David Cameron says the UK is a Christian country

Lucy8080

fair play to cameron.

many of you here are a disgrace to the memory of Cristhopher Hitchens.

he was for freedom and against tyranny.

be it religious,political,finacial or moral or otherwise...

human and fallible like us all....despite it ...he put himself out there in the public eye and did his best....

he had the courage to be called a hypocrite ...and switch from left to right....as long as he felt he was chasing truth....

he may have switched indefinitely....as long as truth struck him...and i would forgive him any mistake...

his spirit stands.

you mock it.

Solair

I'm sure though that "Christian Values" in Cameron's terms actually means Thatcherite, fiscally neo-liberal, conservative party values and has little/nothing to do with religion, rather that he is just trying to grab the conservative / anti-immigration vote without being too overt about it.

Remember, Cameron's a PR man.

Lucy8080

and p.s.

christianity at its best does provide a space like cameron said.

you can attack it at its worst...i wont complain.

pH

jank wrote: »

Religion/Denomination Percent

No religion 45.7
Church of England 20.9
Roman Catholic 9.0
Presbyterian/Church of Scotland 2.8
Methodist 1.9
Other Protestant 2.7
Christian (no denomination) 10.3
Other Christian 0.4
Muslim 3.3
Hindu 1.4
Jewish 0.4
Sikh 0.4
Other Religion 0.4
Refused / NA 0.5

Source: BSA Survey 2007

Do the math, add up up all christian religions and they turn out to be a majority. I am not looking for an argument but people are saying that the UK is not a christian country yet have not provided any facts what so ever to back this up.

For the lazy 48 > 45.7

If you look at census information you get even a greater number who are christian.

Christian 71.6%
No religion 15.5%

From the 2001 census. Interesting to see what numbers the 2011 census will bring out.

Em, so yea whatever way you scew it the UK is a christian country and has been historically for the best path of 1500 years.....

You make it seem as if Cameron was making some kind of factual statement about stats - but statements by people (including politicians) have meaning and intent.

I'm sure you'd agree that the following statements are "true" in the sense of adding up numbers as you just did.

Britain is a heterosexual country.
Britain is a white country.

If Cameron said these things would it be an equally OK?

Now I'm sure some apologists would pop out and say that "hey look at the figures ... the guy's entirely correct ... there are more straight people in the UK than gay", but come on we all know what a politician making either of those statements actually meant by them, and what they would be attempting to imply.

jank

pH wrote: »

You make it seem as if Cameron was making some kind of factual statement about stats - but statements by people (including politicians) have meaning and intent.

I'm sure you'd agree that the following statements are "true" in the sense of adding up numbers as you just did.

Britain is a heterosexual country.
Britain is a white country.

If Cameron said these things would it be an equally OK?

Now I'm sure some apologists would pop out and say that "hey look at the figures ... the guy's entirely correct ... there are more straight people in the UK than gay", but come on we all know what a politician making either of those statements actually meant by them, and what they would be attempting to imply.

Apologist? Apologist for what? You make is sound as if we are defending something that is morally wrong or illegal. Faux outrage?

Yes, Britain is a Christian country, a heterosexual country and a white country. Whats the point? Is someone supposed to be outraged at this?

Cameron was basing his speech on the christian heritage of the country while at the same time expressing that one religion (or no religion) is NOT better than the other.
I don't see what the problem is.

efb

48.8<51.2 ergo the majority are non Christian. It is however the largest religion

AhSureTisGrand

Interesting from a man who supports legalising gay marriage and calls himself a "liberal conservative". Part of me hopes he was trying to appeal to the Christian conservatives in the Tory party whom he pissed off with his support of gay marriage rights.

efb

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Interesting from a man who supports legalising gay marriage and calls himself a "liberal conservative". Part of me hopes he was trying to appeal to the Christian conservatives in the Tory party whom he pissed off with his support of gay marriage rights.

Why?

AhSureTisGrand

efb wrote: »

Why?

Because I'd rather he were giving token recognition to the religious right than pandering to them

pH

jank wrote: »

Apologist? Apologist for what? You make is sound as if we are defending something that is morally wrong or illegal. Faux outrage?

