Disestablish the Church of England? Watch

This discussion is closed.
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#1
Do you think it is time to separate church from the state? Discuss.
0
Sam2k
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#2
Report 14 years ago
#2
All the philosophers of the enlightenment believed that Church and State could not go hand in hand. If you have an official church than there is not really religous freedom.
0
Onearmedbandit
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 14 years ago
#3
(Original post by Mr Moncal)
All the philosophers of the enlightenment believed that Church and State could not go hand in hand. If you have an official church than there is not really religous freedom.
What does freedom have anything to do with religion?
0
Tyler Durden
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 14 years ago
#4
Absolutely.

La Laicite as the French have called it.

It's such a good idea. I am totally for the separation of church and state.

Let those who wish to believe their superstitions do so, but don't influence others.
0
KuinKra
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 14 years ago
#5
I hate the church. I hate religion, and I hate fundamentalists above all other people.

Give us a secular state. It is absolutely necessary. And hopefully, before long, religion will simply die out.
0
Chubb
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#6
Report 14 years ago
#6
Yes in should be distablished and I would also say that religous schools should be made to teach alternative religions and atheism in stead of being able to brain wash people at a vunerable age.

BTW - shouldn't this be in D&D?
0
Brown Patrick Bateman
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#7
Report 14 years ago
#7
A Catholic priest and an Anglican priest have a terrible car crash.
As they both get out and see each other's robes they thank and praise God for his mercy.
"God bless us, Father"
"God bless us indeed, Vicar"
"We aren't so different really are we. I think this is a sign we should come together despite our differences and praise God."
"Right you are, let us sit here on this beautiful day and worship, I in Latin, you in common prayer"
"I have a great idea, I have some communion wine in the car. Let's drink in praise to our good health."
"What a great idea" says the catholic Priest, drinking and toasting the other man of God's health.
"Won't you have some?"
"No I think I will wait for the Police first, Father"
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 14 years ago
#8
(Original post by Chubb)
Yes in should be distablished and I would also say that religous schools should be made to teach alternative religions and atheism in stead of being able to brain wash people at a vunerable age.
Religion should only be taught (if at all) in history or philosophy lessons.
0
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 14 years ago
#9
Yes it should be disestablished. Like Chubb said, schools brainwash children with religious propaganda at a young, impressionable age. I remember the days when i was in year 2 where i actually wanted to be a vicar :eek: Fortunately i saw the darkness and turned away from religion. Atheism is a religion and therefore should be taught alongside other religions in schools.

(And yes it should be in D&D )
[EDIT] Also religion should not be taught in schools :cool:
0
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 14 years ago
#10
(Original post by piginapoke)
What?
:confused: I thought that was pretty self-explanatory.

Hmm... ok, religion shouldnt be taught in schools. However if they wont scrap RE, then the next best thing is to teach children that there is an alternative to God worshipping religions - ie Atheism. (Which should be taught first :cool: )
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 14 years ago
#11
(Original post by Mad Vlad)
Hmm... ok, religion shouldnt be taught in schools. However if they wont scrap RE, then the next best thing is to teach children that there is an alternative to God worshipping religions - ie Atheism. (Which should be taught first :cool: )
They should actually teach agnosticism. Make kids question the beliefs of their parents critically and impartially.
0
LongGone
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 14 years ago
#12
(Original post by Mad Vlad)
Yes it should be disestablished. Like Chubb said, schools brainwash children with religious propaganda at a young, impressionable age. I remember the days when i was in year 2 where i actually wanted to be a vicar :eek: Fortunately i saw the darkness and turned away from religion. Atheism is a religion and therefore should be taught alongside other religions in schools.

(And yes it should be in D&D )
[EDIT] Also religion should not be taught in schools :cool:

Hey! I went to a catholic primary and high school, and I was not "brain washed with religious propaganda," and we learnt about other religions apart from christianity. :rolleyes:

Of course religion should be taught in school, you may not like it but you can't ignore it, and it's far better for people to have an understanding of other people's beliefs.
0
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 14 years ago
#13
(Original post by spk)
They should actually teach agnosticism. Make kids question the beliefs of their parents critically and impartially.
A fair point... :cool:

I think the general consensus here says that ALL the options should be covered rather than just concentrating on the big 6 religions.
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 14 years ago
#14
(Original post by Frances)
Hey! I went to a catholic primary and high school, and I was not "brain washed with religious propaganda," and we learnt about other religions apart from christianity.
I'm not so sure that other faith schools are so open minded...
0
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report 14 years ago
#15
(Original post by piginapoke)
With your definition that atheism is a religon, why should it 'be taught first'? According to the census more people are Christian than atheist. Therefore more people will say 'Christianity should be taught first'. If we're to be secular then all religions including atheism should be given exactly the same credence whether they are taught or not.

