| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
05 Aug 2004 07:32:15 AM |
| Object: |
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
.
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Reagan Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
10 Aug 2004 05:53:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:36:20 +0000 (UTC), rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <MitCoffey@aol.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"Jake" <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote in message news:<cf9uae$hqb$1@news.fsr.net>...
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnchfe5a.ldv.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:49:14 +0000 (UTC),
Jake <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote:
"James Bremner" <james_bremner@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't have a
Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are very
closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church schools,
Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature based on
religious appointment, Head of State being head of the Church, The
Head of Government playing a role in selecting between candidates for
church roles, stipulations on what religions the head of state may
marry..
I had no idea that the UK was such a backwards shithole...
For the average person, the UK is still far less an overtly religious state
than the US, despite the fact that the US has an actual constitutional wall
of separation between church and state. The older aspects of the House of
Lords are being castrated, for instance. The UK, of course, is still
essentially a Christian state in constitutional makeup, but I doubt the fact
that young Prince Willie can't currently marry a Catholic or a divorcee is
exactly a major problem for the average subject of the Crown.
Yea, and if you do have a problem, you're fucked.
If the UN contains states that are religious then that makes the UN religious!
I think that's plenty reason to scrap the UN and start a secular organization
in it's place. Not only is the UN toothless but it now looks like a laughable
bunch of throwbacks to the dark ages.
Could you please re-word this passage as a syllogism?
1. Other people are dumn.
2. I am smrat!
3. Shut up!
Which reminds me, did you see the debate on Russert’s show the other
night between Krugman and O’Reilly?
The US should have patented freedom back when we invented it and now be
charging royalties.
When Americans were killing each other in the hundreds of thousand
because a guy'd been elected President who thought slavery shouldn't
be allowed to expand in the Territories, the Royal Navy was spending
the plurality of its time patrolling the coast of Africa, suppressing
the slave trade.
One of the colonists' "issues" with the moderately progressive
King George was the fact that, for practical reasons, he actually
wanted to honor some of the treaties with the Natives and others.
Our founding document ***** and moans about how King George offered
slaves their freedom if they'll fight on his side. In Jefferson's
original draft, the argument was more convoluted. The King, we are
told, first crammed the vile, inhuman slave trade down the throats of
us unwilling colonists and now that we were, well, addicted to it, the
bad, crazy sonofabitch wanted to abolish it! (Fortunately, Franklin
and Adams recognized a loosing argument when the saw it, and so save
us from complete embarrassment by watering it down into an indignant
plea against the instigation of servile insurrection (Bad King! Bad
King!)
Of course, working men could vote in the United States back then, if
they were white.
Heh. You've never been to Alabama, have you? As late as 1901,
the (CURRENT) constitution managed to disfranchise a large
percentage of poor whites. Now they've gone back to the old
(1860's) system, of letting them vote, but fooling them into
voting against their own interests. Same result.
You'll note I was discussing the period c. 1861-65. Do you recall if
the United States had at the time a state going by the name "Alabama"?
Something of an issue, I understand.
Mitchell
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
11 Aug 2004 03:16:46 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Mitchell Reagan Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:36:20 +0000 (UTC), rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <MitCoffey@aol.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
"Jake" <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote in message news:<cf9uae$hqb$1@news.fsr.net>...
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnchfe5a.ldv.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:49:14 +0000 (UTC),
Jake <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote:
"James Bremner" <james_bremner@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't have a
Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are very
closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church schools,
Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature based on
religious appointment, Head of State being head of the Church, The
Head of Government playing a role in selecting between candidates for
church roles, stipulations on what religions the head of state may
marry..
I had no idea that the UK was such a backwards shithole...
For the average person, the UK is still far less an overtly religious state
than the US, despite the fact that the US has an actual constitutional wall
of separation between church and state. The older aspects of the House of
Lords are being castrated, for instance. The UK, of course, is still
essentially a Christian state in constitutional makeup, but I doubt the fact
that young Prince Willie can't currently marry a Catholic or a divorcee is
exactly a major problem for the average subject of the Crown.
Yea, and if you do have a problem, you're fucked.
If the UN contains states that are religious then that makes the UN religious!
I think that's plenty reason to scrap the UN and start a secular organization
in it's place. Not only is the UN toothless but it now looks like a laughable
bunch of throwbacks to the dark ages.
Could you please re-word this passage as a syllogism?
1. Other people are dumn.
2. I am smrat!
3. Shut up!
Which reminds me, did you see the debate on Russert’s show the other
night between Krugman and O’Reilly?
I assume O'Reilly used my syllogism, or its loud verbal
equivalent.
The US should have patented freedom back when we invented it and now be
charging royalties.
When Americans were killing each other in the hundreds of thousand
because a guy'd been elected President who thought slavery shouldn't
be allowed to expand in the Territories, the Royal Navy was spending
the plurality of its time patrolling the coast of Africa, suppressing
the slave trade.
One of the colonists' "issues" with the moderately progressive
King George was the fact that, for practical reasons, he actually
wanted to honor some of the treaties with the Natives and others.
Our founding document ***** and moans about how King George offered
slaves their freedom if they'll fight on his side. In Jefferson's
original draft, the argument was more convoluted. The King, we are
told, first crammed the vile, inhuman slave trade down the throats of
us unwilling colonists and now that we were, well, addicted to it, the
bad, crazy sonofabitch wanted to abolish it! (Fortunately, Franklin
and Adams recognized a losing argument when the saw it, and so save
us from complete embarrassment by watering it down into an indignant
plea against the instigation of servile insurrection (Bad King! Bad
King!)
The recent McCullough bio of Adams addresses Jefferson's
skill at cognitive dissonance.
Of course, working men could vote in the United States back then, if
they were white.
Heh. You've never been to Alabama, have you? As late as 1901,
the (CURRENT) constitution managed to disfranchise a large
percentage of poor whites. Now they've gone back to the old
(1860's) system, of letting them vote, but fooling them into
voting against their own interests. Same result.
