UKC

Or so says Ann Widdecombe. Or something like that. It's hard to make sense of her quite potty remarks, but she says: "When we were engaged in the height of the Cold War ... you could still, in this country, proclaim yourself as a Communist, you could still stand for Parliament for that matter as a Communist".

The implication of the interview seems to be that she thinks that nowadays one is not allowed to proclaim oneself a Christian or stand for Parliament as a self-declared Christian. And yet all recent Prime Ministers have been openly Christians, and all of them have supported huge privileges for Christians such as priority access to state schools.

What is it about Christianity that sends people utterly loopy? Are there any non-deluded ones left?

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/MP-says-easier-Nazi-Communist-Christian-tha...

In reply to Coel Hellier:

>Christians not allowed to stand for Parliament
Tempted to say 'it's a start..'

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I always laugh when I hear the term "militant secularism".

"Quite militant secularism" is even funnier.

As you say. Utterly loopy.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's Anne Widdecombe. If you're expecting sensible and rational, you're looking in the wrong place.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's right. And if you say you're English these days, you get arrested and thrown in jail.

youtube.com/watch?v=BQwCYyoRskg&

In reply to tony:


She left the C of E and joined the Roman Catholic Church because Canterbury wanted to allow some limited steps towards equality for women in the church. She obviously loves to be persecuted.

To some extent she's right. It's difficult to proclaim that you want to be an MP because you're driven by Christian value or issues as they're not inclusive - or appear not to be, and can be open to interpretation as to your political ideals. Whereas proclaiming to be a nazi or communist at least makes your political ideal clear.

In reply to Coel Hellier:





What a stupid comment.. as silly as hers TBH..

Its right up there with all muslims are suicide bombers…

How about those people of faith who quietly go about their normal life feeling no need to mention such things…

It's like me saying what makes all atheists want to be offensive by taking the comments of someone like you and making huge generalisations...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Its hardly huge privileges.. My parents happily sent us all to non-religious secondary schools over catholic schools, as that was where we wanted to be educated, we all came out educated..

I do think it was a bad state of affairs that Blair couldn't feel he could be openly catholic as PM.. says a lot about our religious tolerance in this country.

In reply to PeterM:



It certainly is.. I always think the best way to fight intolerance and discrimination is by more intolerance and discrimination…

It's like using the death penalty on killers to teach society that killing is wrong.. just makes perfect sense for an enlightened society..

In reply to Jon Stewart:



When did this come in?

In reply to Philip:


No it's not. I could proclaim that right now. I might however find it a difficult platform to get elected upon, but that's not discrimination, that's de-mo-cra-cy.

In reply to IainRUK:


Are you implying some sort of anti catholic conspiracy?
He kept quiet about it since he was worried about being seen as some religious nut who in partnership with some other religious nuts might decide to invade some countries whilst talking about a crusade.

In reply to dissonance:

No not at all. I just think he didn't feel free to say he was a catholic...

In reply to dissonance:



This is a very odd comment.. everyone knew he was religious.. and Bush was the much more vocal in his crusade… so no I don't think anyone sensible would think such things..

But whilst the early crusades were catholic later ones were protestant.. so its not to be linked with one branch… again that just comes down to awareness..

In reply to IainRUK:


People knew he was religious but not the exact level. Someone who can be arsed to change churches, especially to jump through the hoops to become RC, tends to be at the more scary end of things.


Eh? All crusades were catholic, its part of the definition of the word.
Admittedly modern day usage does use it for more general christian campaigns but crusade properly is a military campaign sanctioned by the RC church.

In reply to dissonance:

No they weren't, there were protestant crusades.

Your first statement is so horrifically ignorant I don't know where to start. Jumping through hoops, a few classes, chats to the priest.. a quick ceremony…

'tends to be on the scary side of things'.. wow.. its like you want the tolerant, quiet religious people to be stood on their roof tops shouting that they exist…

Despite what you think the catholic church is pretty split anyway on a lot of subjects but the protestant certainly has its fundamentalists..

Your post highlights why we need religious education…

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Its hard core atheists like you that send people utterly loopy over Christianity.

You seem to have a hard-on for ridiculing Christian happy-clapping god botherers, so why not channel that focus towards other faiths?

Or do you find taunting Christians a safe option as they won't tend to actively seek you out and try to kill you?

There are other faith systems that are more dangerous than the odd happy-clappy christian god botherer for you to intellectually challenge.

In reply to dissonance:

I do like your 'level of religiosity'

What is it Protestant > Catholic > Jew > Muslim?

Or do We put the jews lower?

Maybe you should write a text book for RE, you know preach tolerance and factual understanding of religion….

In reply to IainRUK:


No they werent, they cant be by definition.
It is a simple statement of fact that the crusades, by which I mean the entire set eg the numbered ones for the middle east and the named ones for the north (plus the French and couple of others) were roman catholic as it is part of the definition.
You may be confusing some of the protestant/roman catholic wars, such as Schmalkaldic War or the 80 years war, with crusades but they are not.


Must have a lazy priest then. the ones I knew wanted a fair amount of effort.


No. Shall we play you read what I say rather than inventing shit?
Its not a radical idea that a convert to anything (religion/giving up smoking) often tends to be more hardcore than either people not belonging to that group or those long time members.


Well thats a defense and a half. The others are as bad?
I take it you are RC since you are showing the typical martyrdom aspect that many strong rc believers show.


Unfortunately for your position I went to a RC school. So if you are right its an argument for having proper anthropology teaching of it rather than letting the religious put a slant on it.

In reply to IainRUK:


I was under the impression it was more that it was illegal for a catholic to be pm.
Having said that, I picked that up in a history of britain book. A more recent google suggests this may be a myth.

In reply to angry pirate:


Its wrong. There was a restriction for a time on crown officials (which would include the PM), until recently if someone married a catholic they got kicked out of the line of succession and there is still the ban on the monarch.
However that was on the practical grounds that everyone was getting bored with having to switch prayer books to avoid getting killed once a new monarch and pals took over.
Now though its just a pain in the arse to remove since all the commonwealth would need to agree and since it hasnt come up as a problem no one is bothered by it.

In reply to dissonance:

Wow.. no not really.

You were the one who said RC was more extreme..

Right, define definition.. you are making your own up.. a crusade can be anything, you know very well.. it can be against DUI.. it can be against fur…

A religious crusade is just a campaign to change religion, impose another…

I do love you 'lazy priest'.. or tolerant, sensible moderniser…

In reply to angry pirate:



I think it was the case… there used to be a few positions I think it was defence, maybe chancellor and PM.. but these have all gone as I understand..

In reply to IainRUK:


No I didnt. Its not like you cant go back and read comments so I am baffled as to why you are making this up?
Are you confusing my comment about someone who converts being more extreme, in which case I suggest you try reading the entire paragraph.


No I am not. I am using the correct definition.
All the military crusades were rc. Now it has been used colloquially for other purposes but your claim about "later crusades being protestant" is false. Unless you mean random social movements using the name, which obviously would be nonsensical when referencing to the middle east and crusades.
Now considering you have been incapable of responding without making shit up I cant be arsed wasting any more time on it.

In reply to dissonance:
"People knew he was religious but not the exact level. Someone who can be arsed to change churches, especially to jump through the hoops to become RC, tends to be at the more scary end of things. "

So someone who changes faiths tends to be at the more scary end of things….

Crusade: lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.

Thanks...

Search protestant crusades...

In reply to IainRUK:


Hardly huge privileges?? A third of state schools handed over to them to run, plus an exemption from the 2010 Equality Act, for them to control admissions by discriminating over religion, and then impose religion on all the kids?


The issue there is that he felt the **CofE** bods would not like it, it wasn't that the "militant secularists" would dislike a Catholic more than a Protestant.

In reply to IainRUK:

like i said since you seem capable of sustaining a discussion without anyone elses involvement by virtue of just inventing things other people said I cant be arsed to waste any more time on you.

In reply to The Lemming:



Because Christianity is the faith with all the political power in this country, which they use to oppose concepts such as religious freedom and religious equality.


... whereas Muslims will? Nope, I've criticised Islam with abandon plenty of times, but in terms of political influence they are not in the same league as Christians.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Maybe you should argue with dissonance then… "People knew he was religious but not the exact level. Someone who can be arsed to change churches, especially to jump through the hoops to become RC, tends to be at the more scary end of things. "

But yes, that was a factor. And like I said, I think it is a sad state affairs when people in a liberal do not feel they have religious freedom.

We've seen Disso judge people for being 'at the more scary ends of things' for just stepping across from one stream of christianity to another…

I actually agree with some of your views. The equality act for example. Things do need to change, but likewise I don't agree with an entirely secular education system. I think parents should have freedom to educate their kids how they see fit as long as a school teaches the NC.

I am 100% against any diluting of evolution or 'intelligent design' being taught as a credible alternative.

Dissonance: No, you just make ignorant statements and cannot back them up, repeatedly saying you are right doesn't make you right...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That's not really true… 'ALL'.. come on?

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes you're quite right, but I do like the idea of the separation of church and state. It is ridiculous to think that those in govt aren't allowed to have a religious belief of whatever kind, but it can therefore colour their decisions. In the article she is comparing a religious belief with political one's. Sort of apples and oranges....

In reply to IainRUK:


Well I meant that, of the political power held by the religions, it's Christianity that holds "all" of it (which is slightly exaggerated, but means that they have vastly more political influence than the Jews and Muslims (while Sikhs, Hindus etc are pretty much nowhere)).

In reply to PeterM:


I agree with that…

In reply to IainRUK:


Well, then, let's disestablish the CofE and then there will be no problem with people like Blair feeling they ought to be part of the CofE. The issue was he was responsible for things like recommending appointments of bishops to the Queen, and he considered that it would be problematic for him to be openly Catholic.


How about the kids? Do they get any say in whether they do god-worshipping at school?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Surely the whole thing is a delusion?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


That wasnt an issue for the various PMs of differing denominations, for example, Gordon Brown or Alec Douglas-Home who were both Scottish denominations (although Brown did have the approval process altered to make the PM decision pure rubber stamping as opposed to choosing one of two)

In reply to dissonance:

But as you know there is a whole history between the Catholic church and the CofE, back to Henry 8, and with any good Catholic supposedly obedient to the Pope it may have been an issue if Blair had been choosing CofE bishops while openly Catholic.

Anyhow, this is what Blair felt and why he delayed his public conversion until after leaving office, though whether anyone would actually have cared in practice can be debated.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


The relationship between the CofE and the Scottish denominations hasnt always been that rosy either with the Bishops war kicking off the civil war. It would also have been easy enough for him to bring forward the change Brown did, namely chose the first person on the list given to him.
So seems a rather convenient excuse and given the previous use of "we dont do God" seemed just a way of avoiding any discussion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Could you clarify your views on Christians having mental heath issues, please. Do you believe people of other faiths also have mental heath issues? Do you think Jews are "loopy"? Muslims?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



No, that is your mistaken inference. She is simply pointing out the extent of traditional tolerance and contrasting it to the current direction of travel (as she perceives it)

Anyone would think you are obsessed by this stuff.

In reply to owlart:

I know I do.

In reply to owlart:


Well, it's interesting that many religious beliefs would meet all the criteria for a delusion, and have to be specifically excluded from the DSM or they would get diagnosed as a mental health condition.

There's a brief explanation in here (not saying I agree with the whole article, and I'm not sure if there's any change in the latest DSM), although not the best....
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/the-bible-of-psychiatric...

In reply to IainRUK:

How is it wrong to say all christians are a bit loopy? As a scientist you must be aware that religious belief has no scientific basis so saying they are a bit loopy is factually correct, nothing wrong in saying so.

In reply to IainRUK:


When? Now you're sounding a bit loopy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It is the case that as democracy evolves it will become more intolerant of religion because religion has many aspects that are not compatible to a well-developed and healthy democracy.
Religion has groups of people who they believe are outside of society such as homosexuals, women other religions so they are not inclusive there for not democratic.
Religion is not reasoned or scientific, in a complex and functioning democracy reason and science should play a strong part in any decision making, politics the science of opinion is bad enough without adding religion into the mix.
All religions have fundamental and quite often nonsense at their core, the wishy washy image we have of the C of E of today with is due to the fact that we evolved into not tolerating their nonsense (to which they responded by dropping some of the unpleasant smiting/brimstone shit), and we gave women the vote, we struck of the laws of the statute books regarding homosexual acts and we stopped kidding ourselves that the meek would inherit the earth and gave them some decent labour laws and a minimum wage.
We need to remove any connection between religion of any sort and the functioning of government and use of any taxes religious use, individual members of parliament are more than entitled to have their religious opinions as long as they are open about it.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


What a load of twaddle!


There is nothing specific to religions that have in and out groups. Some religions are intolerant and others aren't . Some political creeds are intolerant and others aren't.


The implication of this is that those who don't think in what you (or those in power) think is a "rational" way are incompatible with democracy. Do you really believe in democracy at all?


So do lots of political groups.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you're missing the point. When I vote for a party their policies are usually well known. The candidate on the other hand maybe a staunch Protecathojewslim. So will my vote be represented by a political party member following party policy or a member of religious sect? What if a policy contradicts or is incompatible with a religious belief?

In reply to PeterM:

What if the Nulabour candidate is at heart an old Labour member of Militant or the UKIP golf club stalwart is a closet racist refugee from the BNP?

In reply to Postmanpat:


John Prescott? Bumbling ineffectual predictable

vs

Messianic Blair, told to go to war by god

I think I know which I would prefer.

In reply to MG:


I said "Militant" i.e.. Trot

In reply to Postmanpat:

Are we talking Hooker here? I see your point.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I never said it was… you took 'utterly' and replaced with 'a bit'.. but hey ho.. lets just twist and manipulate..


re crusades.. drives to convert populations.. Australia, but specifically Ireland and the USA.. as I said google..

Australia was a real drive to civilise, taking of kids, lost generations...

Here's something to read...
http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/cromwell/section6.rhtml

"Oliver Cromwell hated the Irish, largely because their loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church. He also desired to exact revenge on the Irish for a massacre of English Protestants that had occurred there in 1641. Cromwell's January 1650 Declaration to the Irish Catholic Clergy provides a good indicator of the sort of mission Cromwell had in mind: "You are part of Antichrist, whose Kingdom the Scriptures so expressly speaks should be laid in blood and ere it be long, you must all of you have blood to drink; even the dregs of the cup of the fury and wrath of God, which will be poured out unto you."

The two great battles of Cromwell's war in Ireland were the siege of Drogheda in September 1649 and the siege of Wexford in October. In both battles, Cromwell's forces behaved brutally, slaughtering civilians as well as Irish soldiers. Cromwell condoned and even encouraged this violence, which he viewed as just punishment for 1641. At Wexford, over 2000 inhabitants were killed inside the city after resisting the English for nine bloody days. The siege at Drogheda was equally brutal. The town resisted for eight days before English cannons brought down the steeple of Saint Mary's Catholic Church on September 11. The first attempt through the breach failed, and Cromwell himself joined in the second assault, which was successful. The English army swept through the town, massacring its citizens. Among those whom Cromwell specifically ordered to be killed were the members of Catholic religious orders, priests, monks, and nuns."

In reply to MG:

I've never been a trotskyist, maoist a little a long time ago, anarchist too, but never a trot. I wonder if you and PP have even the slightest idea of what these words mean? Your posts seem to indicate a total confusion on anything outside Home Counties conservatism and possibly Labour. Even if you disagree I think you would benefit from finding a little out about political parties, even if only for historical interest.

In reply to IainRUK:
You are also a little confused it would seem, the Crusades were a historical phenomenon which started in the 11th century, and finishing with the 8th in 1270. There were a few others around the same time, the Children's Crusade and the Crusade against the Cathars etc. but of the main ones their were 8. All these were called for by the Pope and involved driving the Muslims out of the Holy Land, in principal at least as many other motives were at work. At that time Luther and the Protestants didn't exist.

Later on the word "Crusade" has often been used metaphorically - the Daily Mirror likes crusading about diverse subject, for example - but that is something else.

PS. Reading your fanatical rant about Cromwell, you wouldn't be a catholic yourself, would you? They often seem to have trouble with coming to terms with one of England's greatest men but I would advise diversifying your sources on him. Don't forget that without Cromwell we might well have never thrown off the yoke of divine right monarchy and became the first Parliamentary Democracy in the world. You clearly need a stiff dose of Father Ted.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Brucie sweetheart, read what I wrote and it will all become clear to you. I know you've been in a France a long time but presumed that twenty years of Labour party history hadn't evaded you. You can google "militant tendency" and "Trotskyite" if it did.

But good effort with the "Home Counties" line. Gives us a good start in today's game of Hooker labelling bingo.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
It wasn't my 'fanatical rant'..

If you read the OP I replied to:

"He kept quiet about it since he was worried about being seen as some religious nut who in partnership with some other religious nuts might decide to invade some countries whilst talking about a crusade."

.ie. been seen as a fanatical christian like Bush who was guided by God.

Clearly the more recent examples, Bush, has been very protestant in nature..and used the word Crusade.. hence the reference used…

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient."

I'm not sure what I am TBH.. agnostic is closest if you want to add a label. I just think many religions have tried to force themselves on other nations.. and one cannot doubt that the protestants have done more than their fair share, especially in Ireland and Australia…


You can argue all you want, but we know you are arguing for arguing sakes.. as you do..

I do love your justification for Cromwell… he wasn't a particularly nice bloke you know…If you can put a positive spin on his treatment of Ireland please do? What was that?

I quite understand what the catholic crusades were, but protestant countries have invaded for religious reasons, which was the point I replied to.. he didn't suggest land grabs…

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So are you saying that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge? If the only things that are non-loopy are those that can be validated by empirical enquiry, then count me in with the loopy brigade.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"Militant" has existed both in and out of the Labour party for many years but do you actually understand what all these "lefty" sects are, or were, all about? You give the impression you don't. Don't worry though at your age you'll never turn to them.

In reply to IainRUK:

You are using "crusade" as a metaphor, as Bush was. The word comes from the French - the language spoken by nobles both in France and in England at the time, "croix" (cross) the "croisés" were people who had taken the cross and set off to "liberate" the Holy Land, croisade was anglicized to crusade. So the person above was quite right to say that the real crusades were all catholic, as Western christianity was too at the time. I don't think Eastern christianity was involved much in the crusades, maybe some Armenians were but marginally - in fact Byzantium was a victim of the avarice of these crusaders and it never really recovered from their aggressions.

As for Cromwell, what he did in Ireland was a political error, one that has echoed down the centuries to quote Winston Churchill, but it was also the way things were done at the time, Cromwell shouldn't be judged just on these acts and by modern day standards... he was also the man who allowed Jews back into Britain and authorised them to live their lives openly, if discreetly. Whatever he did in Ireland it was warfare, fought for political reasons, not religious, in no way a crusade.

In reply to steve.aisthorpe:


Yes, there may be other beliefs but can they be called knowledge?

In reply to Postmanpat: are you saying that all religions are totally inclusive and have been shown over history to be so, saying twaddle doesn't actually make it so.

All religions are intolerant again if you would like to show me the history of tolerant religion send me a link (other than wishy washy C of E )

I believe rational as in not flat earth nonsense lot of fundamental Christian groups have hitched their wagon to the climate change denial wagon 65% of churchgoers in United States believe that climate change doesn't exist.
. "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion…over every living animal that moveth upon the earth" thing from Genesis 1:28 "
That sort of crap is affecting the disisions that will affect the planet that my children are going to grow up in, so forgive me if I would want some rational thought to be behind these disicions not some flat earth nonsense pedladled by religious fanatics

All religions at their fundamental core are nonsense, until the bible rev 3.0 is brought out cuting out the bits about creationism, stoning people, smiting non believers and up revving the role of women in society etc etc. then maybe it has a place, you may feel happy cherry picking the bits that fit into a well developed democracy but their are plenty of people who do take a literal view on these written works and their actions have littered history with plenty of death and suffering.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No.. I know very well where it comes from.. I did not use the word first…. he was saying Blair did not want to be seen as a religious fanatic invading people using the word crusade.. which was what a protestant was doing.. hence Blairs Catholicism was immaterial….

In reply to jethro kiernan:




This is a pretty poor argument Jethro. A huge % of the US also believe that.. you are looking at things very simply.

There's no need for a new bible, even the vatican has moved on to accept that evolution occurred over geological time… re-writing a 2000 year old text would be as loopy as re-writing text books which believed plate tectonics was nonsense…

All we need to make sure is that Genesis is NEVER taught as a science, NEVER taught to explain evolution…

In reply to IainRUK:


Did I ever say it was? You just went off ranting about protestant crusades.

You come across as one of the more excitable people of catholic background seeking offence and victimhood. When in reality at most the only thing you couldnt do is marry into the royal line of succession (without them converting or you doing so). Which to be honest personally I havent found to be a major issue.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


He is one of the more interesting characters in English history. Unfortunately I think he is one where there has been so much propaganda and counter propaganda that it will never be clear exactly what he was responsible for and his personal position on many issues.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


Clearly I didn't say that if you read it.


For long periods different religions have coexisted peacefully alongside each other, not least on the Middle East.


What you believe is rational is irrelevant unless you think you have some right to be arbiter on the subject. Millions of people believe non rational but also non religious things. Are they incompatible with democracy as well?


You 're not coming over as exactly moderate and tolerant yourself.

In reply to dissonance:
Cods wallop as always... I said on here how there's very little barriers.. I just feel it's sad Blair didn't feel free to be open, it's like gay footballers coming out post playing.. A sad reflection on our society...

And I didn't rant.. I just said they happened.. And it was bush.. A Protestant.. Who used the term for the modern wars in that region..

So far you're the one getting all excitable as you can't justify your bigoted statements that people who change faiths tend to be loopy...

I understand the anger of coel re religious intolerance.. However the intolerance shown in response to it is hardly how you expect a civilized society to work..

In reply to Postmanpat:

Democracy is inclusive religion is not therefore there is always a risk of religion affecting democracy.

"For long periods different religions have coexisted peacefully alongside each other, not least on the Middle East".

are you really holding up the middle east as a shining example of religous tolerance after 9 crusades with all their associated blood shed, the shia sunni conflicts over the past decades, the Isreli conflicts etc etc all examples of not only peoples right to life being dismissed by religion but their democratic rights as well.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Of course he is, many autodidacts hold this to be the case.

In reply to IainRUK:

As you say Ian a large number of Americans dont believe in global warming but research has shown that practicing christians are a much higher % of this (Pew Research). This fact with the strong campaigning arm of American religion means it is having a real affect on the decision making process around global warming. I am not in any way saying that religion is a cause of global warming but they are impeding the possible cure. I am fairly intolerant of groups of people who are going to adversly affect the lifes of my children

I am sorry Ian educational text books are updated rewritten all the time if you look at university text books you will notice they are by edition number reflecting the fact they are rewritten to reflect the latest scientific thinking, also please show me a university that supplies it students with text books showing plate techtonics as nonsense, they may keep a couple of copies in the library but they wont be refrenced, unlike the bible which isn't updated and is refrenced on a daily basis.

The Vatican only just pardoned Galileo after we had already left the solar system and only after a 13 year inquiry, religion has a very poor track record on the advancement of science.

"All we need to make sure is that Genesis is NEVER taught as a science, NEVER taught to explain evolution"

All very well to cherry pick in a liberal democracy, in other parts of the world deviating from strict religous teachings can have very serous consequences and it just isn't science but the poor morality.

below is an example is what happens when the bible is cherry picked from a different angle and why if it is a guide for life it should be rewritten

"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
led to comments like this

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

In reply to jethro kiernan:


Er, obviously, as are a million other factors. That is the nature of democracy.

Are you suggesting that relines are the only non inclusive institutions in democracies?



I am saying it has experienced long periods of peaceful coexistence between different religions as, for the last few hundred years, has Western Europe.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Northern Ireland
yugoslavia
the small matter of the jewish genocide

should I put on a comedy monty python talk over

In reply to jethro kiernan:

>
So major religions such as protestantism and catholicism or even islam and christianity coexist generally peacefully for several hundred years over many parts of the globe but you don't think this shows that religions can coexist? Does this go for inability to coexist go for races as well? They seem to fight rather a lot.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn¡¦t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don¡¦t believe in him. Jude 5

In reply to Philip:

and perhaps separation of religion from state is an important democratic principle but she can still be driven by her values if she wants to do so within parliament.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


....


Quite the Biblical scholar, is this all your own work?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

cut and paste but the quotes are whats there and there are plenty of people willing to take them as fundamental truths unfortunatly

In reply to Mike Highbury:
Just for some balance a few quotes from the quran on its view of religous tolerance.

Allah has sickened the hearts of disbelievers and increased their disease. He is a spiritual anti-doctor. 2:10

Allah has blinded the disbelievers. "Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see, Deaf, dumb and blind." 2:17-18

If you try to compose a surah that is better than those in the Quran, and then fail, Allah will burn you forever if you in the fire that he has prepared for disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24 <

They who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein." 2:39

Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61

Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All modern Jews are descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66

Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85

In reply to jethro kiernan:
Are you confident about your translation of the Quran and accuracy of its interpretation?

I must say that I've never been too bothered about what the Quran has to say about Jews; Odinites, Christians and the odd behaviour of states seem to be more dangerous.

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I did cross reference a selection of them to confirm, goverment and religion should definatly be kept at arms length especialy when quotes like the above can be brought into play

In reply to The Lemming:


Just for you Mr Lemming:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2014/06/11/twist

In reply to jethro kiernan:


You might have noticed that virtually all Christians ignore such instructions virtually all of the time. So what do you think you are proving by quoting them?

Perhaps you could address some of my questions to you instead?

In reply to Postmanpat:

You haven¡¦t asked any questions just made some inane statements like the Middle East is an exemplary example of peaceful coexistence between religions. My point in referencing these quotes is at their heart most religions have an official intolerance of other religions; I except that humans don¡¦t need much of an excuse to cause trouble but religion has not brought much peace and understanding either.

¡§You might have noticed that virtually all Christians ignore such instructions virtually all of the time¡¨
Sabra and Shatila massacre lebanon 1982
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1993
Final solution Germany 1939-1945

They don¡¦t and neither do other religions, we are lucky to live in a society that religion has less influence on life than many others but there are plenty of clauses in most religions that appear to condone this kind of behaviour and when politics and religion combine in unstable times then shit happens, religion is like nitro glycerine looks fairly harmless and is no trouble unless you shake it up but I would rather not have it around ƒº

So back to you; please explain why you think the Middle East is a good example of coexisting religions with no sectarian or religious violence.
Please explain how you feel there has been no religious conflict in Western Europe for the last few centuries despite the examples mentioned I also forgot to mention Celtic-Rangers

In reply to jethro kiernan:

But I didn't say that, I said different religions have coexisted for long periods of time.

The questions you missed:

Do you believe in democracy at all?

Millions of people believe non rational but also non religious things. Are they incompatible with democracy as well?

Are you suggesting that religions are the only non inclusive institutions in democracies?

So major religions such as protestantism and catholicism or even islam and christianity coexist generally peacefully for several hundred years over many parts of the globe but you don't think this shows that religions can coexist? Does this go for inability to coexist go for races as well?

You might have noticed that virtually all Christians ignore such instructions virtually all of the time. So what do you think you are proving by quoting them? (Clue:finding examples of when relationships broke down doesn't discredit the suggestion that for long periods of time, sometimes hundreds of years, they coexisted)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Which is why I used the example in the first place. Are you just arguing with yourself or just insulted by MG's little jibe that you might have been a Trot because you don't seem to have a disagreement with me. Reminds me of the old Irish joke , the punch line of which is "Now what was it ye said ye had become?" says dad. The girl, crying again, "A prostitute! "Oh! Ye scared me to death, girl! I thought ye said a Protestant."

Actually I have wasted a bit of time looking at all these groups, you know, the old "peoples' front of Judea" game etc etc. Angels on pin heads spring to mind…..

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Ever thought of channelling your energies on something more productive?


Pick another hobby rather than baiting god botherers. Being the thinking man's troll, I'm sure you could find something more worthy of your wit.

In reply to The Lemming:


Why, it is productive, opinion is shifting in the right direction. This morning in The Times there was a prominent Op-Ed entitled: "Faith schools are divisive. Let's get rid of them". Then there were a whole bunch of letters-to-the-editor all questioning the role of religion in schools and suggesting that schools should be secular.

And this is The Times, pretty much a bastion of CofE-like Christian attitudes. Wandered into work with the warm and fuzzies, I did! I'll say this for the Muslims in Birmingham, they sure are doing a good job of discrediting the whole idea of giving religious people special influence in schools.


I quite like this hobby! And climbing of course.

In reply to Postmanpat:

"But I didn't say that, I said different religions have coexisted for long periods of time"
Please give some examples that haven't had religious conflict

"Millions of people believe non rational but also non-religious things. Are they incompatible with democracy as well?"