Yes, Britain is a Christian country, a heterosexual country and a white country. Whats the point? Is someone supposed to be outraged at this?

Cameron was basing his speech on the christian heritage of the country while at the same time expressing that one religion (or no religion) is NOT better than the other.
I don't see what the problem is.

I'll bet you don't - if some politician takes a podium and says "Britain is a white country" - only the most obtuse and disingenuous would produce a table of race statistics for the UK tell us he's technically correct, and make a point that somehow that statement is just one of "fact" and he's merely giving his listeners some information on the racial make-up of Britain.

I think it's clear what a politician who makes a point "Britain is a white country" is actually saying - I think it's entirely plausible to conclude that a person who claims "Britain is a Christian country" is making a similar point about religion.

If there is no difference - why bother making the point?

I'd still be extremely suspicious of a politician that kept making the point that "Britain is a white country" even he he continued to say "Oh but we all know that one race isn't better than other races" - if so why make the point in the first place?

jank

efb wrote: »

48.8<51.2 ergo the majority are non Christian. It is however the largest religion

where are u getting 51.2?

jank

pH wrote: »

I'll bet you don't - if some politician takes a podium and says "Britain is a white country" - only the most obtuse and disingenuous would produce a table of race statistics for the UK tell us he's technically correct, and make a point that somehow that statement is just one of "fact" and he's merely giving his listeners some information on the racial make-up of Britain.

I think it's clear what a politician who makes a point "Britain is a white country" is actually saying - I think it's entirely plausible to conclude that a person who claims "Britain is a Christian country" is making a similar point about religion.

If there is no difference - why bother making the point?

I'd still be extremely suspicious of a politician that kept making the point that "Britain is a white country" even he he continued to say "Oh but we all know that one race isn't better than other races" - if so why make the point in the first place?

Yes we are getting somewhere now. The context is what matters... so whats your point and what is the point of this thread?

By the way some posters were actually claiming the opposite with no factual evidence.

efb

jank wrote: »

where are u getting 51.2?

Add up the non christian respinsoses

jank

efb wrote: »

Add up the non christian respinsoses

That figure is not valid so as you are including all non Christians including those of no religion. One cant have it both ways.

Delirium

But Christianity is a religion

efb

jank wrote: »

That figure is not valid so as you are including all non Christians including those of no religion. One cant have it both ways.

Christian v non Christian not anything else

MrPudding

Just a few points…

Solair wrote: »

1) It is not a republic.

So what?

Solair wrote: »

2) It has an unelected monarch as head of state.

Who has no power.

Solair wrote: »

3) That monarch is also head of the ESTABLISHED church.

Again, so what?

Solair wrote: »

4) 26 Church of England Bishops sit in the completely undemocratic upper house, The House of Lords as the "Lords Spiritual".

Meh. Big deal. See next point.

Solair wrote: »

5) The House of Lords is a full-blown legislature which has similar powers to the Irish Senate. It can propose legislation, except "money bills" and can debate or block the passage of legislation from the democratically elected parliament.

It can propose legislation, but it cannot pass it. It can temporarily block legislation, but when it comes back a second time it is obliged to pass it. It is an almost toothless anachronism that becomes more toothless with each administration. As for the bishops. They sit in an house that has effectively no power, so by extension they have even less power.

Solair wrote: »

So, technically speaking it's a Constitutional Monarchy, with an undemocratic upper House and an established Christian Church that remains wedded to aspects of the system of Government.

An undemocratic upper house that is effectively powerless and an established church that has even less power. Your post addresses the appearance of the system in the UK, but almost completely ignores how it operates in practice. It looks a lot worse than it actually is.

Solair wrote: »

So, he does have a point. The Church of England wields an extraordinary amount of legal power, which is totally inappropriate in a modern democracy.

I have to disagree. The CoE does not wield a lot of legal power.

Solair wrote: »

Incidentally, Northern Irish (Church of Ireland) Bishops are not represented as the C of I is not "established" anymore. Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and not represented, and Anglican Bishops in Wales are not established either. So, it's basically just the good old C of E clinging onto power!

What power?

