Jump to content

Christianity 'discriminated' against - UK


Recommended Posts

In democratic countries it is not the role of government to promote religion. In England the CofE is in a cushy position, it's the state religion. If it keeps losing members it's the leadership's fault. It has nothing to do with the government.

Christianity is being discriminated against by the Government in favour of Islam and other minority faiths, according to a landmark Church of England report.

The damning critique of Labour, which is endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, says ministers are only paying "lip service" to the Anglican Church while "focusing intently" on other religions....

Religion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They seem to be complaining that their church isn't being included when looking at problems inside Britain.

Fair enough, but it might be that there are problems in other communities besides theirs.

"We were told that while capacity studies had been undertaken by Government with regard to British Islam, similar studies had not been carried out for any of the UK's largest faith communities.

Capacity studies ? It's all a little vague. There are some general complaints here but nothing you can really hang your hat on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In democratic countries it is not the role of government to promote religion. In England the CofE is in a cushy position, it's the state religion. If it keeps losing members it's the leadership's fault. It has nothing to do with the government.

Any of these Americans who complain that there's not enough Christianity in their government ought to take a good look at the reason why their Founding Fathers wanted separation of church and state in the first place! Some were deists, but their reasoning was not that they wanted to replace Christianity (even some of the deists like Jefferson and Franklin thought religion was necessary for the masses); what they did not want was the corrupt, incestuous meddling kind of relationship betweeen church and state that exists in England still today!

The Church of England is rotting from the inside out, but still expects the same tax subsidies that the Royal Family undeservedly enjoys. Some day the English will be smart enough to disregard arguments about maintaining traditions and kick both institutions to the curb!

The problem is that as long as one religion is favoured, it is impossible for the state to say no to Muslim demands to have their own schools supported by the government and support Sharia Law. In fact, when the Archbishop of Canterbury was talking out of the other side of his mouth recently, he stated that the government should support Sharia, so where does he got off now complaining about the Muslims taking over?

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of these Americans who complain that there's not enough Christianity in their government ought to take a good look at the reason why their Founding Fathers wanted separation of church and state in the first place!

What Americans? I don't see any Americans up in here.

The "Founding Fathers" were not so inspired early on, as the concept was derived over time from the colonies and First Amendment. Jefferson, who got the notion from a Baptist minister, later wrote of such separation in letters (1802).

Item: Connecticut had an established religion until 1818.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...e_United_States

IIRC, Ontario continues to fund Catholic schools.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that as long as one religion is favoured, it is impossible for the state to say no to Muslim demands to have their own schools supported by the government and support Sharia Law. In fact, when the Archbishop of Canterbury was talking out of the other side of his mouth recently, he stated that the government should support Sharia, so where does he got off now complaining about the Muslims taking over?

He gets off by being numero 1. I notice the state has no problem favouring Catholic public schools in Ontario and other provinces while saying no to everyone else. There is no 'one law for all', there probably never was and there probably never will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Americans? I don't see any Americans up in here.

Don't play dumb! If you're a Republican and a diehard Bush supporter, you are already familiar with the grassroots supporters of the Republican Party that John McCain is desperate to win over -- http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-20...ohn-mccain.html

McCain is trying to win over the same people he condemned in his 2000 bid for the Whitehouse. These people like Pat Robertson and John Hagee have created a fake American history that they drum into the heads of their followers on a continual basis and apparently, a majority of Americans believe some version of the Christian Nation story:

a 2007 poll from the First Amendment Center showed that 65% of Americans believe the founders intended the US to be a Christian nation and 55% from that poll thought the US Constitution establishes the US as a Christian nation.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/1/5/155457/0298

The "Founding Fathers" were not so inspired early on, as the concept was derived over time from the colonies and First Amendment.

And the strife and dissension caused by the theocratic governments set up in the colonies before independence, no doubt was a major incentive to separate church and government!

Jefferson, who got the notion from a Baptist minister, later wrote of such separation in letters (1802).