Not entirely sure of your point here, are there other global influential groups out there that refer to ancient texts as a basis for government's and law making. Not sure I am aware that the Disney fairy princess fan club has quite the influence of the Vatican. Governments and decision makers have to make complex information, in the example given of global warming the opinion of religious pressure groups shouldn't outweigh the rational analysis of globally peer reviewed scientific advisors.

"Are you suggesting that religions are the only non inclusive institutions in democracies"

So we are in agreement they are non-inclusive, there are plenty but in a strong healthy democracy they become less and less as we have seen in our own democracy as we rewrite the law books to force out discrimination based on sex, race religion, sexuality and yes religion, however no Religious group has ever rewritten its fundamental religious text to do the same. Could you please give some example of non-inclusive groups worldwide that have the influence of any of the major religions?
"So major religions such as protestantism and catholicism or even islam and christianity coexist generally peacefully for several hundred years over many parts of the globe but you don't think this shows that religions can coexist? Does this go for inability to coexist go for races as well?"
Generally peacefully- I would just rephrase that to in spite of religion they have sometimes existed peacefully for periods in time generally bookmarked by religious motivated large scale bloodshed and suffering, please give some examples of these peaceful havens of coexistence or are you sticking to the Middle East as your best example?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

But remove religion and presumably things go great? Stalin was a bit of a shite at times…

Bad people do bad things.. they just find something else to piggy back on; unless we live in a world devoid of cultural, national, racial and religious differences we will have this. You see it with immigration, divide and conquer; Britain First have been quite appealing to Sikhs and Hindu's because they know they often also oppose islam, which is quite scary… its the old 'First they came for the...'

In reply to IainRUK:


Well no, obviously there would still be other bad things about society. Religion is hardly the only bad influence. But we should still try to remove the excessive influence of religion.


That's like saying we should not bother opposing fascism or totalitarianism or racism, because people would "just find something else to piggy back on".

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Most of Western Europe 1700-1930 tarnished by sporadic antisemitism that is not primarily religious any more than persecution of gypsies. The Moslem caliphate and then the Ottaman empire tolerated large Christian minorities for much of their existence.



But there are plenty of religions that make no claim or no longer claim that their texts are a basis for law making. They simply act as pressure groups. If you believe in liberal democracy you must believe that includes the right of people or groups who think differently to you to participate in it. Is democracy a right for them?



Well obviously they are non inclusive as is the Labour party to Tories and the Alpine club to non Alpinists. I would think political parties and probably big corporations and NGOs in most Western democracies have more influence than religious organisations.

You appear to be moving your ground from "irrational thinking" is incompatible with democracy to "people with old texts that they no longer try exercise" are incompatible with democracy.



Western Europe's not bad. But you have conveniently missed the race question. Given that different ethnic groups peacefully for long periods of time bookmarked by large scale bloodshed are you promoting a system of global apartheid, or maybe certain races are incompatible with democracy?

My point is that if religions (and races) can coexist for hundreds of years they can coexist. As long as they don't try and usurp the role of secular institutions they have as much right as any other group to participate in the democratic process and are not incompatible with it.

To argue that because their beliefs are not scientifically rational so they are incompatible with or should be excluded from the democratic process could be applied to any number of people or groups and is a principle which undermines the whole concept of liberal democracy.

In reply to Postmanpat:


It seems to me that it indeed was primarily religious. For example the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in the era of Ferdinand and Isabella stated that any Jews converting to Christianity could stay (many did). Luther's anti-Jewish diatribes are clearly primarily religious in motivation.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well they were treated as inferior citizens and had to pay taxes and also provide effectively slaves, particularly the Janissaries.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But unless I am missing something they were dead by 1700!!

I agree it's a moot point but by the 18thC i think one can reasonably argue that attitudes to Jews were largely shaped by habit and by cultural and racial differences, not to mention envy, rather than religious concerns.

In reply to dissonance:

True , but this was pretty commonplace at the time regardless of religion. Non moslems were free to practice their religions, pursue their own educational systems, follow their own laws and controlled much of the economy.

In reply to Postmanpat:
I haven't at any point said that any one should be excluded from exercising their democratic right because of their religion, quite the opposite if you read carefully, I have said that religion should form no part of the laws and structures of a democracy and their has been historical president as dissonance has pointed out that one religious group even of times of peace and harmony as you see it have treated other religions as inferior socially and this has been implemented by laws and government

In reply to jethro kiernan:


No you didn't, hence my reference to the concept of "incompatibility", about which you said," It is the case that as democracy evolves it will become more intolerant of religion because religion has many aspects that are not compatible to a well-developed and healthy democracy."

Some religions may not be but I would said that Western liberal democracy has worked pretty well against a religious back. Indeed religion has and has arguably been the catalyst for that democracy (cue howls… )

Christianity always accepted a division between secular and religious authority although it has taken centuries of dispute to settle the boundaries. The question is whether Islam can do the same.

In reply to dissonance:

" The Moslem caliphate and then the Ottaman empire tolerated large Christian minorities for much of their existence."

Armenian genocide -Between 1894 and 1896 over 100,000 inhabitants of Christian Armenian villages were slaughtered during widespread pogroms conducted by the Sultan’s special regiments.

The Greek genocide- It was instigated by the government of the Ottoman Empire against the Greek population of the Empire and it included massacres, forced deportations involving death marches, summary expulsions, arbitrary executions, and destruction of Christian Orthodox cultural, historical and religious monuments. Est 750000-900000 deaths

Armenian genocide part 2 -1.5 million Christian Armenians killed by Ottoman empire.
Postman pat
Your latest example of religious peace and harmony is nearly as inane as the Middle East one

In reply to Postmanpat:


Which can be interpreted as "... more intolerant of religion being entwined with the state ....".


Hooowwwllll!!! The idea of a liberal democracy with freedom of conscience came as a reaction to the excesses of Christianity, in that people got bored of having to change their religion every time the monarch changed, and didn't like the prospect of being burned at the stake if they had got confused as to which flavour they were supposed to be.

Religion had actually long supported the Divine Right of Kings, and it was thinkers moving away from religion (e.g. Tom Paine, Jefferson, the French Revolution, etc) who started arguing for the equality of every citizen and thus a modern democracy.

In reply to jethro kiernan:



What is wrong with you? If people live together for two hundred years in relative peace, that ultimately it broke down doesn't show they didn't live in peace for two hundred years. Is this so hard to understand?

Simply showing that religious (and other persecution) happens, which is blindingly obvious, does not demonstrate that it always, or necessarily, happens.

And perhaps you could answer my comparison of racial division?

In reply to Postmanpat:


The latter might be more telling with regards to the tolerance, alongside the foreign power sponsorship of communities. Its far wiser to be tolerant of others when not doing is liable to end up with civil and international war.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Thats a bit of a sweeping statement. There has been several periods where Popes, in particular, tended to think their authority should be the final option. Its just that they never managed to achieve the level of power needed to enforce it for long.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Believe it or not in many parts of the world racial devision can't happen without religion, take an Armenian , a Christian Greek and an Moslem Turk who have lived in the same region for generations and there is no racial difference the difference is purely religious, and this is true in many parts of the world with racial tensions, religion has often been used as an excuse for racial oppression see quotes previously re slavery in United States

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And the Indie also:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/make-all-state-schools-secular-...

This sort of mainstreaming of anti-faith-school opinion looks like being the beginning of the end for them.

In reply to Postmanpat:
What is wrong with you? If people live together for two hundred years in relative peace, that ultimately it broke down doesn't show they didn't live in peace for two hundred years. Is this so hard to understand?

I post examples of historical events spaced 10s of years apart involving 100's of thousands of deaths refuting your argument and you ask me what is wrong! you still haven't given me an example of religion living in peace, the only example is secular Europe and that's not been without its problems, they key word is secular, the further religion is moved from government the lower the body count

In reply to jethro kiernan:


No,I asked what is wrong with you.

if 200 years isn't long enough for you so be it. Presumably if 200 years of war were followed by two bouts of peace you would characterise it as "mainly peaceful".

In reply to IainRUK:




Much as I hate farcebook (and everything it stands for)... I'm starting to wish UKC had a 'like' button system just like it.

In reply to dissonance:


"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's......."

In reply to Postmanpat:


And then, as soon as they got powerful enough to do so, they started executing people for blasphemy. And they continued doing so until they were no longer powerful enough to do so.

In reply to Postmanpat:

So several million dead people in the name of religion isn't a problem? Again what peace is this?the peace that included the ottoman- Russian wars or the ottoman- Serbian wars or the ottoman - polish wars or the ottoman Hungarian wars not to mention the ongoing issue with the Kurds ? Just saying you seam to have a fairly low threshold for what constitutes peaceful

In reply to Coel Hellier:


True. I'm not saying the Church didn't compete for powers (nor that organised religion cannot be a catalyst for war). But there it is absolutely crucial that at its core Christianity does not claim temporal power, thus, unlike in most Moslem countries the powers spiritual and temporal could be and were separate.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But how does one judge what the "core" of Christianity is? The only sensible answer is "Christianity is as Christianity does". Any other answer, pointing to particular bits of the Bible, is a theological judgment about which bits to point to. The fact is that nearly all Christian churches and sects (excepting Quakers perhaps) have claimed political power.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Glad to hear that, so you're just pretending you haven't then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

No, but I can confirm it was a waste on any more than an entertainment basis. Maybe you'll wake up to that yourself one day.

Is this a continuation of your argument with yourself or related to something you fantasised I said in this thread? Do tell x

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Not really. If one os arguing that religion is incompatible with democracy it seems reasonable to know both what they say and what they and how the two change.

In reply to Postmanpat:


As with most bits of the bible its wide open to interpretation. After all the next line is "and unto God the things that are God's". So how do you decide which is which?
Those in favour of more temporal power found bits to suit them.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Did you just seriously equate being religious with being a racist and/or racist.....

Come on Coel... You are too worked up.. That was beneath you..

We should oppose all discrimination.. Not oppose it with more..

In reply to Postmanpat:


But what you're doing is akin to those who quote the Koran saying: "There should be no compulsion in religion" and then declare that that shows that Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion. This totally ignores that large number of places in the Koran where it says entirely the opposite, and the fact that Islam as it is actually practised is highly intolerant and totalitarian.

Similarly, the simple fact is that for most of Christendom, from the Roman Empire adopting Christianity onwards, Christian leaders have claimed large swathes of temporal power and tried to control society. This only stopped when the churches were no longer powerful enough to do it. But even so we still, for example, have bishops in the House of Lords (what they heck are they doing there, who exactly elected them?).

In reply to IainRUK:


Well I think that a law saying that state-funded schools can discriminate in admissions according to the religion of the children's families is just as immoral and unacceptable as one allowing them to discriminate over the children's race.

I also think that a law requiring those children to participate in Christianity and in worshipping the Christian god in assemblies is as bad as a law that assemblies should celebrate and promote white kids and white culture, and that other kids should be expected to stand around in respectful silence.

I also think that the fact that Christians don't get there very basic points shows that they are very backwards when it comes to morals.


Why sure! So can we repeal the exemption that schools get from the 2010 Equality Act, and start having proper religious equality and religious freedom in this country?

In reply to IainRUK:
Surly the only way we can have religious freedom for all is for us to be in secular democratic System, as soon as one form of religion is incorporated into the government and education system then all other religions are a little less free

In reply to IainRUK:


This I suspect is the problem with your argument. You see the opposition to the special treatment that religion gets as discrimination. It isn't.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


You forgot the word "Republican" after "secular", it's hard to speak of freedom in a monarchy as the only logical justification for accepting the notion that some (monarch, aristos) have more rights than others is the religious one.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

You're missing the point. What my quote shows is that at the heart of Christianity is a message that enables it to split spiritual and temporal powers. The degree of this can be disputed but it is a clear and unequivocal enabler for Christianity to coexist within a secular State, even if for long periods it has been corrupted.

Your quote means that Islam can, as if sometimes has been, a tolerant religion and still be Islam. I am not pretending that these things always happened.

I am also in favour of disestablishment in the UK but I don't believe there is an inherent reason that Christianity cannot coexist perfectly happy with a liberal democracy.


You have this arse about tit. Leaders adopted Christianity because it was an effective tool of control, not visa versa. As a result Christianity became over powerful but that has now largely been redressed.

Who elected most of the House of Lords FFS? The bishops are the least of our problems with that cesspit.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce one follows the other, If Monarchy and church are seperated from state then they are more than welcome to sink or swim on their own two feet.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sure, and "at the heart" of most religions are a whole bunch of things that can be interpreted in all sorts of ways according to personal preference. That is exactly what theology is all about.

As I quoted, at "the heart" of Islam is a phrase in the Koran saying there should be no compulsion in religion. There are also lots of bits saying they should kill the unbeliever.


I agree, so long as it is held firmly in check by principles of secularism, and is not granted any political power. Give any degree of political power to churches and they use it to impose their religion.


This is just a way -- as usual -- of excusing the religion itself. Lots of people were actually motivated by their religion. The fact that in Protestant v Catholic times the monarch would impose their religion and execute the other side was not primarily about holding onto power, it was because they thought the religion really mattered.

The problem we in the secular West have today is that most of us don't realise the consequences of actually believing a religion. In the Islamic world we do still see that.

Your sentence is akin to saying that communism in the USSR and China was adopted just because people wanted power, whereas it is more true to say that they wanted power in order to impose communism.


Sure, but when Nick Clegg proposed his reforms to have an elected Lords his proposal **retained** the bishops!

In reply to Coel Hellier:
>
Yes, but as you agreed below , that need not make religion incompatible with democracy.


Most of them probably did. They didn't understand any rational alternatives. But this is nothing to do with religion "excusing itself" it's a rational historical analysis of the benefits of co-opting religious authority and infrastructure to an early medieval king as opposed to your over emotional religiophobia.


The problem you have is that you unable to distinguish between religious belief and the institutions that corrupt and misuse it.


Ultimately the former would appear to have been the case


Politics,politics. He'd probably dismiss it as "mere film flam" as he did the commitment "ever closer union"

In reply to jethro kiernan:


I don't know who, apart from Republicans, is proposing separating the monarchy from the state? That would surely imply Britain becoming a Republic?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Religious belief inspires badly-behaving institutions in the same way that communist beliefs do.

This whole idea of "corrupting" and "misusing" religion supposes that there is a pure and uncorrupted and beneficial version that is the "real" religion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Dont forget from many people of a fundamental point of view in their religion the pure and uncorrupted version is absolute adherence to the scripture and selectivly ignoring sections of the bible you find uncomfortable is corrupt (making any liberal christian corrupt).

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/gop-candidate-stone-gay-people

just as an example of potential law maker and religion

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Anything 'pure and uncorrupted' in religion, atheism or politics is zealotry.

You will sound like a bigot if you don't acknowledge that the religious people you socialise, work or climb with or randomly meet are generally decent people who are pretty normal rather than 'pure and uncorrupted'.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And both inspire good behaviour too. But that doesn't suit your case, so you ignore it.


Yes, it does, because yes, there is.

In reply to elsewhere:


The phrase was applied to religion, not to people.

In reply to Tim Chappell:


Not nearly as much as the religious like to claim. The evidence that religious people are overall better behaved is rather thin.


Well, you would claim that, wouldn't you?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
We don't have religions without people. A blanket condemnation of religious institutions, individuals or belief is too close to bigotry for me and contrary to my belief/experience that people are generally ok.

In reply to The New NickB:

They should ban the unions.. ..that's special treatment for workers and socialists. Despicable.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Absolutely right.

In reply to contrariousjim:


They should definitely stop giving HoL seats to the unions.

In reply to contrariousjim:

Are unions exempt from the Equality Act? Is the head of the TUC the head of state? Do our schools have a legal obligation to have a weekly celebration of the NUM and the prophet Arthur?

In reply to contrariousjim:


They should certainly stop handing over taxpayer-funded schools to be run by the unions, to impose Old Labour orthodoxy on all of the children.

In reply to contrariousjim:

>> The problem you have is that you unable to distinguish between religious belief and the institutions that corrupt and misuse it.


This excuse is reminiscent of all those communists who would say that there is nothing wrong with communism itself, it's just that every time it was tried the institutions corrupted and misused it.

Well, there is another quote from Jesus along the lines that you should judge something by its real-world implementation.

In reply to The New NickB:


The point isn't that the "special treatment" is identical, the point is there *are* many forms of "special treatment" received by other distinct groups, the favour being tailored toward the nature of those groups. The point is the crap that underlines this is some kind of elitist rationalism that detests anything that comes from another angle.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Key word being "institutions". All organised groups like that tend to become corrupt. Its not unique to religion or communism.. ..our parliament and its MPs is another good example. So its more to do with the way humans organise themselves and sequester power and favour, than anything to do with the commonalities that brought them together in the first place.

In reply to contrariousjim:

Identical?!?!?!!!

In reply to The New NickB:


Twas your insinuation that there should be some in the argument I made. Of course there isn't, but it doesn't undermine the point.

In reply to contrariousjim:


The "special treatment" enjoyed by the unions is actually pretty minor these days.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'll remember to remind those on here of that view the next time the contrary view appears re: strikes, support of political parties etc.

I'm looking forward to when the capitalist religion starts to get your critical attention.

In reply to contrariousjim:

Are unions exempt from the Equalities Act? Yes or no

In reply to contrariousjim:


There are a whole lots of laws about employment, balancing the rights of employers against those of employees. I don't see that unions get much special privilege in that. Employment law gives some limited protection against being sacked for taking industrial action, but that's about it.

In the old days the nation was split up into groups, with the aristocrats having lots of privileges, the church having lots of privilege, the yeomen and freeholders having more rights than the peasants and serfs, and everyone knew their place.

Nowadays we think it is better if everyone gets treated the same.


Once we've repealed "faith" schools and their exemption from Equality legislation, and repealed bishops in the Lords, and sacked Pickles, I'll get to work on it.

In reply to The New NickB:

All kids get a school place, we have single sex state schools.. Anyway I'm just not convinced by this 'brain washing' argument.. the simple fact is kids aren't staying with the church anyway, so as long as they get the NC does it really matter...

In reply to Coel Hellier:


wow.. and yet I've never once seen you post about single sex state schools?


Wow..

In reply to IainRUK:


Has anyone made a "brain washing" argument?


So religious freedom doesn't matter? So let's pass a law requiring Muslims to take part in Catholic worship, and Jews to take part in Protestant worship, etc. This would "not matter" if they could then go back to their own religions, right?? I think you'll find that this sort of thing does matter to people. Or are you saying it is kids and their feelings that don't matter?

In reply to IainRUK:

>> I also think that a law requiring those children to participate in Christianity and in
>> worshipping the Christian god in assemblies is as bad as a law that assemblies should celebrate
>> and promote white kids and white culture, and that other kids should be expected to stand around
>> in respectful silence.


And your argument for allowing one while considering the other unacceptable is ...?

In reply to Coel Hellier:



There is religious freedom.. if you send your kid to a C of E school they will just have to sit through the odd C of E related assembly..

There are plenty of other schools to attend. I went to a C of E school, we got taught the wrong lords prayer etc.. but it was a good local school, who took kids of any or no faith..

Re you 'white' argument.. because at a faith school, you aren't actually told that one religion is superior.. that one is the right one.. well not the ones I and mates went too.. Many friends went to the various catholic ones in sheffield as they had better academic records than most, and none were remotely regions on entering or leaving…

You are certainly fully exposed to a range of religions, that's what RE is for..

I find it quite funny you are so worked up, yet don't actually know what goes on in a church school… its actually quite laughable.. it's just your imagination on over drive..

In reply to IainRUK:



Probably true if you live in a city or large town, but often not the case in rural areas where the only village school is a CoE school (& yes, I know the historical reasons for this but that's no reason why there shouldn't be changes)

In reply to IainRUK:

What is it about a secular system of government and education you object to? I can understand that many people think what's the harm in the watered down Cof E system but why defend religious associations between government and education?

In reply to IainRUK: I'm sure you're right, those kids in Birmingham were probably taught that Judaism is just as right as Islam.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


I'm not that against it.. I just think of the issues that we need to deal with in the UK this ranks so far down.. its like the Monarchy. I don't like that we have the system, that someone can be born with that power, but to change our system? the costs?

If Chruch attendance was rising, there was evidence that kids were being deluded I'd be against it, but kids who go through these faith schools normally come out agnostic at most..

Sir Chasm, I'm sure there are abuses of the system, but I think the strict Islamic Schools are different and a tricky issue.. what do we do? Shut them down and you end up with home Schooling, this way at least we can try to regulate and have some sort of rounded education..

In reply to Doug:


And they will get accepted to that school, if they are in the catchment area and there is no other option.. that was why I went to a CoFE school, my experience was religious instruction was minimal..

In reply to IainRUK: Yes, make schools secular. Home schooling would be taken up by a tiny minority, this isn't the US.

In reply to IainRUK:

I understand that the Dawn French, Rowan Atkinson view we have of C of E is renders it fairly harmless in most peoples view, but are we not leaving a door open that could be exploited some time in the future, surly the time to make changes is when it is not a priority. History has shown us the good times never last and that religion can explode into viscous sectarian bloodshed when times are troubled . Surly separating religion and state/education is best done now whilst it would be relatively painless

In reply to jethro kiernan:
But its getting less all the time.. religion is constantly losing power, like the monarchy, I think the best way is just to leave it and it will die out. Look at average attendance Vs average age of attendees at church. It's a very strong patten, declining attendance with increasing ages.. most churches barely function now.. the Catholic parishes which have done well have been those with modern progressive priests..

Look at all the chapels being sold off for housing in Wales.

