Norway abolishes state-sponsored Church of Norway

recedite

In an unprecedented move, the Norwegian Parliament has voted to abolish the state-sponsored Church of Norway with a constitutional amendment.

more
So, Norway officially becomes a secular state.
Might Britain follow this example, and cut all civil ties to the Church of England?
Is this another nail in the coffin for European Christianity, or is it healthier for those churches themselves anyway, to be separate from the state?

Brer Fox

The Queen is still pretty popular.

I wouldn't worry about it anyway.

Turtwig

I think the point is often made how the early churches of Christianity thrived due to their small sizes and populations. Obviously I'm not a Christian but I can't genuinely see how this would spell the end of European Christianity.

HamletOrHecuba

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Better for the church (body of believers) to be totally separate from state.

Depends on the circumstances.

Keylem

I reckon before long Christianity will eventually have to go underground, especially if there is a One World Government put in place!

LeinsterDub

Keylem wrote: »

I reckon before long Christianity will eventually have to go underground, especially if there is a One World Government put in place!

Conspiracy theories forum is thata way >

Keylem

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Conspiracy theories forum is thata way >

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

HamletOrHecuba

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Conspiracy theories forum is thata way >

Where was the conspiracy theory in his post?

Turtwig

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Conspiracy theories forum is thata way >

Why does everyone do that?
It's clearly that <--- way!

prinz

They hardly abolished the church. They merely cut ties between the church and the state. Does the Republic of Ireland have an official religion?...

Article 44.2 of our constitution...

The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

Does the State here participate in appointing the bishops or cardinals...or deans or rabbis or imams? Nope. So in other words there's nothing groundbreaking whatsoever here.

LeinsterDub

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Conspiracy theories forum is thata way >

Where was the conspiracy theory in his post?

Talk of a one world government

Run_to_da_hills

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances.

I know in America if a church gets involved in Politics / state issues it is required to pay tax, this would be canvasing, voting etc coming up to an election.

The Church I attend is small and independent, it wouldn't have anything in common with the state and would not want anything to do with it.

On the other hand if the state turns on the Church, you will get persecution and the church will get stronger. I could foresee this start to happen in some secular countries

PDN

Sounds like a good idea to me, but if you look at the fine print it hardly amounts to a separation of Church and State. The Church of Norway will become 'The People's Church' - but will still be supported by taxes and will still have a measure of government control.

HamletOrHecuba

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Talk of a one world government

Is such not possible? Traditional Religion would be seen as a cause of un-necessary division for people who have such an agenda would it not as it is seen as a potential threat to the marketing of luxuries- maybe those are the reasons it has been pushed out of mainstream discourse in the west at least since WWII?

HamletOrHecuba

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Church I attend is small and independent, it wouldn't have anything in common with the state and would not want anything to do with it.

On the other hand if the state turns on the Church, you will get persecution and the church will get stronger. I could foresee this start to happen in some secular countries

I said it depends on the circumstances- the less I have to do with the ROI or UK states the better.

However the idea that persecution makes the Church is not necessarily true at all.

Run_to_da_hills

Keylem wrote: »

I reckon before long Christianity will eventually have to go underground, especially if there is a One World Government put in place!

The Churches are up in arms over him already.

Manach

From the standpoint of the Catholics of Norway - given from what I've seen based on interviews with Norse Priests and parishioners - it might give them an impetus to embrace those disaffected with the former official State church, to a home within the Catholic community.

philologos

recedite wrote: »

more
So, Norway officially becomes a secular state.
Might Britain follow this example, and cut all civil ties to the Church of England?
Is this another nail in the coffin for European Christianity, or is it healthier for those churches themselves anyway, to be separate from the state?

I think disestablishment is a two sided coin:

One argument - It would free the church from State ties, and would allow the free appointment of bishops, and free decision making without interference from the State.

Another argument - The CofE should remain established because it is only that way that it could ever possibly be able to speak Christian values into society and receive a wider audience.

I lean more towards the first than the second.

HamletOrHecuba

philologos wrote: »

Another argument - The CofE should remain established because it is only that way that it could ever possibly be able to speak Christian values into society and receive a wider audience.

The Republic of Ireland never had an established Church and had separation of Church and State- yet the Church was able to have a much greater influence on the State than the established Church of England did. The problem with the C of E is that being so tied to the state has limited both its will and ability to speak Christian values.

Church (and by this I mean the insitutional as opposed to mystical Body of it) and State should remain separate; but both should confess Christ and work for the salvation of souls.

Run_to_da_hills

philologos wrote: »

I think disestablishment is a two sided coin:

One argument - It would free the church from State ties, and would allow the free appointment of bishops, and free decision making without interference from the State.

Another argument - The CofE should remain established because it is only that way that it could ever possibly be able to speak Christian values into society and receive a wider audience.

I lean more towards the first than the second.