Solair wrote: »

While I am absolutely opposed to the idea of established churches and state religions, Cameron does have a point given the rather weird setup the UK has.

I don’t think he has much of a point. I think he was preaching to a particular audience and the reality is somewhat different from the picture he paints.

Solair wrote: »

In practice, it's a secular democratic state that has a lot of different religious groups and a lot of atheists and agnostics, but in legal / constitutional terms, it's anything but!

I legal, constitutional and conventional terms it is even more secular!

Solair wrote: »

It's basically a slightly modernised medieval monarchy that has had a parliament bolted-on and that now tolerates other religions and atheism!

I amk pretty sure this is rubbish.

Solair wrote: »

The Monarch and head of the Church of England appears on every Bank of England coin and note and also on most postage stamps, just in case you forget who really runs the place or get any notions about thinking you're in a Republic!

The queen is the puppet of the prime minister and she exists solely at the governments pleasure. She may be on the money, she may be on the stamps and if you go to court it may be her v you, but make no mistake, she has no power.

Her conduct is ruled by convention. Since the 1700s the power of the monarchy has been systematically reduced. The monarch is now a figurehead and nothing more. Even the Royal Prerogative, which can be used to pass legislation without going through parliament or to give out pardons, is solely for the use of the “Crown”; and the Crown is the government.

Solair wrote: »

It's just luck that she's a nice old lady who happens to be rather sensible.
If she ever went all QE I on them, there could be trouble (Particularly for certain tabloid journalists haha)

No. She is lucky she know what her place is and if she ever decided to go all QE I on them her existence would be very short lived indeed. The parliament in the UK has the power, should they chose to use it, to make the UK a republic. They can remove the monarchy if they want to. As it stands there is no need to as she does exactly what she is told and having a monarchy is “kind of cute.” If she decided to try to use some of the power she has on paper the UK would become a republic very quickly indeed.

MrP

Galvasean

jank wrote: »

That figure is not valid so as you are including all non Christians including those of no religion. One cant have it both ways.

It's a bit like adding up all of the various Protestant and Catholic churches with their very different beliefs and practices under the 'Christian' umbrella in an attempt to shoehorn a majority...

jank

efb wrote: »

Christian v non Christian not anything else

Yes but one should not include those of no religious belief. I cant make it easier than that. Anyway the real figures IMO will be from the census which will show a wider majority.

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

It's a bit like adding up all of the various Protestant and Catholic churches with their very different beliefs and practices under the 'Christian' umbrella in an attempt to shoehorn a majority...

Who is trying to shoehorn a majority? What actual benefit is there for people to shoehorn this majority? Will some law be changed? Will there be a new election?

Whatever way you cut I am right. Britian is a Christian country and I notice that not many people are actually coming out and saying its not (because then you have to prove otherwise which I thought this was something pretty close to heart to Atheists?), only those that are complaining are complaining for the sake of it.

It has ALWAYS been the way where those who read and believe in the bible are referred to as Christians. The clue is in the name, they follow Christ. Be it they are a Morman, a Methodist or a Catholic. I really fail to see the whole deal with all this apart from the faux outrage so common on this board.

For supposedly and intelligent and "reasonable" people when facts, history, culture and tradition are presented as evidence you do a good job in ignoring it to present your own alternative reality.

Anyway, does it matter?

Galvasean

jank wrote: »

Anyway, does it matter?

Nope, but this forum sure loves being pedantic about statistics.

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

Nope, but this forum sure loves being pedantic about statistics.

This forum loves being pedantic.

Except when it comes to Christmas.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

Galvasean wrote: »

Nope, but this forum sure loves being pedantic about statistics.

This forum loves being pedantic.

Except when it comes to Christmas.

I don't think that word means what you think it does

Peregrinus

I don’t think this is really about statistics.

Britain is a Christian country in the sense that Britain is a female country, i.e. more than half the population are female. But that’s not a terribly significant sense.

Britain is also a Christian state in the the state - a legal fiction - has an explicitly Christian character. But maybe that’s not such a terribly significant sense either. And, besides, the state is not the country.

I think there’s a more relevant sense at stake here. Britain is a Christian country in the sense that its culture, its values, its understanding of the world and of humanity have been and continue to be profoundly influenced by Christian thought, Christian concepts and even Christian theology. For this purpose it doesn’t matter that a large minority (or even, if that is the case, a majority) of the population are not Christian believers themselves. Worldview and values are not something we invent for ourselves; they are a cultural inheritance.

In short, I think the claim that Britain is a Christian country is highly defensible. \

The important question is, what conclusion do we (or, rather, do they) draw from this? How, if at all, should be be reflected in public policy?

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

In short, I think the claim that Britain is a Christian country is highly defensible. \

The problem is that to allow such a statement go unchallenged, you open the door for the more fervant religious of that country to demand or seek to retain specific rights by virtue of them belonging to a "Christian country". So rather than just accepting the concept in respect to cultural heritage, people are using it to try and shape current social policy.

It is the same situation in Ireland. You only need to listen to certain audience members of the recent Late Late Show debate on education in schools to get the feelings of those who deem Ireland a "Catholic country". They essentially believe that claiming a majority in terms of demographics gives them the right to ignore the rights of a minority (and indeed to tell them to suck it up, or leave).

It's unfortunate, but this is what happens when people use what is essentially a statement concerning the history of a country as a drum to beat when dealing with current-day 'minority' groups.

Galvasean

jank wrote: »

This forum loves being pedantic.

Except when it comes to Christmas.

Actually we get VERY pedantic about Christmas



Funny how quick Christians can be to call atheists hypocrites for having a good time at Christmas whilst living in houses made of glass.

iguana

If anyone wants pedantic; I'm worried that the leader of the UK isn't aware that it is not any sort of 'country' being that it is a union of 4 different countries under one monarch.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Interesting from a man who supports legalising gay marriage and calls himself a "liberal conservative".

Why? Cameron is CoE, a church which is currently a very liberal church and by in large supports gay marriage, happily allows civil partnerships and blessing of CPs in it's churches and has numerous openly homosexual clergy including bishops.

jank

Galvasean wrote: »

Actually we get VERY pedantic about Christmas



Funny how quick Christians can be to call atheists hypocrites for having a good time at Christmas whilst living in houses made of glass.

Are you directing that post at me because to be pedantic I am not a Christian.

Peregrinus

Dades wrote: »

The problem is that to allow such a statement go unchallenged, you open the door for the more fervant religious of that country to demand or seek to retain specific rights by virtue of them belonging to a "Christian country". So rather than just accepting the concept in respect to cultural heritage, people are using it to try and shape current social policy . . .

Sure. As I said myself, the important question is what conclusions we draw from the Christian character of Britain, or what implications we think its Christian character has for public policy.

Interestingly, Cameron isn’t - as reported by the Beeb, anyway - very specific about this. He points to Britain’s Christian character, but doesn’t move on from their to say much , except that “we should recognize what our faith communities bring to our country, and also just how incredibly important faith is to so many people in Britain”. Well, duh. In other news, Cameron also likes kittens, and he approves of people who are kind to little old ladies.

This looks to me like dog-whistle politics. When Cameron says that Britain is a Christian country, he hopes to appeal to a largely socially-conservative constituency which likes this rhetoric, and also thinks that parents should be tougher with their children and the state tougher with parents, jail sentences are too lenient, it’s possible to have too many immigrants, etc, etc. He hopes to create the impression that he might be sympathetic to these views without giving a hostage to fortune by actually mentioning them.

It seems to me that appropriate challenge to a claim that Britain (or anywhere else) is “a Christian country” is not “No it isn’t!”. It’s “So what?”

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

It's a bit like adding up all of the various Protestant and Catholic churches with their very different beliefs and practices under the 'Christian' umbrella in an attempt to shoehorn a majority...

I wouldn't really argue that there are very different beliefs involved. The core 90% is about the same in respect to what all Christian churches regard concerning Jesus, why He came, lived and died, what God's desires for us, how we should live, and so on. Most of the issues arise in respect to practice, or on tangential issues. As for whether or not most congregants or claimed Christians actually truly believe in the 90% that's up for question.