You'll note I was discussing the period c. 1861-65. Do you recall if
the United States had at the time a state going by the name "Alabama"?
Something of an issue, I understand.
Well, I never question the President, and Lincoln said that there
was such a state, but that it just had a little political
confusion. Enough political confusion to justify a naval
blockade, but not quite enough to justify beliigerent status.
As much as I admire Lincoln, I can't help but notice that he
provides most of the bad precedents that the current officeholder
uses. Thank goodness Lincoln held elections in 1864. And
he seemed to ponder and struggle over difficult issues, which
this president has decided is only for wimps and eggheads.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
10 Aug 2004 06:42:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:53:46 +0000 in episode
<pqjih094ap17spe20lu50dq18unsum9tpo@4ax.com> we saw our hero Mitchell
Reagan Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net>:
Which reminds me, did you see the debate on Russert’s show the other
night between Krugman and O’Reilly?
You used the word "debate" in the same sentence with "O'Reilly?"
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
13 Aug 2004 10:58:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:36:20 +0000, rich hammett wrote:
In talk.origins Mitchell Coffey <MitCoffey@aol.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin
hämähäkki:
"Jake" <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote in message
news:<cf9uae$hqb$1@news.fsr.net>...
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnchfe5a.ldv.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:49:14 +0000 (UTC), Jake <JakeStew@moscow.com>
wrote:
"James Bremner" <james_bremner@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't
have a Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are
very closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church
schools, Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature
based on religious appointment, Head of State being head of the
Church, The Head of Government playing a role in selecting between
candidates for church roles, stipulations on what religions the
head of state may marry..
I had no idea that the UK was such a backwards shithole...
For the average person, the UK is still far less an overtly religious
state than the US, despite the fact that the US has an actual
constitutional wall of separation between church and state. The
older aspects of the House of Lords are being castrated, for
instance. The UK, of course, is still essentially a Christian state
in constitutional makeup, but I doubt the fact that young Prince
Willie can't currently marry a Catholic or a divorcee is exactly a
major problem for the average subject of the Crown.
Yea, and if you do have a problem, you're fucked.
If the UN contains states that are religious then that makes the UN
religious! I think that's plenty reason to scrap the UN and start a
secular organization in it's place. Not only is the UN toothless but
it now looks like a laughable bunch of throwbacks to the dark ages.
Could you please re-word this passage as a syllogism?
1. Other people are dumn.
2. I am smrat!
3. Shut up!
The US should have patented freedom back when we invented it and now be
charging royalties.
When Americans were killing each other in the hundreds of thousand
because a guy'd been elected President who thought slavery shouldn't be
allowed to expand in the Territories, the Royal Navy was spending the
plurality of its time patrolling the coast of Africa, suppressing the
slave trade.
One of the colonists' "issues" with the moderately progressive King George
was the fact that, for practical reasons, he actually wanted to honor some
of the treaties with the Natives and others.
Of course, working men could vote in the United States back then, if
they were white.
Heh. You've never been to Alabama, have you? As late as 1901, the
(CURRENT) constitution managed to disfranchise a large percentage of poor
whites. Now they've gone back to the old (1860's) system, of letting them
vote, but fooling them into voting against their own interests. Same
result.
rich
Hence the vote against the tax increase last year. At least it gave me a
bit of respect for Riley; I may actually vote for him when his term comes
due, if he continues in that vein.
--
So it goes....
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
10 Aug 2004 04:45:44 AM |
|
|
Jake <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote:
....
The US should have patented freedom back when we invented it and now be
charging royalties.
Hmph. Well it is sure that your own government would not be paying so
many royalty cheques these days.
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
10 Aug 2004 10:58:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 07:33:16 +0000 (UTC),
Jake <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote:
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnchfe5a.ldv.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net...
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 13:49:14 +0000 (UTC),
Jake <JakeStew@moscow.com> wrote:
"James Bremner" <james_bremner@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't have a
Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are very
closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church schools,
Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature based on
religious appointment, Head of State being head of the Church, The
Head of Government playing a role in selecting between candidates for
church roles, stipulations on what religions the head of state may
marry..
I had no idea that the UK was such a backwards shithole...
For the average person, the UK is still far less an overtly religious state
than the US, despite the fact that the US has an actual constitutional wall
of separation between church and state. The older aspects of the House of
Lords are being castrated, for instance. The UK, of course, is still
essentially a Christian state in constitutional makeup, but I doubt the fact
that young Prince Willie can't currently marry a Catholic or a divorcee is
exactly a major problem for the average subject of the Crown.
Yea, and if you do have a problem, you're fucked.
Explain.
If the UN contains states that are religious then that makes the UN religious!
Huh?
I think that's plenty reason to scrap the UN and start a secular organization
Your definition of "secular" must be radically different than mine.
in it's place. Not only is the UN toothless but it now looks like a laughable
bunch of throwbacks to the dark ages.
Explain.
The US should have patented freedom back when we invented it and now be
charging royalties.
Me'thinks you'd have a infringement case on your hands from all those
Enlightenment philosophers.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
09 Aug 2004 09:18:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon 09 Aug 2004 05:10:49a, (James
Bremner) kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke
up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
out:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns953C9D4736821Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On Thu 05 Aug 2004 09:08:04a, "Alexander"
<alexander.hudson@virgin.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation
between church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally
separate from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in
the UK. The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to
freedom of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined
anywhere, but I can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't
think it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that
promotes religious and ideological tolerance
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't have
a Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are very
closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church schools,
Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature based on
religious appointment, Head of State being head of the Church, The
Head of Government playing a role in selecting between candidates for
church roles, stipulations on what religions the head of state may
marry..
*sigh*
Yes, and in the States we have tax-free churches, state funding for "faith-
based" programs, an act (DOMA) that restricts marriage to religious rules,
"In God We Trust" on our money, and so on and so forth. I suppose that
means we have no separation here, either?
I understand that you do not have complete separation of church and state.
