Should the Britain become secular at the loss of history and tradition?
Politicians across the spectrum claim Britain is secular. However, the Head of State is the head of the Established CoE and defender of the faith, the national anthem is centered around religion, so are most patriotic songs, some soldiers swear an oath with religion and the PM reminds everyone we are a Christian country with values based upon religion. We are not truly secular.
But do we need to be secular?
But do we need to be secular?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by This Is Matt
Politicians across the spectrum claim Britain is secular. However, the Head of State is the head of the Established CoE and defender of the faith, the national anthem is centered around religion, so are most patriotic songs, some soldiers swear an oath with religion and the PM reminds everyone we are a Christian country with values based upon religion. We are not truly secular.
But do we need to be secular?
But do we need to be secular?
There is an information problem.
The silent majority. People have lost the ability to voice tier own opinions when an "information machine" forces them into thinking that that are racist, homophones, xenophobic, old fashioned etc .
Most people don't want these values being imposed on us. And the key word here is imposed.
Most however are too timid and afraid to ask the question of who is imposing these values and not confident enough to stand up and oppose these values. They are victims of a conform mentality.
Original post by gladders
We are secular in practice, but the ornaments of the State are not. I see no problem with this, as long as policy remained mostly secular, which it does.
Considering there's a requirement to teach Christianity via RE in schools but not other religions, that doesn't sound secular in practice to me.
Original post by SpikeyTeeth
There is an information problem.
The silent majority. People have lost the ability to voice tier own opinions when an "information machine" forces them into thinking that that are racist, homophones, xenophobic, old fashioned etc .
Most people don't want these values being imposed on us. And the key word here is imposed.
Most however are too timid and afraid to ask the question of who is imposing these values and not confident enough to stand up and oppose these values. They are victims of a conform mentality.
The silent majority. People have lost the ability to voice tier own opinions when an "information machine" forces them into thinking that that are racist, homophones, xenophobic, old fashioned etc .
Most people don't want these values being imposed on us. And the key word here is imposed.
Most however are too timid and afraid to ask the question of who is imposing these values and not confident enough to stand up and oppose these values. They are victims of a conform mentality.
Quite agree. The rise of certain parties exemplifies this point. It's very easy to use the tag 'racist' 'homophobic' or 'xenophobic' when in fact a person holds a reasonable point of view. It's the vilification of such viewpoints that leads to the hatred we see between communities.
Original post by This Is Matt
Politicians across the spectrum claim Britain is secular. However, the Head of State is the head of the Established CoE and defender of the faith, the national anthem is centered around religion, so are most patriotic songs, some soldiers swear an oath with religion and the PM reminds everyone we are a Christian country with values based upon religion. We are not truly secular.
But do we need to be secular?
But do we need to be secular?
Because they choose to. There's no obligation to do so. Lots don't. I didn't. Even if we were a secular society, there would still be religious people, so don't see how that's going to change?
Original post by Drewski
Because they choose to. There's no obligation to do so. Lots don't. I didn't. Even if we were a secular society, there would still be religious people, so don't see how that's going to change?
Army soldiers on the front line before entering the combat zone swear to Queen and country all in the context of God. It's not optional.
Religious moral values would not be encouraged in any schools. Bank holidays abolished seeing as their basis is religious. Lower key official recognition of Christmas and Easter bringing recognition of such events in line with key dates from other religion. E.g. No Christmas tree fund (extra funding given to local authorities so they could buy Christmas trees).
Also the older planning laws. If a Synagogue and a Church both wanted to be built on the same site, both aren't seen as equal.
I don't mind things the way they are currently but was walking around town yesterday and had a chat with a Secular-Britain campaigner. She went through everything explaining the religious connection and the blunt bias towards Christianity in British law and society. Most of which is legal and not voluntary.
Original post by This Is Matt
Considering there's a requirement to teach Christianity via RE in schools but not other religions, that doesn't sound secular in practice to me.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but there is no nationwide legal requirement to teach Christianity as such in RE. There is a requirement that RE teaching reflect the fact that religious traditions in this country are mainly Christian, though syllabuses must also take into account the other major religions practised here.
