Chinahand Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 So when Cronky says 69 or whatever it is percent of the UK identify themselves on the census as Christians, and therefore Christian mores should be given democratic legitimacy, you agree with him? Cronky is expropriating people to his cause because they, in a very narrow question, have defined themselves as Christians. Dawkins has gone and sampled these people and found the majority of them are in favour of secular policies. The Bishops, various high church politicians, and Cronky, are making alot more out of this self defined group of Christians than is legitimate to do so when you ask them about their views. I basically agree with you. It isn't up to me, or any Bishop to claim who is or is not a Christian - that's the point, unfortunately though people want to gain political power for their supernatural beliefs. Something I say the state should keep well away from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 So when Cronky says 69 or whatever it is percent of the UK identify themselves on the census as Christians, and therefore Christian mores should be given democratic legitimacy, you agree with him? Simplistically missing the point, as ever. If 69% of the UK identify themselves as Christians then I think you'll find it's a pretty safe bet that 69% of our democratically elected representatives, you know, the folks that make laws and stuff, are Christians as well. It's called statistics. Happy To Help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't think it matters how many 'Christians' there are we need to have a secular society where every faith is treated equally and none is given preference through prayers etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The Queen is Head of State and also Head of the C of E which makes it tricky. I don't have a lot of time for the French but I thought banning religiously overt dress in schools was absolutely the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 So when Cronky says 69 or whatever it is percent of the UK identify themselves on the census as Christians, and therefore Christian mores should be given democratic legitimacy, you agree with him? Simplistically missing the point, as ever. If 69% of the UK identify themselves as Christians then I think you'll find it's a pretty safe bet that 69% of our democratically elected representatives, you know, the folks that make laws and stuff, are Christians as well. It's called statistics. Happy To Help! Why do you think it matters that they can pray as part of their government sessions in being Christians and a majority? This is what I am not understanding here. You seem to be giving the impression that the majority of councillors is the important matter here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 P.K. I don't have a lot of time for the French but I thought banning religiously overt dress in schools was absolutely the way to go. I don't really understand your politics at all. You have an issue with the supposed intolerance that stops people who are supposed to represent everyone from praying and showing bias, yet are quite happy to strip citizens of their freedoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Events like the French banning the niqab are simply democracy in action. I agree with the policies simply because a good start in encouraging integration, especially in schools, is to remove as many differences as you can. When the kids are adults they can make their own minds up. Unless they have to do what the men tell them to do that is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 Democracy in action? How so? It was voted on by the people if you democracy by way of majoritarianism. Aside from asking you that, you seem to have an idea that the good result is one where the majority have made a decision. I don't know why you have this idea. But the ban of the burkha and niqab is not restricted to schools. It applies to all, so effectively it is a removal of a basic freedom from those (who presumably) from your above perspective have a decision whether to wear it or not. And there is much to be said from helping other people integrate in society, but such a basic freedom as what to wear is not something I could agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The French actions are all about the separation of state and religion which a lot seem to preach on here! (sorry, couldn't resist that one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 The banning of the burka has nothing to do with separation of church and state. You are aware that the french ban that applies to wearing them in public, as well as in such state-run facilities as schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 From Aunty Beeb "The ban is designed to maintain France's tradition of strictly separating state and religion." Story http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3619988.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 But it is a ban on the wearing it in public. That has no bearing on the matter of separation. Separation of the Church and the state is about the State not supporting or biased towards a religion and not interfering with the working of religious organisations. And it prevents these organisations from having influence on the State. Aside from what you have read on the article, why do you think it is about separation of church and state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's not about separating church from state. It's about separating religion from state. Carry it through and the state can ban overtly religious items such as clothing from anything the state is responsible for. I fully understand where you are coming from. But at least the French recognise there is a problem and are trying to do something about it. Unlike us who roll over at the least provocation which has the added downer of pretending no problem exists. It's just pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 15, 2012 Author Share Posted February 15, 2012 ...and the State has no responsibility nor should have any responsibility (and power) over what people wear in PUBLIC. Come on, just because a problem is recognised and just something...anything is done doesn't mean that it is a good thing. To say that, you would already have to have some agreement with what is being done, as any intelligent person could think of lots of examples where problems are found and the completely inappropriate or immoral solutions are put in place. I mean, something that could be done is to kill all muslims in France. That's something. But it isn't good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Everyone has irrational beliefs of some kind. Some are formalised into religion. Some are universally condemned as superstition. Some are simply convinced that their own opinions are incontrivertible. To live a life entirely by logic would mean destroying the very fabric of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.