I can see your second point quite clearly and that is what is exactly what is happening in the world to day. Governments are now turning to Satan for wisdom

You also have Obama perverting scripture to justify same sex marriage when it is totally condemned in the Bible..

You have politicians in our own country trying to justify the murder of unborn babies.

Christian values have now been substituted by lies, deceit, false promises, greed and corruption.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I can see your second point quite clearly and that is what is exactly what is happening in the world to day. Governments are now turning to Satan for wisdom

You also have Obama perverting scripture to justify same sex marriage when it is totally condemned in the Bible..

You have politicians in our own country trying to justify the murder of unborn babies.

Christian values have now been substituted by lies, deceit, false promises, greed and corruption.

Which is all the more reason why governments should have no input or say into church affairs (apart from the requirement that churches, like anyone else, obey the laws of the land).

Run_to_da_hills

PDN wrote: »

Which is all the more reason why governments should have no input or say into church affairs (apart from the requirement that churches, like anyone else, obey the laws of the land).

When certain churches cannot abide by the law of the land it should raise very serious concerns about the spiritual authenticity of these same establishments.

PDN

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would certainly agree with you on that one and when certain churches cannot abide by the law of the land it should raise concerns about the spiritual authenticity of these same establishments.

I agree with you, but allow for some rather extreme exceptions. If the laws of a nation demand churches to act in a way that is contrary to Scripture, then they are free to disobey and break the law. An example of this would be the Confessing Churches in Nazi Germany which broke the law by refusing to connive or collaborate in the persecution of Jews or in the application of racial purity laws. In that case their refusal to obey the laws of the land was a mark of spiritual authenticity.

But if we as Christians hide behind a veil of religion, imagining that ordinary sensible laws somehow don't apply to us, then we are hypocrites and derserving of scorn.

Run_to_da_hills

PDN wrote: »

I agree with you, but allow for some rather extreme exceptions. If the laws of a nation demand churches to act in a way that is contrary to Scripture, then they are free to disobey and break the law. An example of this would be the Confessing Churches in Nazi Germany which broke the law by refusing to connive or collaborate in the persecution of Jews or in the application of racial purity laws. In that case their refusal to obey the laws of the land was a mark of spiritual authenticity.

But if we as Christians hide behind a veil of religion, imagining that ordinary sensible laws somehow don't apply to us, then we are hypocrites and derserving of scorn.

My point was more on moral issues.such as recent clerical child abuse scandals.

Churches should be a beacon on society by their example and should be exposing corruption in society rather than being exposed themselves.

doctoremma

recedite wrote: »

Might Britain follow this example, and cut all civil ties to the Church of England?

*crosses fingers*

HamletOrHecuba

doctoremma wrote: »

*crosses fingers*

How does the establishment of the Church of England effect anyone outside of Catholics who might want to marry into the Windsors?

HamletOrHecuba

http://rt.com/news/uk-bans-wearing-cross-317/

This in a country with an established Christian Church- you couldnt make it up!

recedite

PDN wrote: »

but if you look at the fine print it hardly amounts to a separation of Church and State. The Church of Norway will become 'The People's Church' - but will still be supported by taxes and will still have a measure of government control.

Not sure where you are getting that from? Supported by taxes?
It looks like a complete separation to me.

doctoremma

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

How does the establishment of the Church of England effect anyone outside of Catholics who might want to marry into the Windsors?

I don't believe that any country should have a state-sponsored religion. Obviously, I can't legislate around the world but if I were ever given a chance to vote for it in my own country....

doctoremma

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

http://rt.com/news/uk-bans-wearing-cross-317/

This in a country with an established Christian Church- you couldnt make it up!

I have always found these stories interesting.

Firstly, I simply do not understand how anyone can be offended by someone wearing a symbol of their religion (providing, of course, it is recognised that the person is making a free choice about their religion). I mean, what goes through the heads of these people?

Secondly, and more cynically, I suspect that this is a slippery slope towards banning all religious symbolism, driven by increasing Islamophobia. If you're going to suggest we go French and ban the burqa, you have to apply it across the board, to all religious ornaments. So I suspect some backdoor tactics here.

HamletOrHecuba

doctoremma wrote: »

I have always found these stories interesting.

Firstly, I simply do not understand how anyone can be offended by someone wearing a symbol of their religion (providing, of course, it is recognised that the person is making a free choice about their religion). I mean, what goes through the heads of these people?

Secondly, and more cynically, I suspect that this is a slippery slope towards banning all religious symbolism, driven by increasing Islamophobia. If you're going to suggest we go French and ban the burqa, you have to apply it across the board, to all religious ornaments. So I suspect some backdoor tactics here.

My point is that shows that the Church of England has little social power even though Anglicanism is supposedly the religion of the State.

Also worth noting is that the Burqa is banned in most Islamic countries because it is associated with the wahabi version of Islam- I believe it was the veil and not the Burqa as such that was banned in French schools. I would be opposed to banning the Burqa in the UK.

doctoremma

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

My point is that shows that the Church of England has little social power even though Anglicanism is supposedly the religion of the State.

