to think the census data on religion should mean some changes to how we view the Church of England in this country

[cakeorwine]

ONS data on religion released today

For the first time in a census of England and Wales, less than half of the population (46.2%, 27.5 million people) described themselves as “Christian”, a 13.1 percentage point decrease from 59.3% (33.3 million) in 2011; despite this decrease, “Christian” remained the most common response to the religion question.

“No religion” was the second most common response, increasing by 12.0 percentage points to 37.2% (22.2 million) from 25.2% (14.1 million) in 2011.

You can find out about your area here

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

An interesting map is available - you can zoom in to local areas
The number of Christians is falling. Still a high percentage but less than half the population of England and Wales say they are Christian.

Christianity could mean Catholicism, C of E and other Christian faiths.

So should this mean we look at 'the State Religion', having Bishops in the House of Lords and the link between the Monarch being the Head of the Church of England. Basically - look at distestablishing the Church of England from the State.

And you suggested it would happen if we didn’t have a Christian middle ground. Which is a load of bollocks.

We just need a middle ground. Not a Christian one.

And the point I made was that Christianity was no defence against the worst inhumanity.

After speaking with a Christian friend about this it sounds like separation of church and state is actually a good thing.

Otoh I was pondering whether there was after all a positive to the established church - the CofE is moderated versus some of the other denominations and has to be at least somewhat accountable to society at large. It's had to drag itself into the 20th if not quite the 21st on women's equality though it still seems rather stuck on gay rights, chained as it is to a very old book.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow

i think there is some selective history going on. The rise of the Nazis was on recently and it detailed really well how the party strategically removed key people and roles in order to get to power. Whilst those people weren’t all members of the clergy or even significant numbers, they were obliterated which allowed the party to ‘enter’ the key spheres of power.

So, a lack of key opposition from the ordinary people who would have recognised the warning signs.

The clergy, no.

What the?!

When did I say specify “Christian middle ground”?

I remember saying we needed a middle ground between anarchy and tyranny. But I didn’t say it had to be a Christian middle ground… did I?

The point was about democracy and power grabs… you suggested a power grab wasn’t possible because we live in a democracy. I was pointing out that democracies are vulnerable to power grabs

The power grab is already happening. True religions are being replaced by cult-like activity aka 'be kind', #nodebate about certain topics that most are aware of by now, etc

The difference is that you are allowed to say that you are an atheist, but not allowed to say that you do not believe in the latter

We just need a middle ground

There is no spontaneous middle ground in nature

Being chained to a very old book is problematic. Agreed. But it’s still the best selling book of all time.

I don’t believe the bible is supposed to be read as literal; it’s symbolic and allegorical. Great work of literature. Has a lot to offer despite being a very old book.

I KNOW how Hitler came to power. All of it.

someone implied that if the Cof E disappeared then that gap would be left open to be filled by nut jobs.

Whicj is totally bollocks. If a nut job wants to do a nut job they’ll do it anyway regardless of the C of E

Key words there are “right wing”.

You and Trump have a lot in common in knowing things. He knows words; the best words. You know history; all of it as if you were practically there as the all-knowing one.

Why can’t you see that getting rid of the CofE would create a vacancy that can be filled by anyone?

Sometimes it’s better the devil you know than the one you don’t know.

And how do you define nut job?
Hitler was a very charismatic leader. Nut jobs are not easy to spot at the time. That’s how they get into power.

I remember saying we needed a middle ground between anarchy and tyranny. But I didn’t say it had to be a Christian middle ground… did I?

That was a natural inference on @ArseInTheCoOpWindow's part from the flow of the thread, I think. I'd responded that the middle ground is secular democracy, and later you seem to reject democracy as a safe middle ground so it's unclear what you meant by that in the context of the thread if not Christianity.

Why can’t you see that getting rid of the CofE would create a vacancy that can be filled by anyone?

What is this 'gap' that would need to be filled though?

We're not talking about abolishing the CofE, just it's privileged position.

I would love to agree with you on this but I just think the CofE works in positive ways for society in ways we don’t realise.

Well this thread has gone a very strange way....

This thread is NOT about getting rid of the Church of England.

It's about disestablishing the link between the C of E and the State.

The C of E will still exist. And The Archbishop of Canterbury can still say his stuff.

Of course, a thread about a world without religion would be interesting...but that's not this thread.

Its to do with the easy going benign nature of nation and it’s people. Not the C of E!😂

This tickled me. This is NOT how the UK is generally seen abroad. There are sound historical reasons for this, I suppose.

The question is, whether the people of "no religion" are genuinely people who have no affiliation whatsoever to any religion, don't celebrate anything etc, or whether they are people who celebrate Christmas, go to see the kids in a nativity play, eat chocolate on Easter, yet just don't see themselves as believing in anything. I suspect it's the latter. Just look on this forum if you want to see how Christian the UK is: there are a million threads about Christmas and practically nothing about any other religious holiday. Maybe it feels "secular" and not religious to some people, but to most of us who belong to religious minorities, it feels like Christian religion and holidays are everywhere we turn.

