Political Correctness - doesn't go far enough IMO.

That's meant to be the case in the USA aswell...

Michael.

 

I'm not sure, Tom. I think that irrespective of the fact that most people don't practice a religion, it's better that the state has a religious affiliation - although allowing freedom for citizens to choose their own affiliation or non-affiliation, etc., etc.

It's not that I think that the religions are so great. I just feel that before we tear down the institutions and disestablish the links, we should be sure that we have something of value to replace them with, otherwise where are the 'baseline' ethical and moral values going to come from?

I don't think that such values can be based on BBC consensus, the wisdom of the press, council doctrine with its often silly political correctness, David & Victoria Beckham or Snoop Doggy Dogg.

I got to thinking about the conflict between 'truth' and 'expediency' while watching a recent Channel 4 series on orthodox Jewish families. I could see that in their relationships within their community and their charitable contributions outside and just by seeing the joy within their families, here was a system that seemed to 'work'. On the other hand it seemed to me that such expediency came at the cost of truth.

Similarly with British Christianity. I suspect that it 'worked' better in the days when it was somewhat stricter. The more modern approach, as epitomised by Mel Smith's hilarious 'Not The Nine 'O Clock News' sketch where he's a 'very nice' C of E minister preaching tolerance for devil worship, has perhaps become so watered down that it's lost most of its appeal and utility.

Still, I wonder how much better it is to replace it with nothing.

 

Not quite. The US constitution, as it is interpreted, guarantees freedom of worship. This is very important, as many Americans originally left Europe in order to escape religious persecution.
In France, the aim has been to replace the Church with something else (the State), and this has led to attempts to suppress the Church and to discriminate against believers on more than one occasion.
Understand that imperative and you can begin to understand some of the forces that continue to shape Europe politically and ideologically.

 

Steve

As you know I worked for the Church of England for 18 years and my father did from before I was born. (This obviously means my opinion is more valid than yours ) I grew up with the notion that the State & Church were interlinked. But after a while I've gotton to see jsut how that works. The C of E gets money, support and some say in government but in return is controlled by Parliament and has obligations that must be fullfilled before all else. Although this relationship means that the C-of-E can survive it does little for its spiritual growth or its corporeal prescence. For example, it is legally required to maintain redundant churches if they can not be sold. The whole process if declaring a church redundant is governed by bill and is a costly and lengthy process. Quite often historical societies insist that the C-of-E maintain the fabric of the building for the look of the community. As the buildings are invariabnly listed, they are hard to sell on so the State requires the Church to maintain te building. Without that tie to State the process would be far simpler and less expensive meaning greater funds for the ever dwindling pension schemes and stipends.. Or another example, the C-of-E is required to have a prescence (i.e. a church) in every community with all the attendant costs of building a church and paying for the staff.

My feeling is there is a need to regroup and strengthen the core before trying further outreach. This is impossible under the current Establishment.

Spiritually, the Church is likewise restricted. It is a broad church with its own Synod. But again Synod can only pass measures. These have to be voted on by Parliament who can either pass or reject them. Anything requiring a measure needs a full vote in parliament and full discussion. This I see as a needless restriction on the Church and a waste of governemnt time.

Then there is the move towards ecumenism. Something most of the C-of-E believe in, yet under Establishment the other Christian churches have little say with in our political process. And as for other faiths, forget it.

I believe that the religious faiths in this country should have an input into government but until the C-of-E is disestablished they won't get a proper look in.

 

Role in Government

Tom,
That was a very interesting post. What kind of input/role do you think the major faiths should have in government following a hypothetical disestablishment?

 

Tom,

Having read your post and realized the depth and breadth of your experience and thoughts in this matter, I have decided, for now, to bow to your superior knowledge and go along with your views.

However, if I find that this leads to the total moral collapse of the country, I'll come looking for you. I know where you live.

BTW, does this mean that we can call the school Saint Mary Magdalene Primary School or not?

 

At present the Lords have 21 seats for Bishops. These should go and be replaced by a proportional representation of the various major faiths in this country.

