Have not read all the posts above, but surely Disraeli was converted from Judaism to Christianity? If I recall my history correctly, his father knew that Jews were not allowed to hold any Government (or indeed any other important) post if they were not Christians so took this precaution to make sure his family could succeed in anything they wanted to.
Therefore, Disraeli was not Jewish but Christian when he was PM. However, he was of the Jewish race. Similarly, Miliband is an atheist, so therefore also cannot be the first Jewish PM, but likewise of the Jewish race. Ergo, on both counts he cannot be the first Jewish PM.
My instincts tell me it was a way of highlighting that all the fuss made over Cameron saying it last week is rather silly, bearing in mind Miliband had said it the week before. Hence why the thread titles are the same. This thread would not have existed if all the fuss over Cameron saying it hadn't blown up.
Most of our laws, our Parliament, our armed forces.
Are you suggesting that none of these things would exist without the church or that they would fail without it now?
The state church tends to follow along behind the social consensus, eventually changing to adapt to it rather than leading the way. I don't see why it's special privilege should be retained.
Also, the only thing more sad than Cameron trumping up his Christianity is the atheist Miliband trying to play the same game of ass-kissing.
Are you suggesting that none of these things would exist without the church or that they would fail without it now?
The state church tends to follow along behind the social consensus, eventually changing to adapt to it rather than leading the way. I don't see why it's special privilege should be retained.
Also, the only thing more sad than Cameron trumping up his Christianity is the atheist Miliband trying to play the same game of ass-kissing.
I am not suggesting anything.
The Church is one of the most powerful underpinnings of our Establishment.
The Church is one of the most powerful underpinnings of our Establishment.
I would say that role is greatly diminished but I don't think a church underpinning the establishment is a positive thing. It is part of a system of huge privilege that it unfairly benefits from. Why, for example, should there be reserved places in the House of Lords for CofE bishops? Why should the role of head of state be a hereditary position based upon defending a particular faith in what is supposed to be a pluralist, liberal democracy?
I'm not denying that the church still has influence but I think that it's something that should be gradually eroded to reflect the realities of the population rather than protected to maintain privilege.
I would say that role is greatly diminished but I don't think a church underpinning the establishment is a positive thing. It is part of a system of huge privilege that it unfairly benefits from. Why, for example, should there be reserved places in the House of Lords for CofE bishops? Why should the role of head of state be a hereditary position based upon defending a particular faith in what is supposed to be a pluralist, liberal democracy?
I'm not denying that the church still has influence but I think that it's something that should be gradually eroded to reflect the realities of the population rather than protected to maintain privilege.
The Church is one of the most powerful underpinnings of our Establishment.
For a very long time (certainly since the 2nd World War), the only time the Church becomes important and is listened to is when it reflects and articulates what the population already feels. Hence, the resonance with its pronouncements on welfare and gay marriage just in the past few weeks.
Nearly all the rest of the time, some of the population may put down CoE on official forms, but Christian in actuality? No way. I would rather suggest that more people pay attention to the doings of Angelina Jolie or Stephen Gerrard than attend Church each week.
Even when we say that culturally this country is Christian, I would say that this applies mainly to the over-50's. An awful lot of young British people have no idea what Easter actually stands for other than it being a Bank Holiday and associated with Hot Cross Buns and Easter Eggs.
Finally, if I was an actual practising Christian, I would hate to be associated with Cameron's form of Christianity. As far as I remember from my Bible reading, Christ would not have been in favour of grinding poor people's noses further into the dirt.
For a very long time (certainly since the 2nd World War), the only time the Church becomes important and is listened to is when it reflects and articulates what the population already feels. Hence, the resonance with its pronouncements on welfare and gay marriage just in the past few weeks.
Nearly all the rest of the time, some of the population may put down CoE on official forms, but Christian in actuality? No way. I would rather suggest that more people pay attention to the doings of Angelina Jolie or Stephen Gerrard than attend Church each week.
Even when we say that culturally this country is Christian, I would say that this applies mainly to the over-50's. An awful lot of young British people have no idea what Easter actually stands for other than it being a Bank Holiday and associated with Hot Cross Buns and Easter Eggs.
Finally, if I was an actual practising Christian, I would hate to be associated with Cameron's form of Christianity. As far as I remember from my Bible reading, Christ would not have been in favour of grinding poor people's noses further into the dirt.
Christ wouldn't, but the Christian church in its various guises has been doing it for millennia.
Finally, if I was an actual practising Christian, I would hate to be associated with Cameron's form of Christianity. As far as I remember from my Bible reading, Christ would not have been in favour of grinding poor people's noses further into the dirt.
