Freethought & Rationalism Archive

purple_kathryn · 06-22-2007, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

'Historically Christian', perhaps (although the experiences of John Wesley might be adduced against this). At the moment this is a society in which Christianity has no power and no role.

.......thankfully

blue_haired_devil · 06-22-2007, 09:53 AM

In many ways the UK is one of the most secular of societies. The House of Lords even had a debate about worship in parliament (where a few of them declared themselves non-believers). My problem is, the laws in the UK do not protect this apparent secularism. If our population, as some show signs of doing, become fundies (Christian or Islamic, makes little difference) then we (the UK population) have no protection in law against and legistlation that may come into force to promote their religious ideals.

I think the atheists (and secularists) in the UK need to be more vocal. Perhaps a European constitution, enshrining similar ideas of religious freedom (freedom from government) might go some way to protecting the UK.

If you actually look at the lip serves paid by the Uk to the church/religions, it's pretty darn frightening.

fatpie42 · 06-22-2007, 10:01 AM

Edit: I would like it recognised that I replied as I read this post and that my opinion sides more and more with you as I read on. I thought it was important to leave my post as originally written so those not from the UK could see the typical reaction to the things you have stated. Some of the things you mentioned I knew. The Queen's status, in particular, I found of little importance. However, the news that the blasphemy law had been used to prosecute so recently struck me with horror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

I live in the UK too (apparently 60 million plus people do!) and I'm guessing you're not aware that the Queen (Elizabeth II, 40th monarch since 1066) is head of the Church of England? She's also the head of state.

Does she actually have any power though? What political power has Queen Elizabeth II wielded in the last 20 years, or ever for that matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

Bishops sit in the house of Lords, through sheer virtue of their Bishoprics. School children are required to have daily (Christian) worship. The Church of England is subsidised by the state. Our national anthem is GOD save the Queen.

Our country is historically Christian and these are remnants of that. There are some who would claim that the house of Lords is a relic, so it is unsurprising that bishops are involved in that old tradition. The Church of England, just like our monarchy, is also a relic. They are kept going for cultural reasons more than anything else.

The daily worship in schools (where they even bother to make it religious, which is rarer and rarer) is the biggest advert for atheism in our society. It firmly reminds us of religion's link with the status quo, and the half-hearted morning worship reminds of just how irrelevant the Church has become. Though naturally we do not have to send our children to faith schools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

We (atheists) have no protection in law from religious indoctrination of our children, at state funded (sometimes religious) schools.

That I find of more interest, though I do wonder whether parents are not allowed some legal rights concerning what their children are exposed to...

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

Our blasphemy laws are Church of England specific (our established Church, the one our taxes fund) and private prosecutions using said Blasphemy laws occured as late as 1977. A man (John William Gott) served 12 months in the 1920s for comparing Christ to a circus clown! No, we're not very religious (add your own ironic tone).

I never took this seriously but having looked at this I worry:

Quote:

Blasphemy laws in England have never been repealed. The last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott on 9 December 1921. He had three previous convictions for blasphemy when he was prosecuted for publishing two pamphlets which satirised the biblical story of Jesus entering Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7), comparing Jesus to a circus clown. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.

In 1977, Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News was found guilty of blasphemous libel for publishing James Kirkup's poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name which allegedly vilified Christ and his life (Whitehouse v. Lemon). Lemon was fined £500 and sentenced to a suspended sentence of nine months imprisonment. It had been "touch and go", said the judge, whether he would actually send Lemon to jail.

In 2002, a deliberate and well-publicised public repeat reading of the poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name took place on the steps of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square and failed to lead to any prosecution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#United_Kingdom

The events described in 2002 are comforting, but the laws continued existence remains troubling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

We still have daily prayer in parliament.

While the history of our country has been far from secular, I had no idea that this practice took place in the houses of Parliament of all places....

blue_haired_devil · 06-22-2007, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Edit: I would like it recognised that I replied as I read this post and that my opinion sides more and more with you as I read on. I thought it was important to leave my post as originally written so those not from the UK could see the typical reaction to the things you have stated. Some of the things you mentioned I knew. The Queen's status, in particular, I found of little importance. However, the news that the blasphemy law had been used to prosecute so recently struck me with horror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

I live in the UK too (apparently 60 million plus people do!) and I'm guessing you're not aware that the Queen (Elizabeth II, 40th monarch since 1066) is head of the Church of England? She's also the head of state.

Does she actually have any power though? What political power has Queen Elizabeth II wielded in the last 20 years, or ever for that matter?

Just wanted to take up this point. In reality, Lizzy doesn't use any of the powers she has at her disposal (though I believe there were problems in Australia in the 70s when her representative did) but she still has the power to veto every bill she has to sign to pass into law. I think the monarchy is well past its sell by date. The Queen also has weekly meetings with the prime minister. God knows what they talk about. They might only mention which of her corgies is looking peaky today, but she has a power and influence over the PM that me and my next door neighbour certainly don't. She's head of the Church of England, which is a pretty meaningless title. I'm not sure how religious Lizzy is, but she attends church regularly and doesn't seem concerned by her position of spiritual head of her people.