If the state is going to be truly disestablished from religion, then there needs to be a re-think also about holidays - why do schools go on break for Christian holidays but not for Eid, Rosh Hashana etc? Why should it be fair that Christians never have to take time off work for their most important holidays but members of other religions use up all their annual leave then sit around twiddling their thumbs in late December, having to make excuses again and again about why they aren't celebrating a holiday associated with someone else's religion?

In short, you can't have it both ways. Either it's a majority Christian country with Christian holidays, presence in the public sphere etc, or the public sphere, holidays, education system etc need to fully reflect the diversity of the country. I personally think that there would be a massive outcry the minute any change was made to public holidays etc.

What "gap" do you think will be left by seperating church and state?

Because as it is that sounds very much like bollocks.

Eating chocolate on easter does not make you Christian.

Eating chocolate on easter does not make you Christian.

Any more than it makes you a follower of the Goddess Oestre, after whom this spring festival is named in the U.K. - the eggs and rabbits don't derive from Christianity.
Christmas/Yuletide/winter solstice - midwinter festivals are ubiquitous in the northern hemisphere. We draw on many traditions, as I'm sure everyone knows really.

If it was a necessity then why do you think it’s still not a necessity?

In a word? Time. We've moved on from needing gods or a god to act as a central authority figure to control populations. The rule of law and democracy has taken that spot and it doesn't need influenced anymore by archaic and outdated views from any religion.

And of course human nature changes, if it didn't we'd still be living as hunter gatherers. As the first civilisations moved away from that they stopped worshipping conceptual gods of nature and began following more human like gods. Then came the god Kings and Pharaohs of the ancient world, divine rulers anointed to lead, then we realised kings are just people, not gods, and so we turned to religious leaders, put here as an intermediary between God and the people to interpret his words, now we realise that too is a load of nonsense and have evolved again to develop representation and common law for all (well not truly but we're on that track).

Why do people always think these rules were given with bad intentions rather than with good intentions?

I know exactly why those rules were given and never stated it was due to any bad intentions at the time.You've also further proven my point that organised religion is about control.

The bible and other ancient scriptures that people hold up as the word or rules of god are nothing more than works of fiction, uneducated opinions and outdated advice designed to control a population. It should be as relevant to moderns governance today as the Hippocratic corpus is to modern medicine.

The passage that states eating shellfish is an abomination also states that homosexuality is an abomination. In ancient times this too was public health advice and there was a rational behind it.

Move forward 1700 years or so and Christians have accepted that it's actually OK to eat shellfish, and that this was just a little rule to prevent food poisoning, while also firmly clinging to the belief that homosexuality is a sin.

You can't have it both ways, either the bible is the word of God and therefore it cannot change (unless you admit your God is fallible) or it is not, in which case it's just a very old work of fiction.

You’ve taken that out of context.

The democracy point was in response to @ArseInTheCoOpWindow suggesting that a power grab couldn’t happen in a democracy. It was a different point that I was making that democracies are still vulnerable to power grabs.

Arguably it’s easier for certain groups to manipulate democracy to get what they want through influencing people on the internet and social media.

Even a secular democracy needs the majority to believe in its core values and defend it from a power grab in either direction.

I’m also not sure how the monarchy fits into a secular democracy?

Or statistically it could mean that in that 20 year period between the two Censuses a lot of people have come to this country who are not Christian. Is there really such a poor understanding of statistics?
It's a lazy headline!

I really can't see all faith schools being closed, it seems that many on here want Christian schools closing only. Other religions will not accept such interference with their cultures and don't take things lightly.

In a word? Time. We've moved on from needing gods or a god to act as a central authority figure to control populations. The rule of law and democracy has taken that spot and it doesn't need influenced anymore by archaic and outdated views from any religion.

God(s) are immortal so time won’t matter… God(s) are timeless.

Where does the rule of law and democracy come from?! Is it a human invention?

However good the rule of law and democracy may be, it is naive to believe humans in adversarial processes will tell the truth in the interests of doing the right thing if it’s against their personal interests. The biggest problem is people who think they can get away with stuff - and that’s usually people or companies with money and power. How do you overcome that problem? The timeless ones are ‘God’s wrath’ or ‘karma’ or ‘when you meet your maker’. And that’s why oaths and affirmations still have some moral force.

You've also further proven my point that organised religion is about control.

But why is it bad if it’s about population control?!

An out of control population is more problematic.

I agree that organised religion can get things very wrong. And I certainly don’t agree with discrimination.

There’s a phrase I hear a lot, ‘hate the the sin, love the sinner’. The main ones are the seven deadly sins. So there is a core about love, compassion and acceptance.

But I don’t understand why control is inherently bad? We’re not wild animals, so control is an aspect of civilisation.

You can't have it both ways, either the bible is the word of God and therefore it cannot change (unless you admit your God is fallible) or it is not, in which case it's just a very old work of fiction.

Why do you minimise it to only 2 interpretations? Either God’s word or fiction? Why do you think it’s binary?

The bible is a great work of literature. It’s a library of books (different genres). Much of the Old Testament is about history.

“the historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archaeological work.”

I also wonder if some books are missing from the bible?

I quite like our system, even having peers in part of the House of Lords as it is the different voices and views, rather than just elected politicians in it for the money or one absolute president or monarch but instead having all these checks and balances which make our unwritten constitution so good.