[Closed] Cameron states "Britain is still a Christian country"

the cross went from being a symbol of political oppression to a religious form of state triumphalism.

Er yeah it didn't really stay like that though did it?

the cross went from being a symbol of political oppression to a religious form of state triumphalism.

Er yeah it didn't really stay like that though did it?

Giles thinks it still is:

only when Christianity has come out of the shadow of Constantine's conversion of the Roman empire to Christianity – thus creating the dangerous idea of a Christian nation – can we return to recognising its essential force: that God is to be discovered alongside the victim, no matter what colour, class or creed.

Certainly, the Roman empire did some damage as a Christian 'nation'. 1500-or-so years after Christ's death one lot of Christians were burning another lot to keep this nation the correct sort of Christian nation, to the extent that a few years later a bunch of persecuted religious minorities fled to the colonies and (eventually) founded a secular state. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, Hitler referred to Germany as a Christian nation in Mein Kampfe.

Which is why all Christians should be extremely queasy about any cheap talk of us or anyone else being a "Christian nation".

I figured it out guys... We've established that if you take the census figures, then discount the 52% that actually don't believe in christ, then we end up with a figure in the low-mid 30s for christian belief, right?

What else does a mid-30% share get you? A general election! So it's only natural that the man who's been ruling the country as if he won with an avalanche, would look at the christian share and think "30% eh? That puts you in charge. We are a decisively Tory, Christian country".

I wonder what other groups command a magic 30% majority.

Given that Sunday services apparently attract about 1M attendees

I'm genuinely amazed it's that high! I'd have guessed at maybe 250k....

Us UKIP supporters are all Christians and he's trying to win us back to the fold, but since we're all racists, oh and secretly total homophobes who will never forgive him for the Gay Marriage deal, he's totally screwed, did you all like our nice new posters?

Given that Sunday services apparently attract about 1M attendees

I'm genuinely amazed it's that high! I'd have guessed at maybe 250k....

1 million is the CofE stat for average weekly attendance, but there're not amazingly reliable figures with some double counting going on. For example, if a church has one service a month and 20 people attend, that's counted as an average weekly attendance of 20 and ignores the fact those 20 people will possibly be attending a different one service per month church on the other weeks. (Based on [url= http://davidkeen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/latest-church-of-england-attendance.html ]what I've read on a friend's blog.[/url])

(And of course, any double counting will probably be more than made up for by attendance at non-CofE churches.)

1 million is only around 1.5% of the population, of course.

[quote=Cougar ]You could read the rest of the thread, where it's been explained several times over?

That's against my religion.

[quote=Northwind ]I wonder what other groups command a magic 30% majority.

http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/02/07/scottish-independence-yes-34-no-52/

Result!

My very uniformed yet very basic observed perception is - ( possibly )

It appears some values in religon can be very positive, which maybe what Mr Cameron was portraying and maybe can be applied laterally and collectively across a variety of religions for the good of humanity.

However as a bystander who observes, sometimes I hardly feel compelled to get involved when it can simply appear often to be a set of rules which vary - within the same religon and within different religons creating mass conflict and war. No compromise - it's written and therefore it's true and absolute - although this seems to then vary even within the same groups yet alone different groups. Very confusing for my poor uniformed little brain.

If people have a belief and it makes them a good person ( which I guess is subjective) then why not?

The irony of this debate is that the atheists are saying it is divisive, yet representatives from many other religions who reside here have been entirely comfortable with the speech, agree with the fact the UK is a Christian country and are entirely comfortable with that the fact.

If people have a belief and it makes them a good person ( which I guess is subjective) then why not?

Absolutely. This is the position of the National Secular Society.

miketually - Member

1 million is the CofE stat for average weekly attendance, but there're not amazingly reliable figures

Funnily enough, I was talking to our chaplain about this a while back. It's officially a church of scotland ministry but hosts nonreligious events as well as muslim, catholic and mixed-religion services and prayer. Officially everyone that attends any of their events is a "church attendee" and so goes into the Church of Scotland stats. I went to one of their barbeques once and became a church attendee 😆

Right wing press pulling into line behind Cameron's latest cynical ploy...

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10781259/Attorney-General-Rise-of-fundamentalism-is-damaging-Christianity.html ]Ah, bless[/url]

If one person attends three services at the same church on the same day, that counts as three people.

Right wing press pulling into line behind Cameron's latest cynical ploy...