Quote:

While the history of our country has been far from secular, I had no idea that this practice took place in the houses of Parliament of all places....

It certainly does. A number of MPs use this time to secure their seats in parliament. Leaving prayer cards on seats with their names on them.

While I quite like the secularism in the UK, I have to say that I would like some protection in law against fundies.

andrewcriddle · 06-23-2007, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

In many ways the UK is one of the most secular of societies. The House of Lords even had a debate about worship in parliament (where a few of them declared themselves non-believers). My problem is, the laws in the UK do not protect this apparent secularism. If our population, as some show signs of doing, become fundies (Christian or Islamic, makes little difference) then we (the UK population) have no protection in law against and legistlation that may come into force to promote their religious ideals.

There is a real problem that the UK constitution provides minority groups with little protection against oppressive legislation by Parliament.

The US constitution for example does rather better.

However, in practice, religious fundamentalists in the UK are much more likely to be victims than beneficiaries of this situation.

Andrew Criddle

Clouseau · 06-23-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

If you actually look at the lip serves paid by the Uk to the church/religions, it's pretty darn frightening.

I get the feeling that it is going to increase under Brown.

Febble · 06-23-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

In many ways the UK is one of the most secular of societies. The House of Lords even had a debate about worship in parliament (where a few of them declared themselves non-believers). My problem is, the laws in the UK do not protect this apparent secularism. If our population, as some show signs of doing, become fundies (Christian or Islamic, makes little difference) then we (the UK population) have no protection in law against and legistlation that may come into force to promote their religious ideals.

There is a real problem that the UK constitution provides minority groups with little protection against oppressive legislation by Parliament.

The US constitution for example does rather better.

However, in practice, religious fundamentalists in the UK are much more likely to be victims than beneficiaries of this situation.

Andrew Criddle

FWIW, whereas in the US, you can't really even think of running for president unless you "do God", Tony Blair had to wait till this week before announcing that he is becoming a catholic. Not that he has disguised his Christianity, but it tells you something about the UK politics that he was told firmly by his spin doctor that "we don't do God". Only now that he has left power is he free to.

Clouseau · 06-23-2007, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a real problem that the UK constitution provides minority groups with little protection against oppressive legislation by Parliament.

The US constitution for example does rather better.

However, in practice, religious fundamentalists in the UK are much more likely to be victims than beneficiaries of this situation.

Andrew Criddle

FWIW, whereas in the US, you can't really even think of running for president unless you "do God", Tony Blair had to wait till this week before announcing that he is becoming a catholic. Not that he has disguised his Christianity, but it tells you something about the UK politics that he was told firmly by his spin doctor that "we don't do God". Only now that he has left power is he free to.

The remarkable thing about that is that a modern UK Prime Minister even thought about mentioning God, apparently, not that he was stopped from doing so. It was calculated spin just to moot the idea.

Cheerful Charlie · 06-23-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blue_haired_devil

In many ways the UK is one of the most secular of societies. The House of Lords even had a debate about worship in parliament (where a few of them declared themselves non-believers). My problem is, the laws in the UK do not protect this apparent secularism. If our population, as some show signs of doing, become fundies (Christian or Islamic, makes little difference) then we (the UK population) have no protection in law against and legistlation that may come into force to promote their religious ideals.

I think the atheists (and secularists) in the UK need to be more vocal. Perhaps a European constitution, enshrining similar ideas of religious freedom (freedom from government) might go some way to protecting the UK.

If you actually look at the lip serves paid by the Uk to the church/religions, it's pretty darn frightening.

It seems labor is more vocal than the Tories on religion. Or is that a mis-impression? What about the Liberal Democrats? If I was in England, I would be furious at that not-so-creeping Big Brotherism that seems to have become rampant. It would seem these problems would be a point for other parties to deal with as opposed to Labor policies.

CC

purple_kathryn · 06-23-2007, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie

It seems labor is more vocal than the Tories on religion. Or is that a mis-impression? What about the Liberal Democrats? If I was in England, I would be furious at that not-so-creeping Big Brotherism that seems to have become rampant. It would seem these problems would be a point for other parties to deal with as opposed to Labor policies.

CC

Just England? Not Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland then?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2007, 09:53 AM	#22
blue_haired_devil Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Essex, England Posts: 128	In many ways the UK is one of the most secular of societies. The House of Lords even had a debate about worship in parliament (where a few of them declared themselves non-believers). My problem is, the laws in the UK do not protect this apparent secularism. If our population, as some show signs of doing, become fundies (Christian or Islamic, makes little difference) then we (the UK population) have no protection in law against and legistlation that may come into force to promote their religious ideals. I think the atheists (and secularists) in the UK need to be more vocal. Perhaps a European constitution, enshrining similar ideas of religious freedom (freedom from government) might go some way to protecting the UK. If you actually look at the lip serves paid by the Uk to the church/religions, it's pretty darn frightening.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.