You could read the rest of the thread, where it’s been explained several times over?

Do many people read religious threads in their entirety ?

Obviously I would expect the usual religious debaters to do so, but for most people it’s always the same argument but with a different thread title. I would have thought.

I would love to know how the brain functions in the 65% who say they are not religious having previously stated they are Christian.

According to this Theos report, 11% of atheists identify themselves as Christians. 5% of atheists believe god is a “universal life force”.

🙂

Yeah, it wasn’t very good, was it?

This is a post-Christian country, that’s all there is to it.

ernie_lynch – Member

You’re making it sound more complicated than it is. Some people claim they are Christian, when asked “are you religious” which they take as meaning do you go to church regularly, do you pray every day, etc, they answer “no”.

OK, make it more complicated, how about the “christians” who don’t believe in christ? They’re a bit like all the cyclists in here who never ride bikes I suppose.

Yeah, it wasn’t very good, was it?

It did have a gem somewhere when someone said “we are a religious country”.

OK, make it more complicated, how about the “christians” who don’t believe in christ? They’re a bit like all the cyclists in here who never ride bikes I suppose.

Is there a poll which identifies Christians who don’t believe in Christ ?

As far as the cyclists on here who never ride bikes is concerned how would you know ?

In the last 7 days due to plenty of spare time I’ve been on an organised ride (either club or with mates) everyday bar Sunday – when it was pissing down, I even bumped into a regular from here at Leith Hill yesterday, but I generally don’t like talking about cycling as I consider it to be a deeply personal and spiritual experience.

Some more statistics

It would appear the majority of younger voters do believe in god of some form – probably simon cowell.

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.

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.

Religious organisations/people tend to ‘side’ with other religious people, rather than people with no religion. IIRC, at least one of the signatories of the letter sent by the National Secular society was a religious leader.

This sums it up for me: http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2014/04/the-debate-over-david-camerons-call-to-christianity-has-taken-a-wrong-turn

It is unfortunate that the debate has turned into “Is Britain a Christian country?” because it opened the doors for those Christians who don’t understand secularism (or who prefer to misrepresent it) to turn the whole thing into an attack on their personal faith.
The question we really need to ask is “Would Britain be a safer and fairer place if it had a secular constitution?”

EDIT: these threads always get depressing.

Not sure what that has to do with anything. I’d like to think a country is more than just its constitution.

EDIT: and if these secularistas think society can be reduced to mere documents then that tells you a lot about the narrowness of their view of the world. Glad I’m not one.

Secularism doesn’t say anything about a view of the world, other than thinking church and state should be separate.

From Wikipedia:

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries.

You can be a secularist and religious.

Edit: the sentence before the one you quoted included the phrase “Christians who don’t understand secularism” 🙂

mefty – Member

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,

1) The question of divisiveness isn’t just about the religious, it’s about the irreligious too.
2) Just because “representatives” say it is so, doesn’t mean it is so for all.

Edit: the sentence before the one you quoted included the phrase “Christians who don’t understand secularism”

There’s precious little I *do* understand, now you’ve just knocked another one off the list 🙁

Nice example from Giles Fraser:

Christianity was, among other things, an exposure of the violence of the Roman state towards those who did not share its values. That is what the cross is all about. Christianity went bad when it became appropriated by the Roman empire and the cross went from being a symbol of political oppression to a religious form of state triumphalism. Which is why all Christians should be extremely queasy about any cheap talk of us or anyone else being a “Christian nation”.

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?[/quote]

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….[/quote]

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 what I’ve read on a friend’s blog.)

(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.

That’s against my religion.

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.

So the religious minorities have come to a conclusion about what the secular majority believes? 😀

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…

Ah, bless

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 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:

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).

– Tim Minchin

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

Well strictly speaking he appears to be pointing out that it’s not Evangelical 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.