Theological Opinions , PART II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No - why? It came about because of the king. It is a very good example of what I am talking about. It was an invented religion based on the needs of a king, not on spiritual belief.

See what Last Child of Ungoliant already posted about the system of choosing state religion for the modern England.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

See what Last Child of Ungoliant already posted about the system of choosing state religion for the modern England.

That isn't a STATE reglion - that is an OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED RELIGION - there is a difference. The state religion is the Church of England. What he was talking about was if so many people claim to belong to a particular religion on a census form - then it is officially RECOGNISED as a religion. In other words - if I can convince 500,000 people to worship me - and have them put the Church of the JerseyDevil on their census forms - then it becomes a recognised religion in England. That is very different than it being the state religion - which is and has been the Church of England since Henry VIII created it so he didn't have to listen to the Pope. To this day - the reigning monarch is the head of the church in England.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

if 500,000 people state a certain religion as their religion on their census returns, it becomas one of the official religions of britain, there was a plot for Jedi to become an official religion by the Sun newspaper last time (2001)

They nearly made it then. Loads did cite Jedi as their religion on the most recent census, and it was coded on the official census form.
Jedi makes the census form;
390,000 Jedi Knights

However, this doesn't even make it an officially recognised religion. It does make it an officially recognised tactic for getting 20-something nerds to fill in their census forms though.

[inked]

For JD and the role of the Monarch in CoE!

I had to put Church before Charles, says the Queen

By Andrew Alderson, Chief Reporter
THE TELEGRAPH

LONDON (4/3/2005)--The Queen has let it be known that the reason she will not be attending the wedding of the Prince of Wales is because she is putting her duties as the head of the Church of England before family feelings.

Heads together: the Queen takes her religious role very seriously She has told a friend that she feels it incompatible with her role as Supreme Governor of the Church to attend a civil marriage ceremony, particularly one involving the heir to the throne. She does not want to set a precedent that could damage the Church of England.

"I am not able to go. I do not feel that my position [as Supreme Governor of the Church] permits it," the Queen told her friend. Until now, it has been unclear why the Queen declined to attend the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles in Windsor on Friday.

It has been widely reported that the Queen would boycott the ceremony in the Guildhall because she did not want to attend a humiliating "town hall" service, but the real reason can now be revealed.

The Queen privately disapproves of the 33-year on-off relationship between Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles and feels that her eldest son has put personal concerns before duty. The Queen's friend told The Telegraph that Her Majesty had been disappointed that her decision not to attend the wedding had been portrayed as a "snub" to the couple when this is not the case. "The Queen feels she has to put her role with the Church before her role as a mother," said the friend.

A senior royal official said: "The Queen takes her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England incredibly seriously. She also has great personal faith."

Three senior courtiers told The Telegraph this weekend that the Queen had already informed Prince Charles that she would not be attending the civil ceremony even when he planned to hold it within Windsor Castle. The venue was switched in late February because of problems with using the castle.

One senior royal aide said: "The venue was never the issue for the Queen. The civil nature of the service is the issue. She did not feel it was appropriate for her to attend."

The Queen is attending the later service of dedication conducted by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. She is also hosting a wedding reception for more than 700 guests.

Royal officials do not believe that the Queen has ever attended a civil wedding service during her 53-year reign. It is also believed to be the first time that an heir to the throne has been married in a civil service. Some constitutional lawyers have questioned whether it is legal.

The explanation from Buckingham Palace about the non-attendance of the Queen and Prince Philip is that Prince Charles and Mrs Parker Bowles wanted a "low-key" ceremony. This has always been unconvincing, particularly after it was announced that the Princess Royal, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex would attend. One senior royal aide said that the Queen felt it would be undignified to spell out in a public statement her personal reasons for not attending the wedding. It might also be seen as implied criticism of Prince Charles, who will be the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England when he becomes king.

Hugo Vickers, a prolific author on the Royal Family who is writing a biography of the late Queen Mother, said that the Queen had never, to his knowledge, attended a civil ceremony.

