We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
Careful though. There's that story of Evelyn Waugh, Randolph Churchill and the Bible.
In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'
It's pretty easy to read the Bible and get an image of God as a shitty, tribal bigot. Indeed, it takes effort (however worthwhile) to do otherwise.
I don't know how true it is, but I recall reading pieces that Yahweh seems to have started off as a fairly typical deity amongst various others, and at some point it transitioned into monotheism, but the roots of the polytheism can still be gleaned from the early works. Which does kind of come across in the split personality of the Lord.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Because its about love and 2 people who love each other being allowed to marry. As far as im concerned those tory mps who voted against gay marriage chose hate over love.
No, legally it isn't. Legally civil partnerships gave homosexual couples all the rights heterosexual married couples have. Just for religious reasons many MPs may have felt that marriage is a religious term and should be reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions as most religions still teach.
Those MPs who voted to still criminalise homosexuality in the 1960s may have been voting for hate, those MPs voting against homosexual marriage were not
You say your are a Christian but I do not see much evidence of Christ's teachings in your narrow minded views
Matthew 19:1-6
'When Jesus had finished talking, He went from the country of Galilee. He came to the part of the country of Judea which is on the other side of the Jordan River. 2 Many people followed Him and He healed them there.
3 The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
Does that bit not apply to the King then?
It does, 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Hence Rowan Williams refused to remarry Charles and Camilla in church.
They had a civil registry service in Windsor instead, followed by a blessing by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chapel
But now the fornicating fecker is the head of your church.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
I most certainly do and my interpretation of Christ is the polar opposite of your bigotry
And by the way I was confirmed into the COE at 13, was a server and served with the Bishop of Durham at a confirmation service at Berwick
I would add I knew all the communion service inside out, the prayers, the blessings, and the hymns, often being at early morning communion services with just a handful of parisoners
Maybe more qualified than you on the subject
Coming at this as an outsider, I do think it fair to point out that the key word there would be 'interpretation'.
People use the same bible to beleive some wildly different things. For a long time most churchmen had no issue in saying the teachings of Christ did not conflict with slavery, yet would any of them think that interpretation makes sense today?
It is true that some spend years dissecting and studying the Bible, but ultimately Christ represented love and compassion and not the narrow minded views of some as seen in this discussion
A pity most of his priests in the last 2000 years have been a bit focused on the narrow minded part (and the acquisition of power) and not the love and compassion part. There have been some true standouts on that front though - as an irreligious person I can still be inspired by people I know who are driven by their faith to act compassionately, as a duty.
Putting to one side the number of people who aren't remotely religious but tick the christian box for cultural reasons, the reality is that even the number who do tick the christian box is falling so rapidly that within a generation it will be unarguable that it is a small minority.
That depends, immigrants are more religious than native white British and immigrants also have more children than native white British per head
Look at the numbers - the Christian box is down massively between 2011 and 2021 despite immigration.
Immigration will not offset the collapse.
It's dying - and dying rapidly - and you know it.
No it isn't 'down massively' 46% are now Christian compared to 59% 10 years ago, so the majority of those Christian then are still Christian now.
Globally Christianity is growing eg the population of Africa is growing where Christianity is growing, the population of western Europe is declining as Christianity is declining there. So as our population continues to decline we will still need immigrants to fill the gap, immigrants more religious than the native population
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
Careful though. There's that story of Evelyn Waugh, Randolph Churchill and the Bible.
In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'
It's pretty easy to read the Bible and get an image of God as a shitty, tribal bigot. Indeed, it takes effort (however worthwhile) to do otherwise.
I don't know how true it is, but I recall reading pieces that Yahweh seems to have started off as a fairly typical deity amongst various others, and at some point it transitioned into monotheism, but the early roots of the polytheism can still be gleaned from the early works.
One for theological scholars I guess.