I'd be interested, though, to see if you can point to even one single
nation on the entire globe that has complete, unambiguous separation of
church and state. For that matter, can you find a nation anywhere in which
church and state are completely, seamlessly entangled? I think not.
Nevertheless, there are many nations in which church and state are *mostly*
separate. Yours is one; mine is another. There are also many nations in
which church and state are mostly entangled. Iran is one; China is
another.
But ultimately I would argue that most of your examples are essentially
harmless traditions that do not oppress. As such, they do not qualify to
my mind as true church/state entanglement. True entanglement happens when
the people are being made to observe the official state beliefs. True
entanglement happens when laws are passed that define marriage biblically,
or religious schools are funded in such a way that those of the "right"
religion are better than others, or religious tests are used for public
office, or children are made to pray in public schools.
If your King or Queen is titled "Defender of the Faith", that is hardly
entanglement. That is tradition. It may be offensive to some people, and
so it may eventually be wise to remove that title, but it is not oppressive
or theocratic.
This is much like how, in Communist
Russia, the official government position was religious freedom, but
there was little actual separation -- the persecution went on anyway.
The position of a government with respect to religion does not
necessarily jive with what the papers say it ought to be. I would
argue, in fact, that in the UK you have *more* separation (read:
freedom) than we do in the US.
Ahhh.. here is the problem with your argument. Seperation != freedom
I did not say it does. I may have been unclear, though, so let me put it
another way:
In the UK you tend to have more separation -- that is, the government
interferes in religion less -- than in the US, in my opinion. Because of
this, you also tend to have more freedom in those areas. Although
separation does not necessarily equal freedom, there is nevertheless a
direct correlation between the two, as one can see by observing any number
of modern states. More separation tends to mean more freedom, and vice
versa.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
10 Aug 2004 08:28:27 AM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954061EC0D68EMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Mon 09 Aug 2004 05:10:49a, (James
Bremner) kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke
up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
out:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns953C9D4736821Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On Thu 05 Aug 2004 09:08:04a, "Alexander"
<alexander.hudson@virgin.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation
between church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally
separate from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in
the UK. The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to
freedom of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined
anywhere, but I can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't
think it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that
promotes religious and ideological tolerance
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't have
a Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are very
closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church schools,
Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature based on
religious appointment, Head of State being head of the Church, The
Head of Government playing a role in selecting between candidates for
church roles, stipulations on what religions the head of state may
marry..
*sigh*
Yes, and in the States we have tax-free churches, state funding for
"faith-
based" programs, an act (DOMA) that restricts marriage to religious rules,
"In God We Trust" on our money, and so on and so forth. I suppose that
means we have no separation here, either?
Not at all - but there is a distinction at work here which needs to be
emphasised. Effectively what's being described is not 'separation' but
encultured assumptions about what constitutes a free and democratic state.
Part of that assumption is the presumed negation of religious bodies as an
effective political entity. That assumption seems, in part, to be
predicated on the belief that religion can _only_ be a negative influence on
policy making (all the examples cited evidence how religious involvement is
antithetical to a progressive state). For various reasons I'll go over
there is a number of problems with this approach as well as missing some of
the things myself and other posters have tried to highlight in terms of the
historicity of the US and UK political development.
I understand that you do not have complete separation of church and state.
I'd be interested, though, to see if you can point to even one single
nation on the entire globe that has complete, unambiguous separation of
church and state. For that matter, can you find a nation anywhere in
which
church and state are completely, seamlessly entangled? I think not.
Which is mostly my assertion - that the role of religion within a state is
far more complex than simply stating there is, or is not, separation. What
is important to highlight here though is that from a legal perspective
(rather than practical effects on social polity) is that the UK is a
religious state. There is a preferred religion, a head of state who is also
of a particular faith and the association that religion has to the UK goes
back quite a way as has been mentioned numerous times. From education to
the wars that defined our relationships with other nations, a very great
deal has been motivated or driven by religious ideology. The formation of
our predominantly secular nation has, ironically, been predicated through
religious terms and usage.
What's being discussed and where the terminology is getting confused is the
'appearance' of separation and the _effective_ role of the church in today's
society. I'm quite happy to agree with yourself, Mark and others who point
to the fact that the US and UK have effectively the same relationship with
religion in terms of active policy making.
Nevertheless, there are many nations in which church and state are
*mostly*
separate. Yours is one; mine is another. There are also many nations in
which church and state are mostly entangled. Iran is one; China is
another.
But ultimately I would argue that most of your examples are essentially
harmless traditions that do not oppress.
Again, you are confusing various terms. A tradition is something that has
no legal basis or relation to the function of the state. The changing of
the guard at Buckingham Palace is a tradition, Fraternity hazing is a
'tradition', but the active involvement of clergy within the state is not a
'tradition'.
As such, they do not qualify to
my mind as true church/state entanglement. True entanglement happens when
the people are being made to observe the official state beliefs.
Then what we are actually discussing is not 'entanglement' but non-liberal
democratic structures, co-ercive policies designed to limit or control the
populace. This is not religious 'entanglement' but either dictatorships or
totalitarian regimes. These are not necessarily about anything other than
control. The kind of governments that repress religious expression will
also suppress freedom of expression full stop, will maintain state control
of the media and limit or eliminate political opposition. When you say this
country or that has 'religious' entanglement and has therefore also a lack
of political freedom you are narrowing the causal relationship to a very
artificial level.
True
entanglement happens when laws are passed that define marriage biblically,
or religious schools are funded in such a way that those of the "right"
religion are better than others, or religious tests are used for public
office, or children are made to pray in public schools.
I'm not sure if it's still de rigeur, but I remember having to pray in
school (a perfectly normal state secondary). We sang Christian hymns every
morning and attendance was mandatory. At the time (this was about 15 years
ago mind) assembly in this way was an actual legal requirement. Marriage in
this country is also defined Biblically, even a registry office marriage
assumes that basis, but just cuts the religious jargon. There are no rights
for gays in marriage (the new Partnership bill doesn't really come close).