Christ wouldn't, but the Christian church in its various guises has been doing it for millennia.
But that was just because they could. They were powerful and people did listen to them and because they were illiterate and ignorant did as they were told - they were convinced they would go to hell if they did not.
Now, we know better. We can choose to believe or not as we wish, but even when we believe, we do not (in general) do so entirely. It cannot be otherwise, or all bankers would be non-Christians and non -Muslims!
It is so patently obvious that it is in the more uneducated parts of the world that organised religion still has any power or influence at all - or in countries where death or imprisonment ensues if you do not toe the religious line.
No, we are no longer a Christian country in any sense of the word. We neither go to church nor follow to the letter the preachings of Christ. Most of the young have never read the Bible nor have any wish to - and most of those who get married in Church (this is only from personal observation, mind) only do so because it is seen to be a "traditional" form of marriage, not religious.
And how many children are now baptised?
BUT - if you think in terms of non-white British or European immigrants, then Christianity would be on the rise - because here faith is still strong eg in African Catholics/Anglicans and Polish Catholics.
But the white indigenous Brits - not a chance! So Cameron (and Miliband) is wrong.
For a very long time (certainly since the 2nd World War), the only time the Church becomes important and is listened to is when it reflects and articulates what the population already feels. Hence, the resonance with its pronouncements on welfare and gay marriage just in the past few weeks.
Nearly all the rest of the time, some of the population may put down CoE on official forms, but Christian in actuality? No way. I would rather suggest that more people pay attention to the doings of Angelina Jolie or Stephen Gerrard than attend Church each week.
Even when we say that culturally this country is Christian, I would say that this applies mainly to the over-50's. An awful lot of young British people have no idea what Easter actually stands for other than it being a Bank Holiday and associated with Hot Cross Buns and Easter Eggs.
Finally, if I was an actual practising Christian, I would hate to be associated with Cameron's form of Christianity. As far as I remember from my Bible reading, Christ would not have been in favour of grinding poor people's noses further into the dirt.
The power of the Church in our establishment and whether or not people are Christians are not one and the same thing.
But that was just because they could. They were powerful and people did listen to them and because they were illiterate and ignorant did as they were told - they were convinced they would go to hell if they did not.
Now, we know better. We can choose to believe or not as we wish, but even when we believe, we do not (in general) do so entirely. It cannot be otherwise, or all bankers would be non-Christians and non -Muslims!
It is so patently obvious that it is in the more uneducated parts of the world that organised religion still has any power or influence at all - or in countries where death or imprisonment ensues if you do not toe the religious line.
No, we are no longer a Christian country in any sense of the word. We neither go to church nor follow to the letter the preachings of Christ. Most of the young have never read the Bible nor have any wish to - and most of those who get married in Church (this is only from personal observation, mind) only do so because it is seen to be a "traditional" form of marriage, not religious.
And how many children are now baptised?
BUT - if you think in terms of non-white British or European immigrants, then Christianity would be on the rise - because here faith is still strong eg in African Catholics/Anglicans and Polish Catholics.
But the white indigenous Brits - not a chance! So Cameron (and Miliband) is wrong.
I wouldn't disagree with this. I was just pointing out that the establishment of the Christian religion had little to do with Christ - it should in reality be more correctly named Paulianity - and was purely an exercise in temporal power.
The power of the Church in our establishment and whether or not people are Christians are not one and the same thing.
What power?
Do you really believe that Cameron, for all his posturing, takes any notice of what the Archbishop says? Indeed, he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la, la la" - which is what is really offensive about his Easter statement about evangelism etc. His was a politically motivated statement (let's get the grey religious vote), not a truly religious one imo.
We may pay lip service to the Church, but the reality is that they are irrelevant to any real power.
Do you really believe that Cameron, for all his posturing, takes any notice of what the Archbishop says? Indeed, he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la, la la" - which is what is really offensive about his Easter statement about evangelism etc. His was a politically motivated statement (let's get the grey religious vote), not a truly religious one imo.
We may pay lip service to the Church, but the reality is that they are irrelevant to any real power.
My comments have all been about the power of the Church in our establishment and not whether people attend church or practise other religions. We do more than pay lip service and the C of E underpins our whole way of life. Our way of life is like a three legged stool, the Law, the Armed Forces and the Lawmakers all of whom swear an Oath of Allegiance to the head of the Church. Our way of life includes the right to practise any or no religion of our choice within the law.
Comments
So after reading all the links and posts, it seems that Disraeli was the first Jewish PM.
Hard Luck Miliband.
