Church and politics
Discussion
So Dr Rowan Williams has waded into the politics surrounding the protest outside St Pauls by suggesting bankers should be taxed more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8863794/A...
Quite aside from the fact that tax on bankers should be at 120%, it feels to me that this a long way beyond his mandate as leader of the Church of England. There are far too many people with an oar in the s
t stew of politics of this country without the Church getting involved. We live in a secular state for a very good reason Dr Williams. I like it that way, so shut yer hole eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8863794/A...
Quite aside from the fact that tax on bankers should be at 120%, it feels to me that this a long way beyond his mandate as leader of the Church of England. There are far too many people with an oar in the s
t stew of politics of this country without the Church getting involved. We live in a secular state for a very good reason Dr Williams. I like it that way, so shut yer hole eh?
Rocksteadyeddie said:
So Dr Rowan Williams has waded into the politics surrounding the protest outside St Pauls by suggesting bankers should be taxed more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8863794/A...
Quite aside from the fact that tax on bankers should be at 120%, it feels to me that this a long way beyond his mandate as leader of the Church of England. There are far too many people with an oar in the st stew of politics of this country without the Church getting involved. We live in a secular state for a very good reason Dr Williams. I like it that way, so shut yer hole eh?
As I wrote on a 'friends' FB yesterday in response to her Robin Hood tax, when can we tax failed politicians for creating record deficits through govt plofligacy?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8863794/A...
Quite aside from the fact that tax on bankers should be at 120%, it feels to me that this a long way beyond his mandate as leader of the Church of England. There are far too many people with an oar in the s
t stew of politics of this country without the Church getting involved. We live in a secular state for a very good reason Dr Williams. I like it that way, so shut yer hole eh?Rocksteadyeddie said:
So Dr Rowan Williams has waded into the politics surrounding the protest outside St Pauls by suggesting bankers should be taxed more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8863794/A...
Quite aside from the fact that tax on bankers should be at 120%, it feels to me that this a long way beyond his mandate as leader of the Church of England. There are far too many people with an oar in the st stew of politics of this country without the Church getting involved. We live in a secular state for a very good reason Dr Williams. I like it that way, so shut yer hole eh?
stones and glasshouses comes to mind!!! maybe he should look at vast wealth the CofE holds and how and where its invested http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8863794/A...
Quite aside from the fact that tax on bankers should be at 120%, it feels to me that this a long way beyond his mandate as leader of the Church of England. There are far too many people with an oar in the s
t stew of politics of this country without the Church getting involved. We live in a secular state for a very good reason Dr Williams. I like it that way, so shut yer hole eh?
If churches are to have any relevance to people and society then, by default, they are goimg to make comments that people will look on as political. It was always thus. Jesus was killed as much for his threat to the political status quo of his time and place than over any theological issues.
Britain is almost unique within the western world in that the Church of England is "established" i.e a fundamental part of the ruling ethos. Indeed, Britain as we know it today came about because of religious differences in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Ironically, countries which we sometimes think as being too dominated by religion, the US or Republic of Ireland, for example, do not have officially recognised churches and indeed have constitutions that specifically state the limits of church influence.
Britain is almost unique within the western world in that the Church of England is "established" i.e a fundamental part of the ruling ethos. Indeed, Britain as we know it today came about because of religious differences in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Ironically, countries which we sometimes think as being too dominated by religion, the US or Republic of Ireland, for example, do not have officially recognised churches and indeed have constitutions that specifically state the limits of church influence.
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 2nd November 08:07
DocJock said:
We don't live in a secular state though, do we?
Our political system reserves seats in the House of Lords for senior clerics and our Royal Family requires membership of the CoE.
I'm not sure that a handful of seats in the upper chamber, and a Royal Family with no practical power consitutes not being a secular state.Our political system reserves seats in the House of Lords for senior clerics and our Royal Family requires membership of the CoE.
I have to agree with the OP. Williams is at best a theocratic pulpit politician. But you have to remember, he's only towing the party line and bowing to his real masters.
The Vatican made a much broader statement the other day http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS2642... which is far more significant.
The move to global integration is fast approaching whether we want it or not, so it would seem.
The Vatican made a much broader statement the other day http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS2642... which is far more significant.
The move to global integration is fast approaching whether we want it or not, so it would seem.
Eric Mc said:
If churches are to have any relevance to people and society then, by default, they are goimg to make comments that people will look on as political. It was always thus. Jesus was killed as much for his threat to the political status quo of his time and place than over any theological issues.
Do they need to ? It's another club for like minded individuals. I don't expect PH to have a political standpoint yet it is far more relevant in my life than the church. If people wish to attend the "church club" then that is their right. But the club has no role in politics. If that is what they want to be then they should form an overtly political wing and put their view points across to the electorate. Rocksteadyeddie said:
Eric Mc said:
If churches are to have any relevance to people and society then, by default, they are goimg to make comments that people will look on as political. It was always thus. Jesus was killed as much for his threat to the political status quo of his time and place than over any theological issues.
Do they need to ? It's another club for like minded individuals. I don't expect PH to have a political standpoint yet it is far more relevant in my life than the church. If people wish to attend the "church club" then that is their right. But the club has no role in politics. If that is what they want to be then they should form an overtly political wing and put their view points across to the electorate. What I DO NOT like is when a church (or any other body - including the vastly more numerous secular bodies that try to influence matters) - has UNDUE influence. This was the case in Ireland where the Catholic Church seemed to hold a "special position" regarding the way the country was run and were far too involved (and still is to some extent) in the management and running of ostensibly secular activities, such as education and health care.