State schools, or CofE in general, are the schools that receive the most
money here and religious schools in the UK outside of Christianity receive
less financial support, despite increasing pressure that evidences that the
Muslim (for example) community is not being adequately catered for in state
schools.
If your King or Queen is titled "Defender of the Faith", that is hardly
entanglement. That is tradition.
No it's not. As I've said above a tradition is something completely
different. We do need to address that fact that you keep using terms in a
very different context to the assumptions you want to apply. 'Defender of
the faith' is a very real legal term and is bound within UK law - it has
repercussions outside of the UK for the commonwealth as well and is most
certainly not like a hat that Queenie can just pick up and put down whenever
she pleases (as much as I'd like to see us as a republic, I still understand
the extent to which there is considerable legal and cultural capital placed
on the head of states role)
It may be offensive to some people, and
so it may eventually be wise to remove that title, but it is not
oppressive
or theocratic.
I agree it is neither of things anymore (thankfully) and also want to see
the monarchy booted for the anachronism it is but please don't call it
'tradition'. Not only is this a gross oversimplification it's just plain
ignorant.
This is much like how, in Communist
Russia, the official government position was religious freedom, but
there was little actual separation -- the persecution went on anyway.
The position of a government with respect to religion does not
necessarily jive with what the papers say it ought to be. I would
argue, in fact, that in the UK you have *more* separation (read:
freedom) than we do in the US.
Ahhh.. here is the problem with your argument. Seperation != freedom
I did not say it does. I may have been unclear, though, so let me put it
another way:
In the UK you tend to have more separation -- that is, the government
interferes in religion less -- than in the US, in my opinion. Because of
this, you also tend to have more freedom in those areas. Although
separation does not necessarily equal freedom, there is nevertheless a
direct correlation between the two, as one can see by observing any number
of modern states. More separation tends to mean more freedom, and vice
versa.
Right - this is where I think the problem is. You have assumed that because
of the degree of similarity between the UK and US that culturally and
historically we have arrived at the same conclusion in the same way. In
some ways I think this perception underpins a lot of the cultural confusion
between the 2 countries. Because you don't see 'the church' involved in the
same way as in Iran you have equated this to a lack of involvement or de
facto separation.
Kizhe Katson has covered a lot of the salient points about the terminologies
and assumptions here, but the critical one is that the Church in the UK
actually helped the process of a more tolerant liberal society within its
own doctrines and practices. While the CofE had some massive hiccups (like
opposition to Women's Suffrage) it also promoted the wide spread application
of education accessible for all, elements of the welfare state and other
practical considerations that we take for granted. This is the main point;
over the past 100 years we have seen religion become increasingly irrelevant
to UK society because the CofE generally maintains a set of values that,
when it comes down to it, is virtually indistinguishable from humanism.
Therefore issues such as when I was a child only become relevant now by the
increased multi-cultural nature of our society and our need to address that.
Catering for all faiths is nigh on impossible, so the best, practical,
solution is to drop religious specific prayers or observations. This is far
more of a pragmatic move than anything else and multi-faith councils are
willing and able to negotiate on the practical implications and the CofE
doesn't present an obstacle because of its own stated decrees of tolerance
and acceptance.
When these practical means can be achieved without the need for an appeal to
God then people have just drifted away from the church.
The CofE efectively wrote itself out of the equation by it's own evolving
sense of social responsibility. When Arch Bishop Harries wanted to invite a
gay to become the first open homosexual Bishop in England, it was the US and
Nigerian elements of the CofE that objected the most vociferously.
I do not contend, or intend to contend, that the UK is currently anything
more than an effective secular state. Yet this is not incompatible with the
fact that the UK is in a legal sense a religious state, founded on a very
distinct set of religious beliefs and that the Church, to one extent or
another, has been involved directly in forming the current state and its
practices. To make the assumption that religion, when involved in state
policies, can lead to nothing but repression and exclusion is not strictly
true.
I would personally want to see a state divest itself of religious
involvement at any level, but if the only example to go by is the increased
level of religious fanaticism and dogmatic vitriol that can be produced in
the US, I'm quite happy with our compromise.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
10 Aug 2004 09:44:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue 10 Aug 2004 08:28:27a, "Alexander" <alexander.hudson@virgin.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
It seems most of the confusion here has arisen over terminology... and
not being a political scientist, I'll take you guys' word for it that
your use of those terms is the best in this context. Nevertheless,
there is one point that I want to clear up.
I was using the word "entanglement" to mean a situation in which
religious attitudes are forced on the people. That does not necessarily
have to include loss of freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and so on,
although I think a regime that tried to religiously oppress its people
but did not limit freedom of expression otherwise would have a hard time
staying in power.
That said, in the way I was using that term, the church and state in the
UK are not "entangled". You point out that the CoE is involved in
politics but acts as a force to make free and secular policy, rather
than religious laws. Remember, though, that I pointed out that if the
government does not force the church out of state policy, the other way
to avoid religious oppression is when the church willingly removes its
doctrine from the political sphere. This is the case in England, and so
even though the church is "technically" entangled, in actual practice
this is not the case.
I don't think you disagree with me so far, but I bring this up to make
the point that I don't see that it's important whether a church and
state are "technically" entangled. It's an issue when an influential
sector of the population wants to impose doctine, and there is no
barrier to stop it -- but the critical factor in whether religious
oppression occurs is whether or not there are doctrinal laws in force
and enforced, not whether there is a "technical" barrier that prevents
such laws. That is, a "wall of separation" written in a constitution is
neither a guarantee that there will be no religious oppression, nor is
the lack of such walls a guarantee that there *will* be religious
oppression.
However, in my opinion, when there are laws requiring the populace to
observe church doctrine, these will *always* and *inevitably* result in
some level of religious oppression. It is a logical necessity -- some
portions of the population are certain to disagree with that doctrine,
and so forcing it on them is *by definition* oppression.