"She is quite right not to attend - she is the head of the Church of England, after all. It never occurred to me that she would attend the register office ceremony and when people talk about it being a snub, it's nonsense. A snub is when no member of the Royal Family attended the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in Paris in 1937."

The Queen attended the second marriage of Princess Anne to Cdr Tim Laurence at Craithie Church, near Balmoral, in 1992 because it was held within the Church of Scotland, which had more relaxed rules on divorcés marrying in church.

END

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That isn't a STATE reglion - that is an OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED RELIGION - there is a difference. The state religion is the Church of England. What he was talking about was if so many people claim to belong to a particular religion on a census form - then it is officially RECOGNISED as a religion. In other words - if I can convince 500,000 people to worship me - and have them put the Church of the JerseyDevil on their census forms - then it becomes a recognised religion in England. That is very different than it being the state religion - which is and has been the Church of England since Henry VIII created it so he didn't have to listen to the Pope. To this day - the reigning monarch is the head of the church in England.

yes, that was EXACTLY what i was saying

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

For JD and the role of the Monarch in CoE!

I'm perfectly aware of the role of the monarch and the church of england. However - how in anyway does this contradict anything that I said regarding the Church of England. So what this THIS Queen hasa higher honor and wouldn't go because of being the head of the church. Give me a break.This is ONE monarch and ONE time period. Again - it seems that you and Lief have blinders on and don't want to look at the FULL picture.

[inked]

Hey, JD, I was supporting your contention, not contradicting it! CoE is an official state-sponsored religion. The Monarch is the head of the Coe.

JD: " Here you are only looking at the US and the FEW countries that have a seperation of church and state. Look at Britain - the head of state is the head of the church also and has an OFFICIAL religion."

Ba - dum - da - dum!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, JD, I was supporting your contention, not contradicting it! CoE is an official state-sponsored religion. The Monarch is the head of the Coe.

JD: " Here you are only looking at the US and the FEW countries that have a seperation of church and state. Look at Britain - the head of state is the head of the church also and has an OFFICIAL religion."

Ba - dum - da - dum!

Well it was hard to understand - because you didn't quote me on anything there. You just said " For JD and the role of the Monarch in CoE!" I thought you were trying to support Lief in some way with that post, as a demonstration that the monarch does not try to control the church (since you and lief seem to have been surpporting each other in the discussion). I understand now - I was a bit confused over it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

That isn't a STATE reglion - that is an OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED RELIGION - there is a difference. The state religion is the Church of England. What he was talking about was if so many people claim to belong to a particular religion on a census form - then it is officially RECOGNISED as a religion. In other words - if I can convince 500,000 people to worship me - and have them put the Church of the JerseyDevil on their census forms - then it becomes a recognised religion in England. That is very different than it being the state religion - which is and has been the Church of England since Henry VIII created it so he didn't have to listen to the Pope. To this day - the reigning monarch is the head of the church in England.

Thanks for sorting me out on that. I didn't understand how the process worked, properly.

It still doesn't show that the modern Church is "manipulating the masses," though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It still doesn't show that the modern Church is "manipulating the masses," though.

Again - where in my arguments do I restrict it to the MODERN church? If it wasn't fior Henry VIII not wanting to listen to the pope anymore - there would be no church of england.

BTW - there is this little issue between protestants and catholics that still rages on today you might have heard about.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Thanks for sorting me out on that. I didn't understand how the process worked, properly.

It still doesn't show that the modern Church is "manipulating the masses," though.

the fact that most policy has some form of religious grounding, and all policy must be 'approved' by the queen should be sufficient proof,

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Again - where in my arguments do I restrict it to the MODERN church? If it wasn't fior Henry VIII not wanting to listen to the pope anymore - there would be no church of england.

Nowhere did you restrict your arguments to the modern church. I agreed with your example of many of the medieval churches. In the past, political groups including the church have manipulated large numbers of people using religion. I definitely agree with you. I would be yelling and beating against a solid wall of history with my fists if I did not acknowledge that political groups have and still do manipulate masses through religion. This does happen and has happened. I repeat though, it does not necessarily say something about religion itself. Political groups manipulate the masses based on whatever is important to them. If racism fills people, political groups will rise to manipulate racism. If religion fills people, political groups will rise to manipulate religion. That's how politics works, very, very often. That doesn't necessarily say anything about religion itself. It says something about politics.