Original post by TurboCretin
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here, but there is no nationwide legal requirement to teach Christianity as such in RE. There is a requirement that RE teaching reflect the fact that religious traditions in this country are mainly Christian, though syllabuses must also take into account the other major religions practised here.
In short, schools could teach Christianity's history in British, make only a mention of other religions without explaining and still be within the curriculum. The again, teaching RE isn't required in all schools so I don't know the point I'm trying to make either apart from Britain not being truly secular in practice.
Interestingly America which is a secular state has much more of christian fundamentalist problem than the UK (where the Church of England is built into the state).
Original post by This Is Matt
Army soldiers on the front line before entering the combat zone swear to Queen and country all in the context of God. It's not optional.
No, they don't.
Do you have any clue what you're talking about here?
The oath of attestation said by members of the Armed Forces upon their entry (ie, on day 1 of their career and then never again) to whichever branch of service they chose is said only once and is entirely up to them.
While there is a religious version, which starts "I swear by Almighty God..." you are not in any way forced to take it. Those who do not believe in God say "I Solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm...". I know, because I've done it.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by This Is Matt
In short, schools could teach Christianity's history in British, make only a mention of other religions without explaining and still be within the curriculum. The again, teaching RE isn't required in all schools so I don't know the point I'm trying to make either apart from Britain not being truly secular in practice.
Okay, I'll leave the minutiae of the curriculum aside for now because, although I'm unsure of the basis for what you're saying here, they're unnecessary to make the point I'll make.
Secularism is the separation of church and state. RE emphasises Christianity not because of a constitutional connection between Christianity and the state, but because Christianity is of incomparably greater historical importance to Britain and British values than other world religions, has had a profound influence on our society and continues to be the majority religion in this country (almost 60 percent of the population in England and Wales, based on the last census).
I think that there are good arguments for your general point (such as the role of the Lords Spiritual), but I'm just saying that I don't think this RE point is one of them.
Original post by This Is Matt
Considering there's a requirement to teach Christianity via RE in schools but not other religions, that doesn't sound secular in practice to me
I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing though, as long as they get exposure to other faiths (and none) as well.
Having said that that particular aspect could easily be changed without tearing down the rest.
As a previous poster said as long as policy remains secular I'm happy with that. I do believe more needs to be done to achieve that. I.e. Abolishment of faith schools, removal of tax privileges for religious organizations, bishops removed from the house of lords and a better teaching of RE involving more of an emphasis on ethics, philosophy and critical thinking. Religious organizations should be private rather than public if they choose to discriminate (e.g against homosexuals, women etc.)
However you don't need to dismantle the monarchy, change the national anthem to do that, they can still play a symbolic role in our society. I doubt singing God save the queen will encourage converts to the CoE...
However you don't need to dismantle the monarchy, change the national anthem to do that, they can still play a symbolic role in our society. I doubt singing God save the queen will encourage converts to the CoE...
I am a Protestant Classical Liberal so my views are clear I want the government to go away and stop trying to take power away from the Church of England, Monarchy, Courts, House of Lords and Media. This frankly totalitarian secularism put forward by some will not lead to improvement, just change and change for change sake isn't a good thing. I am sure many of the anti-Protestant Anglophobe Secularists would like to remove the Monarchy, Church of England, Courts, Media and House of Lords, or should I say reform them. However in reality the Monarchy already has been removed from any influence or say in law, dispite the Monarch being the Fount of Justice and Law. This means the Church of England has no protection and neither do the Courts or Lords from the Commons. They have been taken over or had their independent power removed so they aren't a threat to the power and control of the Commons. I without any doubt blame the Queen, I have stopped singing the National Anthem, even though I know it unlike many people who don't.
Schools shouldn't be teaching religion or have anything to do with it unless their parents send them to such a school. The government can't do the job of families and can't be the state which was formed on the Protestant faith and English Lauguage bible in the year of our Lord 1689 with the Glorious Revolution. How about Abolishment of government schools and the Church not getting any "help" from the government, I am fine with that. On what basis do you remove Bishops from the House of Lords? How else will they be able to defend their interests as part of the state within the law? Also their numbers of Bishops have been cut and kept down in the House of Lords since they limited the Church of Ireland in the 1833. Now their voting influence is noexistent as 3.3% with the influx of politically appointed Lords few of them worthy of the title.