Yeah, along with a transition from a god to the God of Israel to the God of Everything. One of the things happening in the early church is coming to terms with how big that Everything is, and that's an ongoing process.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
Careful though. There's that story of Evelyn Waugh, Randolph Churchill and the Bible.
In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'
It's pretty easy to read the Bible and get an image of God as a shitty, tribal bigot. Indeed, it takes effort (however worthwhile) to do otherwise.
The Bible is really an evolution of the understanding of God, so if you start at the beginning you will find God behaving much the way other tribal deities of the Bronze age did. Violent, partial and capricious. As the story moves on then our understanding of God changes significantly, into a far more loving, ethereal being, with no one excluded. Did God evolve, or was our understanding inadequate initially? I favour the latter.
Another reason to abolish the coronation, it's going to be hijacked.
The Church of England plans to use the King’s coronation ceremony as a “unique opportunity” to convert people to Christianity and has released prayers asking God to “pour abundant gifts” on the new monarch.
The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Most Revs Justin Welby and Stephen Cottrell, have described the coronation as a “unique missional opportunity” to showcase “rich Christian symbols and values” to a global audience, hoping that it will help people to “encounter Jesus”.
The church has also released an information pack with details for 28 days of prayer between Easter day on April 9 and coronation day on May 6 so the nation can engage in “spiritual preparation alongside the King”.
Good to see that the C of E tradition for housing otherworldly eccentrics still flourishes.
I’m interested (as an atheist) as to how the Head Shed of a religion using a religious ceremony, in his number one venue, for recruitment is “hijacking”.
Isn’t that his job?
I'm more interested in how he thinks the coronation might convert anyone at all.
It really is a very odd idea.
Yes - "I was against the concept of thr monarchy, but the sheer magnificence of the ceremony won me over" - hard to imagine that's going to be a massive group.
It isn't trying to convert republicans to monarchists, the focus is more on converting agnostic monarchists to Christian monarchists from the Church of England's point of view (and Welby is on the evangelical wing of the Church of England after all).
Given about 2/3 of the UK population are monarchists still but only 47% of the UK population are now Christians that is nearly 20% of the UK population for the Church of England to target and only a minority of them will be from other faiths or confirmed atheists
6% say they are actually practising.
Less than 1% attend Church on a typical week.
47% ticked a box.
5% attend a Christian church every week, whether Anglican, Roman Catholic or non Anglican evangelical. Roman Catholics have the highest attendance rate and Pentecostals the highest attendance growth.
Though more go once you include those who go only for Christmas, Easter or Mothering Sunday, weddings, baptisms and funerals
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Because its about love and 2 people who love each other being allowed to marry. As far as im concerned those tory mps who voted against gay marriage chose hate over love.
No, legally it isn't. Legally civil partnerships gave homosexual couples all the rights heterosexual married couples have. Just for religious reasons many MPs may have felt that marriage is a religious term and should be reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions as most religions still teach.
Those MPs who voted to still criminalise homosexuality in the 1960s may have been voting for hate, those MPs voting against homosexual marriage were not
You say your are a Christian but I do not see much evidence of Christ's teachings in your narrow minded views
Matthew 19:1-6
'When Jesus had finished talking, He went from the country of Galilee. He came to the part of the country of Judea which is on the other side of the Jordan River. 2 Many people followed Him and He healed them there.
3 The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
Does that bit not apply to the King then?
It does, 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Hence Rowan Williams refused to remarry Charles and Camilla in church.
They had a civil registry service in Windsor instead, followed by a blessing by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chapel
But now the fornicating fecker is the head of your church.
Which is fine, it was founded by a fornicating fecker after all! We leave acting saintly to the Archbishop of Canterbury, we know Kings are fallible, even King David was an adulterer
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
Because the state and its institutions should be impartial between religions, given the complete lack of evidence for them. If Christians want to restrict their marriages to men and women, that is up to them. But Christians shouldn't force their marriage requirements on everyone else any more than Muslims should enforce their views on drawing Mohammed on everyone else.
