Then the country changes to that majority choice, I should think; and there won't be a 'Lord's Spiritual' because that is Christian. However, since we have been a Christian country for at least 1500 years; and, today, the next largest religion practised in the UK is Islam at 3%, I believe. So it doesn't look like there will be a major shift in demographics any time soon.
I think throughout history religion and politics have gone hand in hand with rulers. Going way back in our history, the Druid priests were advisers to pagan rulers. And so on.
So you think any incoming religion will just happily give up the privileges enjoyed by the outgoing saying "Oh, that's OK. We understand that was a special privilege for Christians"? What about the second thing I asked. Will the monarch have to change their religion to match the faith of the majority of the people? Or hand over the crown? Would be a bit odd having a monarch protecting the wrong faith. I actually think her majesty would make a good Jedi master.
Isn't atheism the second biggest belief, for want of a better word, set in the country? So maybe we aren't too far away from taking religion away from government all together. However we have the Christian holidays so it's logical to assume us a Christian country.
Sorry, just let me check how this works. Is Britain somehow not a Christian country because the guy saying it doesn't conform to your definition of a Christian? 'Cos otherwise I can't what relevance his personal beliefs have to the discussion.
When did I say anything like that? But if he's going to go on about it, he should practice what he preaches.
I think some atheists think that Christians aren't really Christian. They are just pretending to be one for all the privileges that they are entitled to.
But I expect that, to some atheists, being an atheist means exactly what it says on the tin.
*chuckle*
Well, this thread's certainly been an eye-opener for me.
All those years thinking that I was an atheist simply because I had no belief in God. Apparently there's all those other stuff you have to do, like criticise belief systems, apply 'logic and reason' to faith processes (sounds doomed to failure by definition), assess whether believers are conforming to appropriate standards of belief etc.
Frankly, it all sounds like more hassle than a religion.
Well, this thread's certainly been an eye-opener for me.
All those years thinking that I was an atheist simply because I had no belief in God. Apparently there's all those other stuff you have to do, like criticise belief systems, apply 'logic and reason' to faith processes (sounds doomed to failure by definition), assessing whether believers are conforming to appropriate standards of belief etc.
Frankly, it all sounds like more hassle than a religion.
Go for the agnostic label. That way no one tries to convert you/berate you. Whenever people ask me I shrug and say "it's unlikely but who knows, when I die, I'll let you know, "
BIB - I am suggesting no such thing. Which is of course diametrically opposite to some atheists etc. wishing for Church of England Bishops to be barred from the House of Lords.
I hope you appreciate my answer.
And atheist or secularist members of the House of Lords wouldn't look right sitting in the Lords Spiritual side of the House, now would they. That is what the Lords Temporal is for.
What do you mean by "wouldn't look right"? Is the country to be ruled according to what looks right to you? Maybe a few could be persuaded to dress up in robes, to protect the sensibilities of those who are afraid of change for the better.
I think some atheists think that Christians aren't really Christian. They are just pretending to be one for all the privileges that they are entitled to.
But I expect that, to some atheists, being an atheist means exactly what it says on the tin.
BIB - How do you feel about atheist secularists that sit in the unelected House of Lords?
The C of E bishops aren't just there for the frills. They represent HM the Queen and the people of England. It is the duty of the Church of England clergy to give care to those that need or ask for it.
Secularism is fine as long as it is as per the proper definition i.e. that it is neutral as regards religions. I'm afraid the BHA/NSS do not adhere to that description of secularism but are in fact atheistic.
I'm not a fan of the HoL in general, but having a space reserved especially for C of E bishops is piling religious privilege on top of the already undemocratic institution.
I would like to know on who's authority they represent the people of England.
I would also suggest that the BHA are as likely to abolish religion as the C of E are going to force us all to Sunday service. It won't happen. There are atheist secularists and religious secularists. Being an atheist does not equal wanting to abolish religion.
Then the country changes to that majority choice, I should think; and there won't be a 'Lord's Spiritual' because that is Christian. However, since we have been a Christian country for at least 1500 years; and, today, the next largest religion practised in the UK is Islam at 3%, I believe. So it doesn't look like there will be a major shift in demographics any time soon.
