Friends of the Secular Café: Forums
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Talk Freethought
Rational Skepticism Forum
EvC Forum: Evolution vs. Creation
Living Nonreligion Discussion Forum
The Round Table (RatPags)
Talk Rational!
Blogs
Blue Collar Atheist
Camels With Hammers
Ebonmuse: Daylight Atheism
Nontheist Nexus
The Re-Enlightenment
Rosa Rubicondior
The Skeptical Zone
Watching the Deniers
Others
Christianity Disproved
Count Me Out
Ebon Musings
Freethinker.co.uk
 
       

Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17 Dec 2010, 10:12 PM   #184492 / #1
Clivedurdle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,451
Default The Anglican church is a good thing

Quote:
Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely.
Quote:
Jefferson did have a low opinion of Christians outside of his deist affiliation. And he was among the founding fathers who thought universal free public education would soon suppress the more conservative sects.

Only Tom Paine realized that an unregulated religious free market would flourish as a result of multiple firms competing by innovation and entrepreneurship increasing quality of, quantity of, and demand for the products.

State regulation of the religious market results in less religious economic activity due to lower quality and limited consumer choice. In practice one of the best ways to reduce the religious vigor of a nation is for the state to sponsor a particular religious firm and for the clergy to be unionized government employees.

Education correlates more to consumer preference between brands than to the decision whether to buy:
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

Jefferson followed the normal trend of the well-educated and well-to-do preferring a more liberal religious product. Liberal religious innovation generally requires old money because it does not attract much new money.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=296155

Does nationalising religion actually defang it?
Clivedurdle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 12:00 AM   #184522 / #2
David B
Senior Member
Honored deceased
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Quote:
Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely.
Quote:
Jefferson did have a low opinion of Christians outside of his deist affiliation. And he was among the founding fathers who thought universal free public education would soon suppress the more conservative sects.

Only Tom Paine realized that an unregulated religious free market would flourish as a result of multiple firms competing by innovation and entrepreneurship increasing quality of, quantity of, and demand for the products.

State regulation of the religious market results in less religious economic activity due to lower quality and limited consumer choice. In practice one of the best ways to reduce the religious vigor of a nation is for the state to sponsor a particular religious firm and for the clergy to be unionized government employees.

Education correlates more to consumer preference between brands than to the decision whether to buy:
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#

Jefferson followed the normal trend of the well-educated and well-to-do preferring a more liberal religious product. Liberal religious innovation generally requires old money because it does not attract much new money.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=296155

Does nationalising religion actually defang it?
Not necessarily. Think Iran now, and historical Catholicism.

David
David B is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 01:18 AM   #184541 / #3
Clivedurdle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,451
Default

But who is in control in those examples? The state or the religion?
Clivedurdle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 01:25 AM   #184542 / #4
David B
Senior Member
Honored deceased
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
But who is in control in those examples? The state or the religion?
In those examples the state and the religion are rather intermingled, I'd have thought. As Ireland at the time of the Magdalene laundries not so long ago.

It's true, I think, that in a pretty secular society like Britain the daily act of worship in schools has lead to accelerating cynicism about religion, but in pretty religious countries allying the state and religion has had terrible effects, on the whole.

David
David B is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 03:05 AM   #184563 / #5
Politesse
Sapere aude
 
Politesse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Chochenyo territory
Posts: 19,523
Default

I prefer to keep church and state separate as possible administratively. I don't believe that the religious constitution of Britain itself would really be markedly different without an established church- the Anglican church does not have the influence it once did- but the mingling of state and religious authority is frankly and unavoidably dangerous, and generally poisonous to both. State theology, unsurprisingly has a tendency to buoy the state at the expense of spiritual well-being. And state politics in which the church is involved overly emphasizes the horrific theology that has thus been co-created. The most perilous situation is where the sources of religious power see themselves as interdependent on the sources of secular power; if one of these is in the position where the wellbeing of the other is critical to their own maintenance of power, the situation will swiftly grow toxic. I am religious myself, and I don't endorse the common misconception that administrative separation requires curtailing public expression of faith. But I do think that national rule and faith are ugly, ugly bedfellows. One does not need to peer far back into Christian history to see that the church is at its worst when it is closest to the reins of power.

A good book, for anyone who wants a storybook picture of just how badly things can get, and how they get there, is Fasching's "Narrative Theology after Auschwitz", an inside retrospective on how national socialism wormed its way into the religious life of Europe and exactly how that empowered the atrocities that followed.
__________________
"The truth about stories is that's all we are" ~Thomas King
Politesse is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 02:38 PM   #184619 / #6
Haswell
Senior Member
 
Haswell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 936
Default

Even though it is the 'state religion' very few give a f*ck about the C of E. Just a cadre of old idiots wearing silly clothes with barely a reference to modernity, led by a person who is so lunatic as to be deemed clever.
__________________
Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:9
Haswell is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 02:59 PM   #184623 / #7
Clivedurdle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,451
Default

Except in the 2001 census 70% defined themselves as xian.
Clivedurdle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 03:34 PM   #184629 / #8
Roo St. Gallus
Loose Contact
 
Roo St. Gallus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 8,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Except in the 2001 census 70% defined themselves as xian.
So?

Defining oneself as 'christian' doesn't mean squat. A goodly number of them are fookin' ignorant of what it even means and the rest argue about what it really is and who's in and who's out.

The one I hear from the fundies is that Catholics aren't really christians.

Of course, the Catholics say everybody else is misguided and in error.

I suspect the one true christian is one and the same as the one true Scotsman.

A census that says 70% of respondents say they are 'christian' is worthless. You need to swear off poll results, Clive. That stuff is a nasty trashy addiction...
__________________
IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Roo St. Gallus is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 04:00 PM   #184634 / #9
Clivedurdle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,451
Default

Quote:
Only Tom Paine realized that an unregulated religious free market would flourish as a result of multiple firms competing by innovation and entrepreneurship increasing quality of, quantity of, and demand for the products.

State regulation of the religious market results in less religious economic activity due to lower quality and limited consumer choice. In practice one of the best ways to reduce the religious vigor of a nation is for the state to sponsor a particular religious firm and for the clergy to be unionized government employees.
I post what I found an interesting comment that free trade religion may of itself be very dangerous, that compares it with licensed religion and somehow the point gets missed?

The comparison is between states where everyone is free to brew their own moonshine religions - for examples the megachurches, Pastor Terry Jones and Fred Phelps, with a state sponsored watered down low alcohol content religion.

It does look like nationalising it does defang it.
Clivedurdle is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 10:38 PM   #184678 / #10
Pendaric
Administrator
SC Founder
Rabbit Hunter Champion, Mission To Mars Champion, Jason's Pong Champion, Eskiv Champion, Ping Champion, Snakeman Steve Champion, Bounce Back Champion
 
Pendaric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,508
Default

Don't forget that nationalising the religion means that we have bishops in the House of Lords who have direct influence on UK legislation. That's something I massively object to.
__________________
fear is the mind killer
Pendaric is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 18 Dec 2010, 10:46 PM   #184679 / #11
David B
Senior Member
Honored deceased
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendaric View Post
Don't forget that nationalising the religion means that we have bishops in the House of Lords who have direct influence on UK legislation. That's something I massively object to.
Me. too

David
David B is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Old 19 Dec 2010, 08:31 AM   #184722 / #12
Berthold
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 3,923
Default

Some very secular societies (besides Britain, Sweden comes to mind) have a state religion. It depends on how the matter is fleshed out.
Berthold is offline   Reply With Quote top bottom
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Secular Café > Intellectual Debate and Discussion Forums > Religion

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Working mothers are a good thing DMB Miscellaneous Discussions 1 04 Jun 2013 08:57 AM
It is a good thing to give everybody an education? rog Philosophy & Morality 30 19 Mar 2013 07:40 PM
ID, a good or a bad thing? Paul1 Politics & World Events 6 31 May 2011 11:58 PM
Good deeds - the 'Christian' thing to do? Silly Sausage Philosophy & Morality 19 13 Sep 2010 03:05 AM
One good thing from the mortgage fiasco. Worldtraveller Miscellaneous Discussions 1 24 Jun 2010 04:46 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
 
Ocean Zero by vBSkins.com | Customised by Antechinus