Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
I have just watched an item on this morning's news about research into the growth of religions. (It's morning where I live.) I didn't catch who had done the research. A professor from Massey University in New Zealand was discussing the research but, as in all news programmes, he was allocated a fairly short slot.
What he did say was that it seems that Islam will become the biggest religion in the world by the end of this century, that Christianity is increasing but at a much slower rate than Islam and, perhaps most surprisingly, the number of those with no affiliation to any religion is decreasing world wide except in three countries. New Zealand is one of the three.
Africa seems to be central in the growth of Islam as tribal beliefs break down. He also said that the fact that Moslem families tend to be bigger than Christian ones these days needs to be taken into account when looking at reasons for the growth of this religion.
While the Catholic church has a global agenda focused on both Africa and Asia, he thinks that other Christian churches tend to concentrate more on what he called their own patches. The research suggests that Africa will have the largest Christian population in the world by 2050.
As an atheist I found the no affiliation decrease particularly interesting but there wasn't time to discuss that. I would suspect that there are lots of people who claim a loose affiliation with a religion – like always ticking C of E in the religion box on old-fashioned forms – rather than being actively involved. Perhaps the uncertainty of global politics, especially the extent of recent terrorist activity, has also made people "storm converts".
If you are not a believer, and do not wish to avail yourself of the Church services, whatever they are- why not say you do not have a religion.
No one's disagreeing with that, I was just wondering why anyone who does admit to having a Christian leaning should be penalised for it. BTW church weddings in the UK are not free!
But it is not about being penalised. but paying for the services provided by your 'club'. The Golf Club example amy seem daft- but it illustrates that quite well I think. It could be the squash club, or the Choir to be the rental of the room and the director, etc.
There is a very long tradition of Church goers having to pay a % of income to pay for the running of the Church, salaries, etc.
Weddings are not free, but there is no way the fees charged for weddings would finance the running of the Church (buildings, salaries, services, utilities, etc, etc, etc).
I dont like the church tax idea.
Pay to be in it. And if you dont pay, you cant have it.
Are there pastors, or pastoral workers from the church who look after those who dont pay the church tax?
In many C of S parishes there is no fee as such for a wedding service. A fee to the organist, gratuity to church officer. Same applies for baptisms and funerals but services are not conditional on these payments.
So it does mean that church members who make regular contributions do 'subsidise' non-members who could feasibly ask to have a wedding, baptism or funeral and pay virtually nothing.
Grander churches like abbeys can and do charge substantial fees.
In some cases church membership is needed for a wedding or baptism but not for a funeral where the minister will conduct the service for anyone living in the parish.
CofE churches used to receive tithes - 10% of your income. Where the church incumbent was titled Rector, the incumbent received the tithes, while where the incumbent was a Vicar the tithes passed elsewhere...
I feel that the NHS shold not have to bear the cost of hospital chaplaincy, that the church as representative of 'the employer' should pay them. The last bill I saw ran over 40 million - you could get a fair few nurses or other useful people for that!
Actually, the Catholic and Protestant Chruches here do provide social services of one kind or another to all- whether they paa the tax or not- by personally, I think it is wrong and unfair to expect them to do so. Why should a few people have to pay for the others who could easily pay but choose not to do so? Those few also have to organise loads and loads of fund-raising actitivities to supplement the sort-fall- it takes all their time and energy. They do try, and at time fail (and I don't blame them) not to judge or to resent- those who avail themselves of the services but refuse to contribute, be that in taxes or in time and effort- but it must be hard, really. When the number of staff is constantly cut, where parishes are joined and vicarages and other accomodation are sold to provide funds, and the hours and time spent is forever increased for those left, etc.
We are not Church goers, and do not pay our taxes- and yet help be making our premises available for free and lots of our time, preparing food and serving it, cleaning up afterwards, paying the electricity bills, and taxes on the premises, etc, organising trips and activities- whereas other Church goers do nothing! We don't mind at all- but at the same time have to wonder- is that fair?
How would you feel if some members of the Golf Club didn't pay their membership fees? In our case, we helpt run the club but don't even pay! Talk of the irony.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