I think throughout history religion and politics have gone hand in hand with rulers. Going way back in our history, the Druid priests were advisers to pagan rulers. And so on.
It's not like there's going to be an election on it. It's not a democratic institution. I would also mean a serious overhaul of the monarchy, which again won't be allowed. Privileges are never so easily given up.
BIB - I am suggesting no such thing. Which is of course diametrically opposite to some atheists etc. wishing for Church of England Bishops to be barred from the House of Lords.
I hope you appreciate my answer.
And atheist or secularist members of the House of Lords wouldn't look right sitting in the Lords Spiritual side of the House, now would they. That is what the Lords Temporal is for.
Absolutely no one has said that. But giving them an specially reserved place is a clear example of the unfair privilege that Christianity (C of E in particular) has in our society. If you weren't a beneficiary of this privilege, I'm sure you would recognise it too.
I don't think I've ever come across anyone arguing that religious people, in the guise if bishops or not, should be banned from the House of Lords. I expect there are some - there always are but can't remember coming across it.
Just that they shouldn't have seats specially reserved for them. They're, at the moment, also reserved for men (and, I think, heterosexuals or non-'practising' gay men), bringing several types of discrimination into our legislature.
So his personal beliefs are irrelevant then. A simple 'Yes' would have sufficed.
I haven't even actually argued that Britain isn't a 'Christian nation.' My posts have been about a) religious privilege and b) the motivations behind Cameron's statement. I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to argue.
Go for the agnostic label. That way no one tries to convert you/berate you. Whenever people ask me I shrug and say "it's unlikely but who knows, when I die, I'll let you know, "
A very good idea. Went to an uncle's funeral yesterday and I reckon that was his outlook. The crem ceremony was a humanist one, his choice, but as the man leading the ceremony said: "If you look at all the religions the best bit of any of them is always the same: "be nice to each other". So to be nice, we had the Lord's Prayer half way through for anyone religious at the event, which we all joined in. Then Vera Lynn singing "Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye" which was the most poignant bit.
Then the country changes to that majority choice, I should think; and there won't be a 'Lord's Spiritual' because that is Christian. However, since we have been a Christian country for at least 1500 years; and, today, the next largest religion practised in the UK is Islam at 3%, I believe. So it doesn't look like there will be a major shift in demographics any time soon.
I think throughout history religion and politics have gone hand in hand with rulers. Going way back in our history, the Druid priests were advisers to pagan rulers. And so on.
Does that apply when people of "no religious belief" are the majority?
Do you think Christians (and other faith groups) need protecting from (some) atheists? Perhaps a secular constitution that protectes rights to worship? I ask because sometimes you come across as not trusting atheists.
I wasn't talking about their individual contributions to charitable causes. Any one can (and do) do those things, irrespective of whether they be religious or not. Nor did I imply that only the religious give to charity. I was merely pointing out that religious charities in the UK far outweigh secular ones by many thousands. And I don't think I have ever heard of an atheist charity come to think of it.
No. What I was asking is how the letter, written by 50 odd secular/atheist/humanists, is altruistic.
Because one of the things they advocate is the removal of forced worship in schools - to safeguard the needs and rights of a child.
Why do you ask? You have said elsewhere that secularists are only speaking for themselves. Do you believe 'they' are using children as a means to serve their own desires then?
We have a law that states children have a right to freedom of thought. We have another law that states 'a person cannot be forced to manifest views associated with a particular religion'. Then we have the law that contradicts both of these laws by stating 'children should on each day take part in an act of collective worship'.
It is not good enough to say these children are not being forced to worship simply because they can opt out (by parents informing the school that their child is not to take part in these assemblies).
This just exploits a childs fear of being separated/isolated and having a very public spotlight put on their supposed 'differences'. It also exploits a parents reluctance to put their child in this position.
