Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rch-shows.html

I have been saying this for several year, and now here is the first piece of evidence. Decline ended about five years ago, and now we are on the upswing.

So, is the enthrallment of the monistic Enlightenment view of a purely physical universe in terminal decline?

I suspect so, it was never satisfying for the vast majority anyway, I think in the not so distant future we will finally see an acceptence among the intellectual elite that one can accomodate both spiritual and scientific world views together without undue anguish.

The irony here is that nothing has done so much to raise the profile of religion favourably as the slew of books decrying it as nonsense and attempting to talk down to and bully their audience.

Reg Vardy has a lot to answer for.

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one. removed as above

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

---

I think these are all fair points, and I accept them. Of course, the social utility of religion does not count against it being true (it may count in favour even, it may not.)

I present alos this, a book review by Rowan Williams on the subject: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...on-review.html

I especially liked this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rowan Williams

She distinguishes this carefully and consistently from specific scientific argumentation, making the all-important point that a scientist outside their special field has no particular claim to philosophical acumen

---

and this:

Quote:

---

“Whoever controls the definition of mind controls the definition of humankind itself.” The more the definition of mind is left to the parascientist – to Dennett and Dawkins and to reductive neurologists such as Steven Pinker and Michael Gazzaniga – the more political, moral and imaginative trouble we are corporately in.

---

Which would, I believe, be an opinion shared by Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, and also probably by Protagoras - ironic as that may be.

Religion is fine, as long as we don't start based anything important on it.

Apologies for mentioning the historical practice of selling indulgences for forgiveness of sin, for such buildings as Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I hope that this was for my comment implying these events might occur in the future, and not trying to sweep this practice from the past.

Apparently this is "religion bashing" although was one of the main stimuli for the Protestant movement in the first place as it underlined the massive divide from the teachings of Christ and the Catholic church, especially in relation to the accrual of money, but also to the refusal to allow the masses to obtain copies of the book their religion was supposed to be based upon.

~:smoking:

as long as people still fear the hell and the uncertainty of their future, they still need a religion... at least, Christians are good friends, they will pay for your beer if you go to church with them! :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I suspect so, it was never satisfying for the vast majority anyway, I think in the not so distant future we will finally see an acceptence among the intellectual elite that one can accomodate both spiritual and scientific world views together without undue anguish.

---

Religion has no place in science, has Science has no need for dogmatic ignorance such as Creationism, and its kin trying to prevent progress.

If you have happy with your 'opium of the people' though, I don't care until you attempt to force it on me or where it doesn't belong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

---

Excellent points. I'm with Marx on this one.

It may be on the up, but aren't the majority of people in the UK still self identified Atheists? I believe the figure is 60%+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Apologies for mentioning the historical practice of selling indulgences for forgiveness of sin, for such buildings as Saint Peter's Cathedral in Rome. I hope that this was for my comment implying these events might occur in the future, and not trying to sweep this practice from the past.

---

I'd imagine the censure (and warning?) might have been for

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

calling catholicism a religion for the weak.

Saying religion is for the weak and people who can't accept they are going to die etc is pretty much akin to saying that atheists refuse to believe in God because they are too weak to take the consequences of facing up to their sins. There may be some truth in such statements, but they are very speculative and don't really do justice to the vast range of beliefs out there.

I have a hunch that the increase in church attendance may be something to do with all the controversy surrounding Islam, because it is making people consciously identify more as 'Christian', typical us v them scenario. Although even then I have to say I am surprised to see the established church doing so well, things don't seem so rosy with the Church of Scotland. Heh, I've actually been attending two churches recently, one of them being the C of S. But I've also been going to a local Baptist church where they have evening services for people from different churches to come to (not interfaith stuff, still strictly evangelical) because I have a friend that invited me, and the contrast really is marked. They have all kinds of Bible study groups, teaching sessions, various events etc, so I would not be suprised to see such churches thriving. But the C of S on the other hand does pretty much nothing, I actually emailed my minister a few days ago because I want to organise some sort of Bible study group... will see how that goes...

Probably more to do with the Recession, and people want the comfort of sugar candy mountain in this time of hardship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

akin to saying that atheists refuse to believe in God because they are too weak to take the consequences of facing up to their sins.

---

That makes no sense, that is as silly as me saying you don't believe in Valhalla because you will end up amongst the dishonoured dead and shall not be permitted to enter its great halls.

The statement that there is no afterlife, no divine purpose, nothing out there looking out for you is a very frightening one to many people, it is also why some religious people will never be atheists as it scares them. Belief in an afterlife and spiritual stuff is a comfort blanket for many people that no matter how bad things are in life, they will be rewarded. It is a pretty known 'fact'.

Though if some one wanted to get rid of sins, they could just go to confession and all sins are stripped away, or pay for a pass to Heaven. That is how the Catholics do it.

The numbers of religions that offer an easy way out for sinners has always been great. If Atheists are merely weak sinners it'd be much easier to join a church that allows forgiveness after some minor act. Paganism can be pretty liberal in what classes as a sin so that would suit most people.

I'm sure there are loads of other reasons out there, ranging from a good way to meet people, which is certainly true, to meeting the right sort of people, historical or cultural significance or even just wanting to make a stand against the other. I'm (A)gnostic but I would support CoE vs all comers as this has helped form my country.