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Because its about love and 2 people who love each other being allowed to marry. As far as im concerned those tory mps who voted against gay marriage chose hate over love.
No, legally it isn't. Legally civil partnerships gave homosexual couples all the rights heterosexual married couples have. Just for religious reasons many MPs may have felt that marriage is a religious term and should be reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions as most religions still teach.
Those MPs who voted to still criminalise homosexuality in the 1960s may have been voting for hate, those MPs voting against homosexual marriage were not
You say your are a Christian but I do not see much evidence of Christ's teachings in your narrow minded views
Matthew 19:1-6
'When Jesus had finished talking, He went from the country of Galilee. He came to the part of the country of Judea which is on the other side of the Jordan River. 2 Many people followed Him and He healed them there.
3 The proud religious law-keepers came to Jesus. They tried to trap Him by saying, “Does the Law say a man can divorce his wife for any reason?” 4 He said to them, “Have you not read that He Who made them in the first place made them man and woman? 5 It says, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will live with his wife. The two will become one.’ 6 So they are no longer two but one. Let no man divide what God has put together.”
Does that bit not apply to the King then?
It does, 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Hence Rowan Williams refused to remarry Charles and Camilla in church.
They had a civil registry service in Windsor instead, followed by a blessing by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the chapel
But now the fornicating fecker is the head of your church.
Which is fine, it was founded by a fornicating fecker after all! We leave acting saintly to the Archbishop of Canterbury, we know Kings are fallible, even King David was an adulterer
Do you excuse murder by Kings on the same basis of Solomon's precedent?
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
Careful though. There's that story of Evelyn Waugh, Randolph Churchill and the Bible.
In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'
It's pretty easy to read the Bible and get an image of God as a shitty, tribal bigot. Indeed, it takes effort (however worthwhile) to do otherwise.
The Bible is really an evolution of the understanding of God, so if you start at the beginning you will find God behaving much the way other tribal deities of the Bronze age did. Violent, partial and capricious. As the story moves on then our understanding of God changes significantly, into a far more loving, ethereal being, with no one excluded. Did God evolve, or was our understanding inadequate initially? I favour the latter.
I can see why you would, except doesn't that mean that all the early stuff which quotes the word of the Lord must be made up, or various descriptions of his wroth be made up, since on the modern understanding He would never do such a thing. Does that early stuff therefore have any value even as fables? Since the lessons of those fables might be totally contradictory to, say, a message of love and forgiveness (a much better message).
I, unsurprisingly, view it more as what people wanted and expected from a God evolved.
I do think our modern culture is very tinged with the particular ideas of western christianity in particular, though I do think Tom Holland takes it too far as in his book Dominion, and I know he has said so elsewhere, where he basically says atheism is just following christianity. Whatever intellectual credit some ideas have as a result of how our culture has developed and been influenced by it, that is a bit of a stretch.
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
That's fine isn't it? Lots of people like Greek gods but don't believe in them.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
That's fine isn't it? Lots of people like Greek gods but don't believe in them.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
Careful though. There's that story of Evelyn Waugh, Randolph Churchill and the Bible.
In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'
It's pretty easy to read the Bible and get an image of God as a shitty, tribal bigot. Indeed, it takes effort (however worthwhile) to do otherwise.
The Bible is really an evolution of the understanding of God, so if you start at the beginning you will find God behaving much the way other tribal deities of the Bronze age did. Violent, partial and capricious. As the story moves on then our understanding of God changes significantly, into a far more loving, ethereal being, with no one excluded. Did God evolve, or was our understanding inadequate initially? I favour the latter.
I am an atheist. I guess from that you are not. But I think the truth in your comment is that the bible can tell us so much about the authors at various times - even the translations (e.g. the King James tells you a lot about Britain at the time). That side of it, the almost anthropology, is under-discussed.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
We saw just how key the Church of England was to many Conservatives when it opposed Gay Marriage and supposedly religious Conservatives (eg David Cameron) completely ignored it and voted for Gay Marriage anyway.