Therefore, Disraeli was not Jewish but Christian when he was PM. However, he was of the Jewish race. Similarly, Miliband is an atheist, so therefore also cannot be the first Jewish PM, but likewise of the Jewish race. Ergo, on both counts he cannot be the first Jewish PM.
I agree, IMO there was no need for either thread.
I blame the media.
Are you suggesting that none of these things would exist without the church or that they would fail without it now?
The state church tends to follow along behind the social consensus, eventually changing to adapt to it rather than leading the way. I don't see why it's special privilege should be retained.
Also, the only thing more sad than Cameron trumping up his Christianity is the atheist Miliband trying to play the same game of ass-kissing.
Jewish ethnicity but not a believer in the religion. I don't see why this is hard for people to understand.
I am not suggesting anything.
The Church is one of the most powerful underpinnings of our Establishment.
Was...
In your opinion but not in mine.
I would say that role is greatly diminished but I don't think a church underpinning the establishment is a positive thing. It is part of a system of huge privilege that it unfairly benefits from. Why, for example, should there be reserved places in the House of Lords for CofE bishops? Why should the role of head of state be a hereditary position based upon defending a particular faith in what is supposed to be a pluralist, liberal democracy?
I'm not denying that the church still has influence but I think that it's something that should be gradually eroded to reflect the realities of the population rather than protected to maintain privilege.
Quite. It seems simple enough to me. There are many Jewish atheists.
By that definition, then, Disraeli would be the first Jewish PM
What about the Oath of Allegiance?
For a very long time (certainly since the 2nd World War), the only time the Church becomes important and is listened to is when it reflects and articulates what the population already feels. Hence, the resonance with its pronouncements on welfare and gay marriage just in the past few weeks.
Nearly all the rest of the time, some of the population may put down CoE on official forms, but Christian in actuality? No way. I would rather suggest that more people pay attention to the doings of Angelina Jolie or Stephen Gerrard than attend Church each week.
Even when we say that culturally this country is Christian, I would say that this applies mainly to the over-50's. An awful lot of young British people have no idea what Easter actually stands for other than it being a Bank Holiday and associated with Hot Cross Buns and Easter Eggs.
Finally, if I was an actual practising Christian, I would hate to be associated with Cameron's form of Christianity. As far as I remember from my Bible reading, Christ would not have been in favour of grinding poor people's noses further into the dirt.
What about it?
Christ wouldn't, but the Christian church in its various guises has been doing it for millennia.
Maybe not, but some of his teachings are racist.
But that was just because they could. They were powerful and people did listen to them and because they were illiterate and ignorant did as they were told - they were convinced they would go to hell if they did not.
Now, we know better. We can choose to believe or not as we wish, but even when we believe, we do not (in general) do so entirely. It cannot be otherwise, or all bankers would be non-Christians and non -Muslims!
It is so patently obvious that it is in the more uneducated parts of the world that organised religion still has any power or influence at all - or in countries where death or imprisonment ensues if you do not toe the religious line.
No, we are no longer a Christian country in any sense of the word. We neither go to church nor follow to the letter the preachings of Christ. Most of the young have never read the Bible nor have any wish to - and most of those who get married in Church (this is only from personal observation, mind) only do so because it is seen to be a "traditional" form of marriage, not religious.
And how many children are now baptised?
BUT - if you think in terms of non-white British or European immigrants, then Christianity would be on the rise - because here faith is still strong eg in African Catholics/Anglicans and Polish Catholics.
But the white indigenous Brits - not a chance! So Cameron (and Miliband) is wrong.
The power of the Church in our establishment and whether or not people are Christians are not one and the same thing.
I wouldn't disagree with this. I was just pointing out that the establishment of the Christian religion had little to do with Christ - it should in reality be more correctly named Paulianity - and was purely an exercise in temporal power.
What power?
Do you really believe that Cameron, for all his posturing, takes any notice of what the Archbishop says? Indeed, he sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "la, la la" - which is what is really offensive about his Easter statement about evangelism etc. His was a politically motivated statement (let's get the grey religious vote), not a truly religious one imo.
We may pay lip service to the Church, but the reality is that they are irrelevant to any real power.
Correct.
What about it indeed? It exists but it shouldn't.
My comments have all been about the power of the Church in our establishment and not whether people attend church or practise other religions. We do more than pay lip service and the C of E underpins our whole way of life. Our way of life is like a three legged stool, the Law, the Armed Forces and the Lawmakers all of whom swear an Oath of Allegiance to the head of the Church. Our way of life includes the right to practise any or no religion of our choice within the law.
I disagree.