Strange thing is, this debate is about the C-of-E's position in the Government. The Welsh & Scottish churches have bo representation in the Lords AFAIK and the C-of-E has no role in Scotland or Wales, not that suprising. The whole thing is a historical anomaly which has mutated from it's original position and is now far from where it started.

 

Of course it bloody well should.

 

Yes, but the separation of church and state is also paramount. The First Ammendment of the constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

At the same time as allowing people to practise whatever religion they like, it means the state can't impose a religion and is necessarily separated from the church. Hence why teachers in state schools are not allowed to use prayer in the classroom/assembly etc. Individual children are of course free to pray whenever they want to. How some bible-belt schools get away with teaching creationism and dismissing Darwin as a loon I still don't understand.

Michael.

 

What that effectively says is that government shall not interfere with an individual's right to worship. As with any anything, it is open to interpretation (for instance "Federal" intervention at Waco).
You may not have noticed, but there are rather a lot of lawyers in the US. There is a reason for this.
Anyhow, this is not the case in France, as recent events have clearly demonstrated.

 

H AT,

I was questioning your 'they also make very effort to fit into the local white community they all speak with well spoken nothern accents and they are very bit as British as me' comment. How far should people from different cultures change to be taken as being British? Would you think any less of them if they weren't as well spoken or spoke with a more asian accent? Or if they wore more islamic dress?


I do agree that learning English is important. You will find most people from different ethnic background do speak English. The ones that don't are usually older people and new arrivals to this country. In a lot of cases, they learn quite quickly. Also quite a good number can speak many lauguages.

I can understand why Spain has signs in English. The country makes alot of money from English & English speaking tourists. Why is this a problem? You see multi lauguage signs in this country, a lot in tourist areas. If you look after the tourists, they will enjoy themselves more and spend more money. I have been to Spain and have learned a few words & phrases. It is always good to try & learn the lingo. Even though alot of tourists & visitors to the UK can speak some English (usually quite good), not everyone can & it is always good to help. I undersatnd you went to Spain, can you speak excellent Spanish?

Nice idea. But it hasn't worked in the past. Self regulation always sounds good but alot of people can't do it. The Equal Opportunities laws are, on the whole, not over the top. Which ones do you think are over the top?

It is not against the law to have an all white or all black workforce. There are plenty of companies that have an all white workforce. If a company opened in Whally Range employing 100 people, it is more likely that the people will come from all over and not even from Whally Range. Alot will depend on the company and size of business. The jobs will need to be advertised so that it doesn't exclude certain people & employment for the jobs is done in a fair way. Years ago it wasn't uncommon that a factory or workplace got it's workforce from the nearby housing. Not so the case anymore.

The whole point is that things are done in a fair way & people are not discriminated against. Putting it all into pratice is where the problems lie. Some companies & bodies have looked at ways of trying to redress the balance of unfair treatment in the past. This has lead to monitoring and postive action. If done well, this should be no problem.

In most cases there are no quotas. It is just that targets are set by companies and bodies as a way of trying to redress the balance.

This is a society problem which goes back 100s of years. Women, in the past, haven't always been encouraged to do certain subjects and topics. In the past, their role was seen as homemaker. Parents, schools, workplaces haven't always offered the chances and encouragement to do certain subjects.

People do need to learn about other cultures but alot of people in this country need to learn about the development of British culture. Then they will know how multicultural it has been over the years.

SCIDB

 

Interesting sentiment and I agree with a lot of what you have said. Not sure what you mean by British culture. Never the less, knowing a bit more of the Victorian Britian maybe relevent.

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/empire/empireov.html

I hope this racial sentiment of 'us white and them coloured people' are not a reflection of the difficulty looking for your first job. Jobs are out there and Britain is not run over by the PC brigates or foreigners. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick again. Use this bound up energy to go out and seek that important first employment. Listen to some music. The world will look alright again next week.

 

Hi Wolfgang,

Are you refering to my comments? Or am I getting this wrong.

SCIDB

 

Sorry the second part is not referring to you but a general question to everyone else. I feel depress reading so much negativity in some of the other people comments above.