You mean this Baptist minister: Now who can hear Christ declare, that his kingdom is, not of this world, and yet believe that this blending of church and state together can be pleasing to him? For though their laws call them "orthodox ministers," yet the grand test of their orthodoxy, is the major vote of the people, be they saints or sinners, believers or unbelievers. This appears plain in the foregoing quotation; and another of their learned writers lately says, "It is the congregation in it's parocal congregational capacity that the law considers; and this as such does not enough partake of an ecclesiastical nature to be subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence their ministers and churches must become subject to the court, and to the majority of the parish in order to have their salary raised in the king's name: But how are either of them in the mean time subject to the authority of Christ in his church? How can any man reconcile such proceedings to the following commands of our Master which is in heaven? Mat. 23. 9, 10. What matter of grief and lamentation is it that men otherwise so knowing and justly esteemed. should by the traditions of men be carried into such a crooked way as this is! for, though there is a shew of equity in allowing every society to choose it's own minister; yet let them be ever so unanimous for one who is of a different mode from the court, their choice is not allowed. Indeed as to doctrine ministers who preach differently, yea directly contrary to each other, about Christ and his salvation, yet are supported by these laws which at the same time limit the people to one circumstantial mode."

An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty

Against the Oppressions of the Present Day

Isaac Backus (1773) http://classicliberal.tripod.com/misc/appeal.html

Item: Connecticut had an established religion until 1818.

Which was also the year they adopted a constitution! I'll assume you studied American history enough to be aware that the federal government had little authority to enforce the federal constitution during the early years of the Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of...e_United_States

IIRC,

Ontario continues to fund Catholic schools.

Which I am well aware of, since I live in Ontario and my children attended Catholic schools until their high school years. And I can guarantee that the present status quo won't last much longer. The Ontario government will at some point, have to insist that the Catholic schools be amalgamated into the public system or they will be forced to support other religious schools since Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups are banging on the doors to get funding for their schools as well.

The P.C. conservative party thought that pandering to the drive to fund private religious schools would go over as a campaign plank in the last provincial election, and it went off as well as a fart in an elevator! So, even the Conservatives will never again go near a charter schooling scheme that Tony Blair created in England, which has led to the balkanization of their public school system and the growing religious divisions that the Archbishop of Canterbury is whining about now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't play dumb! If you're a Republican and a diehard Bush supporter...

Wrong on all counts...I am a supporter of American hegemony. I am not a Christian....obviously! :lol:

And the strife and dissension caused by the theocratic governments set up in the colonies before independence, no doubt was a major incentive to separate church and government!

Yes, but not by the Founding Fathers....this notion developed later in policy and law. The US Supreme Court still routinely hears cases on such matters (e.g. Ten Commandments in public buildings)

You mean this Baptist minister:

No, I meant the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams.

Which was also the year they adopted a constitution! I'll assume you studied American history enough to be aware that the federal government had little authority to enforce the federal constitution during the early years of the Republic.

And for many years after that...so much for separation of church and state, eh?

Which I am well aware of, since I live in Ontario and my children attended Catholic schools until their high school years. And I can guarantee that the present status quo won't last much longer. The Ontario government will at some point, have to insist that the Catholic schools be amalgamated into the public system or they will be forced to support other religious schools since Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups are banging on the doors to get funding for their schools as well.

Doesn't matter to me either way...it's just another quirky Canuck practice I like to point out when being lectured about the separation of church and state in America or the U.K.

The P.C. conservative party thought that pandering to the drive to fund private religious schools would go over as a campaign plank in the last provincial election, and it went off as well as a fart in an elevator! So, even the Conservatives will never again go near a charter schooling scheme that Tony Blair created in England, which has led to the balkanization of their public school system and the growing religious divisions that the Archbishop of Canterbury is whining about now.