Even people who "pretend" to be religious wouldn't dream of letting it get in the way of what was obviously right.
More Conservative MPs voted against gay marriage than voted for it, of course the Church of England has now voted to bless homosexual couples anyway.
The key to Toryism on religion is the C of E being the established church NOT support or opposition to homosexual marriage
Those tory mps who voted against gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves.
Why? They are/were MPs for a conservative party not a socially liberal party, if they wished to vote for a more socially conservative position they were entitled to do so. On Monday we may even have a leader of the SNP who opposes homosexual marriage
Seems like you admire Kate Forbes views, but this conservative utterly rejects the COE and anyone else who opposes gay marriage In any form
Only because you don't understand the theology. Personally I don't even have a problem with marriage in civil law but blessings of homosexual couples is a reasonable compromise for the C of E, in the Bible and Koran it is clear marriage is reserved for heterosexual couples in lifelong unions to create children
I understand bigotry when I see it
You clearly don't understand the Bible
Careful though. There's that story of Evelyn Waugh, Randolph Churchill and the Bible.
In the late stages of the Second World War, Evelyn Waugh was trapped in Europe in the company of Randolph Churchill, the boorish son of the wartime prime minister. "In the hope of keeping him quiet," he wrote to Nancy Mitford, "Freddie and I bet him £20 that he cannot read the whole Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud... or merely slapping his side & chortling 'God, isn't God a shit!'
It's pretty easy to read the Bible and get an image of God as a shitty, tribal bigot. Indeed, it takes effort (however worthwhile) to do otherwise.
I don't know how true it is, but I recall reading pieces that Yahweh seems to have started off as a fairly typical deity amongst various others, and at some point it transitioned into monotheism, but the early roots of the polytheism can still be gleaned from the early works.
One for theological scholars I guess.
Yeah, along with a transition from a god to the God of Israel to the God of Everything. One of the things happening in the early church is coming to terms with how big that Everything is, and that's an ongoing process.
Calling on Leon, when the aliens arrive it will be a big moment, as has often been explored in sci-fi.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The BSA survey is a survey of just 3,300 people. More vote in Epping local elections than that.
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
Because the state and its institutions should be impartial between religions, given the complete lack of evidence for them. If Christians want to restrict their marriages to men and women, that is up to them. But Christians shouldn't force their marriage requirements on everyone else any more than Muslims should enforce their views on drawing Mohammed on everyone else.
They don't, heterosexuals have been able to marry in a civil registry office not a Church of England church since the 19th century and divorcees can get remarried in civil buildings as Charles and Camilla did in 2005. Homosexuals have been able to have civil partnerships in such UK registry offices for 20 years and can now marry in civil ceremonies legally in such registry offices too
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The BSA survey is a survey of just 3,300 people. More vote in Epping local elections than that.
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
You are quite happy to post polls with smaller samples. I think deep down you realise that the UK is irreligious and becoming more so.
In any case, live and let live. Some pretty churches in Epping Forest.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
Because the state and its institutions should be impartial between religions, given the complete lack of evidence for them. If Christians want to restrict their marriages to men and women, that is up to them. But Christians shouldn't force their marriage requirements on everyone else any more than Muslims should enforce their views on drawing Mohammed on everyone else.
They don't, heterosexuals have been able to marry in a civil registry office not a Church of England church since the 19th century. Homosexuals have been able to have civil partnerships in such UK registry offices for 20 years and can now marry in civil ceremonies legally in such registry offices too
Anyway you can go to bed in the knowledge that Starmer is to axe your beloved 1 million pound IHT exemption
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The BSA survey is a survey of just 3,300 people. More vote in Epping local elections than that.
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
You are quite happy to post polls with smaller samples. I think deep down you realise that the UK is irreligious and becoming more so.
In any case, live and let live. Some pretty churches in Epping Forest.
