddhism. People who would have no connection with areas where Buddhism originated.

Someone said how Royal centered this thread was. The monarch is the hereditary head of state in the UK. They represent and are symbolic of the state. The C of E is the official religion of the state. That is a form of Christianity. It is a statement of fact. Whether you agree or disagree with a hereditary head of state and even with them being the head of the national church (and anointed in the name of God by that church) is another matter. I know you didn't mention that. I'm just saying.

Doesn't the pm have to be involved in appointing the bishops of the C of E? The political system seems to be quite caught up in the established church. What with the bishops in the house of lords as well. In light of that Cameron was spot on. The C of E is heavily entwined in the state machinery anyway.

sashs, yes, it is one of those slippery statistics.

Ooh, learn something new every day. So the recent revisions mean marrying a Catholic is okay, now? Just no converting yourself?