PM said it's easier to be Jewish or Muslim in Britain than in a secular country like France <LI>Britons 'treasured' responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love and pride in working for the common good, says PM

<LI>Even admitted he was only a 'vaguely practising' Christian with 'full of doubts' about theological issues

David Cameron last night called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to lead a return to the ‘moral code’ of the Bible.

In a highly personal speech about faith, the Prime Minister accused Dr Rowan Williams of failing to speak ‘to the whole nation’ when he criticised Government austerity policies and expressed sympathy with the summer rioters.

Mr Cameron declared Britain ‘a Christian country’ and said politicians and churchmen should not be afraid to say so.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075205/Speak-Christianity-Cameron-tells-Archbishop-PM-calls-Church-defend-values-moral-code-Bible.html#ixzz1gmbnWc1U

this is 2 times in 1 week that the PM is actually acting well ! , must be voting time soon

Not being much of a religious person (I used to go to a C of E Church when I was young and now go to a Buddhist Temple when invited) I find the difference between the 'moral codes' of Christianity and Buddhism rather telling.

The 10 Commandments:

1. You shall have no other Gods but me.

2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.

4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

5. Respect your father and mother.

6. You must not kill.

7. You must not commit adultery.

8. You must not steal.

9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.

10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

The 5 Precepts:

1. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life.

2. I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.

3. I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.

4. I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.

5. I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

40% of the Commandments revolve around a God who appears to be very egotistical. It's not until commandment 5 that we get to how you should deal with your fellow humans. The precepts start with what is probably the most important instruction of all whereas we have to wait until the 6th Commandment in Christianity.

Which is more important, your relationship with God (supposing you believe in one), or your relationship with your fellow humans? The first concerns eternity, the second only a short lifetime.

Buddhism has no God, so its precepts only deal with the second part. They contain nothing about family values; otherwise only the last one differs from Christianity's Ten Commandments (apart from the different style of wording). I won't try to argue which is more important!

As I understand it Buddhism shows the path to escape from eternity, not a means of perpetuating it.

My grandfather, along with a dozen others, founded a church just over a century ago, because there was a feeling in the community that the existing churches were too 'low'.

I went with my mother to the centenary celebration and met there the vicar - only the third incumbent in the 100 years that the church had operated.

We had all the traditional trappings, the vestments, the smoking handbag and so on.

This church - high church, traditional, no 'happy clappy' congregation but a very active congregation - represents to me what a church should be - a guiding light for good, a supporter of traditional family values and carrying out many community works, such as scouts and guides troops.

Both George Carey and Archbishop Rowan Williams were invited (this was about the time of Robert Runcie's death - but I believe he attended as well), but Rowan Williams was 'too busy' to attend. Not his idea of C of E church you see.

The man has done more harm to the Church than anyone since Mary Tudor.

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

have you been in the uk recently ??

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

have you been in the uk recently ??

I have and am. You? Whereabouts do you live Boater? How much time do you spend in England? When was the last time you went to church?

I live in a Midlands town which has quite a large population of immigrants both Asian and Caribbean. Within walking distance from my house we have 3 Christian churches and 2 C of E schools. Throughout the county we have dozens, possibly hundreds of Christian churches of various denominations. We also have ONE mosque, ONE Gurdwara and ONE Buddhist temple. We have a country where Christianity is the Established religion. We have a country where 26 UNELECTED bishops sit in the House of Lords and decide the law of the land.

It's about time that Christians realised that England is a country that enjoys religious freedom. That freedom includes freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion.

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

+1

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

have you been in the uk recently ??

I have and am. You? Whereabouts do you live Boater? How much time do you spend in England? When was the last time you went to church?

I live in a Midlands town which has quite a large population of immigrants both Asian and Caribbean. Within walking distance from my house we have 3 Christian churches and 2 C of E schools. Throughout the county we have dozens, possibly hundreds of Christian churches of various denominations. We also have ONE mosque, ONE Gurdwara and ONE Buddhist temple. We have a country where Christianity is the Established religion. We have a country where 26 UNELECTED bishops sit in the House of Lords and decide the law of the land.

It's about time that Christians realised that England is a country that enjoys religious freedom. That freedom includes freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion.