Ah, Bible study groups. I love them. Last one I called god a sadistic psychopath based on forcing Pharoh to refuse the Israelites their request so he could then punish them with plagues. Since it was a group that believed the literal writings of the bible there was no way to "interpret" their way out of that one. My wife didn't let me attend any after that...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I have been saying this for several year, and now here is the first piece of evidence. Decline ended about five years ago, and now we are on the upswing.

---

Hang-about, I thought the article's headline was "Churchgoing stabilises after years of decline, research shows".

The cynical atheist might say that this just shows attendance has been reduced down to the hard core of believers, which due to social & demographic considerations has been constant in the last 10 years.

This is still interesting, but it's not proof that the UK is becoming more religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That makes no sense, that is as silly as me saying you don't believe in Valhalla because you will end up amongst the dishonoured dead and shall not be permitted to enter its great halls.

---

My point is just that the old "Christians are weak" line presumes that fear is the only motivating factor behind their faith, regardless of any truth behind it, and I think that this is unfair

My own experience with religion is that it has been comforting at times, but more often the opposite has been true, especially in the earlier days. I think that's how things are meant to be though, look at the Psalms of King David which give a very good account of what a personal relationship with God is like, it isn't all about feeling warm and fuzzy.

Although I agree with you, many of the people who believe in 'hippie Jesus' are only in it because it makes them feel good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Ah, Bible study groups. I love them. Last one I called god a sadistic psychopath based on forcing Pharoh to refuse the Israelites their request so he could then punish them with plagues. Since it was a group that believed the literal writings of the bible there was no way to "interpret" their way out of that one. My wife didn't let me attend any after that...

---

Well Calvinists like myself would have no problem with your example. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so he could make his glory known to the Isrealites. Pharaoh was already an evil king that had enslaved the Israelite people remember, and refused to let them go even before God hardened his heart.

Such beliefs might seem a bit brutal but that is becaused they are centred on the glory of God and not the glory of men, I don't deny it. Plus at least they are theologically consistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Hang-about, I thought the article's headline was "Churchgoing stabilises after years of decline, research shows".

---

5,000 more people in 2008 it says, but it's not clear if that's statistically significant.

On a population of millions? Are you kidding? It's pretty clear that it is *not* statistically significant.

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

---

lol, HERESY.

Where's the Spanish inquisition when you need them? Cue python.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

Quote:

---

Christian Research: Church attendance in the UK no longer in decline - exclusive guest post from Benita Hewitt

This is actually rather earth shattering.

This will no doubt be very welcome news ahead of the Papal visit.

---

Let's hope for Christian 'Research' that the pope, like them, will be blissfully oblivious of the fact that while church attendance has stabilised, population has sharply increased, thus decreasing church attendance as percentage of the population. Here you go:



UK population:

2001: 58,789,194 (Census)
2010: 63m (Estimate)
= 7.2 % growth


Catholics:
2001: 980.000
2005: 920.000
2010: 920.000
decline, stable from 2004/5

The Baptist Union of Great Britain:
2002: 148,835
2008: 153,714
3.2% growth.

Church of England:

2001: 1.2 million
2008: 1.145 million
decline


So the percentage of churchgoers has declined the past decade. The best that can be said, is that the decline seems to have mostly halted the past few years. :book:

Worthy of note are:
The CoE, which can not increase its numbers with immigration, has declined most sharply of all percentage wise.

The decline of Catholicism in the UK stabilised from 2004/5, the exact year Poland joined the EU and a massive migration of Catholic Poles to the British Isles ensued. I wonder if there's a connection there...


All in all, we still seem to manage to enlighten them faster than they can breed and import. :knight:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I've always wondered about the 'merciful' bit of god as well. Compared with him, satan is an angel.

---

The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God in terms of personality. You might even read the New Testament after the Old and think that they're talking about a completely different God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

The Old Testament God is very different from the New Testament God in terms of personality. You might even read the New Testament after the Old and think that they're talking about a completely different God.

---

The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.

On the other hand, the much more apocalyptic viewpoint of the New Testament is based around the idea that God is going to completely destroy the earth and all its inhabitants.

The God of the Old Testament is really not more brutal than that of the New.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Louis demonstrates how the French are superior to the English in maths.

---

Lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder when people will learn to doublecheck their data and not jump to the first conclusion they see...

Also, I'm happy to note that Christianity is still declining. To me, that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: I do wonder, will the financial crisis create more christians? I mean, I'm sure the number of alcoholics and junkies are on the rise now, and seeing as that's the primary breeding ground for potential christians, will we see a boost to the flock in a few years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.

On the other hand, the much more apocalyptic viewpoint of the New Testament is based around the idea that God is going to completely destroy the earth and all its inhabitants.

The God of the Old Testament is really not more brutal than that of the New.

---

You probably understand it better than I do seeming your a practising Christian but I always thought the general theme was that OT God smited those on a regular basis who disobeyed him whilst the NT God is more "do what you like, just remember your going to hell for it".

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

~:smoking:

---

I like Numbers 31, where they committed genocide, leaving only the virgin young females, which they took for themselves. Even conducted Human Sacrifice as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Are we editing out how God's chosen systematically slaughtered others near and far in the Old Testament with God's help?

~:smoking:

---

Of course not, I was just pointing to examples of God being 'nice' in the OT. Also remember despite the perception below:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

---

God doesn't intervene directly in much of the OT. Indeed the God felt the Israelites were becoming too confident in their own abilities to win the conflict, and that's why he told Gideon to purge his army before they fought the Midianites. When God did intervene directly, it was stuff like parting the Red Sea or the Jordan River, or providig manna to eat etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Very good point that it's not satisfying. People in the main have no interest in whether it's true, but whether it makes them feel better about themselves and the world. Few people can exist without the warm blanket that belief offers: someone who loves you when no one else does, some one who will forgive your sins and finally somewhere after you're dead.

