Faith or indoctrination?

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.

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 stands for

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.

should read "last night" soz

Yes, any state religion has a privileged position. But ours happens to be Christian. That's relevant, surely? Whether the CoE should be disestablished or not is a different discussion. I don't think it gets us very far simply to assume that it isn't a good thing to have an established church or to state that there shouldn't be bishops in the House of Lords. Why not?

Well lilygran - why not a privileged position for muslims/jehovah's witnesses/ quakers etc.? - why not give members of their hierarchies an automatic place in our legislature unelected?

I think the disestablishment of the church is very relevant to the discussion about indoctrination. Presumably primary schools like my GS's (where christian doctrine is, exclusively among all religions, being disseminated as fact, even though this is not a church school), would be freed of this burden if the church was disestablished.

Disestablishing the church does not kill it off or result in discrimination against believers. It simply places it where it should be - as a personal matter for the individual. If families wish to bring their children up in a particular religion then they are (and would be if the church were disestablished) free to do so. What is so wrong is that the bulk of non-religious people are subsidising the teaching of a particular religion in schools whether they like it or not.

Disestablishment would the first step on a dangerous road. We must hang on to Christianity. It is a decent religion bringing nothing but good to our way of life. Society is going badly wrong in places, without getting rid of the good that we have.

Nothing but good..........hmmmm.........can I just whisper the words Northern Ireland?

You really think they were fighting over the Christian religion?

Anyone in the House of Lords is in a privileged position. We now have a situation in which only the few hereditaries who are still there and the bishops have been elected. The rest are there by government selection.

The bishops have been elected by the church. Why is that? Why not a lay person or an agnostic? Why bishops at all? It makes no sense. They are simply there because we have an established church - that is wrong. Religious freedom is essential; institutionalised religion is unacceptable.

There are bishops making decisions on behalf of us all, when they are there simply because of their personal religious beliefs, not on the basis of their personal qualities. And, to be honest, an institution that has sought special dispensations to avoid adhering to national laws regarding sexual equality that the rest of us have to abide by does not stand out as a beacon of integrity for me.

In NI the dispute was about tribal divisions, based on religious affiliation - those who subscribe to christianity cannot ignore what it can do. All those of my acquaintance who subscribe to the church approach it in a more sophisticated and less tribal fashion, but the fact that many millions of people approach it in a more primitive fashion cannot be ignored. Doctrines that deal in fundamentals carry that danger, and we see the fruits of that all round the world in every culture.

Yes, they were, and are, divided up as Catholics and protestants, but it was politics they were fighting about. They were n' t saying "you must worship my God my way". That would be fighting overChristianity.

Would you rather Islam was the main religion in Britain, with all that could bring?

So you do want the Christian religion to carry on in your local church? But not in the village school perhaps? Where would that leave the Christmas Nativity play? Do you want that banned?

I have read discussions here in the past where people object to the fact that Scottish mp's can vote on legislation which will apply only in England and Wales . This is a justifiable complaint -although many abstain on such issues.
Scotland is subject to decisions made by the House of Lords and the bishops therefore have a say in what happens here despite the fact that the C of E is not the established church in Scotland. There is NO established church here - hence no faith schools as there are in England. There are RC schools but they, like lea schools are publicly funded and lea controlled.
So why should C of E bishops have any say at all, directly or indirectly in what goes on here?
There is no justification in the 21st century for this outdated system to continue.

Ps In lea schools in Scotland, nativity plays are still seen!

Well, you'll all have to vote for independence won't you?

Now there's an idea!

Exactly jings - christianity practiced in the church but not in the school. That is precisely how it should be.

And as to the nativity play.........I see no reason why that should not cease, but I would not want it banned, any more than any other play on another religion. It is not an essential element in education, but it serves a historical function in explaining to the children one of the origins of Christmas, along with pre-existing midwinter festivities. There are plenty of other subjects (and indeed religions) around which plays could be (and indeed are) devised. Children take part in plays around many myths and legends - that's fine in my book. There are important things to be learned from them if they are chosen with discretion.

I do not want islam or any other religion to dominate our society. But I do think it is a weak argument to want an established christian church just for the purpose of preventing any other religion getting hold. I think that is a bit of a minority view.

"That would be fighting over Christianity." - indeed, just as has gone on for generations.

Let us have religious freedom, not dictatorship and indoctrination.

Neatly put Mishap. Elements of thought, reason and restraint in your post.

No. I think it's a very valid argument in these times.

I will always be happy to see children being taught the tenets of t h e Christian faith. Mainly because of the two commandments Jesus gave us. Love God and love thy neighbour as thyself. What could be better? I don't think younger children will ever learn so well from a cold ethics lesson as they do from a lesson based on a story from a Children's bible - the good Samaritan for example.

May I ask which pre-Christian midwinter rituals you would like to see brought back? Just out of curiosity.

What do you actually do in your deep-in-the-country village to mark Mid-winter?

Apologies for introducing a bit of levity there.

Especially to mcem. (the apologies)

JINGLE

xx

Well- the vicar organises all sorts of midwinter events, including wassailing the apple trees! And we enjoy it a lot!

Love your neighbour indeed - exactly what I am saying. Love god makes a huge presumption that is not taken as read by all.

An indeed, stories like the good samaritan get my vote, as do similar myths from various religions and cultures.

I am not in favour of "cold ethics" - myths and legends are more fun and demonstrate many virtues.

No-one could object to those tenets of the christian faith that foster kindness and love. It is not all quite so benign though, and it is not necessary to peg those virtues on a particular religion when providing children with guidance.