Mmm... I'm an atheist generally, but I heard a radio discussion in which Terry Sanderson took part this morning and he came across as a very rude and pompous man, didn't help his side at all.

General consensus was that the christian faith is not 'under attack' but is being somewhat marginalised, which given the stats as posted isn't entirely a surprise. However it was suggested that there is a movement to 'secularise' things which are by definition not secular - like Christmas for example - which is not happening with any other religion. Nobody is attempting to take the religious or cultural significance out of Eid or Diwali for example. Whether this is 'political correctness' or simple misunderstanding is hard to say but I've never actually met a muslim or hindu (for example) that was at all offended by christmas cards having nativity scenes on them. Most of them seem to be of the opinion that we share 'their' festivals, they share 'our' festivals whatever the 'excuse' and we're all happier as a result, so where's the problem?

Jon

Christianity chose to have christmas day on the 25th about 15/1600 years ago IIRC. The date was mainly chosen so that people wouldn't have to give up their Pagan festivities so I'm not entirely sure what they ranting on about.

Christmas is all about worshipping Mammon, isn't it? What's Christianity go to do with it?

This t-shirt is ace:

http://newsthump.spreadshirt.co.uk/jesu ... /color/323

And wasn't it Bede, the famous Christian scholar, who asserted that Easter was named after the Saxon Goddess Eostre? Anyway, resurrection is a common theme throughout many small and large religions throughout history.

It's pretty common that many religions have tried to assert themselves by placing religious festivals on, or around, the religious festivals of other faiths. Why any religion should therefore get overly possessive about dates is beyond me.

This again? Aaaaaargh!

Total, total, total, total, total, total, total, total, total arse.

This is nothing more than the Christian right scapegoating secularism. They steadfastly refuse to accept the real reasons that church attendance is declining and even more earnestly refuse to do anything about them.

Those moaning about this are usually the same people who:

• refuse to allow women bishops or accept women priests
• refuse to accept homosexual priests or bishops
• systematically alienate homosexuals, criminals, drug addicts and single parents
• uphold tradtional marriage as the ideal in clear contradiction of scripture
• deliberately twist scriptures and teachings to support their blinkered viewpoints
• create scandals about books, films, plays and music that they have not actually read, watched or listened to
• hoard money and belongings despite the Bible's repeated denunciation of precisely that behaviour
• have turned most churches from places of worship into markets and social clubs
• have made the church totally irrelevant by refusing to engage in real social action
• have systematically refused to enter political debate, denounce needless war/violence or defend the weak and helpless
• insist that Christians should be able to discriminate despite biblical denunciation of favouritism
• insist that Christians should have a legal protection from religious criticism
• insist that it is the state's job the legislate people into heaven
• cannot accept that most Britons aren't Christians
• cannot understand why it is morally repugnant to have the monarch as the head of the Church of England
• cannot understand why it is morally repugnant to give senior bishops an automatic seat in the House of Lords
• cannot understand why it is morally repugnant to forbid Catholics from ascending to the throne or becoming Prime Minister

As much as I dislike organised religion, they have a point. Public bodies go out of their way to avoid the risk of insulting minority religions. But they always do the opposite for Christianity.

Are you sure it's a good idea to collect all those together? And does anyone really have an issue with anyone alienating criminals? Isn't that actually the fault of the criminal themselves?


Actually no. They've campaigned that the laws on religious discrimination and - oh, I can't remember the term but the law which makes it illegal to defame or insult a deity, effectively - should to be applied with equal vigour for all religions. Do you honestly think a hindu equivalent of Jerry Springer - The Opera would be allowed?


er.... what?


Most, in fact the vast majority of, Britons aren't practicing Christians. But The UK is not an overtly secularist state in the way say France is. We don't enforce the demarkation between church and state and in fact the head of state is also the head of the 'official' state church.
I happen to think we'd be better off in an avoutly secular state, but we aren't.


Err.. you'll have to explain that one to me too actually. If we have a monarch as head of state, I see no reason why they can't also be head of the church. You either accept the fact a monarch has some inherent authority or you don't. If you do, it really doesn't matter what they are head of. I don't, but I can't honestly think any sane person in the UK would expect the anglican church to start espousing republican politics.


With all due respect, calm down. Torture is 'morally repugnant'. Child abuse is 'morally repugnant'. Who does or does not sit in the house of lords is a political curiosity at best.


I believe that one's not even true any more. Got changed about a decade ago.

I have an issue with it. If you apply the same logic, extra-marital sex is the fault of the participants and drug addiction is (usually) the fault of the addict.

Someone being guilty of a sin doesn't mean that they don't need help, grace and understanding, whether that sin be murder, theft, adultery or gossip.


Yes the majority of the "They" that you mention (inc. Dr. Carey) have campaigned for equal application of the laws on religious discrimination and blasphemy ( ). However there remains a very vocal section that insist that because they view Christianity as the one true faith, the law should reflect this as well.


Sorry - church jargon.

It refers to the desire to have Christian attitudes, teaching and practice protected and perhaps even imposed by law.


I agree with you. However, what I meant was that a common attitude in Church circles that most people are somehow "lapsed" Christians whereas IMO these days Christianity is not even on most people's radar.


Perhaps "repugnant" was the wrong word; maybe I'd use "questionable" instead.

However I'm not talking about republican politics - I'm talking about secular politics; I'm talking about the CofE acting as an arm of government. From the early 17th century it was normal for churches to display the royal coat of arms on the rood screen, commonly in place of the cross or crucifix. Non-conformists were only granted right of worship under the 1689 Act of Toleration but even then had to swear various oaths of allegiance. The attitude was that within the CofE allegiance to the crown was assumed whereas without the CofE, allegiance to the crown was suspect.

These days, however, treasonable intent is not inferred from religious dissent nor is it acceptable to do so. It is no longer the case that a person's religion acts as evidentiary to their attitude towards either the state or the crown. Indeed there are many British citizens who are vehemently anti-religious. Should it be acceptable then that the Head of State be able to style herself "By the Grace of God, Queen, Defender of the Faith"?


Sorry - got a bit of a lather going didn't I?

However it does seem rather discriminatory to grant someone an automatic legal right to sit in the Second chamber based purely on their position in a particular religious establishment.

Indeed - I think it's gone and am glad.

However I still hear churchgoers complaining about the idea of a Catholic PM and who would like this law to still be the case. Heckypeck, it's not so long since I heard a friend state that he wouldn't vote for a Baptist.

I'm going to be annoying but Catholics are Christians

That's getting shared on Facebook.

It's not just Marks and Spencer that have to advertise at this time of year, Xmas is prime time for the church too. Thus the annual parade of trivial but just about newsworthy whinges regarding the secularisation of holy festivals, and all the other little slices of angst that affect the religiously inclined.

I would be very entertained for the pagan community to come out with something about 'Christianising the winter solstice' or similar.