However, I would never want them to be shut up. They are entitled to their say, just like you and me.
Eric Mc said:
We live in a country of free speech (so I've always thought). On that basis, every individual or organisation is entitled to have its say - including churches. Whether people allow themselves to be influenced by such contributions to national debate is down to them. I would NEVER advocate laws preventing groups or organisations being able to give their opinions on ALL matters.
What I DO NOT like is when a church (or any other body - including the vastly more numerous secular bodies that try to influence matters) - has UNDUE influence. This was the case in Ireland where the Catholic Church seemed to hold a "special position" regarding the way the country was run and were far too involved (and still is to some extent) in the management and running of ostensibly secular activities, such as education and health care.
However, I would never want them to be shut up. They are entitled to their say, just like you and me.
The issue is that they have a voice dispropotionate to their support. Approx 10% of the population attends church in the UK. 30% of households shop in Tesco. I don't expect Philip Clarke to be on the front page opining on the number of hospital openings, any more than I want Dr Williams opining on things he knows equally little about. What I DO NOT like is when a church (or any other body - including the vastly more numerous secular bodies that try to influence matters) - has UNDUE influence. This was the case in Ireland where the Catholic Church seemed to hold a "special position" regarding the way the country was run and were far too involved (and still is to some extent) in the management and running of ostensibly secular activities, such as education and health care.
However, I would never want them to be shut up. They are entitled to their say, just like you and me.
Eric Mc said:
Bing o said:
I wouldn't trust the vatican with a 12 year old boy, let alone the global economy.
The Vatican is a building and/or a self-governing state.Are you suggesting that all or most Catholic priests as paedophiles?
Bing o said:
Eric Mc said:
Bing o said:
I wouldn't trust the vatican with a 12 year old boy, let alone the global economy.
The Vatican is a building and/or a self-governing state.Are you suggesting that all or most Catholic priests as paedophiles?
Eric Mc said:
Bing o said:
Eric Mc said:
Bing o said:
I wouldn't trust the vatican with a 12 year old boy, let alone the global economy.
The Vatican is a building and/or a self-governing state.Are you suggesting that all or most Catholic priests as paedophiles?
Rocksteadyeddie said:
Eric Mc said:
We live in a country of free speech (so I've always thought). On that basis, every individual or organisation is entitled to have its say - including churches. Whether people allow themselves to be influenced by such contributions to national debate is down to them. I would NEVER advocate laws preventing groups or organisations being able to give their opinions on ALL matters.
What I DO NOT like is when a church (or any other body - including the vastly more numerous secular bodies that try to influence matters) - has UNDUE influence. This was the case in Ireland where the Catholic Church seemed to hold a "special position" regarding the way the country was run and were far too involved (and still is to some extent) in the management and running of ostensibly secular activities, such as education and health care.
However, I would never want them to be shut up. They are entitled to their say, just like you and me.
The issue is that they have a voice dispropotionate to their support. Approx 10% of the population attends church in the UK. 30% of households shop in Tesco. I don't expect Philip Clarke to be on the front page opining on the number of hospital openings, any more than I want Dr Williams opining on things he knows equally little about. What I DO NOT like is when a church (or any other body - including the vastly more numerous secular bodies that try to influence matters) - has UNDUE influence. This was the case in Ireland where the Catholic Church seemed to hold a "special position" regarding the way the country was run and were far too involved (and still is to some extent) in the management and running of ostensibly secular activities, such as education and health care.
However, I would never want them to be shut up. They are entitled to their say, just like you and me.
I have no problem with any of this. I would much prefer these groups to have a voice than to have mechanisms which try to silence them. That smacks of government dictatorship which is far worse than having to listen to a group you may not agtree with.
Bing o said:
Eric Mc said:
Bing o said:
Eric Mc said:
Bing o said:
I wouldn't trust the vatican with a 12 year old boy, let alone the global economy.
The Vatican is a building and/or a self-governing state.Are you suggesting that all or most Catholic priests as paedophiles?
Eric Mc said:
You could say that for almost any group. Less than 10% of the population are involved with the CBI, or Friends of the Earth, or mums.net - but these groups all have some influence.
I have no problem with any of this. I would much prefer these groups to have a voice than to have mechanisms which try to silence them. That smacks of government dictatorship which is far worse than having to listen to a group you may not agtree with.
I guess the issue is that certain groups (not aimed at the church necessarily) can then claim discrimniation to silence other's viewpoints - travellers, ROPers etc.I have no problem with any of this. I would much prefer these groups to have a voice than to have mechanisms which try to silence them. That smacks of government dictatorship which is far worse than having to listen to a group you may not agtree with.
Exactly.
There is an interesting development going on in Scotland at the moment. The Scottish parliament is hoping to bring in legislation to ban racist and religious inspired chanting at football matches and elsewhere (we all know why).
Ironically, a group of Rangers and Celtic fans have clubbed together to lodge a joint protest against this law on the basis that they should have the right to insult each other.
Good on them, I say.
There is an interesting development going on in Scotland at the moment. The Scottish parliament is hoping to bring in legislation to ban racist and religious inspired chanting at football matches and elsewhere (we all know why).
Ironically, a group of Rangers and Celtic fans have clubbed together to lodge a joint protest against this law on the basis that they should have the right to insult each other.
Good on them, I say.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff