Oh My Oh My

[KatacrossthePond]

Can we come against this with (reasonable) arguments please? At the moment it seems like not many Christians are contributing to the debate and the agenda is set by secularists and atheists...

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=4522&&&edition=1&ttl=20061027161619

[gtsecc]

miss posted

[karen freeinchristman]

The 'comments' section is interesting.


I'm ambivilant about whether the C of E should remain 'Established'. There are positives and negatives about it. But the argument, of course, is not only about the C of E, but about religion and politics, about all faiths and the state, and what the boundaries are. (by the way, this is related to my Paradigm Shift thread, I believe)

[TomUK]

John 11:35

[Fairbairn]

The 'comments' section is interesting.


I'm ambivilant about whether the C of E should remain 'Established'. There are positives and negatives about it. But the argument, of course, is not only about the C of E, but about religion and politics, about all faiths and the state, and what the boundaries are. (by the way, this is related to my Paradigm Shift thread, I believe)

I think that the establishment of the Church of England is very important. I don't think that the Church of England abuses its power in any way because it is so sensible and it takes its responsibility to represent all parisioners very seriously. Because the CofE is so diverse in itself, it can very accurately represent all Christian denominations in public life, and I think other churches are quite happy for CofE to have this role (and of course, they are well consulted).

As for other faiths, I think they are also happy for CofE to lobby governement on most moral issues. Most faiths agree on most moral issues so there are not many conflicts.

It would be a great loss to the nation to lose an established CofE.

In a couple of weeks, Britons will make their annual visit to the inside of a church.

[Fairbairn]

As for the school debate, I thought the 25% non-adherant quota was a fantastic opportunity for evangelism. CofE schools traditionally reserve places for non-Christians, but I have always thought the numbers should be much higher. I don't really understand why RC schools give top priority to baptised and active RCs for 100% of their places - it is so shortsighted.

It would be so good to have non-Christian children in church schools and Christian children in secular schools - double whammy.

[ebia]

I don't really understand why RC schools give top priority to baptised and active RCs for 100% of their places - it is so shortsighted.
I don't know about England, but here the answer is historical. The RC schools were founded to help deal with the very considerable inequality in opportunity that existed between Catholic and Protestant (including Anglican) communities.

[KatacrossthePond]

As for the school debate, I thought the 25% non-adherant quota was a fantastic opportunity for evangelism. CofE schools traditionally reserve places for non-Christians, but I have always thought the numbers should be much higher. I don't really understand why RC schools give top priority to baptised and active RCs for 100% of their places - it is so shortsighted.

It would be so good to have non-Christian children in church schools and Christian children in secular schools - double whammy.

From what I gathered when briefly discussing RC at college, they are very much a faith based community - a bit like the Jewish community. RC's still marry RCs adn look out for each other etc. It's an insider - outsider thing. And I guess that then includes looking after your kids' education. :)

[Simon_Templar]

People who think that society can be secular are just fooling themselves.

The question isn't, Religion or no religion.. the question is what religion will you have?

There are two reasons I say this.
#1 - the VAST majority of people in the world are religious, including those who claim not to be. Particularly those who crusade against 'religion'. In the vast majority of cases the absence of religion is a myth propagated to give a distinct advantage to a religious view that defines itself as non-religious.

#2 - true lack of religion can't sustain a society. This ties in to the problem of moral relativism. Neither one can uphold a society. They are essentially designed to fail. They will fail, and result in rising levels of chaos and lawlessness which in turn will require a response of increased governmental force and control, which in turn will result in loss of freedom and an imposed religious system.

[KatacrossthePond]

I wonder does anyone know what the precedent in the old communist countries is? Religion was 'banned' there wasn't it?

I know communism failed in the end due to market forces and increasing globalisation...but how much of that was also due to the total ban of faith communities?

[Simon_Templar]

actually religion wasn't banned in communist countries, it was just strictly controled. They allowed state churches, but the churches were restricted in what they could do and teach by the state. essentially they were made into puppets of the communist party. In many cases the legitimate clergy were forced into exile and replaced with those appointed by the communists.

[KatacrossthePond]

actually religion wasn't banned in communist countries, it was just strictly controled. They allowed state churches, but the churches were restricted in what they could do and teach by the state. essentially they were made into puppets of the communist party. In many cases the legitimate clergy were forced into exile and replaced with those appointed by the communists.
....which I guess in effect amounts to a ban of 'real' religion... A bit like in China where the state sanctioned church teaches a caricature of Christianity that fits with where the state wants it to go...

[SirTimothy]

I wonder does anyone know what the precedent in the old communist countries is? Religion was 'banned' there wasn't it?

No. Communism was their God.