It's about time that Christians in England got more positive about their faith. The church HB refers to sounds like what is needed (not a church with PC frills!).

BTW, the House of Lords does not decide the law of the land; it can make suggestions, and delay legislation for a year, but that's all.

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

have you been in the uk recently ??

I have and am. You? Whereabouts do you live Boater? How much time do you spend in England? When was the last time you went to church?

I live in a Midlands town which has quite a large population of immigrants both Asian and Caribbean. Within walking distance from my house we have 3 Christian churches and 2 C of E schools. Throughout the county we have dozens, possibly hundreds of Christian churches of various denominations. We also have ONE mosque, ONE Gurdwara and ONE Buddhist temple. We have a country where Christianity is the Established religion. We have a country where 26 UNELECTED bishops sit in the House of Lords and decide the law of the land.

It's about time that Christians realised that England is a country that enjoys religious freedom. That freedom includes freedom FROM religion as well as freedom of religion.

It's about time that Christians in England got more positive about their faith. The church HB refers to sounds like what is needed (not a church with PC frills!).

BTW, the House of Lords does not decide the law of the land; it can make suggestions, and delay legislation for a year, but that's all.

It's about time that Christians got on with their faith without constantly complaining that they aren't top dog any more. I have huge admiration for some parts of the Christian church (notably Sally's Army and the Society of Friends) but the whiney Anglicans - always complaining that no-one takes any notice of them - get on my nerves. The Salvation Army and the Quakers just go out and do stuff without expecting a round of applause.

The fact remains that 26 UNELECTED churchmen take part in the legislative process.

I am not a practicing Christian; but:-

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

Nurse faces the sack for refusing to take off her cross

While the Trust has banned the crucifix in its wards, it makes concessions for other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear headscarves on duty.

The fact remains that 26 UNELECTED churchmen take part in the legislative process.

None of the (as at 1/12/11) 788 members of the House of Lords have been elected to their position!

The fact remains that 26 UNELECTED churchmen take part in the legislative process.

None of the (as at 1/12/11) 788 members of the House of Lords have been elected to their position!

That's another thread altogether

I am not a practicing Christian; but:-

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

Nurse faces the sack for refusing to take off her cross

While the Trust has banned the crucifix in its wards, it makes concessions for other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear headscarves on duty.

From the same article:

"Shirley Chaplin, a committed Christian, has been told by her employers that she must hide or remove the cross or remain out of the hospital wards."

From the Daily Mail:

"Her case was rejected after employment tribunal panel chairman John Hollow ruled the hospital trust had acted in a 'reasonable' manner in trying to reach a compromise.

He said the damage to Mrs Chaplin was 'slight' and she should have accepted one of the hospital's compromises, including pinning the cross to her uniform.

He said the hospital had treated staff from ethnic minorities equally by ordering Sikhs to remove bangles and Muslim doctors to switch to tight-fitting sports hijabs."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263985/Shirley-Chaplin-Crucifix-row-nurse-loses-discrimination-case.html#ixzz1gt8Oni5h

I am not a practicing Christian; but:-

Oh, those poor, poor Christians- they're so set upon and discriminated against in the Western world. Cameron is certainly and clearly a member of a disadvantaged minority.

Nurse faces the sack for refusing to take off her cross

While the Trust has banned the crucifix in its wards, it makes concessions for other faiths, including allowing Muslim nurses to wear headscarves on duty.

From the same article:

"Shirley Chaplin, a committed Christian, has been told by her employers that she must hide or remove the cross or remain out of the hospital wards."

From the Daily Mail:

"Her case was rejected after employment tribunal panel chairman John Hollow ruled the hospital trust had acted in a 'reasonable' manner in trying to reach a compromise.

He said the damage to Mrs Chaplin was 'slight' and she should have accepted one of the hospital's compromises, including pinning the cross to her uniform.

He said the hospital had treated staff from ethnic minorities equally by ordering Sikhs to remove bangles and Muslim doctors to switch to tight-fitting sports hijabs."

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1gt8Oni5h

I'm not a practising necklace-wearer, but it would seem prudent to tuck it inside one's clothing, or perhaps pin the pendant in place. In the modern world, there are all sorts of ways that ancient religious symbols can be worn consistent with the most bureaucratic of HSE regulations. Of course, if one is fed up with one's job, it could also offer up the opportunity for a constructive dismissal claim.

SC

The fact remains that 26 UNELECTED churchmen take part in the legislative process.

None of the (as at 1/12/11) 788 members of the House of Lords have been elected to their position!

That's another thread altogether

And it makes your point of 26 churchmen totally and completely meaningless. I'm American and don't know all the details about your system but I expected you to and believed you (my mistake it turns out). When I first read your post about the "26 UNELECTED bishops sit in the House of Lords and decide the law of the land. " I was appalled. Then it came out that they can only make suggestions. OK, but they are still involved at a high level. THEN it comes out that ALL members of the House of Lords are unelected. Were you purposely trying to mislead?

The fact remains that 26 UNELECTED churchmen take part in the legislative process.

None of the (as at 1/12/11) 788 members of the House of Lords have been elected to their position!

That's another thread altogether

And it makes your point of 26 churchmen totally and completely meaningless. I'm American and don't know all the details about your system but I expected you to and believed you (my mistake it turns out). When I first read your post about the "26 UNELECTED bishops sit in the House of Lords and decide the law of the land. " I was appalled. Then it came out that they can only make suggestions. OK, but they are still involved at a high level. THEN it comes out that ALL members of the House of Lords are unelected. Were you purposely trying to mislead?

No I was pointing out that they hold their positions purely based on their rank in the Church of England. No other religious (not even members of other Christian denominations) get a free ride into the law-making process.

The other members of the House of Lords are either hereditary (although there are only 90 left) and life peers who are appointed usually after a life in politics, public life, the sciences or medicine.

Legislation (apart from that involving finance) can be introduced in the House of Lords so they can 'decide the law of the land' as they are able to introduce it into the parliamentary system.

More details are available at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

BTW can the outrage and stop implying that I'm a liar.

Koheesti, do you explain in detail all parts of the American system when you refer to them? I don't think so. No more can you expect Endure (or other English posters) to explain all details of the English system.

It's true that the C of E Bishops can theoretically propose legislation, and can vote in the House of Lords, but they are so small a minority that they have very little impact. But having them there is part of a very old tradition.

As a Catholic, of course I would like to see the Catholic Archbishops (as a minimum) also in the Lords. There is a way it could be done, by appointing them Life Peers. The same applies to the leaders of the Muslims and the Jews... but you would have to start juggling figures to work out how many seats to give them.

I'm not a practising necklace-wearer, but it would seem prudent to tuck it inside one's clothing, or perhaps pin the pendant in place. In the modern world, there are all sorts of ways that ancient religious symbols can be worn consistent with the most bureaucratic of HSE regulations. Of course, if one is fed up with one's job, it could also offer up the opportunity for a constructive dismissal claim.

SC

I hope you were at the office when you wrote this SC. Preferably sitting in your leather swivel chair and with your secretary blowing the steam off your coffee.

I'm not a practising necklace-wearer, but it would seem prudent to tuck it inside one's clothing, or perhaps pin the pendant in place. In the modern world, there are all sorts of ways that ancient religious symbols can be worn consistent with the most bureaucratic of HSE regulations. Of course, if one is fed up with one's job, it could also offer up the opportunity for a constructive dismissal claim.

SC

I hope you were at the office when you wrote this SC. Preferably sitting in your leather swivel chair and with your secretary blowing the steam off your coffee.

I was trying to invent ridiculous safety requirements to cripple our business.

Actually, our safety officer resigned because no-one took him seriously...

SC

Koheesti, do you explain in detail all parts of the American system when you refer to them? I don't think so. No more can you expect Endure (or other English posters) to explain all details of the English system.

I'm not asking anyone to constantly explain anything. In this case I accepted that he knew what he was talking about being from the UK and it turns out that he does, but he just felt like spinning and misleading.

As for other Churches not having the same authority, well, it is the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Who set that up? The governing authority of England perhaps? If you guys had stuck with the Catholic Church then you wouldn't have to worry about clerics in the House of Lords.