Agreed. But little power or not (and thankfully, it's little), I don't believe any country should have a state religion.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Also worth noting is that the Burqa is banned in most Islamic countries because it is associated with the wahabi version of Islam- I believe it was the veil and not the Burqa as such that was banned in French schools. I would be opposed to banning the Burqa in the UK.

France has banned any face covering in public.

HamletOrHecuba

doctoremma wrote: »

France has banned any face covering in public.

The veil covers the hair and not the face.

When I was in Iran I didnt see any women with face coverings.

doctoremma

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The veil covers the hair and not the face.

I'm not sure what point you are making. In France, girls cannot wear headscarfs in schools and nobody can wear face veils in a public place. Any female can wear a headscarf in public.

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

When I was in Iran I didnt see any women with face coverings.

Struggling to see your point, sorry.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

I have always found these stories interesting.

Firstly, I simply do not understand how anyone can be offended by someone wearing a symbol of their religion (providing, of course, it is recognised that the person is making a free choice about their religion). I mean, what goes through the heads of these people?

Reminds me of two amusing threads started over in the A&A forum. One guy who was so outraged that An Post would publish Christian themed stamps at Christmas that he felt the need to go and complain. The other thread was started by somebody who was furious that their doctor had framed their membership of the Catholic Doctor's Association (or whatever it was) and displayed it in the waiting room that they complained to the receptionist and walked out.

doctoremma

Just to be annoying...

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

One guy who was so outraged that An Post would publish Christian themed stamps at Christmas that he felt the need to go and complain.

Were "regular" stamps available?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The other thread was started by somebody who was furious that their doctor had framed their membership of the Catholic Doctor's Association (or whatever it was) and displayed it in the waiting room that they complained to the receptionist and walked out.

I think this is a very different issue in Ireland compared to the UK, given what services you might be able to access from a Catholic .v. non-Catholic doctor. Catholicism isn't a major thing here so for someone to go out of their way to display something like this would almost certainly be a political symbol - I think it would be viewed as a signal that the doctor wasn't prepared to issue birth control/pregnancy options. But in Ireland, surely most doctors are Catholic so is it that unusual?

PDN

recedite wrote: »

Not sure where you are getting that from? Supported by taxes?
It looks like a complete separation to me.

http://www.yerkir.am/en/news/25518.htm

The nation will have no official religion, and the government will not participate in the appointment of church deans and bishops. However, the church tax will remain in place and churches will continue to receive the lion's share, with humanist organisations benefitting to a lesser extent.

I originally read this on the website of the National Secular Society, but today they have, for some reason, amended their report.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

Just to be annoying...

Were "regular" stamps available?

Yes. Everything from a robin standing on a snow covered fence to a rather Westernised Jesus as an infant. Both would seem appropriate given the season.

doctoremma wrote: »

I think this is a very different issue in Ireland compared to the UK, given what services you might be able to access from a Catholic .v. non-Catholic doctor. Catholicism isn't a major thing here so for someone to go out of their way to display something like this would almost certainly be a political symbol - I think it would be viewed as a signal that the doctor wasn't prepared to issue birth control/pregnancy options. But in Ireland, surely most doctors are Catholic so is it that unusual?

I think it was in England. But I can't be sure of this and I'm not going to check. This aside, I'm not sure why you would think "member of the CDA (or whatever it was called) displaying their membership = a political symbol". Why this over the more obvious religious and moral significance?

HamletOrHecuba

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think it was in England. But I can't be sure of this and I'm not going to check. This aside, I'm not sure why you would think "member of the CDA (or whatever it was called) displaying their membership = a political symbol". Why this over the more obvious religious and moral significance?

In fairness it is saying pretty clearly but politely saying I wont give advice about getting an abortion; hence political to a certain extent.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes. Everything from a robin standing on a snow covered fence to a rather Westernised Jesus as an infant. Both would seem appropriate given the season.

Well then, people need to grow a pair. I'm not a fan of kitschy Christmas scenes, religious or not, so that's where my main objection would lie Robins? Ugh....

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think it was in England. But I can't be sure of this and I'm not going to check. This aside, I'm not sure why you would think "member of the CDA (or whatever it was called) displaying their membership = a political symbol". Why this over the more obvious religious and moral significance?

I probably used the word "political" more conversationally than with great thought. As Hamlet says, I would view a UK doctor wanting to display such a certificate as an indication that s/he would be unwilling to provide advice on birth control/termination (although I'm *pretty* sure the rules here state that any such doctor is legally obliged to forward you to someone who WILL provide the advice you need). Is that political? Maybe, especially if I'm right about the rules regarding provision of family planning advice here. It's a passive:aggressive way of opting out of a system you don't believe in, yet are legally obliged to be part of.