21 Apr 14
David Cameron accused of fostering division in 'Christian' UK
More than 50 prominent public figures including novelist, diplomats, Nobel prize winners and playwrights have accused David Cameron of fostering divisions in the UK by repeatedly referring to Britain as a Christian country. [...]
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, they assert: "Apart from in the narrow constitutional sense that we continue to have an established church, we are not a 'Christian country'. Repeated surveys, polls, and studies show most of us as individuals are not Christian in our beliefs or our religious identities and at a social level, Britain has been shaped for the better by many pre-Christian, non-Christian, and post-Christian forces.
"We are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives and a largely non-religious society. To constantly claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society. Although it is right to recognise the contribution made by many Christians to social action, it is wrong to try to exceptionalise their contribution when it is equalled by British people of different beliefs. It needlessly fuels enervating sectarian debates that are by and large absent from the lives of most British people, who – as polls show – do not want religions or religious identities to be actively prioritised by their elected government."
Not the entire text. Rest here: http://tinyurl.com/nwrnj33
Leaders open and proud of their faith: fine. Leaders with political views shaped by their faith: fine. Leaders declaring their countries to "have" the same faith as they have: not good ~ bad leadership ~ and if done for electoral reasons, deserving of severe rebuke.
Agree or disagree?
21 Apr 14
1 edit
Political leaders know that it is best if they talk about religion, race, sex, or some other inane topic, just anything really other than the job at hand which is governing.
Here in the states Obama just unleashed another accusation of bigotry to help splain all the dissatisfaction with him in the US.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadAren't these the same people you clamor to give more power to?
Agree. I was quite offended when my own country was declared a 'Christian nation' for political reasons.
They are now powerful enough to do as they please and you will like it.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by whodeyExcept he's right. It's exactly why all these fools keep saying we need to "take our country back". Yeah, back from that bad ol' black man in the White House. Except that bigotry is now supposedly "socially unacceptable" and so we couch it in other names. We deny being "bigoted". But that doesn't stop us from *being* bigoted. That's the flaw in their plan.
Political leaders know that it is best if they talk about religion, race, sex, or some other inane topic, just anything really other than the job at hand which is governing.
Here in the states Obama just unleashed another accusation of bigotry to help splain all the dissatisfaction with him in the US.
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" -- Matthew 7:16, KJV
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by whodeyDo you have an answer to the questions posed in the OP?
Political leaders know that it is best if they talk about religion, race, sex, or some other inane topic, just anything really other than the job at hand which is governing.
Here in the states Obama just unleashed another accusation of bigotry to help splain all the dissatisfaction with him in the US.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFThe UK is such a different 'animal' from the US that I find it hard to express knowledgeable opinion of anything the UK (or its government) does.
David Cameron accused of fostering division in 'Christian' UK
Agree or disagree?
I do find it fascinating that leaders here in the US have said this and get almost nothing but support, even though we have the First Amendment with its establishment clause and the UK actually has a state-sponsored religion yet when they try to state this, they get endless grief.
Interesting.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneI agree. That's why I reduced it to the four things ~ like motions ~ near the bottom of the OP. And I am canvassing your personal opinion rather than probing your knowledge of either the UK or the US.
The UK is such a different 'animal' from the US that I find it hard to express knowledgeable opinion of anything the UK (or its government) does.
I do find it fascinating that leaders here in the US have said this and get almost nothing but support, even though we have the First Amendment with its establishment clause and the UK actually has a state-sponsored religion yet when they try to state this, they get endless grief.
Interesting.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFMy point is: the UK actually has a "state-sponsored" religion: the Church of England. Soooo it can't possibly be that much of a stretch to say the UK is a "Christian country".
I agree. That's why I reduced it to the four things ~ like motions ~ near the bottom of the OP. And I am canvassing your personal opinion rather than probing your knowledge of either the UK or the US.
If the atheists want to raise a stink, why don't they petition Parliament to drop their sponsorship of the Church of England?
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneMaybe they are doing that, I don't know. But the Church of England is irrelevant to the country anyway [for the most part], while a Prime Minister making arguably incorrect claims about the British people [arguably, again,for party political reasons] is maybe worthy of a "stink".or maybe not. I'm interested to hear what people say.
If the atheists want to raise a stink, why don't they petition Parliament to drop their sponsorship of the Church of England?
21 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI wonder what Henry would say about this.
Maybe they are doing that, I don't know. But the Church of England is irrelevant to the country anyway [for the most part], while a Prime Minister making arguably incorrect claims about the British people [arguably, again,for party political reasons] is maybe worthy of a "stink".or maybe not. I'm interested to hear what people say.
Probably nothing, he probably wouldn't give a whit about what happens, lo, 500 years later because of what he did.
"Arguably incorrect claims"? Is the state religion the Church of England or not? Is the Church of England Christian or not? I'd say it's "arguably".
And "for party political reasons"?? Was it the desire of his political party to grab this much flak about this?
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFObviously I disagree.
Agree or disagree?
But the pollsters will set him back on track.
The UK is not a Christian country in the theological sense
but "Christian" has come to mean liberal/caring/fair/equitable and in
that sense I hope the UK is and will remain "Christian"
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by SuzianneYou obviously know nothing of the British Parliament.
My point is: the UK actually has a "state-sponsored" religion: the Church of England. Soooo it can't possibly be that much of a stretch to say the UK is a "Christian country".
If the atheists want to raise a stink, why don't they petition Parliament to drop their sponsorship of the Church of England?
The Head of the Church of England is the reigning Monarch.
That is a duty distinct from government.
The "State" does not sponsor any religion.
Unfortunately we still have the House of Lords with
unelected Bishops but that will be remedied soon.
21 Apr 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Disagree with which bits?
Obviously I disagree.
Leaders open and proud of their faith: fine.
Leaders with political views shaped by their faith: fine.
Leaders declaring their countries to "have" the same faith as they have: not good ~ bad leadership ~ and if done for electoral reasons, deserving of severe rebuke.