From the Humanist Association - discuss

Oh. I see.

Alea I would describe ISIS and Al Queda as fighting a religious war, at least in their eyes.

Back to the question, I agree that the church should be disestablished. Apart from anything else this would release the church from compromising its beliefs to suit present day morals (or lack of depending on your viewpoint). It would also mean that the Queen and her successors (assuming the monarchy continues) would no longer need to be head of the church, and would be free to marry into another religion - having a Moslem mayor would be nothing compared to a Moslem consort or even future King or Queen!

Don't get your connection starbird, I am not aware I had made any comment about Isis etc.
I was under the impression this thread was about the disestablishment or not of the Church of England. But as it is a 17-page long thread, perhaps you could remind me of my comment?

What did I say?

#confusedandbewilderedmaybejustforgetful.

?

what?

I seem to be taken to task by starbird (today 18.13) but have no idea what for.
Just asking

Alea you wrote . "Oh and hadn't you noticed there are no religious wars these days"
I guess you were just thinking of Christianity.

Please don't be upset by my comment. It was meant to be semi lighthearted.

Once England severs the already tenuous connection between church and state and we become a secular country, the influence of the majority will potentially have more influence, - and that majority in terms of being actively religious, are the Moslems, who will also grow more rapidly due to a higher birth rate.

I hasten to add I have nothing against moderate moslems.

I have read through all 17 pages of this thread and felt my blood pressure soar yet again at what I think was an unbalanced, aggressive and inflammatory broadside on a range of aspects of the established church in England, and by sweeping generalised extension, the Church of Scotland and of Wales from Justin Welby to little village C of E primary schools , I have at last found my comment and it was in response to a suggestion that Switzerland was to be emulated as an evumenical example unlike England which was still mired in the religious persecution of Henry VIII!
As I said and it was 4 months ago , we do not do wars of religion in England any more and yes, you are right, of course you could argue that that is what ISIL et al are conducting, but IMHO that is more about politics than religion.
However........I do not want to get this whole argy bargy going again! So I will just agree and hope the whole Cof E bashing is given a bit of a rest now

You are right- it was indeed about politics, and not religion. About the unfair advantage and position the CofE has in the Lords and the Government in general, the education system and all. And there is no bashing of the CofE at all- where on earth did you get that? The point is that in a country that is increasingly secular and multicultural- having one religion, and only one of their denomination- is just out of date and unfair.

And yes, there are no wars of religion (unless agains Islam by some- but that is another story and not for here). As annie says on another thread, how can Catholics and Protestants have joint marriages and funeral with both Catholic Priest and Protestant Vicar together - and in each other's Churches ... well it's possible here- as there is nos strict order of service and book of prayers to follow. If you go back to history and HenryVII (and then Elisabeth and James) the CofE was never a truly reformed Church as on the Continent or in Scotland. Henry wanted to get rid of the Pope and take the lands and riches of the Catholic Church, and was totally anti the Continental REformation movement and beliefs. And Elisabeth was not interested in 'cutting windows into her subject's souls' (can't remember the exact words.

So no religious wars- but unfair power to one denomination which is not representative of the country anymore. And see what happens when a Monarch (go on Harry...) wants to marry a Catholic and see what happens- or a Muslim (remember Doddy?) or, OMG - someone who is an atheist or humanist and insists on making that clear, rather than go through all the pretence...

In the 21st Century and with the make-up of the population, it is an anathema to have one official religious group (not even religion) sharing power officially- and Government and religion should be totally separated.

I am very sorry if it makes your blood boil btw.

Almost everyone in our village supports fundraising events for the church, although very few attend services. We simply don't want to lose the lovely old building which resonates with history and tradition and is also now used for many community events.

That tradition cannot justify the continuing establishment of the C of E. It is absurd that bishops sit in the House of Lords (which of course is absurd in many ways and should be reformed or abolished).

Even more absurd is the state sponsorship and funding of so-called "faith schools" which combine segregation with indoctrination. Religious parents can ensure that their children attend their church, mosque, synagogue or temple where religious instruction (as opposed to education) is freely available but all children should be entitled to an inclusive education, alongside others from different traditions. Support the Accord Coalition www.accordcoalition.org.uk

Alea this is what you said:
"You totally fail to recognise the progress of ecumenism in this country. Oh and hadn't you noticed there are no religious wars these days (and in the bad old days when there were, I would urge you to look at Mainland Europe for how to do a really good religious war) and don't bring NI into it, that has an awful lot more to do with politics and history than religion."

To which I replied that I thought Isis was fighting a religious war.

When most of these religious places were started they was a need for them.

Nowadays there's a need for affordable housing.

The answer seems, knock down the religious places and build affordable homes, and if doG doesn't like it he can kiss my ass !! {smile]

People still need their churches.

Annie, I understand what you are saying- but the truth is that SOME people need their Churches, others, like me, just love the buildings.

But for how long? Here where I live, the Church buildings of ooficial Churches, here Protestant, belong to the Council and not the Church. I love our 13C Church, right in front of our house (which was the Vicarage from 1987 to 2008) - but it is costing the Community, via taxes, a lot of money per household. There is a service perhaps every couple of months with a small Congregation and a few funerals and weddings a year and a Christmas service- and a concert once in a blue moon.

At what point will the youngsters say- sorry, but we don't want to pay that much for a Church we never attend- let's spen the money on the school, health, transport and amenities we do use.

The tax payers have to pay for maintenance of the grounds, stone walls, the building inside and out, the heating and electricity- and now the central heating needs to be replaced and will cost an absolute fortune- and that for a population of about 250, about 10% who go to services, mainly older people.

No idea granjura, I live in Wales

No matter where you live- you can imagine and wonder if the population who increasingly does not make use of the Church- will continue to want to pay for the upkeep- for the few who do use it.

I have very mixed views of the church. I am not a frequent church goer and do not believe in a God as such. I do however consider that the church plays an important role in our society. I would therefore be quite happy to pay towards it's continuance. I would also prefer Britain to remain a Christian country with Christian ideals.

We or Rsther dome need churches , I cannot say if they would pay to dupport them, I would

sorry autocorrect garbled your message so not sure what you mean. Of course those who do believe and use the Church will do everything they can to support their Church.

As said before, where I live there used to be a compulsory Church tax- but that was voted out a few years back and the number of people who voluntary pay, has dwindled to the point where the Chruch can barely survive and has had to cut down the services they provide to the Community at large, the number of Vicars and staff and sold many properties (how we got to acquire our home). And that is solely for the Church staff and activities- as all the rest (buildings, maintenance, heating, etc, etc, are paid for by general Council taxes- but for how long?).

I know I've said it before- but it would be interesting how many people would pay the Church tax- and those who would vote with their feet, or rather, purses.

So sorry, I said - we or rather some need churches, I cannot say if they would support them, I would .

Granjura, haven't you got a babel fish ? Run it through the babel fish and you get :-

We. or rather some, need churches , I cannot say if they would pay to support them, I would.

Babel fish are available from every good Hitch hikers store.

GandTea would you be happy to pay 3% of your yearly income to the Church- considering you are not a believer, or a Church goer?

Posts crossed GandTea- had never heard of Babel Fish before, thanks.