In his [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/columnists/petermullen/11162596.Christian__What_does_that_mean_/ ]column for my local paper (it gets printed in several others too, I believe) The Rev Peter Mullen points out that what Cameron described isn't actually what being a Christian is about[/url]:

Here are some fundamental beliefs shared by all evangelicals: they all believe that good works are not enough, because we are all sinners and we are justified only by Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. Moreover, this is not gentle Jesus, the Labour member for Galilee South. This is, according to evangelical Christians, Christ who was born of a virgin and rose from the dead.

Evangelicals also believe in the Ten Commandments and that marriage is exclusively a relationship between a man and a woman.

Mr Cameron, by his words and actions, has made it perfectly clear that he doesn’t believe those things. He is like so many thoroughly decent human beings who believe in doing their best, being generally kind and helpful.

This is admirable. But it is not Christianity.

If one person attends three services at the same church on the same day, that counts as three people.

You've discovered the mystery of the Holy Trinity ?

He is like so many thoroughly decent human beings who believe in doing their best, being generally kind and helpful.

This is admirable.

😯 😆 🙄

Yeah, screwing over the poor and vulnerable and helping out the rich and powerful - admirable.

From this link - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10781259/Attorney-General-Rise-of-fundamentalism-is-damaging-Christianity.html

“What is clear to me is that Christian values have formed our nation and are fundamental to who we are and how we are.

“There is a sense in which those things have disappeared into what we regard as our own values in a broader sense but they owe themselves to our Christian heritage and beliefs.

Over-egging it quite a bit but broadly reasonable I suppose. But then...

“To reconnect values to the beliefs that gave rise to them, I think is extremely important,

Why?

Also, WTF does the Attorney General think he should be voicing his personal opinions about religion in a newspaper?

Also, WTF does the Attorney General think he should be voicing his personal opinions about religion in a newspaper?

Presumably, you missed:

Right wing press pulling into line behind Cameron's latest cynical ploy...

Yeah, screwing over the poor and vulnerable and helping out the rich and powerful - admirable.

🙂

Even if Britain was a Christian country (it isn't); even if "Christian values" were distinct from the moral values of humans worldwide (they're not); even if promoting religious doctrine improved moral behaviour in modern society (it doesn't); even if all these were the case, the fact that this rhetoric is being spouted by Mr Cameron would surely make the socialist, leper-lover iconoclast, Jesus Christ, roll in his grave (had he not so famously vacated it).

- [url= ]Tim Minchin[/url]

Also, WTF does the Attorney General think he should be voicing his personal opinions about religion in a newspaper?

Newspapers make a profit by providing pages full of print which the purchaser then reads. Often this will involve reading about other people's opinions. HTH

[quote=miketually ]In his column for my local paper (it gets printed in several others too, I believe) The Rev Peter Mullen points out that what Cameron described isn't actually what being a Christian is about:

Well strictly speaking he appears to be pointing out that it's not [b]Evangelical[/b] Christianity, but then gets confused and forgets to add the "Evangelical" bit.

Newspapers make a profit by providing pages full of print which the purchaser then reads. Often this will involve reading about other people's opinions. HTH

My point is, which I'm sure you are aware of despite your facetious response - the Attorney General should be staying neutral on matters like this. Revealing his prejudices in a national newspaper is not appropriate.

Nice straw man argument here too:

Mr Grieve said: “As I go around and look at the way we make laws, and indeed many of the underlying ethics of society are Christian based and the result of 1500 years of Christian input into our national life. It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.”

Thing is, there's lots of handwaving about "christian values" etc, but religion is about belief and faith. If you strip that away, it's just not a religion any more.

So in trying argue that the UK is christian because of its christian history and "christian values" despite its lack of belief, what they're really doing is undermining the importance of faith to their religion. In order to make it look bigger than it is, they've diluted it to the point of meaninglessness, where you can be christian without actually believing in it.

I think if I was religious, I'd be annoyed at that, it seems basically disrespectful to those of true faith

My point is, which I'm sure you are aware of despite your facetious response - the Attorney General should be staying neutral on matters like this. Revealing his prejudices in a national newspaper is not appropriate.

Yeah I know exactly what your point was.......you'd be a lot happier if the Attorney General expressed opinions which you agreed with when he gives interviews to the Daily Telegraph.

*sigh*

Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time. I suppose you think it's a clever arguing tactic.

Actually I'd rather the Attorney General didn't comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him. It's a bit worrying and entirely inappropriate to have the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).

Presumably you'd rather only priests commented on stuff about religion then?

*sigh*

Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time

Good point Grum, but why follow it up with...

(describing them as deluded).

I can't see where anyone is calling anyone else deluded from your quotes. There is a comment about deluding yourself if you fail to recognise certain points, but that is a different thing. He is playing the ball - the beliefs - not the men. Perfectly valid approach irrespective of whether he is correct or not.

kerching!

I can't see where anyone is calling anyone else deluded from your quotes. There is a comment about deluding yourself if you fail to recognise certain points, but that is a different thing.

Petty semantics. He is saying 'if these atheists don't agree with my opinion they are deluding themselves' - how is that different from them being deluded exactly?

Not the same thing as ernie is doing at all.

It is not going to disappear overnight. They [the atheists] are deluding themselves.

You are also ignoring the massive straw man here - who has argued it is 'going to disappear overnight'?

Not sure why you choose to misrepresent people all the time. I suppose you think it's a clever arguing tactic.

Actually I'd rather the Attorney General didn't comment on stuff that was bugger all to do with him.

And yet articles which involve people expressing their personal opinions is an established character of newspapers, the Guardian has several pages to cover precisely that. It's one of the reasons why people buy newspapers.

And if Daily Telegraph readers are interested in reading about the Attorney General's opinions regarding, religion, gardening, holiday destinations, or any other subject, then I can't see a problem.

I don't think I'm misrepresenting you at all, it's clear that you are unhappy with the Attorney General's opinions so that's why you think Daily Telegraph readers shouldn't read about them.

[quote=grum ]Petty semantics.

Except it's not is it? There's a pretty fundamental difference in meaning, resulting in your principle allegation against the AG being false. You're deluding yourself to miss that point (DYSWIDT?)

It's not semantics at all. There is a it difference between separating views/behaviour from the people concerned. Hence good people can do bad things and vice versa. The danger in ignoring this is that you may misrepresent others.

Except it's not is it? There's a pretty fundamental difference in meaning, resulting in your principle allegation against the AG being false.

So a person deluding themselves is not deluded? Ok then. 🙄

There's a pretty fundamental difference in meaning

Go on then.

It doesn't make it a character trait (which is the basis of your allegation), no.

Where did I say that? You're straw manning again.

Forgotten already?

[quote=grum ]the chief legal adviser to the government revealing that he is prejudiced against atheists (describing them as deluded).

Where did I mention anything about character traits?

However - if I was to say that christians' beliefs are delusional, how is that different from saying christians are deluded?

It's ridiculous to claim there's any significant difference.

He also reveals his bias with statements like this. I would have thought looking at evidence in an impartial way would be quite an important characteristic for the Attorney General. Oh well.

“The evidence in this country is overwhelming that most people in this country by a very substantial margin have religious belief in the supernatural or a deity.

So being deluded isn't a character trait?

If you didn't mean that it is, why on earth do you think the AG might be prejudiced against somebody because of something that isn't a character trait?

Not sure why you've started going on about character traits - your argument doesn't make sense and is still covered under what I said a few posts back.

Petty semantics.

Next is someone going to tell me that when IDS says 'those denying Britain is a Christian country are “absurd” ' - he's not really saying they are absurd.

He also reveals his bias with statements like this. I would have thought looking at evidence in an impartial way would be quite an important characteristic for the Attorney General. Oh well.

“The evidence in this country is overwhelming that most people in this country by a very substantial margin have religious belief in the supernatural or a deity.

I'm afraid that the only one revealing a lack of partiality is you, because thats what the evidence does say - sorry if you don't like it or believe they're all wrong, but the stats support his point

I'm not debating the statistics - I'm debating his use of them. Using belief in the supernatural as an argument in favour of christianity and against atheism is quite a stretch.

IIRC more people believe in 'the supernatural' than God.

Time to put the shovel down?

Anyway, I "see" a Guardian article and "raise" a Spectator one.... 😉

I say all this as a lapsed agnostic, open to the idea of a disestablished church and booting the bishops out of the Lords. But to deny that we are a Christian country is progressive revisionism of the highest order. Some people do not like the fact that we are a Christian country – but they should say so, rather than pretend otherwise. [b]Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage, as well as our current governing structure, is at best delusional.[/b] At worst it shows metropolitan liberal society attempting to cleanse the parts of Britain it finds distasteful.

Leaving aside the partisan last sentance, the rest seems pretty spot on. And the bold bit is playing the ball not the man - a bit like the AG!!

Time to put the shovel down?

Great argument - well made. Really playing the ball not the man etc

But to deny that we are a Christian country

That depends how you define 'a Christian country' though - which renders his whole argument totally pointless.

Attempting to rewrite history and ignore our heritage

Who is actually doing this? Can you point to some examples? Because otherwise it looks like yet another straw man.