Koheesti, do you explain in detail all parts of the American system when you refer to them? I don't think so. No more can you expect Endure (or other English posters) to explain all details of the English system.

I'm not asking anyone to constantly explain anything. In this case I accepted that he knew what he was talking about being from the UK and it turns out that he does, but he just felt like spinning and misleading.

As for other Churches not having the same authority, well, it is the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Who set that up? The governing authority of England perhaps? If you guys had stuck with the Catholic Church then you wouldn't have to worry about clerics in the House of Lords.

As a Catholic, of course I agree with you, Koheesti. The Church of England was established because Henry VIII wanted to marry a new wife... but in the contemporary situation, it would have happened anyway.

Koheesti, do you explain in detail all parts of the American system when you refer to them? I don't think so. No more can you expect Endure (or other English posters) to explain all details of the English system.

I'm not asking anyone to constantly explain anything. In this case I accepted that he knew what he was talking about being from the UK and it turns out that he does, but he just felt like spinning and misleading.

As for other Churches not having the same authority, well, it is the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Who set that up? The governing authority of England perhaps? If you guys had stuck with the Catholic Church then you wouldn't have to worry about clerics in the House of Lords.

The whole point of the Church of England was to deny the foreign church influence in England.

Personally, I see no harm in having the bishops in the House of Lords; they probably understand our more enthusiastic members of other religions better than most of the other members of government, even if they do not read the same scriptures.

SC

SC

Koheesti, do you explain in detail all parts of the American system when you refer to them? I don't think so. No more can you expect Endure (or other English posters) to explain all details of the English system.

I'm not asking anyone to constantly explain anything. In this case I accepted that he knew what he was talking about being from the UK and it turns out that he does, but he just felt like spinning and misleading.

As for other Churches not having the same authority, well, it is the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Who set that up? The governing authority of England perhaps? If you guys had stuck with the Catholic Church then you wouldn't have to worry about clerics in the House of Lords.

The whole point of the Church of England was to deny the foreign church influence in England.

Personally, I see no harm in having the bishops in the House of Lords; they probably understand our more enthusiastic members of other religions better than most of the other members of government, even if they do not read the same scriptures.

SC

SC

Should C of E bishops have a say on any Scottish legislation? Surely we should send down a crack team of Wee Free Presbyterians to flush them out!

Koheesti, do you explain in detail all parts of the American system when you refer to them? I don't think so. No more can you expect Endure (or other English posters) to explain all details of the English system.

I'm not asking anyone to constantly explain anything. In this case I accepted that he knew what he was talking about being from the UK and it turns out that he does, but he just felt like spinning and misleading.

As for other Churches not having the same authority, well, it is the CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Who set that up? The governing authority of England perhaps? If you guys had stuck with the Catholic Church then you wouldn't have to worry about clerics in the House of Lords.

The whole point of the Church of England was to deny the foreign church influence in England.

Personally, I see no harm in having the bishops in the House of Lords; they probably understand our more enthusiastic members of other religions better than most of the other members of government, even if they do not read the same scriptures.

SC

Should C of E bishops have a say on any Scottish legislation? Surely we should send down a crack team of Wee Free Presbyterians to flush them out!

Its similar to the Linlithgow (? Falkirk ? Kilmarnock ? I did a quick search and couldn't find the answer) Question: Should MPs from Scotland get to vote in the British parliament on legislation for England when the equivalent legislation in Scotland is governed by the Scottish Parliament?

Personally, I have no objection to the bishops, since they are effectively the spiritual advisors to our head of state, our dear old Queen. As I understand it, the Anglican doctrine is that authority flows down from God, via the Head of the Church, her Bishops to their ministers, while presbyterians appoint their own ministers who in turn govern the church through their General Assembly.

The Church of Scotland, perhaps.... but the Wee Frees I would draw the line at!

Basically it boils down to the fact that most British are pathetically apologetic about their own culture. Few of them have any sense of national pride and what identity there is seems to get continually diluted by legislation. To have any grasp on a national identity it can't encompass every religion, ethnic grouping, language in the world.

The Church of Scotland, perhaps.... but the Wee Frees I would draw the line at!

More fire and brimstone please!