If you're a strong person, then Protestantism or even Quakerism might be the best one.removed to avoid potential religion bashing.

I'm in favour of it - cheaper than antidepressants after all. I hope my son grows up with the belief that somehow everything is going to be OK as it's a great health booster when things are tough. If you can believe that God loves you and not wonder that perhaps it'd be better to display love in ways that wouldn't get one locked up if one were a mere human would be nice...

~:smoking:

---

as commonly occurs; rory expresses my opinion before i get a chance to voice it.

“The overriding theme in the Old Testament is how God chooses a small, defenceless people and leads them out of slavery, provides for them in the wilderness, and gives them a bright and prosperous future in the 'Promised Land'.”
That is if you believe the Book of course.

Because the systematic extermination of all opponents who pre-owned the lands given by God but taken by men e.g. Joshua leads me to other explanation about one of the greatest piece of propaganda and self-justification ever written.
I discovered it thanks to the .org, in a side door in a thread.
An excellent programme (Battle BC) on history channel reinforced this feeling.

Not only the Jews were not slaves but also they were warriors employed by Pharaoh to waged war on his borders (a little bit as the Serbs in the Krajina by the Austro-Hungarians against the Turks). The reason why Moses left Egypt (due to the fact that peace treaty was signed and Pharaoh didn’t want some to put in danger this treaty in doing something silly as raiding former enemy lands and women and cattle) is because the lost of the source of revenue: war.
Pharaoh assigned a new duty to the Jews as builders, but they didn’t like it. They left but re-supplied in usual way in plundering Egyptian towns.
Pharaoh didn’t like it so started a pursuit. Moses being a general on the field knew the Egyptian tactic and succeeded to avoid a frontal battle and slipped away…
Then the battle of the Holly lands started in systematically exterminating the local tribes…

Times are tough, people will believe in something to help them in hard times. Tell me it's been on the rise for a decade straight and then I will worry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Times are tough, people will believe in something to help them in hard times. Tell me it's been on the rise for a decade straight and then I will worry.

---

now now... when Jesus comes for the second time.. I'm sure many of us will suddenly turned Christian :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sonic

now now... when Jesus comes for the second time.. I'm sure many of us will suddenly turned Christian :clown:

---

The christian god's existance is irrelevant to my faith. It's not about what is true or not, I consider the word of the bible as morally wrong and so I will never follow it.

Well, reading this has provided some ammusement over the weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Let's hope for Christian 'Research' that the pope, like them, will be blissfully oblivious of the fact that while church attendance has stabilised, population has sharply increased, thus decreasing church attendance as percentage of the population. Here you go:



UK population:

2001: 58,789,194 (Census)
2010: 63m (Estimate)
= 7.2 % growth


Catholics:
2001: 980.000
2005: 920.000
2010: 920.000
decline, stable from 2004/5

The Baptist Union of Great Britain:
2002: 148,835
2008: 153,714
3.2% growth.

Church of England:

2001: 1.2 million
2008: 1.145 million
decline


So the percentage of churchgoers has declined the past decade. The best that can be said, is that the decline seems to have mostly halted the past few years. :book:

Worthy of note are:
The CoE, which can not increase its numbers with immigration, has declined most sharply of all percentage wise.

The decline of Catholicism in the UK stabilised from 2004/5, the exact year Poland joined the EU and a massive migration of Catholic Poles to the British Isles ensued. I wonder if there's a connection there...


All in all, we still seem to manage to enlighten them faster than they can breed and import. :knight:

---

A decline of 55,000 in the Church of England over 7 years is less than 5,000 a year, which can mostly be accounted for with the decline of the Anglo-Saxon population that has traditionally made up the CofE. In any case, CofE figures only account for Sunday Worship, not the various mid-week evening initiatives which many Diocese are now running.

So you aren't enlightening anyone, we're just dieing as a people slighting faster than we can win converts.

The other denominations are still increasing rather than falling, which indicates a very likely see-change overall, and no figures are given for the evangelicals, who have seen explosiv growth in the last 10 years or so.

Further, NONE of you have taken account of the people who have converted but do not regularly attend Church (which includes myself for complex reasons).

So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Lies, damned lies and statistics. I wonder when people will learn to doublecheck their data and not jump to the first conclusion they see...

Also, I'm happy to note that Christianity is still declining. To me, that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: I do wonder, will the financial crisis create more christians? I mean, I'm sure the number of alcoholics and junkies are on the rise now, and seeing as that's the primary breeding ground for potential christians, will we see a boost to the flock in a few years?

---

Hate mongering and belittling is usually taken as a sign of fear...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

You probably understand it better than I do seeming your a practising Christian but I always thought the general theme was that OT God smited those on a regular basis who disobeyed him whilst the NT God is more "do what you like, just remember your going to hell for it".

Guess that has something to do with the OT God intervening directly in our world and the NT God working through Jesus though.

---

Points of Theology:

1. Indulgences do not get you [into] Heaven they speed you through Purgatory. If you are in Purgatory you are already going to Heaven, indulgences are the equivilent of paying for a flight upgrade - they can't ever save your soul.

However, various Roman Catholic authorities have sold them at various times - which has always been illegal and has been repeatedly condemned by successive Popes (which might be ironic in some cases).

2. Christianity is less "Do what you like but you're going to hell" and much more "whatever you do, I'll let you off so long as you are genuinely sorry for it."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Hate mongering and belittling is usually taken as a sign of fear...

---

Yes, and I fear the cast of Paradise Hotel as well.

:facepalm:

But there is some truth to your statement, Philipvs; while a christian majority isn't exactly likely in the foreseeable future, the draconian laws they would implement should they get a majority is more than enough motivation we need to keep up the fight of keeping christianity down at a manageable percentage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, and I fear the cast of Paradise Hotel as well.

:facepalm:

But there is some truth to your statement, Philipvs; while a christian majority isn't exactly likely in the foreseeable future, the draconian laws they would implement should they get a majority is more than enough motivation we need to keep up the fight of keeping christianity down at a manageable percentage.

---

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

---

Nice guilt by association.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Nice guilt by association.

---

It isn't guilt by association.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Nice guilt by association.

---

Wrong try again.

While our great Norwegian viking friend horetore might not have explained it so eloquently, perhaps there is some basis of truth in what he says. I think that when junkies and alcoholics feel regret, and seek moral guidance, they may convert to Christianity as it can offer great relief to people in need. And I don't think that's bad.
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

While our great Norwegian viking friend horetore might not have explained it so eloquently, perhaps there is some basis of truth in what he says. I think that when junkies and alcoholics feel regret, and seek moral guidance, they may convert to Christianity as it can offer great relief to people in need. And I don't think that's bad.
:bow:

---

His comment was still needlessly violent and hateful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

needlessly violent and hateful.

---

A good description of the actions of the church in the Africa and the New World over the centuries ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

A good description of the actions of the church in the Africa and the New World over the centuries ;)

---

Thank you for the appropriately gentile and loving ~;).

I heard on Sunday a programme where people were desperately trying to justify why everyone should be respectful to the Pope...

• He's the head of state
• He's the head of a religion
• Erm...
• Just leave the wizened bigot alone, OK?

It was amazing really.

Going on about how the church was doing so much to sort out the abuses (that have been going on for the last 50 years or more), mentioning how the Pope had even met some victims to have a quick chat with!
The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

Want to see the Pope? That'll be £25 per person please. And there was I joking the selling of indulgences... I'm sure that there is a wealth of difference in the two though.

~:smoking:

Simmer down a bit people, let's keep this above board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, reading this has provided some ammusement over the weekend.

A decline of 55,000 in the Church of England over 7 years is less than 5,000 a year, which can mostly be accounted for with the decline of the Anglo-Saxon population that has traditionally made up the CofE. In any case, CofE figures only account for Sunday Worship, not the various mid-week evening initiatives which many Diocese are now running.

So you aren't enlightening anyone, we're just dieing as a people slighting faster than we can win converts.

The other denominations are still increasing rather than falling, which indicates a very likely see-change overall, and no figures are given for the evangelicals, who have seen explosiv growth in the last 10 years or so.

Further, NONE of you have taken account of the people who have converted but do not regularly attend Church (which includes myself for complex reasons).

So, in orther words, slow growth or negligable decline probably indicates much larger growth which will only show in the numbers in another 5-10 years.

---

So, after trumpeting that the stats Louis has used are proving that Faith is on the UP in the UK, you go on to discredit them when he uses them? Please...

Atheists aren't so good at performing the leap of faith cognitive jump to arrive at your final assertion.

This was an interesting show on Panorama about the Pope:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...the_Pope_Knew/

It is about the catholic priests fiddling children. Apparently, John Paul II (previous pope) made sure there was an atmosphere of silence, whilst the current Pope, he completely reformed on how the Catholic Church deals with these issues, including assisting police investigations and reporting allegations.

Though there were some issues where he could have acted 'faster' pre-Pope and able to do these reforms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

So, after trumpeting that the stats Louis has used are proving that Faith is on the UP in the UK, you go on to discredit them when he uses them? Please...

Atheists aren't so good at performing the leap of faith cognitive jump to arrive at your final assertion.

---

Um no, I said his analysis, that a small increase respesents a decline, was incomplete because the native population (from which Churches initially draw) has been falling. So if the fall year-on-year has been arrested that means that the Churches are recruiting faster than people are leaving, and a rise means they are even recruiting faster than people a dieing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Going on about how the church was doing so much to sort out the abuses (that have been going on for the last 50 years or more), mentioning how the Pope had even met some victims to have a quick chat with!

---

This is somewhat unfair to the Roman Catholic church overall, as abuses 50 years ago cannot be undone by the current administration - not even the Pope has a time machine. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

---

OK, this one always gets my goat: you don't want AIDs? Don't sleep with filthy prostitutes, given that many African men like "dry" sex anyway I doubt a change in the Roman Catholic Church would make a whit of difference. Certainly, no one (or very few) in the west bother with Church teaching on contraception any more than they bother with church teaching on chastity. Why pretend Africa is any different. Rampent HIV in Africa is a cultural problem, not a religious one.

Fact is if Africans followed ALL Church teachings on sex there would be no HIV, or virtually no HIV. Complaining that they only follow half of it is perverse!

Since not even members of the Clergy can follow their own dogma, it's not reasonable to expect others to do so.

The Church creates an environment where controlling the situation is made harder by going as far as to state that condoms don't block or indeed increase the spread of HIV. If everyone used a condom except when trying for children the rates of HIV would be massively lower.

Filthy prostitutes eh? All their fault. Oh great... what an ill informed comment. Vertical transmission? Infected blood? Occurrences of rape?

The church likes to go on and on about it's history. But seems extremely eager to gloss over less than godly occurrences. Either do a proper rooting out of what is frankly corruption and straighten things out (but the Catholic Church is a monolistic hierarchy, so not likely) or go back to basics and cut out the bloat that's set in over the last c.2000 years which is what many churches have done.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The help the Church provides in Africa (not with HIV, where if anything it is condemning unknown numbers to an early death).
Justifying anti-contraception (wives who's husbands have HIV can't use a condom either as it's Wrong...), that priests don't marry (having no family enables priests to have a much greater insight into marriages and children apparently).

---

i won't argue the condom thing, it is of course daft, but the matter of AIDs in africa is made massively worse by the culture of men sleeping around, and an subsistence lifestyle that's puts women in the position of having to accept it because the alternative is being turfed out the house to face starvation if they have the temerity to question their husbands sexploits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Since not even members of the Clergy can follow their own dogma, it's not reasonable to expect others to do so.

---

Quite true - but irrelevant. If they don't care about church teaching sex why do they care about church teaching on condoms? It's an excuse.

Quote:

---

The Church creates an environment where controlling the situation is made harder by going as far as to state that condoms don't block or indeed increase the spread of HIV. If everyone used a condom except when trying for children the rates of HIV would be massively lower.

---

Also true, but the Church is correct insofar as condoms are far from bullet proof, and wearing one does not makes one genuinely "safe". Consider Horetore, who's little man goes away and hides at the prospect of not using a condom. So in that regard I do agree with the Church, just pushing the condom may well do more harm than good (there may even be a situation where people do reuse a condom in Africa, they have to reuse everythin else, and then it would be true that the increase the risk of infection.)

Quote:

---

Filthy prostitutes eh? All their fault. Oh great... what an ill informed comment. Vertical transmission? Infected blood? Occurrences of rape?

---

Well, once you contract HIV you should probably be neutered/rendered infertile, but the modern world doesn't have the stones to contain the pandemic, does it? the fact is most transimissions come from illicit sex, and a lot of that is from transient workers who pay for it and then go and infect their wives.

as to women with HIV positive husbands?

Grounds for an annullment I'd say - failure to fulfill conjugal rights.

Quote:

---

The church likes to go on and on about it's history. But seems extremely eager to gloss over less than godly occurrences. Either do a proper rooting out of what is frankly corruption and straighten things out (but the Catholic Church is a monolistic hierarchy, so not likely) or go back to basics and cut out the bloat that's set in over the last c.2000 years which is what many churches have done.

~:smoking:

---

Here you will have no dissagreement from me, which is why I am not Roman Catholic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Want to see the Pope? That'll be £25 per person please. And there was I joking the selling of indulgences... I'm sure that there is a wealth of difference in the two though.

~:smoking:

---

And don't forget the official merchandise, proceeds flowing into the Vatican coffers!

When the Pope stretches out his arms to the masses gathered in parks in Glasgow, Birmingham and London this weekend, the rock star parallels will be exaggerated by the appearance of the adoring crowds.
Some will be wearing the official papal visit T-shirt (£18) while holding aloft an electronic flashing candle (£3).


Others may sport, against the autumn chill, an official baseball cap (£15) bearing the slogan of the newly beatified Cardinal Newman: "Heart Speaks Unto Heart".




It's good to see the Vatican work for a living, makes for a nice change from its other sources of income such as its mafia branches in Italy and running Belgium's largest ring of paedophile brothels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Britain was a Christian-majority country in the 1910's-1950's, it was not Draconian; Soviet Russia was Atheistic, and it was Draconian.

Draco wasn't a Christian either, he was a Polytheist.

---

If we are to take the christians seriously, then the following will at the very least happen:
*abortion made illegal
*gay marriage banned
*preaching and prayer will be allowed in school
*limits to divorce

....Which is what I would call draconian, especially the abortion one.

And yes, britain in the start of the century did have draconian laws like the death penalty, sodomy laws existed, divorce was a lot harder and abortion was illegal and treated like murder.

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down.... That might not be a coincidence....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

His comment was still needlessly violent and hateful.

---

Uhm, what? Are you ashamed that your faith converts junkies? Do you consider them lesser people, or what?

Because fact is that junkies and alcoholics is one of christianity's top sources of converts. And a rise in the number of junkies will logically be followed by an increase in the number of christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If we are to take the christians seriously, then the following will at the very least happen:
*abortion made illegal
*gay marriage banned
*preaching and prayer will be allowed in school
*limits to divorce

....Which is what I would call draconian, especially the abortion one.

And yes, britain in the start of the century did have draconian laws like the death penalty, sodomy laws existed, divorce was a lot harder and abortion was illegal and treated like murder.

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down.... That might not be a coincidence....

---

that's a particularly blinkered view that disallows for evolution, are you sure you really want to go down this road when railing against the flaws of religion?

so much anger, and i say this as an indifferent agnostic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that's a particularly blinkered view that disallows for evolution, are you sure you really want to go down this road when railing against the flaws of religion?

so much anger, and i say this as an indifferent agnostic!

---

My points were a quick summary of most christian party programmes. When a party writes something in a programme, I assume that they will at the very least try to impllement in when they gain power. Is that a flawed view?

And yes, I am quite aware of the existance of liberal and socialist christians, but they are a minority and not the group most people convert to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It's quite funny when you think about it, personal freedoms have gone up from the days of feudalism until today, and in the same period of time the power of christianity has gone down

---

Not really, the high point of Christianity in terms of its social influence was probably around the mid-seventeenth century.

Around then, the more hardline Christians were fighting for their freedoms, while atheists like Thomas Hobbes were writing works to justify absolute monarchs.

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there. The 17th century may look dramatic but there's an awful lot of more down-to-earth conflicts going on, which time and again was resolved as summed up succinctly at the time: cuius regio eius religio. Notice how religion is still a function (dependent on) who holds power... Not the other way around. Contrast that with the influence that cardinals hold in Italian politics; despite the fact the Vatican is not supposed to meddle in the affairs of another state, right? Or pick Iran or Pakistan where officials would not dare risk open confrontation with clergy for obvious reasons that have less to do with wrath of God or Allah and more to do with the wrath of an angry mob and their way of lynching people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It isn't guilt by association.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Wrong try again.

---

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country). The religious right Christians in countries do make almost all social laws based upon what their religion dictates. Gay marriage= Jesus doesn't like it. Ground Zero Mosque= Intolerance towards religion that's not Christianity.

Also, don't tell me the UK didn't have "draconian" measures. You only decriminalized homosexual male intercourse in 1967. Up until then you cracked down on those gays including Alan Turing, who then killed himself. But I guess ruining the life of one of the most brilliant mathematicians and computer scientists because he was gay isn't "draconian" to Christians, it's just keeping the country "clean" for God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Not really, the high point of Christianity in terms of its social influence was probably around the mid-seventeenth century.

Around then, the more hardline Christians were fighting for their freedoms, while atheists like Thomas Hobbes were writing works to justify absolute monarchs.

---

Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No it was, because you are making your statement as if the atheism within Marxist thought contributed to the atrocities and backwards laws. The USSR did not base it's draconian laws on atheism (except the laws removing religion from the country).

---

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

You're not being very objective in this thread acin.

Horetore said christians would implement draconian laws.

PVC made a counterargument--so he was arguing in defense of Christianity. He wasn't arguing for the guilt of atheism so it wasn't guilt by association.

---

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

By making the case that the UK with a Christian majority country in the first half of the 20th century was not draconian, yes he was indeed making a counterpoint. But the second statement of including an atheistic country that was draconian isn't a counterpoint to the statement that Christians would implement draconian laws, it just counters the statement that only in Christian countries would draconian laws occur. So unless he was countering that statement (which I do not recall being said but I may be wrong there), then I must assume the only reason he tacked on that point was to simply put blame on atheists as well.

---

That isn't a charitable assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

That isn't a charitable assumption.

---

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Ok, perhaps you are right. What should have I gotten from the statement then that would have been more impartial?

---

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

---

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

You should have concluded that not only Christians implement Draconian laws, and that such laws are not a direct product of relgious or specifically christian belief.

I also made the point that draco himself was not a Christian, he was a Plytheistic Athenian and I do not believe that religion played any role in the laws he implemented. Instead, he was motivated by what he believed was necessary to govern the Polis.

HoreTore's list is revealing:

Homosexual Marriage

Divorce

Abortion

Freedom of Religion

Of the four, there is a strong sociological argument for banning or severely restricting both the first two there, while there is a much stronger moral argument against abortion than for and restriction of Freedom of relgion is itself a Draconian measure, which is why prayers should be allowed in schools.

---

Ok well I already knew that draconian laws don't solely come from Christians, I'm not that unreasonable. I just didn't take that meaning from your statement since I had not seen anyone directly attempt to propagate the statement that only Christians make draconian laws. So I figured that that was not the reasoning behind the statement since I (and from what Sasaki told me) figured that you were making a direct counterpoint to someone.

I also understand and recognize your draco point, I only had a problem with the statement "Soviet gov was atheist, it was draconian. What about that?"

As for the first two items on the list, I would need to read these "strong sociological arguments" towards stopping same sex couples from strengthening society by forming life long bonds towards each other in the form of marriage and towards preventing abusive couples from ending their perpetual dysfunctional relationship.

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Um no, I said his analysis, that a small increase respesents a decline, was incomplete because the native population (from which Churches initially draw) has been falling. So if the fall year-on-year has been arrested that means that the Churches are recruiting faster than people are leaving, and a rise means they are even recruiting faster than people a dieing.

---

I was not aware that the "Native" population was falling. Do you have a stat for that? AFAIK the birth rate of most social/ethnic groups is healthy in the UK.

I can appreciate that the Native proportion of the total UK population has fallen, but that's a result of a larger growth rate of "non-natives" -primarily through immigration.

The stats at the bottom of this are about the actual tally of bums on benches, not proportions of total population. Your reasoning relies on the assumption that the COE leaning ethnic population are in decline -and it is not substantiated.

I'm surprised that the Catholic stats are not better given the influx of Poles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

I disagree with the "strong sociological argument" against 'homosexual marriage' and 'divorce'.

The fact is, homosexual couples in such a 'marriage' could adopt and foster unwanted children in a loving and secure environment. Also, there are related factors such as happiness which affects the economy and their work productivity. If anything, there is a strong social and economic argument for homosexual marriage.

---

This is true, but it is merely the argument of an over-populated society. An underpopulated society would obviously want to discourge homosexuality, and in those instances the argument against homosexual marriage is sociologically stronger.

In our own society there is an argument that giving homosexual unions the sanction of "marriage" diminishes the importance of that instiution by extending it beyond those who intend to mate and propagate their line. Those very "unwanted children" you mention are a product of an unhealthily casual attitude to sex and relationships in our society - they should all by with their parents in an ideal world.

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.

Quote:

---

As for Divorce, it is necessary. Yes, in an idea world, two people who love each other very much, marry and are joined for life. However, this is far from an ideal world. There are wife-beaters, abusers, those who cheat on their partners and a long list of things. These people break their marriage vows and severely hurt their partner. Their partner should be allowed to be divorced. Think of it as a contract.

---

I wouldn't argue divorce wasn't necessary, I would argue it is currently too easy. There should be a long cooling off period, of years, before a divorce can be granted. If you stand up and say "till death do us part" then you should have to wait an extended period before disolving the contract.

Also, as a witnessed Contract taken Under Oath, those who break their marriage vows should be charged with purjury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

The abortion statement seems to be opinion rather then fact. I don't see how you can empirically say that a side is morally "stronger" then the other.

---

The "no abortion" argument is morally and logically consistant throughout, internally bulletproof. The only argument for allowing abortion that is similarly consistant is the one that says you can abort up until the child draws breath. as that isn't the argument most "pro-choice campaigners use, the no argument is stronger.

Quote:

---

As for the prayer in schools, I don't know what HoreTore is getting at but if he is talking about school sanctioned and led prayer, then yes that is draconian. However, if we are simply talking about allowing kids to say prayers on their own accord without any involvement from school officials or teachers, then yeah that's perfectly fine and in fact should be protected.

---

*shrug*

Prayer to the Christain God is legally mandated in Schools in England and Wales, given that the CofE still finances and runs about 75% of Primary schools that's not so surprising.

More generally, until you reach your age of majority you are the ward of an adult (usually your parents) and they have a Duty of Care which includes equipping you with the best education, practical, ethical and moral, which they deem appropriate. This, Dawkins aside, includes religion and if your Guardian wants to send you to a religious school to be brought up in that religion then they should be allowed to do so -provided that school is not abusive and otherwise equips you with the tools to be a good and righteous member of scoiety.

So banning organised prayer in schools is Draconian, as is enforcing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is true, but it is merely the argument of an over-populated society. An underpopulated society would obviously want to discourge homosexuality, and in those instances the argument against homosexual marriage is sociologically stronger.

In our own society there is an argument that giving homosexual unions the sanction of "marriage" diminishes the importance of that instiution by extending it beyond those who intend to mate and propagate their line. Those very "unwanted children" you mention are a product of an unhealthily casual attitude to sex and relationships in our society - they should all by with their parents in an ideal world.

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.

---

Your first sentence makes no sense. It is the argument of a equality seeking society. Population makes no difference here. If the population is too much, homosexuals should marry since they can provide good families for kids and they love each other. If the population is too little they should marry because they love each other, it makes no sense for anyone to be "discouraging homosexuality" since no matter what the homosexual men are going to want to be with men and not women. Only if the population is uneducated and ignorant in that being gay is part of who you are, not a choice would they attempt to restrict gays from marrying in an attempt to "force" the gays to mate with women and have children instead.

If the institution of marriage is important because it intends to promote procreation in a stable environment rather then from two strangers having fun for one night, then the institution has been irrelevant since the birth control pill was introduced in the 1960s. Please, there is nothing special about wanting to mate and have kids. It is hard wired into our brains. You know what is special? Love, which both hetero and homosexual couples can produce plenty of it.

Your reasons are exactly what the problem is. "Arguments" taken from the Christian morals you have adhered to which you intend to instill upon the rest by government laws. You are essentially in my eyes saying, "This is what my religion views marriage as. There is an argument that homosexuals do not fulfill our requirement on what marriage is, therefore it is a strong case on denying homosexuals the right to marry."

Quote:

---

So, primarily for these reasons, I am against homosexuals having the same rights to "marry" as heterosexuals, I am not against their right to enter into a legal Civil Partnership so that both members of the couple have full rights under Civil Law.

---

That is mainly hair-splitting, if a church allows homosexuals to 'marry' then they shouldn't be stopped because your church says no. Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage in every respect, only difference is that it is not before a 'god', when then, in the first case, if a church marries them, then it would technically be a 'marriage' anyway and in lay-language Civil-Partnership = Marriage.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't argue divorce wasn't necessary, I would argue it is currently too easy. There should be a long cooling off period, of years, before a divorce can be granted. If you stand up and say "till death do us part" then you should have to wait an extended period before disolving the contract.

---

There is also "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer" and not to cheat on your wife. It is better to be realistic than outright ban something because you have a different opinion which there are no ethical objections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The "no abortion" argument is morally and logically consistant throughout, internally bulletproof. The only argument for allowing abortion that is similarly consistant is the one that says you can abort up until the child draws breath. as that isn't the argument most "pro-choice campaigners use, the no argument is stronger.

---

You haven't explained anything. You just repeated yourself and your opinion on what pro-choice opinion is the "most consistent". Why is it morally and logically consistent? Just because there is no nuance to it? just because you can sum up the anti-abortion sentiment in one sentence,: "No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

Quote:

---

*shrug*

Prayer to the Christain God is legally mandated in Schools in England and Wales, given that the CofE still finances and runs about 75% of Primary schools that's not so surprising.