However, I doubt you disagree with me on that point, either, so why do I
bring it up? Because the religious lobbies that would like to see a
theocratic government disagree with me. They don't think it's
oppression; they think it's perfectly reasonable, fine, upstanding
morals. They don't see why any decent person could possibly object to
just putting some good old-fashioned morality in place, to the benefit
and greater happiness of everybody in the land.
My original point (in response to your post about the UK having no
separation) was simply this: while you're technically correct that the
CoE is deeply entangled with the UK government (by the way, why do they
call it a "constitutional monarchy" when there's no constitution?), the
proper way to look at it, and this is the point that Mark was making, I
believe, is by the depth of church doctrine -- any church, official
state religion or no -- that the government requires the populace to
observe.
Looked at in that way, Mark is entirely correct about the implications
of religious vs. secular government, where a "religious" government is
one that imposes many religious rules on the people, and a "secular"
government is one that imposes few or no religious rules on the people.
The problem is that here in America we have millions of caring, well-
meaning people who would happily force everyone to join their church and
follow their rules, and yet think they're doing us all quite a grand and
selfless service.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lieutenant Kizhe Katson" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
09 Aug 2004 04:28:28 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns954061EC0D68EMekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On Mon 09 Aug 2004 05:10:49a, (James
Bremner) kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke
up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
out:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns953C9D4736821Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
On Thu 05 Aug 2004 09:08:04a, "Alexander"
<alexander.hudson@virgin.net> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at
length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again
after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation
between church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally
separate from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in
the UK. The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to
freedom of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined
anywhere, but I can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't
think it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that
promotes religious and ideological tolerance
No, you DO have separation of church and state -- you just don't have
a Constitution that says you have to.
No. In the UK we definitely do not have seperation. The two are very
closely linked. Examples include: State funding of church schools,
Bishops automatically getting seats in the legislature based on
religious appointment, Head of State being head of the Church, The
Head of Government playing a role in selecting between candidates for
church roles, stipulations on what religions the head of state may
marry..
*sigh*
Yes, and in the States we have tax-free churches, state funding for "faith-
based" programs, an act (DOMA) that restricts marriage to religious rules,
"In God We Trust" on our money, and so on and so forth. I suppose that
means we have no separation here, either?
I understand that you do not have complete separation of church and state.
I'd be interested, though, to see if you can point to even one single
nation on the entire globe that has complete, unambiguous separation of
church and state. For that matter, can you find a nation anywhere in which
church and state are completely, seamlessly entangled? I think not.
Nevertheless, there are many nations in which church and state are *mostly*
separate. Yours is one; mine is another. There are also many nations in
which church and state are mostly entangled. Iran is one; China is
another.
Re China: only for defintions of "church" which are stretched to
include the Communist Party. While many secular ideologies have a lot
in common with religion (mostly the bad parts), I think it muddies the
terminology to lump them together like that.
But ultimately I would argue that most of your examples are essentially
harmless traditions that do not oppress. As such, they do not qualify to
my mind as true church/state entanglement. True entanglement happens when
the people are being made to observe the official state beliefs. True
entanglement happens when laws are passed that define marriage biblically,
or religious schools are funded in such a way that those of the "right"
religion are better than others, or religious tests are used for public
office, or children are made to pray in public schools.
If your King or Queen is titled "Defender of the Faith", that is hardly
entanglement. That is tradition. It may be offensive to some people, and
so it may eventually be wise to remove that title, but it is not oppressive
or theocratic.
This is much like how, in Communist
Russia, the official government position was religious freedom, but
there was little actual separation -- the persecution went on anyway.
The position of a government with respect to religion does not
necessarily jive with what the papers say it ought to be. I would
argue, in fact, that in the UK you have *more* separation (read:
freedom) than we do in the US.
Ahhh.. here is the problem with your argument. Seperation != freedom
I did not say it does. I may have been unclear, though, so let me put it
another way:
In the UK you tend to have more separation -- that is, the government
interferes in religion less -- than in the US, in my opinion. Because of
this, you also tend to have more freedom in those areas. Although
separation does not necessarily equal freedom, there is nevertheless a
direct correlation between the two, as one can see by observing any number
of modern states. More separation tends to mean more freedom, and vice
versa.
I know what you're getting at, but I think we need to keep the
terminology straight. "Separation" and "entanglement" have specific
legal meanings in this context. The USA, fairly early on, explicitly
chose to write church-state separation into its Constitution (the
"establishment" clause). They did this no doubt, in view of
then-recent European history (now happily a fading memory!), where
entangling the institutions had caused no end of trouble. So to begin
with, there is (and can be) no American "State Church". That legacy
has further come down to us (well, not me personally, as I'm a
non-USAian) in the form of disallowing religious exercises in school,
restrictions on govt funding for religious charities, and I don't know
what else.
By contrast, the UK (and most of Europe) had, and continues to have,
legal entanglement of State and Church -- an official "national"
Church, and all the other stuff mentioned by the previous Brit
posters.
The essential paradox of this discussion is that nonetheless, over the
past two centuries Western European society has become _de facto_
largely irreligious -- low church attendance, even among those whose
names still appear on the roles, little trouble with Creationism
(other than a certain car salesman), etc. The explicit legal
structure of church-state entanglement has, as you put it, become a
largely benign tradition with no real power. My long-distance
impression is that public sentiment wants to keep it that way.
OTOH, the USA seems to fight a constant battle against fundamentalist
religion trying to sneak into the seat of power, banning gay marriage,
etc. One can only imagine (and shudder at) what things might be like
if you *didn't* have the Establishment clause.
IOW: *legal* separation is not the same as *de facto* freedom.
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
09 Aug 2004 06:13:40 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On Mon 09 Aug 2004 05:10:49a, (James
Bremner) kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke
up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
out:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns953C9D4736821Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
....
Ahhh.. here is the problem with your argument. Seperation != freedom
I did not say it does. I may have been unclear, though, so let me put it
another way:
In the UK you tend to have more separation -- that is, the government
interferes in religion less -- than in the US, in my opinion. Because of
this, you also tend to have more freedom in those areas. Although
separation does not necessarily equal freedom, there is nevertheless a
direct correlation between the two, as one can see by observing any number
of modern states. More separation tends to mean more freedom, and vice
versa.
