"Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity"

[BetsyBoop]

Just thought I'd share I found this a really interesting "Easter essay" in today's Mail.

Well I'm surprised, but as long as it's not just one size fits all that seems ok to me. I do think hospitals are scary and impersonal. If you don't have relatives nearby (and these days you might be 100s of miles away from home) there is no one 'on your side'

I'm not fully up to speed with the hospital chaplains issue but presumably it out to be part of a religious leader's job (to be sorted out within the internal beaurocracy of each gang as to who does which hospital) to do the hospital visiting when requested rather than the NHS being expected to pay for fulltime staff members of every belief system to hang about all day in case they are needed.

But the NHS would prob have to employ counsellors instead, sgb, and for some people - a lot, I suspect, the religious aspect would be very important and helpful in health, etc. I doubt they're paid FT to hang about, etc - justa may no more, but my suspicion is that they are paid PT and work in their parish/day job the rest of the time.

Well, as I say, I don't know how it actually works, but isn't it regarded as part of a priest/shaman/whatnot's job for which they are paid by their own sect, to go where needed, when needed? IE does the NHS need to be paying these people rather than just having a contact number for them to ring when a patient requests one?

Oh, I dunno, sgb - it's always difficult to debate when none of us knows the facts, and fuck knows, I'm not going to go to the wire on this one! But I reckon the cost/benefit in NHS budgets will have been assessed, etc. I guess the armed forces pay for their padres.

Fair enough Habbibu: when neither of us knows the facts we can't really have an argument (and I don't think we are actually arguing anyway...)

Indeed. Though this is terribly civilised of us!

There is at least one humanist chaplain in a Scottish hospital. Glasgow University also has a humanist chaplain.

Oh WTF is he on about. We are still run by Christians - he should have a look at the houses of commons and lords if he thinks atheists are running Britain.

I don't get it at all. Even if Britain was run by people with no faith, what the hell difference would it make to religion? Or do you seriously think that a political system that did not give a privileged position to unelected religious people would...what? Burn down churches? Tear down religious imagery? Persecute the faithful? A bit of perspective (and tbh a little bit of respect for secular humanism) would be nice.

I don't follow your logic here, the House of Commons is democratically elected and the House of Lords has something like 26 bishops out of 780 members.

Now I don't personally agree with an unelected second chamber in principle, but you can hardly claim that it is dominated by those appointed on religious grounds as things currently stand!

WFIW I think we are seeing "political correctness" acting against Christianity more & more. For example in a neighbouring council last year the council insisted that they rename the "Christmas Fayre" (which had run for years) the "Frost Fayre" as using the name Christmas might offend non-Christians...not that they managed to find anyone who was offended...PC gone made. There are numerous other examples around the country.

sorry Justa, crossed posts, my post was aim at the two comments prior to yours

Who said dominated? I didn't. The poster before me didn't, either.
It doesn't matter how many of them there are, does it? They are still not elected, they are still there as a result of privilege.
And getting rid of them is still not going to rock British government to its foundations or cause a revolution.

PC gorn maaaaaaah - that's one of the laziest statements around, these days. Regularly trotted out where "I don't agree with these people but I am not sure how to argue my point" would do better.

They are all sworn in on the bible (unless they decline, but the bible's the default) and they go on about it being by the grace of God etc.

Hardly secular.

Thare are two oaths for MPS to chose from

I ???. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me
God.

I ????? do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and
successors, according to law.

It can be taken using the bible, Koran or in "any lawful manner", it is up to each MP to choose. It has been this way for many years.

So all are catered for, or do you want to remove the right of those MPs who prefer to use the first option?

I said "dominated" as a prior post has said "We are still run by Christians - he should have a look at the houses of commons and lords if he thinks atheists are running Britain." I was merely stating that I do not believe this is the case, unless of course some people think that only those with no faith should be allowed to stand for election? (I had also said I don't personally agree with an unelected second chamber in principle anyway.)

I think the example I quoted is relevant to the point I was arguing - ie that of elected officials demanding that reference to Christianity is removed. Okay so I don't think we'll see the burning down of churches in my lifetime (at least I hope not), but removal ("tearing down" may be a bit strong) of religious imagery? - probably yes.

But you say "the right of those MPs to use the first option" as if it were relevant to political life to be sworn in on the Bible. It simply isn't. One's political life and one's religious life are surely separate? Hence why you won't find many atheists who are in favour of only electing atheists...you are missing the point, which is that state and personal faith are different entities.

TBH I find this whole point-missing very frustrating. It is always the same: atheists don't want anyone to believe in God. It's just wrong. As far as I am aware, many people, religious or not, see the intertwining of church and state (education too, but that's another topic) as irrelevant, and would like to do away with the irrelevance. I don't know anyone who would wish to go further than that.

I don't actually think your example is truly relevant, Betsy. It's a bit of silliness and nothing more. It's not dignified and I personally would prefer things like this did not happen, though I can see why they do - Britian is relatively multicultural, after all. Occurrences like that don't really have anything to do with secularity or inclusiveness, though. There is a rich and robust debate to be had, but to my mind the reluctance to use the word Christmas (and the joy some people take in their outrage) diminishes that. Just as the nonsense about "Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep" diminishes the reality of a proper debate about racism.

And it is a fact that Britain is by and large, run by Christians.

No one is saying christians should not be elected or allowed to run things. Simply that the headline premise - that atheists are running Britain - is utterly absurd.

Agree that the 'atheists are running Britain' thing is absurd.
I don't see what difference it makes what the faith of the people in Government is, though. What does it matter? They have a job to do, we hope they are moral enough to do it, wherever that moral framework comes from. If some are Christian, it's a personal and cultural thing, not a conspiracy.

He's a bit mean about Jo Brand isn't he!

He seems to think people choose to become Atheists! What about those of us who were brought up with no religion?

I am of course talking about personal faith.
I still fume regularly at the thought of unelected privilege.

C'mon criticizing Daily Mail pieces is like
shooting fish in a barrel,what is sad that
someone found a lazy tired piece churned out by some hack really interesting in the first place.

ps Where do I sign up to be a member of the
chattering class

Having the salaries of chaplains paid for by the nhs gives the hospital control over their conduct. As justaboutspringtime has posted religious people are forbidden to attempt to convert people.

If an outside religous organisation paid chaplains then it would be impossible for the nhs to select suitable people for the chaplain role. He who pays the piper picks the tune.

I think there does need to humanist chaplains/ councellors available. Whether this is done as a full time post should depend on the demand for such a person from the patients.