'Christianity' and government cannot be allowed to continue to force my children (any children) to bow down to and fear an unseen and unproven entity based on hearsay. Even if there was proof of God you would still not have a right to force children to worship 'him' or to decide on their behalf that they should choose to worship him in exchange for eternal life.
You have a right to believe in whatever you wish and I respect that. I would hope that you would respect my child's right to reach their own decision on what to believe (or not) once they are old enough to make a balanced and informed decision for themselves.
Comments
When did I say anything like that? But if he's going to go on about it, he should practice what he preaches.
Well, this thread's certainly been an eye-opener for me.
All those years thinking that I was an atheist simply because I had no belief in God. Apparently there's all those other stuff you have to do, like criticise belief systems, apply 'logic and reason' to faith processes (sounds doomed to failure by definition), assess whether believers are conforming to appropriate standards of belief etc.
Frankly, it all sounds like more hassle than a religion.
So his personal beliefs are irrelevant then. A simple 'Yes' would have sufficed.
Go for the agnostic label. That way no one tries to convert you/berate you. Whenever people ask me I shrug and say "it's unlikely but who knows, when I die, I'll let you know, "
What does it say on the atheist tin?
I'm not a fan of the HoL in general, but having a space reserved especially for C of E bishops is piling religious privilege on top of the already undemocratic institution.
I would like to know on who's authority they represent the people of England.
I would also suggest that the BHA are as likely to abolish religion as the C of E are going to force us all to Sunday service. It won't happen. There are atheist secularists and religious secularists. Being an atheist does not equal wanting to abolish religion.
It's not like there's going to be an election on it. It's not a democratic institution. I would also mean a serious overhaul of the monarchy, which again won't be allowed. Privileges are never so easily given up.
Absolutely no one has said that. But giving them an specially reserved place is a clear example of the unfair privilege that Christianity (C of E in particular) has in our society. If you weren't a beneficiary of this privilege, I'm sure you would recognise it too.
Just that they shouldn't have seats specially reserved for them. They're, at the moment, also reserved for men (and, I think, heterosexuals or non-'practising' gay men), bringing several types of discrimination into our legislature.
I haven't even actually argued that Britain isn't a 'Christian nation.' My posts have been about a) religious privilege and b) the motivations behind Cameron's statement. I'm not really sure what it is you're trying to argue.
A very good idea. Went to an uncle's funeral yesterday and I reckon that was his outlook. The crem ceremony was a humanist one, his choice, but as the man leading the ceremony said: "If you look at all the religions the best bit of any of them is always the same: "be nice to each other". So to be nice, we had the Lord's Prayer half way through for anyone religious at the event, which we all joined in. Then Vera Lynn singing "Wish me luck as you wave me goodbye" which was the most poignant bit.
Do you think Christians (and other faith groups) need protecting from (some) atheists? Perhaps a secular constitution that protectes rights to worship? I ask because sometimes you come across as not trusting atheists.
Because one of the things they advocate is the removal of forced worship in schools - to safeguard the needs and rights of a child.
Why do you ask? You have said elsewhere that secularists are only speaking for themselves. Do you believe 'they' are using children as a means to serve their own desires then?
We have a law that states children have a right to freedom of thought. We have another law that states 'a person cannot be forced to manifest views associated with a particular religion'. Then we have the law that contradicts both of these laws by stating 'children should on each day take part in an act of collective worship'.
It is not good enough to say these children are not being forced to worship simply because they can opt out (by parents informing the school that their child is not to take part in these assemblies).
This just exploits a childs fear of being separated/isolated and having a very public spotlight put on their supposed 'differences'. It also exploits a parents reluctance to put their child in this position.
'Christianity' and government cannot be allowed to continue to force my children (any children) to bow down to and fear an unseen and unproven entity based on hearsay. Even if there was proof of God you would still not have a right to force children to worship 'him' or to decide on their behalf that they should choose to worship him in exchange for eternal life.
You have a right to believe in whatever you wish and I respect that. I would hope that you would respect my child's right to reach their own decision on what to believe (or not) once they are old enough to make a balanced and informed decision for themselves.