Funny how atheists are often just as intolerant if not moreso than the religious types they often claim are intolerant or 'brainwashed'.
Atheism is a religion. Just as Christians believe that there is an almighty super duper god, us Atheists believe that there is NO god. I'm very tolerant of other people's beliefs and I have nothing against people who wish to believe in their chosen religion, just as long as they dont stop me in the street and try to question my own decision by preaching.
However I dispute your claim that you say that I have been brainwashed. I was taught about religion in school and for a time, believed it. However i then questioned what I'd been taught and thought it through and decided that god was a delusion that i could do without. I'm and avowed Atheist now through my own personal choice, not because of my family or because i was taught it.
I have changed my mind about the religion that should be taught first... Agnosticism should, its the most sensible grounding for any child to have in order for them to make their own desicion. (Thanks to SPK for bringing that up )
I am unsure of the accuracy though of your statement with regard to the census data... I know a lot of people and by rights a lot of those should be religious however the vast majority are not. (I'm wondering whether people have said that they are Christians because they were Christened etc. - to me that i suppose would make them a Christian but it doesn't say that they are a practicing Christian - I shall look into it, but for now, I accept your point)
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 14 years ago
#16
(Original post by piginapoke)
Funny how atheists are often just as intolerant if not moreso than the religious types they often claim are intolerant or 'brainwashed'.
We may come across like that but I'm sure most people who call themselves atheists are really agnostics.

We can't prove for certain that god does or does not exist (deists have the burden of proof on that one) and so I for one am totally intolerant of those who insist god definitely does exist.

The only intellectually justifiable and rational position is agnosticism but I am so convinced that there is no god, that not to call myself an atheist would be to align myself too closely with liberal theists who don't follow scriptures and dogma literally but who nevertheless retain an irrational and dangerous belief in religion and a divine entity.

It's also important to realise that people shouldn't be entitled to hold personal beliefs that are so scientifically and morally wrong - faith breeds appalling ignorance, bigotry and fanaticism, and so it should be actively discouraged by any progressive society, and replaced with secular humanist values and an informed, scientific understanding of the universe.
0
Mad Vlad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 14 years ago
#17
In a response to my previous comment, I checked out the data on www.statistics.gov.uk and piginapoke is correct, however i still question whether all of those people are practicing Christians.

To be fair, Agnostics win this arguement hands down. After all, there is no proof either way. The only evidence I have is A) the lack of evidence supporting religious beliefs that there IS a god and B) my own personal reasoning. But that's not really evidence at all to be honest... a lot of Atheists use Physics to reason their arguement. However, everything with physics leads back to the Big Bang... OH LOOK and instant act of creation... so even Physics cant prove conclusively either way.
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 14 years ago
#18
(Original post by Mad Vlad)
To be fair, Agnostics win this arguement hands down. After all, there is no proof either way. The only evidence I have is A) the lack of evidence supporting religious beliefs that there IS a god and B) my own personal reasoning. But that's not really evidence at all to be honest... a lot of Atheists use Physics to reason their arguement. However, everything with physics leads back to the Big Bang... OH LOOK and instant act of creation... so even Physics cant prove conclusively either way.
The concept of a 'burden of proof' is important in debates - whoever has a burden of proof is obligated to 'prove' their claims in some fashion. If someone doesn't have a burden of proof, then their job is much easier: all that is required is to either accept the claims or point out where they are inadequately supported. In debates between atheists and theists, who has the burden of proof? The 'burden of proof' is clearly on the party making the extraordinary claim.

Theists claim that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, omniscient supernatural being created the universe and even now is directly watching us and influencing our actions. That is quite an extraordinary claim. I think they are mistaken, so it is up to them to come up with some solid evidence, other than a general belief about what they think.

An interesting little game can be found here:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

It asks you true/false questions to see how logically self-consistent your views on the existence/non-existence of a deity are. It's quite thought provoking, whatever your stance.
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 14 years ago
#19
(Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
And no, Big Bang and Evolution theory are not conclusive evidence, because objective observation and rationalization disprove them.

And no, I'm not against Big Bang and evolution because I'm not an atheist. I could believe in a God who created through Big Bang and Evolution, but I reject those theories on scientific grounds.
Big Bang and Evolution theory are conclusive evidence, because objective observation and rationalization prove them. Silly boy.
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 14 years ago
#20
(Original post by PhilipsCDRW)
The game is flawed. People suffer because we chose to leave God. That is why we have disease and wars and hostility. God respects us enough not to force himself on us. If your parents tell you that drugs are bad, but you decide to do drugs, would they respect your decision or follow you to the club and rush in and take you home before you actually take the drugs?

The rapist guy was deceived by demons, like Muhammed and Osama and the Crusaders and the protestant/catholic militants.
The game is different for each person who plays it, based on what you believe in (whether you are agnostic, atheist or deist) and whether your opinions or beliefs are logically consistent.

I'm afraid it has to be said that if you didn't like the result, it is likely to be because your beliefs are flawed, not the opposite.

I was a convinced atheist before I played the game but it made me rethink my stance and realise that I was actually more of an agnostic.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1375)
79.53%
Leave (354)
20.47%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise