YES! We are a nation of secularists

I think that feeling we get when we see, touch or hear beautiful things like churches, temples, stirring music, stunning sunsets etc. are evidence of (for want of a better word) our innate human spirituality, our ability to appreciate awesome beauty in all forms. It isn't the presence of someone's god.

bags I think that's beautifully put "there is a glory in it that we all feel".

lilygran I may concede I'm off the mark for wealth these days, at least for Mr Jo Average clergy person. But there is still the power aspect. I have met very many clergy who are simply up full of themselves. But recently I did meet a 'good man' who went a long way to restoring my ...not faith, as I don't have any, but faith in some 'men of god'.

And on a lighter note there's always the Vicar of Dibbly and the sainted Alice!!

Of course they missed the point Lilygan - three generations at least missed the point, all with different clergy coming in and out of their lives, pocketing regular large cheques over at least fifty years that I'm aware of, and having their distorted views reinforced by the church, whose regular requests for more money were stashed in the bureau at my ex's childhood home. No entreaties from the church to scatter their wealth amongst the poor, but at least the clergy lived in fine style! That's corporate corruption, not just one individual wheedling money out of parishioners. Its the culture of the church. My ex still gives large sums to the church, but getting him to shell out for his children is like getting blood out of a stone. The church comes first, and ex's current partner is delighted to be able to brag in the Co-op that she's buying a cream cake cos the vicar's coming round. hells bells that could have been me! He certainly isn't going there for stimulating conversation - he knows what side his bread is buttered on.

By the way, my children have told him to get his act together and stop making promises of wealth after his death. He can stick it in the collection box!

Oh, Nana, the time and money spent on keeping the buildings going (often by a small group of not-very-well- off people) is worth it if it gives anyone a place of refuge, for whatever reason. But you are way off the mark if you think there is wealth and power attached to the clergy these days! Certainly CoE priests have a lower than average income for people with their educational background. A lot now work for nothing, supporting themselves with a day job or being supported by a spouse's earnings. Some now have posts in the church in return for subsidised accommodation. As the Jewish joke says, when Jonny told his parents he wanted to be a rabbi, his mother exclaimed, 'A rabbi? What kind of job is that for a Jewish boy?' No home of your own, 24/7 on call, loaded with other people's troubles all the time, responding to people at crisis points in their lives and likely to be attacked both verbally and physically by the mentally deranged.......

Yes, dog, the meeting of good people does 'touch' one, and preserving the beauty of splendid man-made things is worth doing for its own sake. There is a glory in it which we all feel.

It makes church charities irrelevant insofar as it's perfectly obvious that religion is not necessary to make people charitable. That is not the same as saying that the church charities are not good per se (if they are; not all charities do what I would define as good), so don't read that into what I've said which is just that altruism/charitableness is not dependent on religion.

I have a very low opinion of 'men of god' in general, based on personal experienc, and have no belief in a god or any of the institution that surround the various deities. I do agree with most of the observations on religion posted by greatnan and bags.

Yet oddly like petallus I found myself drawn to our lovely local church at a time of overwhelming pain and sorrow. I found comfort in the building itself and in the ritual of lighting candles. Why? Perhaps as a place of refuge?

Our churches do need to be preserved not just as beautiful and historic buildings but for reasons I find hard to explain. And some of the new churches are very beautiful too. More and more 'mini churches' are being build by community groups anyway.

The established churches/religions in this country had too much power, and that corrupts. The men who chose the church as a career (and it was a career choice) were usually influenced by the power and position and access to wealth it gave them. They still are. But just occasionally you meet one who is 'a good man' (or woman) and that touches me.

There are some nasty people around, when but I'd suggest they had completely missed the point!

You have said that before, and I have pointed out that the Church itself stopped the sale of indulgences 500 years ago! Also it was widely documented as an example of exploitation at the time. Yes, you can support secular charities but that doesn't mean there aren't any religious charities. How does that make church involvement irrelevant?

My ex's father, his wife, sister and parents were all ardent church-goers and left large legacies to their two local churches, including sums of money for benches to be provided in the gardens of each church, bearing their names. They didn't leave a penny to any charities, and the whole estate except for these legacies went to their mean, selfish son. As Christians, they didn't teach him anything about good human values, only to keep in with the church so their god would look after them when they died. They were motivated by money and would get very upset if they thought their fortune woud be dispersed. My mean ex repeatedly tells his four lovely children.....'you'll get plenty when I'm gone.'

A good example of generations of a family indoctrinated by their church into paying out largesse to gain some sort of status in the parish, motivated by the opportunity of personal benefit, and superstitious about keeping to the Church of England rules to the detriment of those who would have benefited from a litte generosity.

My children have learned to try to be altruistic, share with others, be warm and empathetic, and brush off their silly father's irrational beliefs. They didn't get that from the church, but from thinking for themselves.

I'm not very religious, but I was in Jerusalem last week and standing outside the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre! There was a very long que to get in, so I was just standing with my crutches trying to get a photo, when the custodian pulled aside the barrier and mentioned me and one of our group inside. I managed with his and a monks help to duck under the low lintel and enter!
We spent a couple of minutes in there and he lit candles for us.
When I came out I was in tears! I don't know why but I really was very moved.

And I did make it clear in an earlier post that charitable works are quite separate from racketeering. And in any case, there are plenty of secualr charities, so church involvement is irrelevant.

Nonsense, lily! I have a very high opinion of human ability to adapt and to create! You clearly haven't read posts of mine on other threads where I say this. I don,t have a low opinion of human nature at all. I have a low opinion of religious organisations. Getting people to pay for indulgences is, in my view, just the same, morally speaking, as the racketeering of modern tele-evangelists.

You have a very low opinion of human nature, Bags. Many people are motivated by other than personal benefit, superstition, 'indoctrination', whatever. There was a discussion about altruism on another thread. I'm not sure I believe in the selfish gene any more than I'm persuaded by Dawky's quasi-theological arguments - not in the case of human beings, anyway. MiceElf

In response to the comment that some of the recent comments have been unpleasant. Yes, maybe, but that's because some of us think The Established Church is unpleasant and needs taking down a peg or two, or however many bishops there are in the House of Lords. That would be a good start.

Yes, church members groups often do good works, and yes, there's a good argument for preserving historic and beautiful buildings. I don't have a problem with that, but I'd rather there weren't any more built, not for the glory of gods anyway.

It's not inaccurate to say that rich bods in the past (and nowadays for all I know) paid money into the church (RC) as penance and to get forgiveness. When I talk about this kind of thing, I'm not just talking about the Anglican Church, but the whole historical christian caboodle.

Well said Lilygran. It's good to have an informed response to a few wild assertions.

aka brainwashed.

Yes, you can argue that it was given voluntarily, but that's not a strong argument when people had to be indoctrinated first.

So where did the 'private' money come from, lily? People. People are the public.

I like churches. When my mother died I got into the habit of lighting a candle if I happened to be in a church. Although I don't think there is a god I found the ritual comforting. Churches are so quiet and peaceful for thinking in.

I think we've had this discussion before and repeating all the points previously made doesn't make the argument stronger. I think the CoE has too many buildings but as long as we have ancient and valuable landmarks, the members of the church will have to keep on paying for the repairs and the organs ( a number of non-believers have spoken warmly on other threads about church music) and the replacement of stolen lead and the upkeep of the grounds. Westminster Abbey is the only church I know of which charges for admission unless you are attending a service, but I'm open to correction. The 'wealth' of the CoE goes to pay for clergy training, clergy pensions education and mission work, charity and the upkeep of the central secretariat - none of it comes out of public funds except the occasional grant which any charity can apply for. I think many church members would rather spend their time and money on charity and good works but as long as we're responsible for the plant, we've got to pay for it! I'm happy to debate any aspect of atheism v belief but I think some of the recent comments have simply been unpleasant as well as being misled.

The CofE should be disestablished! It is ludicrous that one Christian sect should have any say or influence on the running of the country. Religion and politics should be separate, so that we can truly be a secular state.

Thanks, G

I'll stand in front of you, Bags!

Nowadays of course, I should say, they try to, but people are slowly getting wise to the nonsense and moving away.