More generally, until you reach your age of majority you are the ward of an adult (usually your parents) and they have a Duty of Care which includes equipping you with the best education, practical, ethical and moral, which they deem appropriate. This, Dawkins aside, includes religion and if your Guardian wants to send you to a religious school to be brought up in that religion then they should be allowed to do so -provided that school is not abusive and otherwise equips you with the tools to be a good and righteous member of scoiety.

So banning organised prayer in schools is Draconian, as is enforcing it.

---

I don't see how removing the monetary involvement of one specific church from schools in order to promote a more secular environment for all religions to be practiced in draconian. Make a law establishing a monetary separation between church and state and let the parents of the kids tell the kids what to believe (and not the school) and let it be at that. You seem to be saying that telling schools to not promote the religion of the church funding them is draconian when in reality it is fair towards the diversity of the students and you just seem to dislike the eroding influence of religion.

I heartily agree with Beskar (and will avoid merely repeating everything he's said).

Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's arguments appear to be the traditional religious argument of putting the cart before the horse "this is what I think, let's try and justify it".

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That is mainly hair-splitting, if a church allows homosexuals to 'marry' then they shouldn't be stopped because your church says no. Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage in every respect, only difference is that it is not before a 'god', when then, in the first case, if a church marries them, then it would technically be a 'marriage' anyway and in lay-language Civil-Partnership = Marriage.

---

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

Quote:

---

There is also "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer" and not to cheat on your wife. It is better to be realistic than outright ban something because you have a different opinion which there are no ethical objections.

---

I said NOTHING about banning divorce Beskar, I'd thank you to take note of that. I said that if you break you Oath you should be punished, be it an Oath regarding Testimony, with regard to a Will, or with regard to a Marriage. I fail to see why marriage oaths are a special case in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

You haven't explained anything. You just repeated yourself and your opinion on what pro-choice opinion is the "most consistent". Why is it morally and logically consistent? Just because there is no nuance to it? just because you can sum up the anti-abortion sentiment in one sentence,: "No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

---

It does, "well it depends", is an intrinsically weak argument, "the life of the unborn must always be preserved and protected just as the life of the newborn" is more logically consistant - it makes more internal sense because it proceeds from a simgle principle, the sanctity of all life.

Quote:

---

I don't see how removing the monetary involvement of one specific church from schools in order to promote a more secular environment for all religions to be practiced in draconian. Make a law establishing a monetary separation between church and state and let the parents of the kids tell the kids what to believe (and not the school) and let it be at that. You seem to be saying that telling schools to not promote the religion of the church funding them is draconian when in reality it is fair towards the diversity of the students and you just seem to dislike the eroding influence of religion.

---

I should be allowed to establish "The Christian School of Saint Sidwell of Devon" and run it along lines which are compatable with Christian Faith, including prayer. If parents send their children to my school I should not have to worry about being accused of "prejudice" because of this. my school does what it says on the Tin, and provided I cannot be shown to be negligent (i.e. I start teaching creationsim alongside evolution) then I should be allowed to carry on unmollested.

As I said, banning prayer in school is as Draconian as enforcing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

I think you missed the 20th and 21st century there.

---

He did say since the times of feudalism, so why would I only look at the most recent two centuries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Yes, Thomas Hobbes does represent all atheists (of that time). What a great argument.

---

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

"No abortions period! Have them all born" Doesn't make it more "morally or logically consistent" then a pro-choice statement of: "Well it depends on when exactly a ball of cells can officially be called a fetus and when it beings to develop the capacity for independent thought and such...etc."

---

The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

---

Which is why any Humanist, be they secular or Christian should be against abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Which is why any Humanist, be they secualr or christian should be against abortion.

---

I see no reason to be against abortion, only reason to disapproval of it.

The solution is strong advocation of birth-prevention methods such as the pill, condoms, the snips and tying knots in the tubes. Unfortunately, some churches disapprove of these methods altogether. You would think they would have sense and go "Do not have sex before marriage, but if you are going to do it, make sure you shrink-wrap it". Some churches even argue even when married, not to use condoms or the pill, so you end up with your wife keep on getting pregnant.

Only main objections I have is around 20 or so weeks into the pregnancy. Because if you was going to have an abortion, you would have it as soon as possible (within the first 3 months or so where you don't even look pregnant), not at the point when the child can survive independently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

---

Nonsense. Homosexuality is ancient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Nonsense. Homosexuality is ancient.

---

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

The current fashion is to say "you are X sexuality and you have no choice about that", this despite the fact that both history and current research seem to suggest that at least some people do have a choice. the truly criminal part about this, in my view, is what it does to bisexuals, who end up being stigmatised because they don't fall neatly into one camp; women labled "gready" or men told they "aren't proper Gays".

That's real bigotry, and it's far worse that the old bigotry against homosexuals because we claim to be a tollerant and fair society, whatever that means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Um, "homosexuality" didn't exist until about 200 years ago, prior to that same-sex relationships and man-woman relationships were delinated differently. For example, almost all the "Ancient homosexuals" including the lesbian poet Sappho were married and had children.

The current fashion is to say "you are X sexuality and you have no choice about that", this despite the fact that both history and current research seem to suggest that at least some people do have a choice. the truly criminal part about this, in my view, is what it does to bisexuals, who end up being stigmatised because they don't fall neatly into one camp; women labled "gready" or men told they "aren't proper Gays"..

---

I did a very good post in a different topic about this. Very good post as in, I was proud to have posted it at least.