If you say so...I like farts in elevators....so does Leslie Nielsen.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong on all counts...I am a supporter of American hegemony. I am not a Christian....obviously! :lol:

Right! The "values voters" are the rubes who work for the Republican Party even against their own economic interests. Nice to know you're among the small, cynical crowd who have actually gained during Dubya's term in office. But you better enjoy your hegemony while you can! More bad news in on the way this week:

With oil back at record and retail data on tap, outlook for late '08 economy gets shakier

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080608/wall_street...ahead.html?.v=3

Yes, but not by the Founding Fathers....this notion developed later in policy and law. The US Supreme Court still routinely hears cases on such matters (e.g. Ten Commandments in public buildings)

No, I meant the founder of Rhode Island, Roger Williams.

Is there a reason why you couldn't have mentioned you were referring to the founder of Rhode Island in the first place? I thought you were speaking of one of Jefferson's contemporaries that he exchanged letters with.

Just out of curiosity, did Jefferson say that he got the idea for separating church and government from Roger Williams?

And for many years after that...so much for separation of church and state, eh?

By that reckoning, so much for slavery too! It took many decades before the federal government was able to enforce many constitutional guarantees.

Doesn't matter to me either way...it's just another quirky Canuck practice I like to point out when being lectured about the separation of church and state in America or the U.K.

So you're rushing to the defence of England now? In case you weren't aware, Canada still has a British parliamentary system of government, and although our Charter of Rights has guarantee of freedom of religion, similar to the free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment, it does not have an equivalent of the establishment clause to keep the government from supporting a church.

But the special arrangement the Catholic Church has had in Ontario for the past 130 years is on its last legs! Scrapping the dual public/Catholic system would save 200 million annually, and the majority want a single public system. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...277a231&p=2

The interesting thing is that while we are moving towards church/state separation, the U.S., under the present administration( which you support!) is moving in the opposite direction!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! The "values voters" are the rubes who work for the Republican Party even against their own economic interests. Nice to know you're among the small, cynical crowd who have actually gained during Dubya's term in office. But you better enjoy your hegemony while you can! More bad news in on the way this week:

No bad news...just more opportunity.

Is there a reason why you couldn't have mentioned you were referring to the founder of Rhode Island in the first place? I thought you were speaking of one of Jefferson's contemporaries that he exchanged letters with.

Don't worry....you are not expected to know such things....even with Google.

Just out of curiosity, did Jefferson say that he got the idea for separating church and government from Roger Williams?

He didn't need to say it....the term "wall of separation" and concept was co-opted in his Danbury Babtist letters.

By that reckoning, so much for slavery too! It took many decades before the federal government was able to enforce many constitutional guarantees.

Slavery was an economic system that took over a century to dismantle in North America.

So you're rushing to the defence of England now? In case you weren't aware, Canada still has a British parliamentary system of government, and although our Charter of Rights has guarantee of freedom of religion, similar to the free exercise clause in the 1st Amendment, it does not have an equivalent of the establishment clause to keep the government from supporting a church.

I'm not rushing anywhere....just pointing out the inconsistencies. The Charter of Rights has only been around for 26 years.

But the special arrangement the Catholic Church has had in Ontario for the past 130 years is on its last legs! Scrapping the dual public/Catholic system would save 200 million annually, and the majority want a single public system. http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...277a231&p=2

That's what they said in 1998 too! :lol:

The interesting thing is that while we are moving towards church/state separation, the U.S., under the present administration( which you support!) is moving in the opposite direction!

I have already demonstrated that absolute separation was never the intention or realized goal in the USA (or Canada for that matter). When threatened, the citizenry will reach for whatever it needs to cope, including "God".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No bad news...just more opportunity.

Don't worry....you are not expected to know such things....even with Google.

How about for the purpose of clarity, otherwise, why bother bringing it up? I thought you were going to try to make a point by mentioning Jefferson's source, rather than just adding an extraneous fact that has no bearing on the church/state separation issue. Does it make any real difference whether Jefferson invented the idea, or just advocated a concept he felt strongly about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...