Faith or indoctrination?

Have just caught up with this thread and the responses to what was said last If you were genuinely not being sarcastic Atqui I apologise unreservedly. I just thought it strange that you should pick words out of a post two or three days ago and quote them back. I am sorry I criticised your punctuation. Very bad of me!

But Gordon Bennett! No one need leave Gransnet because of me. I can think of an alternative solution that might be better all round!

Sorry for the hijack. As you were. Thank you.

it stands for

CofE currently has a privileged position (bishops, House of Lords). It shouldn't have. And that has nothing to do with what flavour of religion is stands for. The same would apply to any state church.

It would in a properly secular state with good secular laws applied equally to everyone. There's no reason why we can't achieve this with a disestablished church.

There is a school of thought that the loose and inclusive nature of the modern Church of England is what ensures everybody's freedom to worship or not as they see fit. I wonder, if it weren't for the CoE continuing to maintain that freedom and the need to respect everyone's position in matters of faith, whether it would continue?

Good posts, mishap and feetle, and I agree. Secularism gives protection of religion (be part of any one you like) and from religion equally and is, because of that, the fairest approach.

Why would anyone want something different from fairness except to have an unfair advantage?

I still don't understand how a 'country' can be described as 'Christian' anyway. An individual can choose to espouse a given set of ideas, yes; unlike sexual orientation it IS a choice!

What is needed, to protect EVERYbody's freedom to 'worship' or not as they please is a secular country - which in most practical ways we now have. That is completely INclusive, and removes un-supported belief from governance so that no single cult has any un-earned advantage.

Couldn't agree more, Mishap!

The institutionalised nature of christianity in Britain is just a historical accident and based on the whims of the royals of the time. There is no reason why our lives should be dictated by it. The disestablishment of the church is long overdue. Heirs to the throne who are genuine religious doubters are in an impossible position.

I haven't been around for a few days, so have just read this thread carefully, because I know it is a topic that can produce heated debate. It was really interesting to read in one sitting, and to follow the debate, and the inevitable digressions through.

As ever, it is sad to see reasoned, thoughtful discussions knocked into touch by either inane comments or pointed rudeness. Such a pity.

(This is only a "Christian country" because the C of E is the established church, and part of government. There is no reason why any one religion should be seen to be predominant just because of history.)

When I left GN the first time it was mainly because you made a similar comment to me Jings. i don't plan to do likewise this time but would like to point out that such a comment can be quite shattering (it was to me although I suspect Galen is made of sterner stuff) None of us can know how individuals are feeling and perhaps we should be more thoughtful with our responses.

I sincerely hope that Galen did not think my response to her comment was sarcastic. I was aghast that Jings should accuse me with such a rant. I was genuinely pleased that someone else was feeling the same doubts as me. I went to bed rather than being drawn into it. What a shame . I really enjoyed the thread .

Don't abandon us galen - some threads do degenerate in this way. It is best to drift away from them temporarily until things get back on kilter again - which I am sure they will.

Have you got a windy day in the Bristol channel? - we are not that far from you and it is very windy today. We unexpectedly have two little grand-boys here this morning and there was no question of a lie -in!

Hope that they day will cheer up for you.

Galen - you posted late in the evening, I hope you decide not to go .
I can understand your frustration though.

I'd go to bed, Galen, if I were you. When you get up in the morning, this thread will most likely have been abandoned and everyone arguing over something else entirely.

There is nothing wrong with taking a break from Gransnet, but it's good to do it quietly. To throw a hissy fit is called "flouncing".

Oh what rubbish!

I give up!
I am resigning from GN !
It's getting too nasty for me!
Goodbye all!

I think I might be working it out. Some punctuation would have been good.

Atqui was obviously referring back to the post I highlighted there.

To use a phrase from my post, and put quote marks round it, was quite obviously sarcastic.

Atqui I don't understand that last sentence.

I think atqui's remark follows from galen's, jings old bean.

JINGS- not in the least bit sarky.Sorry though that you found it appropriate by your admission to contribute 'crap' to the discussion.

( Atqui Fri 25-Apr-14 21:18:46)

My God Atqui ! Was that a sarky reference to something I said earlier in this thread. On Wednesday actually?

Are you hanging on my every word? I really wouldn't bother. I can talk as much crap as the next person.

I have never understood what salvation means - what are we to be saved from? Being human? Hell and damnation?

We just need to live lives of kindness and consideration, and sadly there are times when religions stand in the way of that.

We need to teach those values to our children independently of religious dogma.

To revert to an earlier thread here, I have just driven my DGS (aged 5) back from the swimming pool and he was singing about Jesus being crucified. I asked where he had learned the song and he said "At school." This is an LA non-church school. I call that indoctrination.

I understand where galen is coming from. The older I get, the more I question.