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The BSA survey is a survey of just 3,300 people. More vote in Epping local elections than that.
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
You are quite happy to post polls with smaller samples. I think deep down you realise that the UK is irreligious and becoming more so.
In any case, live and let live. Some pretty churches in Epping Forest.
My favourite is High Beach church!
They at least have more to go on as scientifically based on samples in proportion to the last election. As 2015, 2016 and 2017 showed, polls can also be wrong.
If we had a poll based on a survey responsed to by all households like the census that would be preferable to a sample poll.
Round here some beautiful medieval churches, including one in the Lavers where John Locke is buried, which can be appreciated religious or not I agree
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
I didn't know Christ had a son
Well technically nor did God, they are in 3 persons, father, son and holy ghost, God effectively therefore sacrificed himself at the crucifixion too
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
Because the state and its institutions should be impartial between religions, given the complete lack of evidence for them. If Christians want to restrict their marriages to men and women, that is up to them. But Christians shouldn't force their marriage requirements on everyone else any more than Muslims should enforce their views on drawing Mohammed on everyone else.
They don't, heterosexuals have been able to marry in a civil registry office not a Church of England church since the 19th century. Homosexuals have been able to have civil partnerships in such UK registry offices for 20 years and can now marry in civil ceremonies legally in such registry offices too
Anyway you can go to bed in the knowledge that Starmer is to axe your beloved 1 million pound IHT exemption
If he is he can kiss goodbye to seats in London and the South he is targeting.
It would go down as badly with swing voters as May's dementia tax, a gift for Rishi!
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The BSA survey is a survey of just 3,300 people. More vote in Epping local elections than that.
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
You are quite happy to post polls with smaller samples. I think deep down you realise that the UK is irreligious and becoming more so.
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
I didn't know Christ had a son
What, haven't you read Dan Brown?
I have. It's a shame some of his other ones didn't get the same attention, as they can be entertainly barmy. The incredibly impactful conclusion of Inferno seem to be forgotten in the next one, and the entire premise of Origin - involving super computers and the secrets of life - destroys itself at the big reveal since it turns out people can handle the supposedly shattering revelation pretty easily.
The royal family needs to be careful not to degenerate into total absurdity.
William saw how ridiculous he looked in the Caribbean a few years ago. He will remember that - and I suspect he will dial down a lot of the religious stuff at his own coronation.
Why should the royal family cater to the aggressive secular minority like you when according to the latest census the irreligious still represent just 37% of the UK population? That is even less than the 46% who are still Christian.
If and when the irreligious are a majority of the UK population you may have a case, you don't now
The irreligious are a majority in the UK - have been for a while. We are one of the most irreligious countries in the world, and possibly the most irreligious western democracy.
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as is the Netherlands now too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion
_by_country
More generally, 53% of all adults describe themselves as having no religious affiliation, up from 48% in 2015. The latest figure is the highest since the BSA survey began tracking religious affiliation in 1983, when 31% said they had no religion.
The BSA survey is a survey of just 3,300 people. More vote in Epping local elections than that.
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
You are quite happy to post polls with smaller samples. I think deep down you realise that the UK is irreligious and becoming more so.
In any case, live and let live. Some pretty
churches in Epping Forest.
My favourite is High Beach church!
High Beech even
Both spellings seem to be acceptable!
Hmmm.... given that it's near Epping Forest and a beech is a kind of tree...
I wonder how many people are pro-religion in general while not being religious personally.
Many millions
I'm one of them. I like religion (except extreme forms) without being religious myself. The only problem, I suppose, is you could say it's a bit hypocritical, like someone who was in favour of the UK being at war with Germany in the Second World War but didn't actually want to do any fighting themselves.
A strange/interesting comment.
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I think a lot of people might say they are spiritual, or believe in God at some instinctive level, but are not religious in the sense they just cannot get on board with restrictive doctine and theology. It can be hard to see why an all powerful god would care how someone wears their hair, what animals they eat, or if they sing in church or not etc.