Schools shouldn't be teaching religion or have anything to do with it unless their parents send them to such a school. The government can't do the job of families and can't be the state which was formed on the Protestant faith and English Lauguage bible in the year of our Lord 1689 with the Glorious Revolution. How about Abolishment of government schools and the Church not getting any "help" from the government, I am fine with that. On what basis do you remove Bishops from the House of Lords? How else will they be able to defend their interests as part of the state within the law? Also their numbers of Bishops have been cut and kept down in the House of Lords since they limited the Church of Ireland in the 1833. Now their voting influence is noexistent as 3.3% with the influx of politically appointed Lords few of them worthy of the title.
Original post by This Is Matt
We are not truly secular.
But do we need to be secular?
But do we need to be secular?
We are definitely secular, this is one of the paradoxes of Britain. Despite having an established church, despite our head of state also being the head of a religion, our politicians are exceedingly secular in their disposition.
Despite Cameron's faint protestations to be an Anglican, I think most people in politics realise he is probably an atheist, and only culturally Anglican. Our politicians tend not to talk about faith very much, and faith is seldom used as a justification for policy or as a rhetorical tool.
Counterintuitively, our cousins across the Atlantic, who have an explicit constitutional amendment separating church and state, are 100 times more religiously inclined than we are.
I lived in the US for six months, and even in a rather liberal state like California, it's hard to imagine just how religious the United States is if you haven't lived there. Their politicians, despite the 1st amendment separating church and state, regularly appeal to religious values to justify policy, or as a rhetorical flourish. Even liberal politicians who are almost certainly atheist in private, pretend to be Christian and go to church.
It is utter bolloks to claim that Britain's secular outlook is somehow abandoning our tradition. If anything, we have maintained the tradition insofar as the Church of England is still the established church. Seriously, what more do you want? Do you want to make it mandatory to go to church?
You seem to have a rather coercive view of religion, you want to force people to "acknowledge your greatness". Well, we don't want to, this country is not an excessively religious country and you're going to have to get used to it, frankly.
Original post by william walker
I am a Protestant Classical Liberal so my views are clear I want the government to go away and stop trying to take power away from the Church of England, Monarchy, Courts, House of Lords and Media
I don't think I've ever read a more confused load of absolute crap.
This means the Church of England has no protection and neither do the Courts or Lords from the Commons.
What on earth are you blathering on about? What are you talking about "no protection"? Are you saying people should be forced to attend Anglican services?
They have been taken over or had their independent power removed so they aren't a threat to the power and control of the Commons.
You seem to be rather confused and quite ignorant of English political history. The Church has always been an instrument of state policy, that's precisely what you get when you are an established church. The laws of the church have always been subject ot the oversight of parliament, if you don't like that then call for disestablishment.
I without any doubt blame the Queen, I have stopped singing the National Anthem, even though I know it unlike many people who don't.
Could you be any more of a pseudo-Colonel Blimp? (pseudo insofar it's more wannabe than actualite, but I very much doubt you have the background... no-one I know from a family of substance is quite this pretentious)Tell me, where did you go to school'?
By the way, please don't subject us to another wall of unlettered rant. Please learn the art of the paragraph if you are going to converse with adults
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised
You seem to have a rather coercive view of religion, you want to force people to "acknowledge your greatness". Well, we don't want to, this country is not an excessively religious country and you're going to have to get used to it, frankly.
I'm an atheist so personally I have no feeling either way for religion but the question was aimed at claims made across the political spectrum that the attitudes in modern day Britain are increasingly based on the traditional religion. For example, the debate about gay marriage seemed to include a lot of religion in it, the debate about being a republic or not has a lot of religion in it the debate about liberal attitudes to sex has a strong moralistic religious link, many other social debates have a strong religious connect. The traditional attitudes brought up in the debates originally came from religious-Britain, (only 200 years ago some 95% of Britons attended a Church or Chapel of some kind). I was asking people's opinion on taking out the religious side in the social debates and in doing so losing the tradition that is so heavily influenced by religion.
It's difficult to explain in writing but does the above make it a bit clearer?