Neither Islam nor Christianity started based on politics. Islam turned toward politics extremely rapidly, but Christianity did not until several centuries had passed. I don't know about the other major religions, and how they relate to politics.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

BTW - there is this little issue between protestants and catholics that still rages on today you might have heard about.

Which of the Catholic/Protestant disagreements are you referring to, and how does it back your point about "religion manipulating the masses" in modern times?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by lief

Which of the Catholic/Protestant disagreements are you referring to, and how does it back your point about "religion manipulating the masses" in modern times?

lets start with Ireland, shall we?

[Janny]

Before we do, let's just make it clear that the dispute in Northern Ireland is as much political as it is religious, certainly these days, and representatives of both churches involved have frequently played the role of mediators and peacemakers.

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

the fact that most policy has some form of religious grounding, and all policy must be 'approved' by the queen should be sufficient proof,

What do you mean by "some sort of religious grounding"? The Church isn't customarily involved in the formation of government policy, though the beliefs of individual ministers may be. And as you probably know (guessing by your quotation marks ) the approval of the Queen is symbolic. It's related to her role as Head of State, not head of the Church.

/sun-star, back from a short break, now unable to log out of Janny's account

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

it may be not inherently related to her role as Head of CoE, but the roles of head of state and head of church are ultimately inseperable, and with reference to

the fact that most policy has some form of religious grounding

church dictates beliefs>ministers may be christian>they take beliefs to work>religous grounding in policy>policy becomes bill>bill becomes law>some things that should not have been forgotten were lost, oops wrong film

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

ministers may be christian>they take beliefs to work>religous grounding in policy>policy becomes bill>bill becomes law>some things that should not have been forgotten were lost, oops wrong film

It's the same in any of our societies that have real freedom of religion. If you take away people's right to use their personal religious beliefs when forming policy, that is outright discrimination. In the United States, thank God, we have the right to be atheists in government. In the United States, thank God, we have the right to be Christians in government. We have the right to have our beliefs influence our policy making choices. Thank God! If it weren't that way, then either religious or a-religious people in society would be suffering severe discrimination.

In medieval society and several societies since then, many times non-Christian or a-religious people have been discriminated against, refused public office because of their beliefs or lack thereof. Those beliefs would have influence policy. Some views were simply not permitted to have involved in policy-making. That was persecution from our camp. I think you believe this was wrong, just as I do.

Now what you're suggesting is the same essential thing. The people in the past thought, "non-Christians bring their incorrect views into policy and so mess with government! We must stop them!" What you're suggesting is the same thing. "Christians bring their incorrect views into policy and so mess with government! We must stop them!"

If people are religious, they should be allowed to bring those views into policy development. If people are a-religious, they should be able to bring their views into policy development. I'm highly against discrimination from either camp, or at least like to think I am.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

so am i except i believe that mp's ought to think a bit more objectively, and only to vote on issues that their constituents would want them to vote for, not what their moral or religious conscience tells them, they are there as representatives of the people, not as rulers or spiritual do-gooders

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

church dictates beliefs

Church also does not dictate beliefs for anyone. Government officials can believe what they want. Even amongst Christians, we are free from the Church in that we can form our own beliefs about things without the Church controlling us. Not every Anglican believes the same thing. Not every Baptist believes the same thing as the next Baptist, and so on. Church is not "controlling" government officials. It is not.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

so am i except i believe that mp's ought to think a bit more objectively, and only to vote on issues that their constituents would want them to vote for, not what their moral or religious conscience tells them, they are there as representatives of the people, not as rulers or spiritual do-gooders

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you rephrase?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

ok, i will try:
the people elect their representative to vote on issues in the way they would like it to be voted, the representative is not elected to vote however they feel
scenario:
candidate gets majority vote, the majority of the people in his constituency believe that hunting should be banned, the MP then votes not to ban hunting because he believes it is OK, that representative is not representing his electorate, which is the job he was chosen to do