I always thought the biggest philosophical barrier to God were all the tragedies and injustices in the world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
Christ's only son endured tremendous tragedy and crucifixion for our sins but went to eternal life as all who believe in him will too
I didn't know Christ had a son
Well technically nor did God, they are in 3 persons, father, son and holy ghost, God effectively therefore sacrificed himself at the crucifixion too
I have no wish to join in this religious discussion, but I did want to mention that I enjoyed seeing that little ceremony in a church where Charles and Camilla had to admit publicly to being miserable sinners -- and can think of one or two other leaders who I would like to see do something similar. Starting, of course, with Donald the Loser.
(I don't think I would like such ceremonies to become a public, universal thing, though. I believe most religions share with Christianity the belief that "all have sinned", and, if we had to admit all the ways we had failed in public, there wouldn't be time for much else, including better deeds.)
Comments
One for theological scholars I guess.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/04/half-uk-population-has-no-religion-british-social-attitudes-survey
Globally Christianity is growing eg the population of Africa is growing where Christianity is growing, the population of western Europe is declining as Christianity is declining there. So as our population continues to decline we will still need immigrants to fill the gap, immigrants more religious than the native population
https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1638333939990315009/photo/1
Rather like saying “I like horoscopes but think they are nonsense”.
I, unsurprisingly, view it more as what people wanted and expected from a God evolved.
I do think our modern culture is very tinged with the particular ideas of western christianity in particular, though I do think Tom Holland takes it too far as in his book Dominion, and I know he has said so elsewhere, where he basically says atheism is just following christianity. Whatever intellectual credit some ideas have as a result of how our culture has developed and been influenced by it, that is a bit of a stretch.
Artemis is awesome.
According to the 2021 census, completed by EVERY household in England and Wales, only 37% are irreligious.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021
A Social Attitudes survey completed by just 3,300 people does not contradict that at all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Social_Attitudes_Survey
The Czech republic, Scandinavia, Japan, Vietnam, Estonia, Hong Kong and China, New Zealand and Moldova for example are all more irreligious than the UK is, as are the Netherlands and South Korea now too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Korea#:~:text=According to Pew Research Center,, and Catholicism (7.9%).
https://www.nisra.gov.uk/system/files/statistics/census-2021-main-statistics-for-northern-ireland-phase-1-statistical-bulletin-religion.pdf
It is IRRELEVANT only the census matters and that is quite clear just 37% in England and Wales are irreligious, even fewer UK wide when you include Northern Ireland
world.
But, it doesn’t put off everyone.
I’m not religious, but once met someone who is religious but said it is “a terrible God”.
In any case, live and let live. Some pretty churches in Epping Forest.
My favourite is High Beach church!
But I think that God's got a sick sense of humour
And when I die I expect to find him laughing"
If we had a poll based on a survey responsed to by all households like the census that would be preferable to a sample poll.
Round here some beautiful medieval churches, including one in the Lavers where John Locke is buried, which can be appreciated religious or not I agree
It would go down as badly with swing voters as May's dementia tax, a gift for Rishi!
At the moment it just looks like a proposal some CLPs are pushing to be readopted from Corbyn's losing 2019 manifesto, Starmer hasn't adopted it knowing it would be electoral suicide for his hopes for a Labour majority https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/24/labour-consider-inheritance-tax-rise-raid-middle-classes/
(I don't think I would like such ceremonies to become a public, universal thing, though. I believe most religions share with Christianity the belief that "all have sinned", and, if we had to admit all the ways we had failed in public, there wouldn't be time for much else, including better deeds.)
Senior teachers in England blame culture of fear and high stress for damaging their health and careers"
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/24/punishing-ofsted-regime-driving-out-education-school-leaders
Why I’m joining more than 100 lawyers in refusing to prosecute climate protesters
Jolyon Maugham
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/mar/24/100-lawyers-prosecute-climate-protesters-laws-planet-criminalise