I think the more you push now the more the resistance and potential bounce back.. the data clearly shows we are moving towards a secular society, religion is less and less important, I think it will die out naturally. I think what we have now is fine, let the schools decide..

In reply to IainRUK:


I have got six primary schools within 2 miles of my house, 4 CofE and 2 Catholic.

In reply to IainRUK:


It is a bizarre concept of "religious freedom" that says we should have swathes of TAXPAYER-FUNDED schools handed over to the churches to run. How is that "religious freedom"?


They should be able to attend the local taxpayer-funded school without having to participate in religious mumbo-jumbo. THAT is religious freedom.


Not always, no. At least, not unless you're bussing kids around considerable distances, which is bad for the environment and bad for their health if they don't walk or cycle.


OK, so how about assemblies that promote and glorify whites and white culture. They never say that other races are inferior, they just promote white culture. And the non-whites are expected to just stand around in respectful silence. This would be ok with you would it?


I do know, duh. Actual practice varies across the thousands of schools. It is an utterly dumb argument to point to some variation in practice as a refutation of what I am saying.

In reply to IainRUK:


All we need is a one-line bill removing the exemption of schools from the 2010 Equality Act. That's it.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


But why bother? I'd like to have my children insulated from the general acceptance of the capitalist paradigm, the capitalist world view, but I can't have that in most schools. On the basis of what moral principle should we be endowed with the right to be insulated from one another's views so completely? It just seems perverse. What damage does being in a CofE school do? I mean if religion isn't interferring with the absolutes of an accepted curriculum, e.g. that our up to date knowledge of biology/evolution is able to be freely taught, who cares? And there should be, and needs to be mechanisms to ensure that anyway. Its not as if a religious education will achieve religiosity, at least not going by the school I attended (nor indeed our friends from the convent school we hung around with at that age)! You might find you lose you most potent secularising weapon!!! I really can't see what the actual fuss is about TAX PAYER FUNDED or not.

In reply to contrariousjim:


That's clear, but you may not be right.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
i would argue your one-line bill comes very low down on the list of important changes. why your obsession with religion?

all we need is love...

In reply to contrariousjim:


Amazing! It really is amazing the way secularists get accused by Christians of all the worst faults of Christians! It is **Christians** who want to be isolated from different views, that is why *Christians* want schools with a Christian ethos! We secularists want schools for *everyone* where one is exposed to all the various strands of society.


Sheesh, I've explained it multiple times:
1) People get told that they can't go to the local school of their choice because the admissions are controlled by bigots who say "no you can't come to the school because you don't attend our church".
2) Kids get coerced into worshipping gods they don't believe in. The school is run by bigots who say to the kids: "we are bigger than you, and you have to worship our god because we tell you to, we don't care whether you like it or not because your feelings don't matter".


It takes two side to argue. If you don't see what the fuss is about then how about you just go along with us in:
1) schools are not allowed to religiously discriminate over admissions (or any other treatment of kids), and
2) schools are not allowed to coerce religious participation.

Both are basic principles of religious freedom and religious equality. Do you believe in the principles of the 2010 Equality Act or not?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No.. I think there should be freedom.. secular schools and religious schools. As long as they teach the NC and proper science. I don't think Kids should have to attend faith schools.

In reply to IainRUK:


First, legally we do not have any secular schools. Legally, all of them have to do the compulsory god-worshipping stuff. Do you support the repeal of that law?

Second, "I don't think Kids should have to attend faith schools". So how about less-populated areas? Do you think it's a good idea (environment and health wise) to bus kids long distances, or would you agree that if there is only one local school then in needs to be secular?

Third, on that "I don't think Kids should have to attend faith schools", well kids normally don't get a choice of school, their parents do. In your opinion, should a 14-yr-old be compelled to participate in god-worshipping of a god they don't believe in, or do they have the right to absent themselves?

Lastly, if the churches are allowed their own schools, how about the political parties? Lots of Tory voters would love Tory-only schools. I bet that old-Labour union-run schools would be popular with some parents also. Are these ok with you?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

But we have schools with no faith.. I went to one, very mixed race, the head teacher was very much an athiest, didn't push his views on others but had no room for religion. I don't think we had ONE prayer said in the 6 years there. We were 20-30% muslim, it would have been hell had they tried.

third… so what, 30 seconds a day, as I said, the stats show they don't get converted… the main thing I care about is the standard of education, teaching kids to think for themselves, money should be focussed on that rather than re-regulating an education system in which religion has minimal impact.

lastly… you've gone utterly loopy again… most teachers are labour, ours openly were, I remember the 97 election well and the celebrations that morning. I remember having the radio on in school the day Thatcher was ousted.

Seriously in the world, the issues we have, this is just so nothing…

I'm out of this as its now a circular debate..

In reply to IainRUK:


De facto we do, yes, but not legally. Legally all schools are required to compel their pupils to worship a god. A school up in Newcastle asked for permission to not do this and it was declined. (And yes I do know that plenty of schools ignore the law and don't do it despite the lack of permission.) As I asked, do you support the repeal of this law?


30 seconds is a 30-second violation of religious freedom. Do you consider religious freedom to be an important principle or not?


Actually, the admissions issue really does matter to a lot of parents! Which school their kids go to really does matter to them. Do you care that kids are turned away based on church attendance, or is religious freedom not important to you? Would you be ok if people were turned away from hospitals based on whether they attend church or not?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


BS. Of course you don't. You're constantly advertising your fear of the various strands of society. Its what you live off.. ..that fear.. ..and that much is obvious to anyone perusing your threads! A Christian ethos would be an open ethos, and ethos open to different views, which is why christian schools aren't the conservative backwaters you so desire them to be.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Clearly not.


My question was about what damage does being *in* a CofE school!


My question was about what *damage* was being done. Your a man of evidence. What *damage* does being in a CofE school do per se.. ..except perhaps increase NSS membership in later life?


Why waste the time when there are things of actual import to argue about, rather than this basal instinct and desperation for intellectual cleansing.


Like the vast majority of non-obsessive compulsive obsessive rationalist intellecutal masturbatory folk out there.. ..I haven't read it.. ..but I doubt it invokes any actual ethical principle of note.

In reply to contrariousjim:


What utter tosh. I'm all about the free competition of ideas.


By definition a "Christian" ethos is one that promotes one particular view. It is not an inclusive as a secular ideal that includes everyone in a school.

In reply to contrariousjim:


The damage is being done *at* *the* *time*. If the kid is resenting having religion imposed on him then that is damage right there and then. It is not the case that kids' feelings don't matter and we can treat them any way we like -- so long as it doesn't cause long-term damage.

In the same way, you couldn't take a bunch of Muslim adults and compel them to worship as Hindus for a week, and then say that's fine because they could revert to Islam after a week and no long-term harm is done. I can promise you that all hell would break loose if you tried that. This is exactly why we have principles of religious freedom.


It takes two sides to argue. If you don't consider these things important then just shrug and say, ok, let's have religious freedom if it matters to you. The churches go to great lengths to lobby for the continuation of these privileges, so you can't claim that it's not important.

>> Do you believe in the principles of the 2010 Equality Act or not?


Gobsmacked! So the idea that someone should not turn down a job applicant because they are black is not an "actual ethical principle of note"?

In reply to the thread:

"a special poll for the Observer shows ... that 58% of voters now believe faith schools ... should not be funded by the state or should be abolished."

"Fewer than one in three (30%) said they had no objections to faith schools being funded by the state."

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-...