Ture point about the USA.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by gladders
We are secular in practice, but the ornaments of the State are not. I see no problem with this, as long as policy remained mostly secular, which it does.
This.
Some token rituals of state that play pretend at religion do not a theocracy make.
I'm quite content to let the current little idiosyncrasies of state continue.
Original post by This Is Matt
It's difficult to explain in writing but does the above make it a bit clearer?
It's difficult to explain in writing but does the above make it a bit clearer?
I take your point, I think I'd put mine in these terms. There is no nation on earth that is as good at incorporating social advances whilst respecting tradition as the United Kingdom.
I've lived (for most of my life until my early 20s) in Australia, in the US and in the UK (for the last three years). I've travelled fairly widely. I have encountered no country that is able to hold onto its tradition whilst moving forward as a progressive, modern country in the way GB has.
I mean, it still has a House of Lords, for goodness sake. It has a monarch, it has a judicial official called the Master of the Rolls. It still has dukes and earls. What next, a Grand Wizard? At the same time, this country is exceptionally forward looking when it comes to progressive issues like health and social care, its attitude to sexuality, its tolerance and acceptance of minorities, its ability to take on new technologies and fashions.
I think this country truly is remarkable in that sense. And long may it continue, there is no need to sacrifice one for the other. This country's great talent is incorporating both tradition and modernity
Original post by MostUncivilised
I don't think I've ever read a more confused load of absolute crap.
What on earth are you blathering on about? What are you talking about "no protection"? Are you saying people should be forced to attend Anglican services?
You seem to be rather confused and quite ignorant of English political history. The Church has always been an instrument of state policy, that's precisely what you get when you are an established church. The laws of the church have always been subject ot the oversight of parliament, if you don't like that then call for disestablishment.
Could you be any more of a pseudo-Colonel Blimp? (pseudo insofar it's more wannabe than actualite, but I very much doubt you have the background... no-one I know from a family of substance is quite this pretentious)
Tell me, where did you go to school'?
By the way, please don't subject us to another wall of unlettered rant. Please learn the art of the paragraph if you are going to converse with adults
What on earth are you blathering on about? What are you talking about "no protection"? Are you saying people should be forced to attend Anglican services?
You seem to be rather confused and quite ignorant of English political history. The Church has always been an instrument of state policy, that's precisely what you get when you are an established church. The laws of the church have always been subject ot the oversight of parliament, if you don't like that then call for disestablishment.
Could you be any more of a pseudo-Colonel Blimp? (pseudo insofar it's more wannabe than actualite, but I very much doubt you have the background... no-one I know from a family of substance is quite this pretentious)Tell me, where did you go to school'?
By the way, please don't subject us to another wall of unlettered rant. Please learn the art of the paragraph if you are going to converse with adults
Good for you.
I am saying we have had seperation of Church and government since the Glorious Revolution with the Monarch acting for the Church as head of the Church and defender of the Protestant faith. So the Church has no way of sustaining its role as the living protector of the Protestant English language bible as the moral basis for law. This means the Monarch would block all legislation on Abortion and Marriage which the Church doesn't support. However the Monarch doesn't do anything and hasn't done anything within her institutional role it means the Church has no influence to protect itself.
The legislation of Parliament was always subject to the Monarchy and Church if they don't support it then the Monarch doesn't sign it or it is sent back to Parliament. The Church doesn't create laws, Parliament does so the Church has lawful influence over some issues mainly abortion and marriage.
I take an interest in knowing the national anthem, my point wasn't that I am better than other people. My point was that many people don't take an interest in knowing the anything outside politics.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Messed up in terms of timing + info in A-Level History AQA, how will this affect me?
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- gcse aqa sociology 12 marker
- Never start vaping, says 12-year-old girl with lung damage
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- History Alevel Sentence starter - 25 marker
- Which of these A-Level combinations would be the best to study a law degree?
- Should i vote Labour?
- A-Level law
- History NEA coursework
- Guide: Which Language Should I Study?
- Business useless?
- marriage
- Some A Levels aren't accepted when applying for University courses.
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- AQA GCSE History Paper 2 (8145/2) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Rejected from the Ruskin School of Art Oxford
- Who's your favourite historical figure?
- The famine at Mount Lebanon during the first world war
- Is Israel winning
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