Although the British government does approve and occasionally reject
nominations to bishoprics in the CoE. If anything suffers under the
establishment of religion in the UK, it is religion (at any rate, the
CoE).
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
09 Aug 2004 10:24:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 23:13:40 +0000 (UTC),
John Wilkins <john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On Mon 09 Aug 2004 05:10:49a, (James
Bremner) kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke
up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting
out:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns953C9D4736821Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
...
Ahhh.. here is the problem with your argument. Seperation != freedom
I did not say it does. I may have been unclear, though, so let me put it
another way:
In the UK you tend to have more separation -- that is, the government
interferes in religion less -- than in the US, in my opinion. Because of
this, you also tend to have more freedom in those areas. Although
separation does not necessarily equal freedom, there is nevertheless a
direct correlation between the two, as one can see by observing any number
of modern states. More separation tends to mean more freedom, and vice
versa.
Although the British government does approve and occasionally reject
nominations to bishoprics in the CoE. If anything suffers under the
establishment of religion in the UK, it is religion (at any rate, the
CoE).
And it's been that way since 1534.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puck Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
06 Aug 2004 05:55:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> with calm deliberation, and
malace aforethought, wrote:
On Thu 05 Aug 2004 09:08:04a, "Alexander" <alexander.hudson@virgin.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation
between church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally separate
from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in the
UK. The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to
freedom of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined
anywhere, but I can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't
think it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that
promotes religious and ideological tolerance
No, you DO have separation of church and state
No, we do not.
How can there be seperation of church and state, when bishops sit in
the house of lords, and have a say in law making?
--
Puck Greenman
#162
BAAWA Knight.
Blesed is the self righteous xtian,
for his is the sure and certain knowledge
that no matter what load of tripe he
comes out with:
God told him to say it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
06 Aug 2004 11:13:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:55:49 +0000 (UTC) in talk.origins, Puck
Greenman (Puck Greenman <puck@pooks.hill.fey>) said, directing the
reply to talk.origins
[snip]
No, we do not.
How can there be seperation of church and state, when bishops sit in
the house of lords, and have a say in law making?
One is tempted to observe that this is the Church of England we're
talking about, and any resemblance to an organised religion is purely
coincidental.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
06 Aug 2004 11:18:22 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:vbq6h0lg2q0g2a377c6u2uslft2ga8ff29@4ax.com...
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 10:55:49 +0000 (UTC) in talk.origins, Puck
Greenman (Puck Greenman <puck@pooks.hill.fey>) said, directing the
reply to talk.origins
[snip]
No, we do not.
How can there be seperation of church and state, when bishops sit in
the house of lords, and have a say in law making?
One is tempted to observe that this is the Church of England we're
talking about, and any resemblance to an organised religion is purely
coincidental.
Heh ... true
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
06 Aug 2004 12:01:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri 06 Aug 2004 05:55:49a, Puck Greenman <puck@pooks.hill.fey> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 20:09:48 +0000 (UTC), Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> with calm deliberation, and
malace aforethought, wrote:
On Thu 05 Aug 2004 09:08:04a, "Alexander" <alexander.hudson@virgin.net>
kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit
up a joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation
between church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally separate
from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in the
UK. The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to
freedom of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined
anywhere, but I can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't
think it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that
promotes religious and ideological tolerance
No, you DO have separation of church and state
No, we do not.
How can there be seperation of church and state, when bishops sit in
the house of lords, and have a say in law making?
I didn't say you have *complete* separation of church and state, any more
than we do here in the US -- and we have a constitution that says we have
to.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
05 Aug 2004 11:07:34 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 14:08:04 +0000 in episode
<7csQc.155$KW.130@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> we saw our hero "Alexander"
<alexander.hudson@virgin.net>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation between
church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally separate
from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in the UK.
The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to freedom
of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined anywhere, but I
can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't think
it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that promotes
religious and ideological tolerance
Maybe European members of the ng can correct me but the view from here is
that the remaining "official" status of the churches in Europe is an
anachronism. The "official" churches don't appear to have any actual
political power, the states don't seem to be meddling in religion in any
significant way, and the public seems more adamant on maintaining a
secular state than the US public with "official" separation.
I mean, writing something down doesn't make it happen. The USSR had a
*great constitution. For all the good that did anybody. We have official
separation and the public is battering the wall, trying to pull it down
every day. Europe has the historical, "up close and personal" experience
of what happens when you don't keep the two at arm's length. Separation
may be officially enshrined here but may ultimately become meaningless.
Separation may never be official enshrined over there but may remain in
force in reality.
Reminds me of some international news channel I was watching not long ago
(we just don't *get enough of that over here). Some special on gay rights
in Spain. The *public had much more of a general attitude that the church
needed to get its nose out of civil matters than you'd see over here.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
05 Aug 2004 11:28:30 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.16.16.06.728572@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 14:08:04 +0000 in episode
<7csQc.155$KW.130@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> we saw our hero "Alexander"
<alexander.hudson@virgin.net>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.05.14.04.33.367049@org.webmaster...
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 12:32:15 +0000 in episode
<b1c67abe.0408050441.69e92e12@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):
Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39520
You mean an example of what happens when there is no separation between
church and state.
The PRC and the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common that their
governments *have positions on religion. As opposed to what the
founders of the US envisioned, a government that is totally separate
from and has no regard of religion.
Notice the pattern?
Entangled: oppression.
Separated: freedom.
It's just not that difficult.
Weeeeeeell - we don't have any separation of Church and state in the UK.
The church is the state in certain regards, especially some
constitutional matters. We don't technically have the right to freedom
of expression, assembly or freedom of speech enshrined anywhere, but I
can't really say I feel especially oppressed.
Similar situation in most other parts of europe as well. I don't think
it's as simple as saying there is a wall of separation that promotes
religious and ideological tolerance
Maybe European members of the ng can correct me but the view from here is
that the remaining "official" status of the churches in Europe is an
anachronism. The "official" churches don't appear to have any actual
political power, the states don't seem to be meddling in religion in any
significant way, and the public seems more adamant on maintaining a
secular state than the US public with "official" separation.
Which is my point really. We don't have any sort of official 'cut off'
point between the state and church politics. Here we can have religious
schools which are also technically state schools, religious leaders as
politicians (there is a Christian Democratic Party in Germany and a strong
Christian contingent within the european parliament) so it's a little more
complicated than looking at the 'official' status of the church. The CofE
here still has some clout, but has become increasingly irrelevant as far as
policy making goes since the 19th century.
I mean, writing something down doesn't make it happen. The USSR had a
*great constitution. For all the good that did anybody. We have official
separation and the public is battering the wall, trying to pull it down
every day. Europe has the historical, "up close and personal" experience
of what happens when you don't keep the two at arm's length.
Oh yeah - especially here. It's cool to see NI patching up its differences
but the division between protestant and catholic is still scarring that part
of the world
Separation
may be officially enshrined here but may ultimately become meaningless.
Separation may never be official enshrined over there but may remain in
force in reality.
It's a strange balancing act. I was really just trying to point out that an
actual constitutional amendment does not automatically allow for tolerance
and expression. I have the feeling we may be arguing the same point from
different directions though
Reminds me of some international news channel I was watching not long ago
(we just don't *get enough of that over here). Some special on gay rights
in Spain. The *public had much more of a general attitude that the church
needed to get its nose out of civil matters than you'd see over here.
.... and that's from a Catholic country which, statistically, tend to exhibit
far greater degrees of religiosity than this little island of protestant
iniquity. We have our share of problems and a very nasty reactionary streak
once you scratch the surface a little. What a lack of constitution does
provide for is the possible introduction of 'acadamies' which are on the
record for wanting to teach creationism as science and evolution as 'just a
theory'. We can't stop 'em going after the schools, but, for the most part
we just don't seem to be as partisan about religion here in the UK.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
05 Aug 2004 12:25:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:28:30 +0000 in episode
<IfuQc.197$Ua2.187@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net> we saw our hero "Alexander"
<alexander.hudson@virgin.net>:
<big snippage>
Which is my point really. We don't have any sort of official 'cut off'
point between the state and church politics. Here we can have religious
schools which are also technically state schools, religious leaders as
politicians (there is a Christian Democratic Party in Germany and a strong
Christian contingent within the european parliament) so it's a little more
complicated than looking at the 'official' status of the church. The CofE
here still has some clout, but has become increasingly irrelevant as far
as policy making goes since the 19th century.
Which is what I find interesting. We *have the official division but
religion and politics are becoming increasingly entangled. Europe doesn't
have the official "wall" but seems to me at least to be increasing
separation.
Go figure. <g>
Either way, what we have *in general* (and you know how generalities are)
we have a set of nations that do work to keep these things separate (in
one way or another) and they're among the most prosperous, most free, and
most peaceful on the planet. While there may not be "official" separation
in Europe, I just don't think you're going see something like this
incident in China happen in, say, the UK. Nor a theocratic kind of thing
like Iran.
It is more complex than my original generality but I still stand by the
broad strokes. China meddles in religion. Iran is theocratic. There's just
*no tradition for separation, official or not. In the "free world,"
whether there's official separation or not, the effect is the two are kept
at arm's length. The Church of England may have "official" standing but
what would happen if they tried doing anything with it? <g>
I've also read before that while internal matters of the CoE are
*officially regulated by Parliament (I'm not an expert here, excuse me if
I fumble this), nobody bothers to *do it. I was reading on a site IIRC is
maintained by Parliament that while they have to, officially, approve
"church law," it's just a formality. Nobody actually bothers to tinker
with the internal matters of the church.
You comment later:
"...for the most part we just don't seem to be as partisan about religion
here in the UK."
That is more or less what I mean. It's become part of the culture. Even
with the vestige of establishment existing in form, it seems to *mean very
little.
Not to mention, we just cannot ignore that those of us who *do have
official separation learned it from those of you who don't have it
officially eh? <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
05 Aug 2004 11:48:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 16:07:34 +0000 (UTC),
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Maybe European members of the ng can correct me but the view from here is
that the remaining "official" status of the churches in Europe is an
anachronism. The "official" churches don't appear to have any actual
political power, the states don't seem to be meddling in religion in any
significant way, and the public seems more adamant on maintaining a
secular state than the US public with "official" separation.
The Church of England certainly still has a constitutional role in Britain
(at least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland). It doesn't quite equate
to political power any more, but it certainly does hold a special place in
the governing structure of the UK. I suspect that that will change within a
generation. Prince Charles has, in the past, made some utterance about
changing the oath upon his coronation from "Defender of the Faith" to
"Defender of the Faiths", which sounds distinctly like, from his limited
monarchial role (if he ever gets on the throne), he intends to distance the
throne from the CoE. Not exactly disestablishment, of course, but a pretty
big move in an apparatus that has become as conservative as the British
monarchy.
However, with the big changes that Labour is making to the constitutional
structure of the UK (the House of Lords in particular, but limited
devolution as well), perhaps the CoE will hold no special place other than
crowning monarchs as long as there are still monarchs to crown. I can't see
the Tories (who I will assume, unless a miracle like finding WMDs in Iraq
occurs, gain power next year) pursuing any changes, but rather trying to
maintain the status quo.
This is all the musings of a Canadian, of course, whose own country does
have seperation of church and state, and just kept a party from achieving
power because it was a little too socially conservative with some obvious
links to religious conservativism as well. HOwever, I do keep an eye open
across the pond at our former colonial masters and permanent residence of
our head of state. Britain seems to be going through some interesting
changes.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
05 Aug 2004 11:56:04 AM |
|
|
"AC" <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnch4por.fhg.mightymartianca@aaronclausen.alberni.net...
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 16:07:34 +0000 (UTC),
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Maybe European members of the ng can correct me but the view from here
is
that the remaining "official" status of the churches in Europe is an
anachronism. The "official" churches don't appear to have any actual
political power, the states don't seem to be meddling in religion in any
significant way, and the public seems more adamant on maintaining a
secular state than the US public with "official" separation.
The Church of England certainly still has a constitutional role in Britain
(at least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland). It doesn't quite
equate
to political power any more, but it certainly does hold a special place in
the governing structure of the UK. I suspect that that will change within
a
generation. Prince Charles has, in the past, made some utterance about
changing the oath upon his coronation from "Defender of the Faith" to
"Defender of the Faiths", which sounds distinctly like, from his limited
monarchial role (if he ever gets on the throne), he intends to distance
the
throne from the CoE. Not exactly disestablishment, of course, but a
pretty
big move in an apparatus that has become as conservative as the British
monarchy.
I'd forgotten the role of the Queen and the CofE in the commonwealth
actually. D'oh. That is a huge deal, more than actually being defender of
the faith in the UK to be honest.
However, with the big changes that Labour is making to the constitutional
structure of the UK (the House of Lords in particular, but limited
devolution as well), perhaps the CoE will hold no special place other than
crowning monarchs as long as there are still monarchs to crown. I can't
see
the Tories (who I will assume, unless a miracle like finding WMDs in Iraq
occurs, gain power next year) pursuing any changes, but rather trying to
maintain the status quo.
S'ok - the Tories don't have a chance. Local elections have pushed them
into 3rd place behind the Liberal Democrats and they have no viable policies
to call their own. Teflon Tony may not scrape through unscathed this time
but there currently isn't a strong alternative to Labour right now
This is all the musings of a Canadian, of course, whose own country does
have seperation of church and state, and just kept a party from achieving
power because it was a little too socially conservative with some obvious
links to religious conservativism as well. HOwever, I do keep an eye open
across the pond at our former colonial masters and permanent residence of
our head of state. Britain seems to be going through some interesting
changes.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
05 Aug 2004 12:45:53 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 16:07:34 +0000 (UTC),
Mark K. Bilbo <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
Maybe European members of the ng can correct me but the view from here is
that the remaining "official" status of the churches in Europe is an
anachronism. The "official" churches don't appear to have any actual
political power, the states don't seem to be meddling in religion in any
significant way, and the public seems more adamant on maintaining a
secular state than the US public with "official" separation.
The Church of England certainly still has a constitutional role in Britain
(at least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland). It doesn't quite
equate to political power any more, but it certainly does hold a special
place in
the governing structure of the UK. I suspect that that will change within
a
generation. Prince Charles has, in the past, made some utterance about
changing the oath upon his coronation from "Defender of the Faith" to
"Defender of the Faiths", which sounds distinctly like, from his limited
monarchial role (if he ever gets on the throne), he intends to distance
the
throne from the CoE. Not exactly disestablishment, of course, but a
pretty big move in an apparatus that has become as conservative as the
British monarchy.
Of course, "Defender of the Faith" was a title bestowed upon Henry VIII by
the Pope before a little local difficulty involving divorce...
Which gives an idea of quite how relevant the title is.
However, with the big changes that Labour is making to the constitutional
structure of the UK (the House of Lords in particular, but limited
devolution as well), perhaps the CoE will hold no special place other than
crowning monarchs as long as there are still monarchs to crown. I can't
see the Tories (who I will assume, unless a miracle like finding WMDs in
Iraq occurs, gain power next year) pursuing any changes, but rather trying
to maintain the status quo.
The abolition of the House of Lords is icnreasingluy looking like an attempt
to increase the power of the PM (who controls the Commons) rather than to
extend democracy,
This is all the musings of a Canadian, of course, whose own country does
have seperation of church and state, and just kept a party from achieving
power because it was a little too socially conservative with some obvious
links to religious conservativism as well. HOwever, I do keep an eye open
across the pond at our former colonial masters and permanent residence of
our head of state. Britain seems to be going through some interesting
changes.
Unfortunately, that is in many respects for Chinese values of interesting...
--
Robin Levett
rlevett@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
06 Aug 2004 04:45:18 PM |
|
|
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<pv6au1-gr7.ln1@grendel.hayesway>...
AC wrote:
However, with the big changes that Labour is making to the constitutional
structure of the UK (the House of Lords in particular, but limited
devolution as well), perhaps the CoE will hold no special place other than
crowning monarchs as long as there are still monarchs to crown. I can't
see the Tories (who I will assume, unless a miracle like finding WMDs in
Iraq occurs, gain power next year) pursuing any changes, but rather trying
to maintain the status quo.
The abolition of the House of Lords is icnreasingluy looking like an attempt
to increase the power of the PM (who controls the Commons) rather than to
extend democracy,
Well nothing happens politically without somebody thinking they have
something to gain, but as a rabid democrat on the rebellious side of
the pond, I say, out with them!
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no
person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall,
without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument,
office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or
foreign state.
That this clear rebuke did not immediately move the English to the
spirit of reform is most unfortunate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheocracy at work: China arrests 100 church leaders |
09 Aug 2004 01:45:12 PM |
|
|
Hypatia Kosh wrote:
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<pv6au1-gr7.ln1@grendel.hayesway>...
AC wrote:
However, with the big changes that Labour is making to the
constitutional structure of the UK (the House of Lords in particular,
but limited devolution as well), perhaps the CoE will hold no special
place other than
crowning monarchs as long as there are still monarchs to crown. I
can't see the Tories (who I will assume, unless a miracle like finding
WMDs in Iraq occurs, gain power next year) pursuing any changes, but
rather trying to maintain the status quo.
The abolition of the House of Lords is icnreasingluy looking like an
attempt to increase the power of the PM (who controls the Commons) rather
than to extend democracy,
Well nothing happens politically without somebody thinking they have
something to gain, but as a rabid democrat on the rebellious side of
the pond, I say, out with them!
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no
person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall,
without the co | | | | | |
