|
07 Jul 15 - 01:45 PM (#3721696) Subject: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash In order not to bugger up someone else's thread I will ask the question here. What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state. For example the United Kingdom. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 01:48 PM (#3721699) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford If you mean democracies, I think the people should decide. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 01:55 PM (#3721703) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash I fully agree with that sentiment, if a clergyman wants to put themselves up for election fine, so how about the Bishops in the House of Lords. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 01:56 PM (#3721704) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome People in this particular democracy do not decide government policies though. Only a referendum on every issue would be a full democracy and this is not a practical proposition. People vote for whichever party is closest to their ideals and most often have to compromise on some of their wishes. In the last election people did not even do that. They voted against what they feared most as none of the parties seemed to offer anything positive. Anyway, in answer to the opening question, none at all. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM (#3721708) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Richard Bridge None. But then neither should Rupert Murdoch. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM (#3721709) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "I fully agree with that sentiment" Me too - let them all stand for election Not sure that's what Keith means though! Jim Carroll |
|
07 Jul 15 - 02:03 PM (#3721710) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Don Firth I agree with Dave. The church should have no say in government. Which is to say, they should be free to howl and squawk all they want, but they should have no actual governmental control. Don Firth |
|
07 Jul 15 - 02:11 PM (#3721715) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford I fully agree with that sentiment, if a clergyman wants to put themselves up for election fine, so how about the Bishops in the House of Lords. But none of the Lords are elected! They are appointed by elected politicians, and so are the bishops. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 02:15 PM (#3721717) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "But none of the Lords are elected!" 'Bout time they were - but there is no reason why clergymen should be included in that - perhaps you might explain why they should? Did't think that's what you meant for one minute - democracy - pha! Jim Carroll |
|
07 Jul 15 - 02:43 PM (#3721720) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw I hate to demur from democratic sentiments, but elections for the Lords would be a disaster. The turnout would be so low as to make a mockery of the better democracy that was being aspired to. I think that there does need to be a higher authority that would provide a check on the Commons, but a chamberful of sleepy geriatrics who turn up for the £300 a day is not the answer. Discuss. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 03:12 PM (#3721729) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state.<.I> No fusking role whatsoever. Period. Nor should said church impose its dogma on non-menbers thereof. Full stop. (U.S. Republicans take note) |
|
07 Jul 15 - 03:21 PM (#3721733) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford In a democracy, the people should choose. (Greg take note) |
|
07 Jul 15 - 03:44 PM (#3721739) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX To repeat what I said on the other thread. I think the bishops and (other faith leaders) have a "consituency" and relevant experience in the same way as the trade union and business leaders and so on in the House of Lords have. They have to demonstrate merit to members of that constitiency to get to where they are. Them being there without nomination is an anachronism though. I also think election for the House of Lords would be a disaster. But so long as the Parliament Acts stayed in force (so they could only revise and delay) I think a more democratic and transparent nomination system might work. Someone (I think I remember who but may be wrong) said on an earlier thread words to the effect that some decisions were too complicated for referendums and that delegation to elected representatives was more appropriate. There might be an appointment system for the House of Lords that I would be happy to delegate my democratic rigths to. Maybe the sort of thing that the Appointments Commision does but with a different brief. There are enough lords that being there for life is no problem. It's not as if it was, say, the US Supreme Court. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 03:49 PM (#3721741) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,# "There are enough lords that being there for life is no problem." There's enough rope to make that possible. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 03:51 PM (#3721742) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX The other thread also included a context in which accumulated cultural tradition was given some respect and I think that moral views based on contempory interpretations of old books have value to many irrespective of whether they are attributed to supernatural beings or wiley old churchmen or iron age autocrats. As do things like the moral codes of Jedi knights - I'll get that in before someone else does. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 04:00 PM (#3721746) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX And my answer to the question in the OP is no direct role. And disestablish the church. I reckon that might happen when there is a change at the very top. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 06:16 PM (#3721793) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw In a democracy the people should choose what? Awkward, when you consider that in modern democracies people are lied to, not only by politicians but also by their media lackeys, and deliberately kept ignorant. Nice principle, let the people choose. If only the people were qualified to do so. Think I'm wrong? Four million people just voted UKIP... |
|
07 Jul 15 - 06:35 PM (#3721800) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Bill D "If you mean democracies, I think the people should decide." Oh, right...by simple majority? And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything? You need to think VERY carefully about the implications of generalizations stated as slogans. |
|
07 Jul 15 - 09:00 PM (#3721833) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Joe Offer I seem to be having a hard time getting the idea of separation of church and state across to conservative U.S. Catholics. I tried to convince them that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and the Doe v. Wade decision on abortion are matters of civil law, not matters of morality. They tell me that's contrary to Catholic Church teaching and that if that's what I think, I should get out of the church I was raised in. I try to control my temper. Same thing, of course, goes for "Christian" employers who don't want their employees to have the choice of birth control in their health insurance plans. If the employers and churches don't think it's moral to use birth control, then they shouldn't use birth control - but they shouldn't compel their employees to do the same. Once again, I'm told I don't belong in the Catholic Church where I got my Theology degree. I try to control my temper. -Joe- |
|
07 Jul 15 - 09:14 PM (#3721835) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw I admire your resolve to fight within, actually, Joe. I was always far too leftie for my trade union, the NUT, and in a drawer somewhere I have two treasured letters from the then general secretary, Fred Jarvis, threatening to boot me out if I didn't desist from organising unofficial action. I didn't desist and I didn't get booted out, in fact I went on to higher things (but I never sold my soul). In the end, getting out into the sunlit uplands was a great idea. I did that with my religion too. It takes courage but I'm glad I did it. Shaking off one lot of fetters has the surprising and pleasant consequence of making it easier to shake off lots of other baggage too. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 01:30 AM (#3721857) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Bill D, Oh, right...by simple majority? And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything? We have had this for a thousand years and it mostly works OK. In practice, the church does not try to circumvent the will of Parliament, and our prime minister has the final word on who is appointed a bishop. The church here is well to the Left politically. Like gay marriage, when enough people want change in a democracy it happens. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 02:00 AM (#3721862) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Joe Offer I dunno, Keith. The tyranny of the 51% vote has prolonged the oppression of a lot of minorities through the millennia. Constitutions can help assure that individual rights are not bulldozed by the majority, but constitutions don't always work the way they should. -Joe- |
|
08 Jul 15 - 02:49 AM (#3721869) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX We have had this for a thousand years "We"? Most people have had a heirarchy of auotocratic strongmen, each with a few henchmen. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:12 AM (#3721872) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Joe, it does work here. XX, We meaning UK. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:17 AM (#3721874) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Spleen Cringe We have had this for a thousand years Bullshit. The UK has only had universal suffrage since 1923. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:18 AM (#3721875) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "In a democracy, the people should choose." Repeating this without explanation is totally meaningless What are you suggesting - that they should put up for election - that there should be a referendum on the link between church and state... what??? As things have always stood, the church has been foisted on us without consultation and has been an integral part of the State, in many cases, having a dominant influence in temporal policies to the detriment of the people as a whole. As I said, that entitles us to an explanation of what they are about - why should we be ruled or even influenced by a bunch of mystics in the 21st century? Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:27 AM (#3721878) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Well under 51℅ of people voted for this government. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:09 AM (#3721885) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX "why should we be ruled or even influenced by a bunch of mystics in the 21st century?" We don't need an explanation about the mystic bit because we won't accept it anyway. We observe that they have a track record in engaging with a section of the population and then weigh up whether there is any benefit to the public as a whole in drawing on that. As with a political party or non-governmental advocacy group some will agree with their stance and some won't, and that will change as time goes on. Just as the moment the church in the UK is taking a view on many issues that is on the left-liberal side of the political spectrum. All* it gets is a few votes in a chamber that has to defer to the one we elect. * Not all of course, it can lobby in the background like many other organisations, but speed with which information can now be made public and transmitted makes it harder not to get noticed. One could argue that having 'representatives' of these groups in the House of Lords makes their stance and political involvement slightly more transparent - the old trick of putting someone on a 'commitee' where you can keep an eye on them. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:10 AM (#3721887) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford What are you suggesting - that they should put up for election - that there should be a referendum on the link between church and state... what??? As with gay marriage, when enough people in a democracy want change, it happens. Bullshit. The UK has only had universal suffrage since 1923. So what? Church and state have been linked for a thousand years. Well under 51℅ of people voted for this government. So what? |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:21 AM (#3721895) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans dog collar If people wish to influence society then standing for election is a good way. However, if it means dumbing down, insulting the intelligence of normal people with simpleton superstition and trying to enforce controlling of people by offering a rancid comfort blanket to the vulnerable, then forgive me if I ignore them. You see, running for political office means governing for everyone. As religions are by their own constitution misogynist, homophobic and bigoted, I fail to see what they have to offer anyone except middle aged men who don't give a flying fuck for others. Anyway, the Church of England is said to be the Conservative party at prayer, so god botherers should be happy now. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:30 AM (#3721900) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome It was in answer to Bill D's question "And if 51% the "people" decide to allow one particular church to decide everything?" |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:31 AM (#3721901) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford the Church of England is said to be the Conservative party at prayer, That has not been said for a long time. In recent years it has been known for opposing Tory policy. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:32 AM (#3721902) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "As with gay marriage, when enough people in a democracy want change, it happens." It seldom does, most outdated institutions wither away - referendums to bring abou#t real change are extremely rare in Britain, less so in Ireland. The establishment has a vested interest in keeping the Church on its side ad will never change that situation of its own free will. The voice of the people have no say in the matter and never will have Bang goes your democracy. So we have a bunch of mystics helping keep us is our place without having to account for its mysticism. Here, it to the rape of children to loosen the grasp the church had over the people - is the same to be the case for Britain? It is interesting that the establishment in (British) Northern Ireland are refusing to investigate clerical abuse there to the extent that the Southern Government has been forced to and that Amnesty International has mounted a campaign to get the matters investigated independently and fairly in British Ireland. Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:40 AM (#3721905) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX If people wish to influence society then standing for election is a good way. Yes, but so is, say, becoming a senior executive of an NGO and I'm not sure that my elected representative understands all issues well enough without hearing them discussed by knowledgeable people in a formal environment. That's mainly to Steve's topic drift House of Lords discussion, but the argument applies to faith leaders who have specialist knowledge of their communities. Politicians, by the nature of the game, make 'unholy' (in the metaphorical sense) alliances. People representing special interest groups can't do that so easily. I think government needs both those who have to compromise to get things done and those who don't need to. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 06:55 AM (#3721938) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash The UK is the only western democracy to allow a religious organisation the automatic right to sit in the legislature. Has the time has come when such factions should be debarred from any position of power within a democracy. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 06:57 AM (#3721939) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans rubric Ah well. In that case XX, I don't agree with the approach our government is taking on tackling the deficit, although I get some comfort in seeing somebody is taking it seriously. Yet the budget in under an hour's time will include the first steps in knocking off the superstitious law on Sunday trading, so great for them! Acheson. - The Conservative party and CofE have a fundamental similar approach. They both try telling the masses what is good for them whilst hiring experts in gilding their treasures whilst throwing a few bones your way. (Fook me, I almost sounded socialist then.. Must go and lie down.) |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:05 AM (#3721943) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Has the time has come when such factions should be debarred from any position of power within a democracy. That is up to the people of that democracy. That is what democracy means. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:18 AM (#3721945) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I don't think it needs a religious angle to support a shared day of rest. It could have been a cultural thing**. If a god didn't tell them to do it (even though that's the story) someone must have come up with the idea. It's not really practical in the UK anyway since they seem to have decided on different days. A lot of us now like to spend our days of doing the same sorts of things, so it gets busy if we do them on the same day, and those things use services that people get work from. So our culture has moved on. **I have heard it suggested that in some places very strict Sunday observance was as much about being able to stand up to the bosses as needing a whole day for worship. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:19 AM (#3721946) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Derrick Has the time has come when such factions should be debarred from any position of power within a democracy. That is up to the people of that democracy. That is what democracy means. The people of that democracy can only give their decision on the matter if they are asked the question in the first place. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:21 AM (#3721949) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX And in the UK the strictest observance in the last 150 years wasn't from followers of the established church. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:24 AM (#3721950) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash KAOH, I know you try and twist things with your bewilderingly perverse logic but the bishops in the House of Lords are not democratically elected. They are appointed. Look it up. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:25 AM (#3721951) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX The people of that democracy can only give their decision on the matter if they are asked the question in the first place. That can happen by political parties adopting it as policy because their research shows that there are votes in it. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:54 AM (#3721958) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Howard Jones In a characteristically British process of accident, compromise and fudge we have ended up with a constitutional setup which actually works quite well. Democracy is all well and good, but democratically elected parliaments have passed any number of daft laws (I'm sure we all have our own long lists). The House of Lords is now largely made up of people who have achieved eminence in a very wide range of fields and there are acknowledged experts on almost any topic you care to name. Its role is to revise and amend, and at times to tell the elected house not to be so bloody stupid, but it cannot overrule the elected house. The problem with single-chamber legislatures is that they lack this oversight. The problem with two elected chambers is that they may disagree and fight for supremacy, each claiming a democratic mandate. The British system has the best of both worlds, and the House of Lords itself recognises that it is subordinate to the Commons. Of course there is room for improvement, but I can see no need for the Lords to become elected and many disadvantages if this were to happen. Whether or not you agree with religion, it is important to a lot of people. I don't think it is inappropriate to have people in the House of Lords who can present a certain viewpoint and a certain moral perspective. The position of the CofE bishops is probably anacronistic, but their numbers have been reduced and other major religious viewpoints are in practice also represented. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM (#3721960) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash The fact is we do not live in a democracy, no matter how you try and paint it. One example of this is Bishops being appointed to the legislature. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM (#3721961) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Rag, the bishops in the House of Lords are not democratically elected. They are appointed. Look it up. I know. That is what I said. Look it up. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:03 AM (#3721962) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash See my post 07.59 |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:14 AM (#3721967) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome To give the thread a musical leaning Like a spiral in a spiral Like a wheel withing a wheel Never ending or beginning On an ever spinning reel It would wear anyone down eventually. Maybe that is the idea? |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:24 AM (#3721970) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I read it that Keith had opined that the debarring should be done through the democratic process. Odd that people did not think of reading it that way - and that he didn't realise they had misread. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM (#3721971) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash XX are you new to the wonderful world of KAOH logic? Definitions tend to change by the hour, if not minutes. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:37 AM (#3721972) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Rag, XX understood what I said. You failed to understand simple sentences like, "But none of the Lords are elected! They are appointed by elected politicians, and so are the bishops." I just do not know how to make it more accessible for you Rag. Sorry. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:47 AM (#3721974) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Mrrzy Just a question, but my understanding is that the UK has a government church, being the Church of England? |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:49 AM (#3721976) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash So it's NOT democratic is it.!!!! So we have established the Lords including the Bishop are not democratic we can return to the original post: What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 08:50 AM (#3721977) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "That is up to the people of that democracy." Democracy means having the wherewithal to remove them You have yet to suggest how that is possible There is no reason why any single body of unelected people should have the authority to bock parliamentary legislation - that is what democracy is NOT about. How do you suggest we go about removing them from office - wait for revelations of mass clerical abuse maybe. I fully realise that there is no way they can me removed in a 'democratic' society that only pays lip-service to democracy. You are still tiptoeing around the question By what right are they where they are and why shouldn't they be answerable? Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 09:01 AM (#3721982) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I have been lurking for a while. My observation is that Keith, like many of us, does not alway express himself clearly. If people wish to get others re-assess their outlook then I think nailing them on clearly expressed views, with no risk of being at cross-purposed, is most productive. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 09:13 AM (#3721985) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST There is no reason why any single body of unelected people should have the authority to bock parliamentary legislation They do not have that authority. That is what the Parliament Acts are for. Though we may be fortunate that the hereditary peers (now gone) being a completely bonkers anachronism was a major reason for them. Howard Jones put the situation very clearly above. At a UK level the House of Commons is where democracy happens. No blocking second chamber, no president, the monarch can't have influence - and neither can any deity. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 09:13 AM (#3721986) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash XX, I think you have more chance of plaiting fog than you have of KAOH being consistent in his definitions. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 09:18 AM (#3721988) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Fog can conceal changes in direction. (The response to Jim was me too) |
|
08 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM (#3721993) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Though we may be fortunate that the hereditary peers (now gone" There are still 90 hereditary peers and theer is no guarantee that any of them are appointed on merit - just by establishment approval Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 10:00 AM (#3721997) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX There is always going to be an 'establishment' in a democracy. We just need to get progressivly better at keeping an eye on it. It's not so long ago that you could not get a List of lords with some information so easily. And then go searching the web for more about their interests etc. My point was that with mainly non-hereditary lords the Parliament Acts would be less of a no-brainer so we may be lucky to have it. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 10:08 AM (#3721999) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Olddude Thomas Jefferson was once asked if a minister wanted to run for office is it Ok. Jefferson responded I would tell them don't do it, but don't you dare try to stop them from running. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 10:54 AM (#3722009) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford We do have an unelected second chamber, but we are still a democracy, and one of the better ones. (Not in your little world obviously Rag!) Jim, Democracy means having the wherewithal to remove them You have yet to suggest how that is possible How has so much reform already been achieved Jim? In a democracy, when enough people want change, it happens. We achieved gay marriage before you did Jim, and we did not need a referendum. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 11:07 AM (#3722011) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I don't see why it is neccessary to ask Keith to suggest how to remove them. Something like what has already been done perhaps? Why make a big deal of the obvious? |
|
08 Jul 15 - 11:15 AM (#3722018) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash Keith, I am tired of playing your silly little games, frankly I find them extremely tedious and infantile. Like others on this website I find it is impossible to conduct any kind of serious interchange with someone whose basic premis in any discussion is "I win" or "You Lose" I do not think you have sufficient intelligence to warrant any further conversations and from now on will not respond to your unintelligent utterances. You may respond as you wish, it will go unanswered and before you think or say it I do not lose. If anything you do, as there will be one less protaganist for you to cross swords with. Enjoy your ignorance. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 11:31 AM (#3722025) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Why make a big deal of the obvious" That implies the will of the establishment to remove them - which does not exist They are there democratically, and they cannot be removed democratically. They serve no purpose other than to keep us in our place, so, at the very least, they should be prepared to explain themselves. This only involves Keith inasmuch as he states that Christians have no need to make their case - they do if it involves our lives. Personally, I have no interest in Keith's opinions on the matter - we could have given it before he put finger to keyboard. "How has so much reform already been achieved Jim?" Often through centuries of struggle and hardship on the part of those who would bring about such changes. This should nit be necessary with something about as valid as bear-baiting - the Church serves no purpose in government - unless you can show us how it does, of course. There are plenty of examples of how it has proved a threat and an instrument of oppression - many as recent as The Magdelene Laundries and the child abuse scandal. "so we may be lucky to have it." Then you, like Keith, are free to show us how exactly. A pretty fair summing up And another "God given" duty to interfere There are plenty of examples of the church working to keep us a century or so behind the times - Gay marriage and pregnancy termination among them Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 11:31 AM (#3722026) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST Wondering why most religions operate in the "tax free" zone-when many operate more like a business (effectively, or otherwise). |
|
08 Jul 15 - 11:32 AM (#3722027) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "They are there democratically" That, of course, should read undemocratically Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM (#3722032) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX They serve no purpose other than to keep us in our place Jim. In his post above Howard Jones suggests that the House of Lords (which is where these bishops are) does have a purpose in the setup as it is. Which parts of that post do you not agree with ? |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:01 PM (#3722037) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST Wondering why most religions operate in the "tax free" zone-when many operate more like a business (effectively, or otherwise). Somewhere in here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/25/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/10/contents or "because they always have done" |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM (#3722038) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans sweeties to lure choirboys Mrrzy. Yes. The upper house, (a bit like the U.S. Senate but appointed) falls into The Lords Spiritual and The Lords Laity. The spiritual being the senior employees of The Anglican Church, of which The Queen is head. (Despite her being the boss, women have only been seen as equal in their hierarchy for the past few months.) I like how Parliament tries to operate and I like unelected people scrutinising policy, even though ultimately they cannot stop it becoming law. But giving one superstition bums on seats and not the others, or even any at all in these more enlightened times is a stain on our "mother of parliaments." To talk of historical precedents is irrelevant because they came from a time most people believed in an imaginary friend. Nowadays, the vast majority either ignore it or have a fondness for the tradition rather than the silly stuff. Raggy. You won't be able to stop yourself prodding Keith with a stick to get a reaction. If he insists on embarrassing himself, at least by doing so, he becomes occasional entertainment. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:14 PM (#3722041) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash Musket, I think I can have a more rational and intelligent conversation with my cats. At least I know exactly where they stand with them. I can provide food and they can,t be arsed to find their own. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:22 PM (#3722045) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Jim. In his post above Howard Jones suggests that the House of Lords (which is where these bishops are) does have a purpose in the setup as it is" The usefulness or otherwise of the House of Lords has been argued ad-nauseum without my ever being convinced that an appointed bunch of non-qualified toffs serve any purpose whatever in the grand order of things, but this is beside the point. My argument is that something as unworldly as the Church should have no part of this and has, comparatively recently, showed quite convincingly that they most certainly should not. You may as well appoint a group of milkmen - at least they don't come with a track record of long-term persecution, a claim of divine right and a belief in the unseeable and unprovable. I can see the logic of appointing representatives of industry (which should include both workers and management), but for the life of me, I can't see why priests should play any part in our lives without our having voluntarily requested them to do so. Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:23 PM (#3722047) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Bill D In the USA we are beginning our tedious process of electing a president- (every 4 years, beginning about 1 year after the previous election). Because the conservative party, the Republicans, is in disarray, they have put forth the largest group of candidates ever. Several of these are totally immersed in very conservative religious backgrounds..(Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Dr. Ben Carson.... and various others pay various degrees of homage to religiously based political positions. Our Constitution, on the face of it, is well-worded to allow freedom OF religion, while restricting/preventing "establishment" of any religion as a controlling influence in government. The problem is, the various fundamentalist groups seem unable to grasp that concept, and continue to throw out phrases like "we are a Christian nation". They seem to **believe** that all would be better if that silly restriction in the Constitution were discarded... or at least ignored and circumvented. Their point seems to be (though never expresses quite explicitly) that 'freedom of religion' includes the right to insert the 'right' religion(s) into every facet of life... including prayer in schools, banning of 'immoral' practices (abortion, same-sex marriage... etc.) We have had one Catholic president, JFK, who explicitly promised NOT to insert his private religious beliefs into government, and now Obama, while maintaining a personal religious belief, has carefully avoided crossing the line the Constitution sets out. There is little doubt that the Republicans I listed above would NOT restrain themselves, and would sign legislation put forth by a conservative Congress which would do what their religious beliefs suggest, while using all sorts of rhetorical devices to defend the practice in other ways. There have already been many clinics that include abortion as one service which have been closed without USING one word of religious language! Does anyone doubt that they would find similar language to attempt removing Roe v. Wade from the SCOTUS decisions? Keith A. continues to promote "democracy" as the proper way to decide controversy, while ignoring the many ways that it can be distorted to restrict basic human rights and favor those who manipulate the system to insert their narrow set of beliefs. He says: "That is up to the people of that democracy. That is what democracy means." No... that is not what democracy means. When 'majority rule' includes controlling who is allowed to vote and how the very language of what they are allowed to vote FOR is worded, then it is no longer democracy. In the USA, the last election was controlled by Gerrymandered districts, and produced more Gerrymandering. Several million more votes were cast for Democrats than Republicans, but many more Republicans were elected. The UK has a fairly good system... but various people above have noted the problems inherent in it. The US has a similar situation as we try to steer a large & diverse nation in ways that are fair to all, but do not automatically favor any group. If church gets domination over state, fairness is endangered. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:35 PM (#3722052) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I can see the logic of appointing representatives of industry I don't think the lords are there as 'representatives'. They are there because of their knowldege and experience in areas that people think are important. And - like it or not - some people centre their view of moral issues on organised religion. I already said I dont think the bishops should be there by right, they should be nominated like everyone else. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:50 PM (#3722053) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX But giving one superstition bums on seats and not the others... I think it is particulary unfair on superstitions that don't organise themselves in a heirarchical manner. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM (#3722060) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "They are there because of their knowledge and experience in areas that people think are important." Which people think them "important" and what "experience" do a bunch of celibate (allegedly) celibate men have of the modern world, having spent a large part of their lives away from it? I come from a traditionally Catholic family and I never saw the pries unless he was knocking on the door asking for money - never saw HIM (no women allowed) in my various workplaces, or sitting next to me in the cinema, or down the pub having a drink and playing darts with the lads. If I'd have gone to church, I would have seen him in strange get-up waving crisps and wine about and telling us they were flesh and blood. They are unworldly, inexperienced in anything, largely misogynistic and extremely reactionary on some of the subjects that concern us most. Our schooteachers, doctors, nurses... have more of a grasp on the world and the certainly do more for humanity than do a group of self-appointed mystics who (certainly as far as the Republic of Ireland is concerned - they won't tell us about the British bit) are not to be trusted with our children, or with the problems of childbirth, or homosexuality.... Out local traffic warden is more in touch with the real world than they are as a profession. Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 01:02 PM (#3722062) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Donuel jOE If religion had one rule only and that rule was to be kind to each other and people actually behaved in ACCORDANCE TO THAT ONE RULE, there would be no need for anyone to invite you out of the club from which you were raised. There would be no need for civil law for that matter but alas people misbehave in contrast or opposition to some other culture or belief system. My belief in a trinity is that 1/3 don't care or want to be involved, 1/3 want their religion or club to rule and 1/3 want a fair organization to rum things fairly by a constitution that is fair to everybody. When one of those thirds get busy we could get a Hitler or a State sponsored religious supreme ruler. The 1/3 that doesn't care won't get involved until the suffering is unbearable. The third that doesn't care keeps the anal retentive types and the "God said" types in balance but only after things get really bad. So, lets toast the uncaring apathetic, the we don't give a shits, and the its not my job types. For it is they that order society and civilization. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 01:54 PM (#3722073) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I don't see the 'traditional Catholic family' and Republic or Ireland pespective as particulary relevant to a discussion that, as invited by the OP, has gone down a UK and Anglican church line. There are some rather large differences. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 02:21 PM (#3722081) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford If there was a public demand for a change, one party or other would put that reform into their manifesto. That is how reform gets achieved. I have no opinion about the Lords and Bishops either way, but am very happy to be living in a vibrant and evolving democracy. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM (#3722088) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "one party or other would put that reform into their manifesto." So the decision as to whether priests re qualified to have a voice in running the country are not taken by the people choosing them by election, but by politicians - and that is your idea of democracy? Whatever happened to your foirst argument that change was brought about by enough people wanting it to happen. You appear to be making it up as you go along - again! Now tell us - why do you think priests are qualified to have a say in running a country - bearing in mind of course that you once said that the church had no say whatever in what happened in Ireland (re a woman dying after being refused a pregnancy termination)? Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:15 PM (#3722089) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX not taken by the people choosing them by election, but by politicians - and that is your idea of democracy? Oh for heavans sake. That's what happens in a chamber with a nominated membership. If we don't like who the politicians chose to be there we choose different politicans. One of these days one of you will run into a Keith in real life, will screw up your arguments and people will adopt his point of view, or elect him to parliament or something. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:17 PM (#3722092) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST Jim, the House of Lords is no longer made up of "a bunch of non-qualified toffs", neither do they have "a track record of long-term persecution, a claim of divine right" There are now 92 hereditary peers out of 790. You may think that's 92 too many, but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority are there because they have achieved eminence and expertise in all walks of life, including business, trade unions, the arts the sciences, politics and yes religion too. Like it or not (and I quite understand why you do not) it is part of society, and religious leaders of all faiths and denominations bring a different perspective to bear. Just because it is a perspective you disagree with doesn't mean it should not have a voice. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 03:34 PM (#3722097) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, is there any legislation that the bishops have blocked or instigated? No. They get to speak in the Lords, but they are never reported. No wonder no-one cares! You believe that there is an establishment conspiracy to keep them there against the will of the people. I find that laughable. Do you have any actual knowledge to support such a ludicrous notion? When enough people want change in a democracy, it happens. If there is a demand for a change, one party or another will take it up. That is how most of the hereditaries have been kicked out, and no more will ever inherit. That is how we achieved gay marriage. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:06 PM (#3722105) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash perhaps guest 03.17 could explain to us what valuble contribution marrk thatcher has made to society |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:17 PM (#3722107) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Kampervan Raggytash I don't think that Mark Thatcher has done much good at all. He is,unfortunately the son of one the last hereditary peers to be created. I thought that was a mistake at the time. Let's hope that there are no more. |
|
08 Jul 15 - 04:20 PM (#3722108) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX How is he relevant ? |
|
08 Jul 15 - 05:27 PM (#3722128) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "You believe that there is an establishment conspiracy to keep them there against the will of the people" Don'tput words in my mouth I believe they have no qualifications to be there so they have no right to be there - simple as that. "When enough people want change in a democracy" No it doesn't Onlyy one out of ten people in Britain go to church, so, by your logic, that is the number of people who spport the church - nine out of ten people are against the church Can't have it both ways Once again Why is the church a part of the state - certainly not by the will of the people - ie "democratically? Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 04:03 AM (#3722211) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, There are still 90 hereditary peers and theer is no guarantee that any of them are appointed on merit - just by establishment approval That implies the will of the establishment to remove them - which does not exist I took those statements to mean that the "establishment" wanted to keep the lords and the bishops against the will of the people Jim. They are there democratically, and they cannot be removed democratically. Yes they can Jim. Much reform has happened already |
|
09 Jul 15 - 04:24 AM (#3722216) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Just to point out before things move on too far that Mark Thatcher is a baronet, that baronets are not peers so never sat in the House of Lords. Even if they did what politician would suggest him as one of the hereditary ones to keep on ? Red herring. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 04:54 AM (#3722223) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Mark Thatcher is a baronet, that baronets are not peers so never sat in the House of Lords." Mark Thatcher is a crook who only avoided jail because of his mother's influence in being able to broker a deal, if he grassed up his accomplices, which he happily did. "I took those statements to mean that the "establishment" wanted to keep the lords and the bishops against the will of the people Jim." Take it anyway it suits - as you want, I never mentioned "against the will of the people - that is your interpretation "Yes they can Jim." No they can't, and even if they could, it shouldn't be necessary - there is no reason in the world why a bunch of unqualified, elderly misogynistic mystics should be any part of a modern state - you can't think of one otherwise you would not continue to avoid the point. As I said, nine out of ten people in Britain have rejected the church - it is part of the establishment for the convenience of politicians. You continue to ignore that fact too. Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 04:59 AM (#3722225) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Mark Thatcher is still complete red herring Jim, so not a useful contribution to the debate. Why bring him up again ? |
|
09 Jul 15 - 05:26 AM (#3722233) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX there is no reason in the world why a bunch of unqualified, elderly misogynistic mystics should be any part of a modern state Unqualifed: The Archbishop of Canterbury has a Cambridge degree and 11 years in industry before being ordained. Elderly: Experience often increases with age. Are you being ageist ? Misogynistic: Most bishops have wives and it was not them who were blocking women joining their number (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18702908) Mystic: person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to attain unity with the Deity or the absolute, and so reach truths beyond human understanding. Not my cup of tea or that of many here, but an awful lot more than 1 in 10 of the UK population have some respect for that (statistics in a recent discussion, can't be bothered to check them). No reason in the world: even if they were what you say the reason is that politicians we vote for have not agreed to change the situation. Sour grapes that they are not the politcians you voted for is part of any modern state. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 05:44 AM (#3722238) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford - it (the church) is part of the establishment for the convenience of politicians. Why do you say that Jim? What reason do you have for believing that? |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:16 AM (#3722259) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans dog collar Not all XX. The disgusting specimen of a bishop who blocked a gay married vicar from getting a job as a hospital chaplain because he "couldn't give a reference to a vicar who disobeyed his instruction not to marry his partner" is getting his day in court. I really and sincerely hope it bankrupts the swine. The clause in the equalities act do not extend to fettering the chances of someone gaining employment outside of their bigoted church. As an ex health regulator, I have written to CQC reminding them of the regulations the trust are in breach of by insisting that the bishops refusal to provide a reference negated the successful applicant's appointment. You see, they are still there. To say they have degrees merely shows how worthless humanities degrees are. How you can get a degree in fantasy is beyond me. History or fantasy as fantasy yes, but to think theology as an academic subject? It's up there with media studies and teacher training certificates for me. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:32 AM (#3722265) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash Musket me old love unfortunately Justin Welbys degree is in HISTORY (!!) and Law. And as he has probably published things (possible not historically related)he must be a REAL historian. Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:34 AM (#3722267) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX According to Wikipedia Justin Welby has a degree in History and Law, not fantasy (I checked before posting). I picked him because it was the quick way of discounting Jim's blanket 'unqualified'. Homophobia and related biases were not on Jim's list and you don't need to be a bishop to be called out over that. To repeat I think they should be nominated like everyone else. Preferably after they have retired, though work-related conflicts of interest seem to be catered for. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:40 AM (#3722268) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash XX, my concern is that members of a church are given a position in the House of Lords merely because they are members of a church. I do not think that a church should play any role is the legislature. My arguments against the House of Lords per se are somewhat different and I will happily discuss this if someone wants to start another thread. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:42 AM (#3722270) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/church-legal-challenge-blocking-job Was he in the Lords ? The current bishop of Bedford does not seem to be. And he looks to have a university chemistry qualification. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM (#3722271) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Raggytash. Yes, there (or not) on the same basis as, say, a retired Chief Rabbi. IIRC the heir to the throne has spoken about being "a Defender of Faith" not "the Faith". Things may change. No value in stirring up a popular old lady. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:50 AM (#3722273) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Sorry, the "Yes" meant I was agreeing wiht you concern. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:34 AM (#3722282) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Howard Jones As I said in an earlier post, the position of the CofE bishops is probably an anacronism. However other religious leaders from other denominations and faiths are also included which partially redresses the balance. A legislature, and especially a revising chamber which is what the Lords is, should include the widest possible range of experience, expertise and opinions. This includes religious views, which are probably important to rather more people than regularly attend church. I am not religious myself, but I recognise that many people are. I also recognise that other people may hold views I disagree with, but that does not mean they should not be heard. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM (#3722287) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Howard, I would consider that it means more people are in the House of Lords because of a religion or faith, call it what you will. The fact that the Jewish faith or Jedi Warriors are also represented has no bearing on my argument which is that no church, faith or religion should have a place in the LEGISLATION of a modern democratic country. Cheers Raggytash |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM (#3722289) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw "According to Wikipedia Justin Welby has a degree in History and Law" Well I have a degree in Botany and a PGCE. The one difference between me and Welby that qualifies him to be a lord but not me is that he's an archbishop and I'm not. His academic credentials are not why he's there. They just happen to come with his baggage. We all harbour delusions, some more serious than others (being a supporter of The Owls, for example). But men of the cloth have an extra delusion, and it's quite a serious one because they fashion careers for themselves out of it, instead of keeping it to themselves, which is the only respectable behaviour possible for believers. I'd have thought that we should be vetting people for their delusions before letting them be lords. He shouldn't really be making the cut in my view. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 09:03 AM (#3722293) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Why do you say that Jim?" A long accepted fact Keith - the Church of England has always been described as "The Tory Party at Prayer" Certainly of my invention, if that is what ou are suggesting. - their presence is purely a political one and always has been. In the past, it has been used to divert the public's attention from crises, to validate colonisation, to send Brtitan's youth to their deaths "For God, King and Country" There is simply no other reason for Churchmen to play any part in the House of Lords - they have no expertise outside their own particular field Up to The French Revolution France divided the country into "The Three Estates (or Powers)", which were the clergy (first estate), the nobility (second estate), and commoners (third estate) (in Britain, a (fourth estate) was added, the news media. There has never been any doubt about the political role of the church - today, the pretence of it being "the will of the people" has disappeared with the dwindling support of the Church (didn't think for a minute that you would respond to the fact that only one in ten of Britons support the church). Nor did I think that you would offer an explanation of why the Church should play any part in the governance of Britain. Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM (#3722295) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Certainly of my invention" Bloody sticky keyboard - must have been the glass of whiskey I spilt on it ! Should read "Certainly not of my invention" Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 09:24 AM (#3722301) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Yes Steve, but I was responding to Jim saying they were 'unqualified' and in anticipation of someone (a Musket in this case) leaping on the matter of theological qualifications I checked that Welby did have something relevant to his previous career. As to qualifications through experience I don't see how that of a bishop, especially an archbishop, differs that much from a top trade union official, business leader, university professor or whatever. They know the problems of keeping a complicated show on the road and have a constituency of people who's views they understand. Like it or not a fair proportion of the individuals in this country do have a faith. If you had risen high enough in your Trade Union maybe people would have noticed you and think you should be in the lords. Religions are not all about their deity, quite a lot of what they do is done by people who believe in other dieties or none Raggytash. As Howard says it is a revising house. They have more time and a different/better pool of skills than the Commons to publicly chew over what the folks in the Whitehall backrooms have drafted. I think the non-elected people we need to worry about are the lobbyists. If these folks were not in the lords many of them would be bending the ear of politicians and journalist in places like London private clubs. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 09:37 AM (#3722304) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX A long accepted fact Keith - the Church of England has always been described as "The Tory Party at Prayer" It was not accepted as fact by someone on a nearby discussion only yesterday (or has something been deleted here ?) their presence is purely a political one and always has been. Don't get that. Politics is what they do in Parliament. There has never been any doubt about the political role of the church Evidence please ? Up to The French Revolution France red herring. Nor did I think that you would offer an explanation of why the Church should play any part in the governance of Britain. He doesn't need to. The explanation can be foudn in Howard Jones' first post. You guys think that arguing with Keith is like shooting fish in a barrel. Well its a barrel with a lot of mud in it that you keep stirring up. When it comes to logical fallacies other people's posts can provide much easier targets. They line the fish up neatly in a row. And some of them are red herrings. Watch it guys. The Keith's may win. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 10:10 AM (#3722309) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Don't get that. Politics is what they do in Parliament." Sending young man to their deaths in wartime is a political act. The Church's role in establishing and securing the colonies was a political act In 2012, the Church of England bishops brought about the defeat of a government bill capping benefits - certainly not a bad thing, as far as I'm concerned, but questions were raised as to whether it was appropriate for them to be able to wield such power A quote from the Church of England's own site: "26 bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords. Known as the Lords Spiritual, they read prayers at the start of each daily meeting and play a full and active role in the life and work of the Upper House." "Evidence please ?" Also from the Church of England's own site: "Christian religious leaders have had an active role in the legislative affairs of the country since before the formation of the Church of England. Prior to the 11th century feudal landlords and religious leaders were regularly consulted by Saxon kings." "red herring." Prove it "The explanation can be founn in Howard Jones' first post." Howard argued for a Second House - he most certainly didn't provide evidence of why an appointed bunch of elderly, exclusively male, largely misogynistic mystics should play any part in that Second House (even if you accepted the need for an unelected body capable of blocking Government policy). While it is true that many churchmen are humanistic and progressive in their attitudes and have in some cases made a magnificent contribution to some aspects of our lives, the hierarchy is traditionally reactionary and has backed the state in some of its worst excesses. The danger of religious interference in State affairs is to be seen at its worst in some of the Catholic Countries, where they have thrown their weight behind dictators like Franco and Pinochet and have blocked (or attempted to) on homosexuality, contraception, pregnancy termination (and even the playing of music - notably Jazz and traditional music, in the case of Ireland. One of the greatest threats to humanity today are the Holy Wars taking place throughout the world, involving all of the major religions. I get a little tired of suggesting that religion and politics is a toxic mix -it seems so obvious as to be unnecessary to point that out -obviously not! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 10:20 AM (#3722315) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST From the OP "What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state." My emphasis. From Jim "The Church's role in establishing and securing the colonies was a political act" Red Herring (for the same reason as pre-revolution France) But, yes it's politics. Can you point to a 21st Century state that has government without politics ? If so, would you like to live there ? |
|
09 Jul 15 - 11:27 AM (#3722331) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll ""What role, if any, should the church have in the running of a 21st Century state." My emphasis." You asked me to prove that the Church's role was a political one I would have thought that the fact that the church now 'enjoys' only %10 support of the British population, its role in the 21st century is self-evident. You seem to be happy with the rest f my posting as you choose only to challenge one part of it. "Can you point to a 21st Century state that has government without politics" Who on earth suggested Government without politics, certainly not me? While my sympathies tend to lie with the Anarchist's exhortation "Don't vote, it only encourages them", I am certainly not one of them. You seem to be happy with the rest of my posting as you choose only to quibble on two minor points. Could have gone at length on Clerical abuse, Thhe Madgdelene Laundries, the Industrial schools.... and all the abuses of power that the Church has been found to indulge in, but, mustn't over-butter the bread (just yet!!) Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 12:25 PM (#3722341) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST You seem to be happy with the rest of my posting as you choose only to challenge one part of it. No I am picking the parts where a challenge is easiest to set out. We must at cross purposes over politics. Of course the Church has a political role. By the bishops being in the lords they are involved in politics. That's the idea. No one here is suggesting that the bishops being there by right is not an anachronism. The anachronistic inconsistency is that the Church automatically gets some people who have worked their way up through their own ranks but organisations like the CBI and TUC don't get some who have worked their way up through theirs - those people get there by being nominated. Ten percent of the UK population is a lot of votes, so politicians won't change things lightly. That's the sort of thing happens in a democracy. So far as the bishops in the House of Lords is concerned "the Church" is the Anglican Church. The Magdelaine Laundries are a red herring. My own staunchley athiest ex-Catholic friends get worked up about the bishops in the same way. My fellow ex-Anglican friends are mainly vaguely agnostic and don't get worked up about it. Why do you think that is ? If you have an issue with the Roman Catholic church take it up with them. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM (#3722346) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "The anachronistic inconsistency is that the Church automatically gets some people who have worked their way up through their own ranks My point - surely Why are they represented as a body at all - they have no qualifications? "Ten percent of the UK population is a lot of votes" These are not votes - they are people who attend church to worship god, not to give the churchmen authority to represent them politically. My point is that even their traditional role is dwindling. "That's the sort of thing happens in a democracy." They have no basis in democracy - they were never put their democratically - just tactically by politicians (and before that, by Royalty). Democracy plays no part in any of this. "The Magdelaine Laundries are a red herring." Certainly not - they are a perfect example of collusion between church and state in confining 'unacceptable members of society) out of the public view. From day one of the laundries, the Government was fully away of what was happening to 'sinners' who were sent there, many of the girls were actually put into them at the request old local politicians. The appalling conditions were well known and the state dis nothing to improve them. Even whan the Laundries were closed (the last one in 1996); when the inmates began to sue their captors, the Government acknowledged the part played by politicians by paying a large part of the monetary awards out of taxpayers money. As I say - a perfect example of criminal collusion between church and state. As for my"issue with the Catholic Church" - I would have thought that, given the revelations, most human beings would have - as human beings. My concern is that such people, of whatever denomination, should play any part in politics. No qualifications, no special skills, no reason to be there. They should not be involved in any way in our non religious lives any more than our local football team or golf club should, and there is every reason why they shouldn't. You still haven't begun to put up an argument to show why they should - nor has Keith. Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 02:05 PM (#3722359) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Jim, I think you ought to have a look at the links in this post |
|
09 Jul 15 - 02:06 PM (#3722360) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans pedantry The Keith's what may win? Anyway. Logic chopping is not a way to "win" because a) opinions are subjective so there are no winners and losers and b) Keith is clouded by judging everything against his suspect agenda coupled with a rather childish approach to what he thinks is debate. It is like shooting fish in a barrel actually. His "facts" are usually subjective opinions in themselves. See his insistence that a published hack and a handful of glory seeking revisionists know more about a war than the poor bastards that were in it. Or that terrorists can call schools and hospitals legitimate targets if they are paid by the Israeli government. Anyway, back to qualifications... Yeah, a history degree is good for history. Theology is good for in depth history of fantasy. I fail to see the point? I do like the point above that a retired bishop may make an excellent member of the upper house, but not for it to be in the job description by default. Superstitious clubs with less hierarchy in their constitution couldn't offer leaders in the same way so disenfranchising is a good way to protect the existence of superstition clubs for those who need or indeed want such a crutch or social outlet. Be buggered to them having legitimacy in government in c21 though.... Only a handful of people see bishops as representing them anyway. Excellent survey commissioned a few years ago by Channel 4. Fifty churches, as people came out after a service. They were asked two questions. Which diocese does this church come under? Who is the bishop? 63% overall knew the diocese. 21% knew the name of the bishop. This was from those who actually attend church. (1.3% of the population the House of Lords works on behalf of.) |
|
09 Jul 15 - 03:14 PM (#3722374) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Howard jones The House of Lords cannot block the elected government. It can amend legislation, and do so with the benefit of not being subject to political short-termism and with considerable expertise and knowledge. It can try to prevent the Commons from passing bad and unworkable laws. However ultimately the House of Commons can force its legislation through. As I have said before, the Lords encompass a very wide range of experience across the entire spectrum of national activities. It would be strangerif religious leaders were not amongst them. There are 26 bishops in the Lords, out of about 760 eligible working peers. Hardly a dominant voice. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 03:25 PM (#3722376) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST There are, around the world, many millilions of people who believe in one religion or another. A study of theology gives an insight into the mindset of groups who influence (or seek to influence) societies, politics and morality. To study theology does not presume belief in any kind of deity. Given that Musket has been the CEO of several companies; run the NHS; is one of the foremost guitarists of this or any other generation; is a trained investigator and one of a minority of ex miners to have a PhD as well as an ex health regulator (this is not a comprehensive list of his achievements) I would have thought that he might have realised that. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 03:27 PM (#3722377) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, See his insistence that a published hack and a handful of glory seeking revisionists know more about a war than the poor bastards that were in it. Or that terrorists can call schools and hospitals legitimate targets if they are paid by the Israeli government. Made up shit about me again. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 03:37 PM (#3722380) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll There are, around the world, many millilions of people who believe in one religion or another." There are still many thousands round the world tearing each others heads off because the other feller doesn't believe in the "right God" "Jim, I think you ought to have a look at the links in this post" Fine - couple of links to Logic If you are suggesting mine is iffy - please point out where. I am saying fairly clearly (I hope) why I don't think the unelected Church has any place in politics. Doesn't seem like rocket science o point out where I am wrong. Surely, if I am wrong, the first thing is to point out "where" If the critics prove to be correct, I'm happy to discuss "why" at a later stage. This isn't about my atheism, just my attitude to the Church Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 04:10 PM (#3722388) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Musket. The logic links were aimed at Jim, not Keith (in this instance). Mainly to do with his red herrings. The Anglican church's involvement in colonisation, and Catholic church's Magdelaine Laundries, are no more relevant to bishops being a minority in the UK revising house than Guy Fawkes is to a 21st Century UK government's relationship with the Pope. And without a proper explanation they don't contribute to a global debate about Church v State, which is not happening in this thread anyway. Wingeing about the past, rather than explaining what history can teach us, doesn't help anyone much. It just looks like chips on shoulders. So yes Jim, iffy logic. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 05:37 PM (#3722401) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw It's just a guess, but I reckon than there are more people who are scared of the dark than there are who go to church on Sunday, Do you think that if I set myself up as the general secretary of the Dark-Fearing Society I should be eligible for the Lords? After all, fear of the dark is a damn sight more rational that belief in a deity (just think of all those nocturnal big cats), and there are almost certainly more of us... Let's face it. You think it's OK for bishops to have a say in our governance just because they're bishops. I think that bishops have made a career for themselves, with great salaries and house and staff provided, on the back of a delusion. I don't care how sage they appear or how dignified you think they look in their silly ceremonial attire, or even whether they have degrees in something non-religious. There are millions of better, more rational, candidates for the Lords. And none of them are careerist trade union officials, I might add. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 05:43 PM (#3722403) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX It's just a thought, but how would you go about getting all these dark-fearing people to accept you in this exectuve role ? |
|
09 Jul 15 - 05:50 PM (#3722406) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Well, it wouldn't be by putting the fear of God into them, that's for sure. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 07:37 PM (#3722432) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "The Anglican church's involvement in colonisation, and Catholic church's Magdelaine Laundries" Now you are pleading "my brand of religion is better than yours" - sorry doesn't wash - on the contrary, it only underlines the threat all religions pose to our well-being. They're all mystics, they are all unqualified to rule and the definitive nature of all religions "we are the true Christians - or whatever)" makes them all a menace. Now - tell me how they are in any way entitled or even qualified to have a say in the running of the state. "rather than explaining what history can teach us, " History is made up largely of holy wars - the Church of England was built on the bunt bodies of opponents of Henry VIII new church. We have had 95 years of ongoing persecution and warfare in Ireland because the British partitioned the country and those left in charge decided to make it a Protestant state. Leopoled, King of the Belgians massacred up to 10 million Congloese people with the compliance and the blessing of the church Apartheid South Africa thrived as a terrorist state with the support of the Dutch reformed Church, the Pope blessed bombs going to Abyssinia, and Pope Pius XII ("Hitler's Pope" turned his back on the thousands of Italian Jews being shipped of to the Nazi death camps. The Church was a supported of mass murderer Augusto Pinochet in Chile.... Wonder exactly what we should be exhorted to learn from these and many more "lessons of history" - I would have thought, "don't let the bastards anywhere near having a say in the running of any country". Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:11 PM (#3722434) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,HiLo Jim, find yourself a good history teacher.... Please! |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:18 PM (#3722437) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Jim, find yourself a good history teacher.... Please!" Like to challenge anything i've written rather than throwing stones and running away? No - thought not!! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:24 PM (#3722438) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Jim did not misrepresent anything at all as far as I can see. Though he did neglect to mention that Pius XII, friend of the Nazis, may soon become a saint, quite likely sat in heaven right next to that other paragon of equality, freedom and champion of human rights, Mother Teresa. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 08:50 PM (#3722443) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,HiLo Jim , no point challenging, you can't reason people out of things they have not been reasoned into. |
|
09 Jul 15 - 09:29 PM (#3722449) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw ? |
|
10 Jul 15 - 02:35 AM (#3722487) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX "Now you are pleading "my brand of religion is better than yours" No, I am still trying to get to to understand about red herrings. I picked two of them from your list. I care little for the views of those who winge about the past without suggesting anything constructive and practical for the future. I give up. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 02:37 AM (#3722488) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Jim , no point challenging, you can't reason people out of things they have not been reasoned into." Let me help - what you are trying to say is "I have no challenge to anything you have written". Every single thig I stated is historically documented, has been aprt of my upbringing throughout my life (my 'thing' is 19th and 20th century European and social history) and is, I have no doubt, Googleable (not felt the need to do so here, a really believed it was common knowledge) You wish to challenge anything I have said - Google away (that goes for your mates too). Your starter for ten Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jul 15 - 02:38 AM (#3722489) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Rt Rev Musket CEO of one company which owned a few others actually. Oh, and still learning the guitar forty years on. You seem fascinated by me, which is odd because as Musket is three people, you might add Prof, MD, another PhD and I don't recall everything else Daarrnn Souf Musket has, but he hadn't to my knowledge posted lately. McMusket and Musket are obviously better than you, so I'd live with it if I were you. Anyway, you forgot to mention my good looks and rather large willy. I'm sure I've mentioned both in passing. The bit about theology? Sports science, media studies... A waste of a good education and normally seen as credits towards being commissioned to write a divinity doctorate if it has to be useful for anything and with one of those you can jump a few rings on the dog collar ladder. My brother in law is preparing his thesis apparently. XX. I know you are Jim baiting and I could smile at some of the irrelevant or nonsensical things he occasionally says but essentially his heart is in the right place and let's face it, when he and Keith kick off, all it takes is to occasionally sprinkle petrol on the fire. I love serious subjects to debate and find them in the music section here. But the BS bit? Does anyone take this shit to heart? Do the likes of Keith stand braying like that in the pub? Dear Clapton..., |
|
10 Jul 15 - 07:30 AM (#3722540) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Howard Jones If you are going to exclude people with deluded ideas from politics then that rules out most politicians. In the context of the British constitution, which has a second chamber whose role is to bring wisdom, experience and expertise to the legislative process, then that chamber should be drawn as widely as possible. Even if bishops did not sit as of right it would be extraordinary if some were not included for balance. What happens in other countries, with different histories and different constitutional arrangements, is a different matter and quite possibly has different answers in each case. What I find most objectionable is not the criticism of religion, much of which I agree with, but the idea which some people appear to hold that only viewpoints which they agree with have a right to be heard. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM (#3722549) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX some people appear to hold that only viewpoints which they agree with have a right to be heard. Yes. I think some people have difficulty with the situation of differening opinions all based on incomplete evidence. Faith, belief without evidence, is an easy option for debate, and accusations of delusion, because most can agree that there is no evidence. Debating the pros and cons of the views of, say, Adam Smith and Karl Marx, often involves taking stances that can look like 'belief with incomplete evidence'. Delusions of certainty maybe. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 08:35 AM (#3722564) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "If you are going to exclude people with deluded ideas from politics then that rules out most politicians." It isn't "ruling out" anybody It's objecting to unqualified, non-elected bodies from being granted positions of power - in this case a Church dedicated to propagating mysticism with a track record that would bar them holding a bus pass! Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jul 15 - 08:57 AM (#3722567) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Howard Jones On that basis, some might object to unqualified, non-elected trade unionists from being granted positions of power (by non-elected I mean they are elected only by their members, not the wider public). To be clear, I don't object to either. However I do believe that the political process is benefited by allowing input from a body of people who can provide the widest range of wisdom, experience and expertise, something our elected representatives all too often lack. That includes both religious and trade union leaders, along with many others. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM (#3722569) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST WHAAAT !! You mean there are TRADE UNIONISTS in that place. How can that be allowed ? |
|
10 Jul 15 - 09:10 AM (#3722572) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Just returning briefly to Mark Thatcher, when the hereditary title was awarded to Denis Thatcher in 1990 baronets were entitled to take part in the workings of the House of Lords. It was only in 1999 that this was limited to 92 hereditary peers. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM (#3722576) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Baronets are not Peers. They never sat in the House of Lords. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 09:21 AM (#3722577) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash XX, I stand corrected. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 12:01 PM (#3722639) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans gong I'm sure we had a baronet? It was on the wall in our last house. I reckon we left it with the light bulbs and spare bog roll. Differing views are certainly needed to be aired. However, take this scenario.. Me: You know, he used to play left back for West Ham! Him: In blue with the sloping dash running away from you and a chevron middled steering wheel. You see, I'm talking football and he's talking Cortina MkIII. A bit like bringing superstition into debates about reality. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM (#3722657) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX You see, I'm talking football and he's talking Cortina MkIII. And here was me thinking you were picking up on the Adam Smith v Karl Marx. |
|
10 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM (#3722679) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome The Philosophers' Football Match So, if Karl Marx is the footballer, that means Adam Smith must be driving the Cortina. Yes? |
|
11 Jul 15 - 01:48 AM (#3722795) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "On that basis, some might object to unqualified, non-elected trade unionists from being granted positions of power" On the same basis, the unelected 'Captains of Industry' would have no place in the House of Lords, unless you would like to argue that Britain could run purely on the efforts of the bosses, without the workers. I often get the impression some people hold the view that working people are a bit of a fluff in the wheels of progress and should have no voice. As I said, the church fulfils no practical role. Jim Carroll |
|
11 Jul 15 - 02:04 AM (#3722798) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket in 70s pap pap Adam Smith would have liked the cortina. Henry Ford was a product of Smith's theory. It freed people up to go places and experience adventures that spur you on to consume. Karl Marx would have liked the cortina. A true people's car and kept going wrong, wasn't efficient, cost more over years than it was designed to. |
|
11 Jul 15 - 04:29 AM (#3722815) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX How would constitute a revising house Jim ? Do you like the Irish method (Seanad Éireann) better ? That seems to give the church no automatic influence. So everyone is happy, right ? |
|
11 Jul 15 - 04:50 AM (#3722821) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll I'm very suspicious of an unelected second house, however it is organised. I find both the Lords, Parliament and The Dail an insult to the British and Irish people whenever I tune in and see the level of attendance - if so few workers turned up for work the country would grind to a halt within minutes - who do these people think they are? Jim Carrroll |
|
11 Jul 15 - 05:19 AM (#3722829) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I hope that there is more to the job than what goes on where we can see them. Just so long as we can see them doing the decision making. So do I have it right then, that by not being in the upper house the church has no influence on government in Ireland ? |
|
11 Jul 15 - 08:23 AM (#3722858) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "I hope that there is more to the job than what goes on where we can see them." Do you - I don't May as well dissolve parliament if the attendance is anything to go by They are untrustworthy enough when you can see the, god knows what they get up to behind our backs Jim Carroll |
|
11 Jul 15 - 07:11 PM (#3722931) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Hey Dave, Another 111 posts and I'll have WON!!!! Cheers Raggytash |
|
11 Jul 15 - 07:12 PM (#3722932) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Bugger that should have said 110 No sod it 109!! |
|
11 Jul 15 - 07:13 PM (#3722933) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Shouldn't mix Guinness and Port ! |
|
12 Jul 15 - 02:30 AM (#3722965) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans pocketing collection Some here shouldn't mix religion with reality, so your Guinness and port is no crime. BBC News website this morning. The boss of the Church of England has been promising victims that he will have his church independently investigated over child abuse. The Methodist lot are still in the apology stage and the Catholics are getting back to pretending it doesn't happen. I recall one particular contributor on these pages staying last year, when trying as usual to denigrate Muslims that "Christians don't do that sort of thing." The same thi... Er person gets all self conscious and angry when I call his sanctimonious version of faith a delusion. Quite.... |
|
12 Jul 15 - 03:44 AM (#3722977) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Allan Conn Only 3% of the House of Lords are Spriritual Members so I would think that would make the religious make up of the House a smaller issue than the existence of the unelected House itself. The Church of Scotland are not represented because historically they fought against state intrusion on the church. The Church of England is ultimately influenced by the state to a far larger degree than any influence the said church has on the state! |
|
12 Jul 15 - 04:04 AM (#3722980) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford I recall one particular contributor on these pages staying last year, when trying as usual to denigrate Muslims that "Christians don't do that sort of thing." I do not recall anyone saying any such thing, and I would remember if they had. I think you are making things up and building straw men again. Why can you not just respond to what people really say? Is it because you can't? |
|
12 Jul 15 - 05:33 AM (#3722988) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket holding his sides How's the cap Keith? Suits you, does it? 😂 |
|
12 Jul 15 - 06:29 AM (#3722992) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Only 3% of the House of Lords are Spriritual Members so I would think that would make the religious make up of the House a smaller issue than the existence of the unelected House itself. Well, maybe, but there are such things as matters of principle. That 3% toehold maintains the principle that the Church has a role in governing the nation. I don't like that very much because not only am I not a member of that church but also I oppose its influence, which is predicated on delusion. They may often be nice chaps with a benign veneer who often say good things, even against Tories, but they are only there because they believe in Jesus and seek to spread his good news (the fact that he probably never existed is beside the point, of course). Principles are important: suppose you were defending the royal family to me, a staunch republican, with the argument that the amount they cost us to keep them in the manner to which they're accustomed is minuscule set beside the revenue they bring in from tourism, etc. (as it happens, I disagree with that in any case). You'd be setting aside the whole pyramid of unearned privilege that they represent and sit atop, which is used tacitly to justify inequality in society. In other words, little things can matter a lot. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM (#3723002) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Aside from agreeing with most here that they shouldn't have seats by right I don't see that Jesus having existed or not makes any difference. They now (forget the past, the reformed churches are quite good at eventually moving with the times) represent a view on how people ought to get on with one another that millions of people subscribe to (though the selfish b*st*rds may not actually do it). Maybe Jesus didn't exist and that moral outlook has evolved from what 1st century philosophers and political thinkers convinced others was a good idea (getting rid of all tht messy sacrificing of things may have gone down well). What if Marx and Engels had presented their ideas 2,000 years ago leaving no written records but a strong and popular folk memory of socialism. It wouldn't matter now whether they had existed or not**. Would you bar socialists from having seats because the originators may not have existed ? Millions of people subscribe to their view on how people ought to get on together (though the selfish b*st*rds may not actually do it). **Why invent them you may say. Yes indeed. Why invent Jesus ? |
|
12 Jul 15 - 07:42 AM (#3723003) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Not that I am prejudiced against people with parents who did not marry of course, it's just a figure of speech. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:23 AM (#3723005) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford I do recall you saying exactly that though. You do not. I would never say such a stupid thing and would challenge if anyone else did. You are a liar. You have no answer to what I do say, and just make up things so you can appear able to answer. Pathetic, and a liar. (If I said exactly that, a google search of Mudcat would find it in less than a second, liar.) |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:28 AM (#3723007) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Remember when you said you didn't support UKIP till I gave a link to your post saying exactly that? Another lie. I am no supporter and have never supported them. Curiously, you seemed to know the post was about you despite nobody saying it. Funny that... No funny and not true. Read my reply. I assumed no such thing. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM (#3723008) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Whoops .......... there goes the dolly ....... and the soft toy ........ and the rattle ............ |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:38 AM (#3723010) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Yes Rag. Having someone tell blatant lies about you is annoying. Do you think it OK Rag? |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:43 AM (#3723011) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST Let's have links to what Keith is supposed to have said then. That should be simple. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM (#3723012) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Your what-if is too much of a stretch, XX. Socialism exists as an abstract evolving political notion which does not belong to any particular person. Christianity exists as a notion predicated on the almost-certain lie that a particular holy man existed who laid down the tenets (and let's not start on how so many of his followers misuse those tenets for all manner of perfidious ends). Whatever you think of socialism, you can't say that about it. We're talking about legitimate vs illegitimate here. And we have to set aside that Christianity just happens to have a few good ideas embedded among all the nonsense. Many would say the same about socialism, if we could ever agree what it actually is. :-) |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM (#3723018) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "That should be simple." Not with the number of thgreads that have totally disappeared from this forum, it isn't I vaguely remember the incident, but wouldn't swear to it, though, in Kieth's defence, his arguments quite often leave Ukip's policies looking like Charlie Marx on speed. Jim Carroll |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:22 AM (#3723019) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw And the concept of sacrifice dies hard. It may no longer be goats or babies or virgins but we still cling to Jesus having suffered a horrible death in order to absolve us from our sins, don't we? |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM (#3723020) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Not with the number of thgreads that have totally disappeared from this forum, it isn't The deleting of threads is a fairly new thing. Musket's lies are old. He has been telling those same lies about me for a year or two. If he is not lying, the "quotes" would be easily found. He is lying. It is what he does. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM (#3723021) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Has anyone else noticed how Steve cannot leave it alone. I think he might be struggling with his atheist faith. No point in me replying properly.......it will only get deleted, I fear ! |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:45 AM (#3723024) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. What you mean "we", paleface? |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:54 AM (#3723027) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. Ooops. 12 Jul 15 - 09:45 AM was in response to 12 Jul 15 - 09:22 AM STEVE can't leave it alone? That's rich, pete. Oh, and pete- there's ususlly very little point in your replying, either properly or improperly. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 09:55 AM (#3723028) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX "we still cling to Jesus having suffered a horrible death in order to absolve us from our sins" That was the smart bit of marketing. Catching the mood that the messy stuff at the alter was getting old fashioned, so one more gory scene then call it quits. I'm not making the idea up, but can't remember where I read it. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 10:26 AM (#3723035) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Ah, but still clinging to the principle that a pointless, gory yet noble sacrifice can let us all off our sins. A Good Thing to do. Never quite copped that one, even when I was an obedient little Catholic boy. :-) As for you, dearest pete, it's a thread about religion. You might not like it much, but arguing that people whose lives are constructed entirely around what I regard as a superstition might not be the best people to have a hand in running the country... |
|
12 Jul 15 - 10:31 AM (#3723036) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw It's OK,Greg. You know me. Just tryin' to be inclusive... :-) |
|
12 Jul 15 - 11:26 AM (#3723044) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket smiling Err. Stop calling me a liar eh? You really aren't a nice person, are you Keith? Do you reserve your smiling for when you are in your church, or do you just drop what you claim are your Christian ideals for Mudcat? I recall the UKIP post has been dragged into threads before when I found it again. You looked a right chump then, and still didn't apologise for calling me a liar. Any toys left in your pram duck? 😂 |
|
12 Jul 15 - 11:34 AM (#3723047) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Never quite copped that one Nor me, or the weird 'logic' of 'the trinity'. That, rather then the supernatural bit, is where I would bother arguing with those who pretend to understand it and have doubts about the wisdom of bishops. But friends who I was at school with became rabid Marxists; I never copped that either and they couldn't explain it to my satisfaction. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 11:36 AM (#3723048) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST should have been "and where I have doubts about the bishops" |
|
12 Jul 15 - 11:43 AM (#3723050) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST Hmmm. All Google can find is claims of Keith being a UKIP supporter or supporting UKIP policies. Claims from Musket. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM (#3723053) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw "Struggling with my atheist faith..." Hmmm. Well I don't know whether there's a God or not. I don't know whether there was a Jesus or not. Come to think of it, I don't know whether there was a Noah with an ark, whether there was a Robin of Sherwood, a Sir Lancelot or a Jason and the Argonauts. I'm a bit clearer with Harry Potter, Sherlock Holmes, the Hobbits and the Archers. But when I say I don't know, it doesn't mean I sit squarely atop the fence, one leg either side. Struggle wouldn't be the right word. A bit of doubt here and there if the evidence doesn't always quite stack up, and, as we know, truth can be stranger than fiction. But I'm happy with that. It means I'm using my brain. I recommend the approach. God would recommend it to you too, pete. After all, fancy him giving you a mighty brain that you then refuse to use. Put it right, pete. You're insulting the Big Man Upstairs, I reckon. As for the relevance of this to the topic at hand, well I don't want a bunch of bishops who also don't use their brains, or use them the wrong way, "helping" to run the country. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 12:15 PM (#3723057) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST, ^*^ "atheist faith" - that's Pete trying to define the argument by suggesting that atheism is a form of religion. And since his religion is better than any other religion, he hopes to clarify to you what you believe and then have you on the run. Dash his hopes. Dismiss his argument. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 12:32 PM (#3723062) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Hmmm. All Google can find is claims of Keith being a UKIP supporter or supporting UKIP policies. Claims from Musket. Yes. He has been pushing that lie for a long time. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 12:41 PM (#3723063) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "He has been pushing that lie for a long time." Give it a rest Keith You are one of the most consistently dishonest members of this forum, both in your claims and in your interpretation of what other people say. "Do as you would be done by" isn't a bad motto to get through life with, it really isn't Jim Carroll |
|
12 Jul 15 - 12:43 PM (#3723065) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Atheism is a bit odd really. I don't really have solid evidence that there's no God. All I know is that he hasn't got any that there is one, but at least I have reason and rationality my side. My notion fits all we know about the laws of nature but his doesn't fit any of it. But I don't need to dismiss or demolish his argument because I can't. As for dashing his hopes, nah, let him keep them. His cause is hopeless enough as it is. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 01:40 PM (#3723079) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Yet another post lost......or deleted, despite being a direct and civil reply to Steve. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 01:51 PM (#3723083) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Last night I spent a pleasant evening, in a good Restaurant, having a meal with a very good friend of mine and her husband. My friend is a Vicar , her husband shares her faith. During the course of the night the conversation, as it does over several hours, varied between numerous topics and much as I love the lady I would not want her to be a representative in the House of Lords merely on the basis of her faith. I am quite sure she would make a valuation contribution to any discussion at any level but I could not sanction a position for her in the House on Lords based on her faith. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 02:38 PM (#3723089) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX She wouldn't be there based on her faith. She would be there due to having (or having had) a leadership role within a group of people with shared interests and shared views on some political issues. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM (#3723095) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "She wouldn't be there based on her faith" Why would she be there There are many thousands of people and groups in Britain - probable with far more qualifications and certainly far more representative of "real people" Nobody has yet attempted to show why the Church - any church - should have representatives in Government - which says as much as there is to be said on the subject Jim Carroll |
|
12 Jul 15 - 03:04 PM (#3723101) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX I suggested right at the start that it was because they represented the views of a 'constituency' as in "a group of people with shared interests or political opinions" Just like peers with experience in media, the arts, trade unions, academic disciplines, business etc. It's a talking shop. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 03:07 PM (#3723102) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Oh, stoppit, moderator. Why not just recognise harmless ribbing for what it is when you see it. Next thing, we'll be getting one of those moaning mudelf addenda complaining how overworked you all are. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 03:35 PM (#3723110) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Atheism isn't a faith - it's the default position of objective humanity. We are all born godless & faithless, blissfully innocent of bullshit and eager in our wide-eyed preparedness for the wonders of learning as we come into cosmic consciousness. Then we get hit where it hurts by religious idiocy and the manifold evils and abuses of The God Concept. Just as we have lungs eager to breathe clean fresh air only to find ourselves in a house full of smokers, so our minds are eager to seize upon the glories of art, language, music, science - only to find ourselves in a culture polluted by religion... I was born an atheist - I will die an atheist. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of fact and knowing. And it's easy to show why there is no God because we can point at the moment in human history when they made him up. Far from ubiquitous, the concept flounders in the mire of righteous subjectivism. * That said, I am SO looking forward to spending a few days of our up-coming Somerset holiday exploring the late-medieval bench-end tradition, and churches great and small. I will wander absorbed the Cathedrals of Wells & Salisbury and seek out the queerest religious imagery ever wrought in the church of The Holy Ghost at Crowcombe; not to mention St, Mary Magdelene at Bishops Lydeard wherein dances this singular fellow: Bench End, Bishops Lydeard; June 2012. Pic : Blandiver; atheist by Birth, not delusion |
|
12 Jul 15 - 03:36 PM (#3723111) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Musket Posting anonymously then agreeing with yourself? Rather odd Keith? Lots of posts back in the archives from when you said "we" when referring to UKIP. Nothing to do with this thread of course, but personally, I don't like being called a liar. In fact, if you can't understand the membership rules of Mudcat, and the moderators don't give a flying fuck for your abuse, may I suggest you stop your little games? Decent respectable people wish to use Mudcat, not just you and your good friend Akenaton. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM (#3723120) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Musket me old love, I would think you could suggest whatever you wish but my tomcat has more chance of winning Crufts than you have of getting any honesty from that direction. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 04:05 PM (#3723127) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST "Posting anonymously then agreeing with yourself? Rather odd Keith?" Not if its the posts I think you mean Musket. How about a link to one of these 'we' referring to UKIP posts. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 04:08 PM (#3723128) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Musket Your tomcat could pass for a Siberian hamster and get best of class, if he keeps his big mouth shut and like that one on the adverts, tries acting more dog. Passing off some on here as rational? They'd have to spend hours in make up first. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 04:10 PM (#3723129) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. After all, fancy him giving you a mighty brain that you then refuse to use And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the matter succinctly laid out for once and all. Stupid is as stupid does, World without end, Amen. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 05:20 PM (#3723138) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw You will have nice time there, Jack. Don't just go to the church at Bishop's Lydeard: invest fifteen quid on a ride on the West Somerset steam railway from Bishop's Lydeard to Minehead return. Lovely it is and the trip will take you back in time. We have a village church near Bude that I'm told has remarkable bench ends, at Launcells, I'm ashamed to say that' I've never investigated! |
|
12 Jul 15 - 05:34 PM (#3723139) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: akenaton "I was born an atheist - I will die an atheist. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of fact and knowing".....I have known several atheists who have ended up as "believers", even I at seventy, am beginning to see the peace belief gives to someone very close to me. You will never hear condemnation of "people of faith" from me. Your remarks illustrate that you know very little about human psychology......if you did you would not be nearly as certain. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 06:06 PM (#3723141) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver We have a village church near Bude that I'm told has remarkable bench ends, at Launcells, I'm ashamed to say that' I've never investigated! Cheers, Steve. Went to Launcells years ago & got some bad pics, so thanks for the reminder. Nice wall paintings too. St. Swithin's I think - St. Swithin's day on Tuesday - here's hoping! Bude? That rings a bell too - pasties probably... Must check out that Minehead train though (remembering I'll be with my missus who can only take so much!) BUT, coincidentally, and wondrously, earlier today I was just reading about Minehead in Arthur C Clarke's intro to The Sentinel. I trust there's a blue plaque?? I have known several atheists who have ended up as "believers", It's not a matter of belief, Ache - it's a matter of simply dying and being at one with the material Godless universe from which we sprung. As Carl Sagan said - we are star stuff. Thus we are born, and thus we die. This is what we are. This is what we do. With that in mind, we live with open & joyful hearts. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 06:37 PM (#3723146) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw St Swithin's it is! The steam railway chugs pleasantly through very nice countryside, all the stations decorated with tubs and troughs of cottage garden flowers and all the staff dressed the old way. It was me birthday treat in 2014, but because I'd been somewhat on the Prosecco the night before I found meself dipping in and out of slumber on the train in a most agreeable fashion, the chuffing of the steam engine having a most soporific effect. I'm sure the missus would love the sheer gentleness! I don't know about the blue plaque, but I'd recommend an hour or two at Porlock Weir if you can make it. A half-hour trot up the good path to the top of Dunkery Beacon, the highest point on Exmoor, is another lovely sojourn. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 07:05 PM (#3723152) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw There's nothing I enjoy more than going into churches, from the tiniest village ones that can seat a couple of dozen people at best, right up to the greatest cathedrals. I think my favourite little church is St Michael's on top of Brentor on Dartmoor, though I also love St Enodoc's, near Rock in Cornwall, which has John Betjeman's grave in the lovely churchyard. This year so far we've done Bath Abbey, which is lovely. In the last couple of years we've also done Exeter and Salisbury and my favourite of all, Hereford. |
|
12 Jul 15 - 08:29 PM (#3723158) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Those last three being cathedrals! |
|
13 Jul 15 - 01:18 AM (#3723187) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,HiLo Salisbury cathedral is one of my favourite places on earth. Just so breathtakingly beautiful. Also love Wells and Ely cathedrals. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 01:29 AM (#3723189) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,HiLo And St. Nonna's at Altarnun , Cornwall. Beautiful Woodwork, much of from the 16th century. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 02:30 AM (#3723193) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Allan Conn My point was Steve that the existence of the House itself is the issue to me. The fact that for historical reasons 3% of the seats are guaranteed to the Church of England is secondary. A much bigger proportion are guaranteed places for hereditary peers simply given seats for who their parents were. The rest of the seats are non elected placements made into life peers by the gvt of the day and even several of these would qualify for hereditary seats so it is another way to keep the establishment in. I am against the whole edifice so see the inclusion of a few bishops as neither here nor there. Plus other religions may wish for a guaranteed voice in the House (rather than individuals made into life peers) but would they be willing to have gvt interference over their own institution in return like there is over the CofE?? The CofS historically wasn't prepared to allow that and I suspect others wouldn't be either. I'd say enough with the tinkering around the issue, as Labour did, but go with the likes of the Nats who approve of the abolishing of the non-elected chamber completely and they have a policy of not accepting seats should they be offered unlike the other main parties who scramble for places. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 02:40 AM (#3723194) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Allan Conn Or rather than 3% it is 26 actual seats! The percentage of course varies. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 02:45 AM (#3723195) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket musing True. You can see a garden is beautiful without thinking there are fairies living at the bottom of it. When Mrs Musket and her friends are in the ringing chamber giving it some ding dong, you can catch me wandering around, admiring the beauty and fascinated by the history. Many who are blinkered by irrational superstition make the mental leap to assume that lack of delusion might somehow be to reject the part superstition played in shaping our culture. It's just that people did it, not their imaginary friend. It says more about their insecurity than it does about rational people. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 03:52 AM (#3723211) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "It's a talking shop." A talking shop with the power to block legislation and your description of the church fits thousands of other groups in Britain, from cyclists, to womens' institutes, to Freemasons.... only the others don't have the power of a mystical being to frightens people into believing behind it. Not in any way a believer, but the most atmospherically beautiful place of worship I've ever been in is here and the most spectacular one is here - (if they ever got rid of that god-awful neon cross!!) Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jul 15 - 03:53 AM (#3723212) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome I remember being in Wells cathedral when an elderly American lady said, very loudly to her partner, "Gee, this sure is old. Must be Victorian." I just kept quiet. :-) |
|
13 Jul 15 - 04:09 AM (#3723215) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Have to agree with Jim regarding the Italian Chapel on Orkney, that really is a testament to peoples faith. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 04:16 AM (#3723219) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Yup - so much to do, so little time! Hereford's something - then it's out on the trail of the Herefordshire Romanesque, the jewel of which is Kilpeck. First time I went I was expecting Rosslyn style hype - instead I found a few cows in a farmyard & had the place to myself for two hours. Then there's Much Marcle and (gulp!) the Templar church at Garway... The nearest we'll be getting this time is Worcester and Tewkesbury on the way down. The Holy Ghost at Crowcombe is a must for bench-end fans, and I just love St. Mary Magdelene's at Barwick trucked away behind Yeovil. Like I say - so much to do, so little time... Altarnun! Never been, but always wanted to see the famous FIDDLER whose instrument matches the ones found on the Mary Rose. Nice BAGPIPER too. Note double chanter - one of several prototypes of the Cornish bagpipe... |
|
13 Jul 15 - 04:50 AM (#3723226) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver PS : Wells Cathedral: Jack Blandiver |
|
13 Jul 15 - 05:00 AM (#3723231) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw I'm going off half-cock here, but one of my favourite church "insides" is Paddy's Wigwam in Liverpool. The circular layout feels very inclusive (not that I particularly wish to be "included", mind!), and the light coming in through the coloured windows on a sunshiny day is stunning. Not quite so taken with the wacky outside though! Salisbury is stunningly beautiful from outside. I didn't respond quite so positively to the inside, but then I love to let my subjectivity completely take me over on such occasions. The bishop is an old but now long-lost friend of ours. In June we saw the most beautiful little chapel we've ever seen, La Madonna Della Rocca near Taormina in Sicily, with its natural cave ceiling. Absolutely nothing to see from the outside, mind. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 05:09 AM (#3723232) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash If it's windows you want Steve try the little church in Eyeries on the Beara peninsula in West Cork. Mainly secular and utterly brilliant. Very pretty village and the view from the back window of Causkeys Bar is fantastic. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 05:32 AM (#3723244) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver I love the Wigwam, it excites the modernist in me whilst managing to be quite timeless too. Maybe because it was conceived in the same year I was?? I feel a similar empathy with the wholly secular Civic Centre in Newcastle. When it comes to windows... there's a little old church in York - All Saints on North Street - which has The Pricke of Conscience window c. 1410. Just there - to wander in off the street and have it all to yourself... |
|
13 Jul 15 - 06:10 AM (#3723253) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST "The translator is a commentator, and every commentator also adds something of himself towards the deepening of the matter, its explanation and emphasis. " ~~ Chaim Nachman Bialik |
|
13 Jul 15 - 06:51 AM (#3723262) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Paddy's Wigwam in Liverpool." Lost my 'cherry' in the Crypt there just after it opened (hope that doesn't offend too many people). Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jul 15 - 06:51 AM (#3723263) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Paddy's Wigwam in Liverpool." Lost my 'cherry' in the Crypt there just after it opened (hope that doesn't offend too many people). Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jul 15 - 07:20 AM (#3723271) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,6.24 That's unfortunate Jim C.Our Priest took me for a dirty weekend at Walsingham.Least I got a bit of an holiday. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 07:22 AM (#3723272) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver The crypt is an altogether different proposition from the main building I gather, though (as yet) I've never actually been in... I lost mine in the wee Norman Church of Our Lady in Seaton Delaval. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM (#3723281) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash 6.24 it sound like you got a bit more than a holiday!! |
|
13 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM (#3723308) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll Have to say I find the Cathedral a remarkably ugly building Much prefer Lutyens' original design , bit then again, I always was a traditionalist. Seem to remember the crypt being totally devoid of the garishness of the main building, but then again, I was a little preoccupied! Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM (#3723320) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Compared to the monstrosity of the Anglican Cathedral it's a wee jewel. One of Liverpool's REAL three graces in my opinion - the other two being the Stanley Dock warehouse (a haunt of Dylan's by the look of it...) and the Tate & Lyle sugar silo... |
|
13 Jul 15 - 09:31 AM (#3723325) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver There's a nice model of the Lutyens' design in the new Museum of Liverpool which is worth a look if ever you're passing... http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/conservation/departments/models/lutyens/ |
|
13 Jul 15 - 09:38 AM (#3723330) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Compared to the monstrosity of the Anglican Cathedral" Don't mind the Anglican Cathedral - straight out of H.P. Lovecraft - and it still isn't finished after 130 years! Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM (#3723332) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash If we're talking cathedrals Durham tops the list for me. Stunning way to frighten the masses. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 11:16 AM (#3723348) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Stilly River Sage The New World doesn't have the age of churches and cathedrals you're discussing, but it does have some beautiful structures. One U.S. architect, in particular, has a style that he has adapted for various locations to pull the out-of-doors into the building. Fay Jones was from Arkansas and has built chapels around the US. In New York City there are churches built at the time of U.S. founding fathers but one that I always enjoy visiting is small in scale but important in American history, mostly because of who is buried in the churchyard. Trinity Church has been on the site, in three different versions, since 1697. The current (third) church was completed in 1846. This atheist is perfectly happy enjoying the history, art, and architecture of these structures. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 11:26 AM (#3723350) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,# "The New World doesn't have the age of churches and cathedrals you're discussing . . ." I disagree with that statement. The Mayan temples attest to structures being built for religious reasons. Whether the religion passes anyone's litmus test is another thread. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 11:59 AM (#3723356) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Durham Cathedral's a place close to my heart, but here's a tale.... After the Battle of Neville's Cross (1346) the building was used as POW camp for Scottish soldiers who proceeded to trash the place - burning whatever they could find to keep warm, smashing the heads of statues to heat them in the embers as pass round to keep their hands warm. The evidence of this is there for all to see; not the usual reformation vandalism we're used to weeping over. Folklore records the prosonors left Prior Castel's famous clock untouched because it bears a prominent thistle. A canny Cathedral guide will point it was more likely because they needed it to know what time it was; a cannier one will tell you it was because the clock wasn't put there for another sixty years or more... Folklore also records that whilst the prisoners' excrement was carried off and dumped into the Wear by a special team of medieval honey diggers, their urine pooled beneath the foundations of the solid bedrock of the Dunholme where it lay peaceably for over 600 years until the summer of 1976 when it was kicked off by the heat, necessitating the cathedral be closed until the problem could be sorted. Folklore also records that I went into Durham Cathedral one day and engaged Christopher Lee in a conversation covering much of the above without recognising him.... |
|
13 Jul 15 - 01:18 PM (#3723368) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome You were doing well until that lat bit. Jack, but everyone knows that Dracula could not have gone in a church :-D |
|
13 Jul 15 - 02:48 PM (#3723387) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Nor even Lord Summerisle himself! But on this occasion he was in his Templar garb filming Ivanhoe for the BBC, c. 1997: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514cIcOOz2L.jpg I even made him chuckle with my quote from Sir Walter Scott: Grey towers of Durham, yet well I love thy mixed and massive piles.... Which you'll find engraved on Prebends Bridge by The View, no doubt in memory of the sufferings of the Scottish POWs after The Battle of Neville's Cross. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 08:48 PM (#3723434) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw In contrast to the Mersey Funnel, light, airy, undated and modern inside, the Anglican cathedral is over-large, morose, gloomy and charmless. At least, that was my response to it. I love the sunken garden alongside, however, a haven of peace in a big city, even if not exactly cheerful. An interesting throwaway remark from Raggytash: If we're talking cathedrals Durham tops the list for me. Stunning way to frighten the masses. A great cathedral has to strike a somewhat delicate balance between grandeur way beyond human scale (let's call it Godly magnificence) and not frightening people half to death via shock and awe. I've been in a good number of churches in ultra-Catholic Italy, large and small, and it often seems to me that the major earthly edifices of Catholicism are indeed frequently designed to terrify. Quite often, the internal architecture is crude and somewhat brutal, and the statuary and other iconography is chunky, unsubtle, dark and, well, looming and scary. Down in the crypt of the Duomo in Naples a large urn under a dedicated altar contains the bones, sticking proudly out of its top, of St Gennaro, martyred in the third century in La Solfatara crater at Pozzuoli. Well I really didn't need to see that! :-) The non-Catholic cathedrals of Britain often strike that delicate balance a bit more successfully. You can be big and chunky, like St David's and Hereford Cathedrals and Bath Abbey, but still feel welcoming. ;-) if you're ever in Truro, the cathedral, all a bit of a derivative hotchpotch, can still surprise and, sort of, delight. |
|
13 Jul 15 - 08:52 PM (#3723435) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Though I suppose they weren't always non-Catholic... |
|
14 Jul 15 - 02:26 AM (#3723448) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket again The admiration of old churches runs well with me. At last, this debate is getting interesting. I also love the ruined piles that old 'Enry gave us. A literal church v state situation. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 03:20 AM (#3723456) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Steve, I can assure you it was not a throw away line, it was a considered remark, and as for the great cathedrals, abbey, friaries of the UK a good majority were "stolen" from the catholic faith who originally built them. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 03:51 AM (#3723465) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "from the catholic faith who originally built them." The great cathedrals and friaries were built by the sweated labour of artisan peasants, not by any particular faith - that is what makes them so interesting - they are monuments to humanity, not to any particular God. We've been lucky enough to be able to visit some of the beautiful temples built by heathens such as the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, equally beautiful and spectacularly skillful and equally dripping with the blood of those who actually carried the hods. Still never come down from our visits to Abu Simbal and Philae - never made the ones in South America. Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jul 15 - 03:55 AM (#3723467) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Point taken Jim, but shall we say they were originally dedicated to the catholic faith and were subsequently "stolen" by the protestant faith. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 04:53 AM (#3723478) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Norwich Cathedral is a particular favourite of mine; York Minster likewise, though for me its generally about the details - the medieval minutiae so beloved of the Pre-Reformation Catholic Church and so readily promoted / dismissed as pagan by their latter-day Anglican custodians without a wider understanding of the essentially dualist theology of the time. Here's a one from the Norwich Cloister, though fully integral to the Passion sequence, viewed out of context it's easy to see why such notions might take hold, but we mustn't forget where we are, much less when... Norwich Cathedral, East Walk Cloister Boss Ribaldry abounds too - in keeping with the clerical fascination for such things, didactic or otherwise, as in the songs collected in the celebrated Carmina Burana ms. One might, therefore, ponder the symbolic purpose of this delightful little scene from York Minster in which a monkey buggers a boar with what appears to be a piece of narwhale tusk: Column Capital, North Choir Aisle, York Minster Sadly, Christianity just doesn't seem to have the same sense of humour or humanity anymore! |
|
14 Jul 15 - 04:58 AM (#3723479) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Point taken Jim" Thanks Raggy One of the first (and best) songs we recorded from Travellers was one made by Wexford Traveller, 'Pop's' Johnny Connors - a statement of pride covering their abilities historically; The first two verses are: We are the Travelling people like the Picts and Beaker Folk, The men in Whitehall think we're parasites, but 'Tinker' is the name. All the jobs in the world we have done From making Pharaoh's coffins, to building Birmingham Heady stuff Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jul 15 - 05:04 AM (#3723480) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash On one of the Misericords in Manchester Cathedral is a depiction of rabbits roasting a hunter! http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-manchester-cathedral-misericord-the-hunter-hunted-34985579.html |
|
14 Jul 15 - 05:26 AM (#3723484) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver The great cathedrals and friaries were built by the sweated labour of artisan peasants, not by any particular faith I would think the sweated labour was of the architects, master masons, carpenters & labourers of a very particular faith and directed to the very particular purpose of the Church / State situation they were working for. There are hints of other influences - the 12th century Galilee Chapel of Durham Cathedral has very definite Islamic touches - but the dedication is most assuredly Catholic. Even the artisan peasants who did the grafting would have known only too well which side of their daily bread was buttered. I'm inclined to agree with Raggytash when he says Stunning way to frighten the masses.. Even now we might look at Durham Cathedral (from as far away as ten miles as I recall from North Durham!) and shudder at its absolute dominance of the landscape. On the country boundary signs it says Country Durham - Land of the Prince Bishops - church & state in one chilling absolute authority dedicated utterly, and ruthlessly, to the upholding of the power structures that were integral to The One True Faith. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 05:42 AM (#3723488) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome The lake district churches and chapels always amaze me. From the magnificence of Cartmel Priory right to tiny church of St Olaf in Wasdale. I am never sure which I like best. Usually depends which I am in at the time :-) One a bit nearer home for me (about 40 minutes drive - about 5 minutes past the Station, Raggy) is St Leonards in Chapel-le-Dale. A beautiful little church with a stunning view of Ingleborough from the front porch. It also now contains a memorial to the many men women and children who lost their lives building the Settle to Carlisle railway and were buried in unmarked graves at St Leonards. Very poignant. Anyone know why it would be listed in a Cumbria tourist site? As far as I know it has always been in Yorkshire but with, I think, a Lancaster postcode! |
|
14 Jul 15 - 05:51 AM (#3723489) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome While I was thinking I also remembered visiting a few churches looking for the work of Robert (Mouseman) Thompson but I can only remember finding them at Hubberholme. Must return to that search one day :-) |
|
14 Jul 15 - 06:09 AM (#3723493) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver We are the Travelling people like the Picts and Beaker Folk, The men in Whitehall think we're parasites, but 'Tinker' is the name. All the jobs in the world we have done From making Pharaoh's coffins, to building Birmingham That's a very Kiplingesque reading of history, Jim - almost plagiarism! Heady maybe, but historically wayward too; both The Picts and The Beaker Folk were very much the unitary authorities of their time. In the case of the latter their dominion extended throughout most of the British Isles and was powerful enough to marshal the forces that built Silbury Hill or else drag the blue stones from Preseli Mountains to Salisbury Plain. Slave labour? That's too simple a reading. Even your pal Ewan MacColl celebrated such municipal engineering projects as a source of proletarian pride, as he did here in his song abut the building of Blyth Power Station: Blyth Power Station Record Breaker Part 1 (from 1.30) As for Pharaoh's coffins - the techniques of their construction might baffle the most eminent of archaeologists today so I don't think we're talking itinerant labour here somehow... |
|
14 Jul 15 - 06:19 AM (#3723494) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Heady maybe, but historically wayward too" Not bad for a semi-literate Traveller though These songs, folk or otherwise, are seldom, if ever, historically correct - one of the verses says: "We taught the Emperor Nero how to play the pipes, Way back in the days of Rome" All very tongue-in-cheek and expected to be taken this way - ah well As far as I'm concerned, it's streets ahead of the Imperialist hymns were were taught in school about civilising the savages Give us a break Blandy! Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jul 15 - 06:24 AM (#3723496) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Sorry, Raggytash, I took your remark as absolutely io the button and didn't mean to sound critical of it. Clumsy sod, Shaw... I have a special affection for Tintern Abbey, not least because the day we visited it had lovely light. In addition, the occasion was the very first time I got a senior citizen's concession for anything - even though the nice lady on the desk knew that my 60th wasn't until the next day. It felt like winning the lottery (though it saved me just 50p)! The day also managed to largely erase the memory of having Wordsworth's tedious poem shoved down my throat for 'O' Level English Lit! |
|
14 Jul 15 - 06:47 AM (#3723500) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Not bad for a semi-literate Traveller though There's a lot of wisdom in those lyrics, Jim - a clear agenda and an obvious awareness of both history & Kipling. So - semi-literate? Hmmm.... unless they've been watching a lot of TV. I wonder, do any Travellers of your acquaintance still claim lineage to Ancient Egypt? I remember hearing from one young Traveller how their teacher, taking such things a tad too literally, once bought them packs (at some considerable expense on an already stained budget) on Ancient Egypt to better instruct them on their true - er - heritage. That was only about 20 years ago... Kilping's an obvious imperialist, but despite his conservatism & patronising folksiness (The Land is a classic example of his vision of cultural continuity under feudalism despite many taking it to be some sort of socialist morality tale...) I think he's well aware of who the true savages are, however so mawkish his vision. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 06:49 AM (#3723501) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Has anyone been to St Mary's Church in Wreay up in Cumbria. I recently read a book about Sara Losh who designed and oversaw the building of the church there between 1840 and 1842. It is supposed to be a brilliant designed using pine cones as one of her designs together with many other symbols instead of the usual religious icons. It's on my list to visit this summer. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:02 AM (#3723502) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Heard about it, but never been. There's some nice pics here: The Pinecone : a Visit to St Mary's Church, Wreay in Cumbria The rounded apse and doorway show an awareness of the Romanesque, of which Kilpeck near Hereford is a classic example: Church of St Mary and St David, Kilpeck |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:11 AM (#3723505) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome I well remember traveling down to Chepstow by bus. I saw some old ruins and asked the Missus what they were. She said "Tintern Abbey", to which I replied "Well, if it'int an abbey it's some sort of church..." |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:29 AM (#3723506) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,HiLo Fountains Abbey is one of my favourite places. The last time I was thereBBC were filming a documentary, Gregorian chant was wafting round the ruins, magical. Lovely music in a beautiful setting! |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:43 AM (#3723507) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Rubbish Dave, Everyone knows Tintern Abbey is in County Wexford. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:49 AM (#3723510) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome tin't an abbey in Wexford at all. 'tis an abbey in Wales though... |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:53 AM (#3723511) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Hmmm....unless they've been watching a lot of TV." Hmmm.... sounds like literacy snobbery to me! - it's a myth that if you don't read, you don't know anything. The 'Egyptian' and Middle Eastern connection is quite common among Travellrs - Gordon Boswell spoke at length on it during the making of The Travelling People. Travellers were said to have been first condemned to take to the roads as a punishment for making the nails for Christ's crucifixion. , and their part in building the pyramids is a common piece of folklore among then - read Borrow. It's not beyond the realms of fantasy that itinerant tribes were sold into slavery - basically, the song is a boast on the well-proven fact that Travelleers are capable of turning their hands to anything to make a living, wherever they are. Johnny was a Traveller activist who learned to read (sort of) shortly before we met him in 1973, while a guest of Her Maj in Winson Green Prison for his activities. He wrote a chapter of Jeremy Sandford's book, 'Gypsies', which is how we got to know him. He became an Irish representative on the European Gypsy Council, where he met Travellers from all over the world, while at the same time, collecting scrap in London. Amazing what you can do when you set your mind to it - even if you only have the rudimentarys of reading - one amazing man. Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:54 AM (#3723512) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Gollocks!! http://www.wexfordweb.com/tintern.htm |
|
14 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM (#3723513) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Hmmm.... sounds like literacy snobbery to me! Hell no, just remembering what you said once about the impact of TV on traditional Traveller culture. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 08:30 AM (#3723515) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Should these parts of our heritage get state support ? |
|
14 Jul 15 - 08:33 AM (#3723516) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Hell no, just remembering what you said once about the impact of TV on traditional Traveller culture." That was about the destruction of the tradition - not about the tradition itself. Don't forget, the term 'Gypsy' is a misinterpretation - a claim that they originally came from Egypt ,and were a lost tribe of the Jews who fled Pharaoh's wrath. Nice to know that something I once said was remembered though! Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jul 15 - 08:52 AM (#3723518) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Stilly River Sage #, my response last night seems to have been lost in the ether. You have a point about Mayan Temples, and we can add Kivas in the Southwest, ritualistic ball courts, the large burial mounds of the Mississippian nations, and totem poles honoring mythic ancestors of the Northwest Coast, to name only a few. But you must recall that when Columbus landed the first time in North America that he concluded the natives must be heathens because there were no church spires in view amongst their buildings. ;-) I didn't draw a line between all of the possibilities because the discussion was Western style churches, and in particular, something only slightly older than the Victorian churchyard as mentioned in a post above. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 08:58 AM (#3723519) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Level pegging Davie Boy ......... one more post and I'll have WON!!!! Yippee, you're only hope is to get the thread deleted. What should I do ........ get a blue plaque made or celebrate with a pint of Guinness ...... no contest really. AND as a bonus not one post from his nibs since Sunday!!! |
|
14 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM (#3723521) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash And as I can't spell YOUR I now claim victory |
|
14 Jul 15 - 09:00 AM (#3723522) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Should they get state support? Absolutely. Remove the religions and their pious idiocy that mars many a visit to a nice cathedral with calls to prayer which everyone's somehow obliged to respect. Here's a piece I did based around a field-recording I made in York Minster - they were turning the organ when the call to prayer came... York : Prayer & Pilgrimage (aka Cursed Deference) 20th & 23rd December 2013 In Durham Cathedral, you're not even allowed to take photographs. A lot of cathedrals will charge £5 - £10 for a permit , York covers it in the entry free - valid for year if you gift aid it, whereas Norwich is free these days with voluntary donations, which I'm only too happy to give. I once had an unpleasant run-in with a cathedral usher in Bristol who told me I had to stop akin pictures because the service had started. 'But there's no one here!' I protested, which there wasn't apart from a small gathering in the quire. He demanded respect, but I heartily apologised and told told him I couldn't oblige. * Don't forget, the term 'Gypsy' is a misinterpretation - a claim that they originally came from Egypt ,and were a lost tribe of the Jews who fled Pharaoh's wrath. Seems this teacher took this legend a little too literally - thought that by teaching them about Ancient Egypt she was enriching their heritage. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 09:19 AM (#3723526) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash XX, As has already been stated, get rid of the religious money grabbers and have the state run them seems like a good idea ..... however I have seen at first hand how organisation like English Heritage and the National Trust waste sheds loads of money. For example some years ago an archaeological dig was taking place at Whitby Abbey. I drove past one Saturday afternoon and saw what I took to be cloches I presumed the multi-coloured cloths were protecting graves that had been excavated. I found later that they were an "art installation" and that the "artist" had been paid (I think) £25,000 !! Personally I like the Irish approach, many ancient ruins are kept in order by the state and can be accessed free of charge, no ice-cream vendors, no tourist tat shop and you can wander round to your hearts content. |
|
14 Jul 15 - 09:27 AM (#3723527) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome From the Wiki notes on Jamie Macpherson - Forasmeikle as you James McPherson, pannal [accused] are found guilty by ane verdict of ane assyse, to be knoun, holden, and repute to be Egiptian and a wagabond, and oppressor of his Magesties free lieges in ane bangstrie manner, and going up and down the country armed, and keeping mercats in ane hostile manner, and that you are a thief, and that you are of pessimae famae. Therfor, the Sheriff-depute of Banff, and I in his name, adjudges and discernes you the said James McPherson to be taken to the Cross of Banff, from the tolbooth thereof, where you now lye, and there upon ane gibbet to be erected, to be hanged by the neck to the death by the hand of the common executioner, upon Friday next, being the 16th day of November instant, being a public weekly mercat day, betwixt the hours of two and three in the afternoon.... So, we now know that Macpherson was an 'Egiptian', which as an offence in Scotland, but WTF was 'keeping mercats in ane hostile manner' all about? Did he go to ComparetheMarket.com for his legal aid or something? And I win now because I totally ignore your last points. :D tG |
|
14 Jul 15 - 09:59 AM (#3723533) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash It,s true, I'm guilty as charged I've crossed a lot of markets in my time ..... yu 'onour |
|
14 Jul 15 - 12:11 PM (#3723561) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Davie Stewart claimed to be descended from him. For sure, no one could sing the Rant with such conviction or authenticity. But then, I'm a bit of a fan... http://research.culturalequity.org/get-audio-detailed-recording.do?recordingId=12484 * I saw MacPherson's broken fiddle once on a childhood holiday in Scotland: http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/newtonmore/clanmacpherson/ |
|
14 Jul 15 - 03:11 PM (#3723602) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: akenaton The old Highland tinkers had no relationship to Romany Gypsies, I remember the last of them on the roads of Argyll in the 1950's They made tincraft, kettles and cans, from where came the "tinker" name, they also sold hardware from baskets and played pipes or fiddles(usually very badly)....they carried their homes on their backs and formed bow tents from ash and hazel saplings. On the East Coast many were employed in seasonal agricultural work They are long gone and sadly missed by those who still remember them. They have been replaced by the scrap metal merchants, and cowboy builders who con the elderly all over this part of Scotland. They now have the protection of Special Status Group, which keeps them above the law on most occasions. Maccoll said it all in "Thirty foot trailer" Like the "Working Class", the "Travellers" are a part of history |
|
14 Jul 15 - 03:49 PM (#3723614) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Like the "Working Class", the "Travellers" are a part of history" Not necessarily Even those that have been (often forcibly) settled consider themselves Travellers and spend half the year Travelling, were possible. We met a lady who is working with the grand-daughter of one of our best singers in Waterford, who we are told, is now on the road and will not be back till October. There's enough evidence to suggest this was always the case - Travellers rented houses in winter and prepared the following year's tinware Travellers always gave a place they identified with, sometimes where they or one of their parents were born, but quite often, where thy chose to stay the winter. Until urbanisation, they had set routs, which often conined them to one or maybe two counties. Couldn't begin to understand your "working class" reference - seems was living a lie for fifty years and many of my family still are... But not here. Jim CarrollA |
|
14 Jul 15 - 04:29 PM (#3723630) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Like the "Working Class", the "Travellers" are a part of history What planet are you on, Ache? |
|
15 Jul 15 - 02:56 AM (#3723705) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: akenaton There are "workers", but the "working class" as an organised political entity has been decimated. Technology has done the same to the "tinkers" Jim ...our house stands on an isolated crossroads, in the early fifties the door was always open, and the travellers knew that there was always a cup of tea, a fill of tobacco and in the cold weather a nip of whisky waiting for them. They always insisted on leaving a string of "whangs"(leather boot laces), a card of buttons, or some hooks and eyes and a "purn" of thread...they could tell the finest stories.....our family were well known to them. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 03:03 AM (#3723706) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver but the "working class" as an organised political entity has been decimated. The working class never were an organised political entity, rather the servile underdogs of a stratified system of cultural & economic apartheid that continues unabated from the Norman Conquest (and earlier) to the present day. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 03:39 AM (#3723714) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Joe Offer Stated above: as for the great cathedrals, abbey, friaries of the UK a good majority were "stolen" from the catholic faith who originally built them. As a Catholic, I've heard that, but I wonder if it's true. Who really "owns" the York Minster, for example? The Church of Rome, or the Church of England? I think it's the people of York who have the most legitimate claim to the building. Nowadays, though, Gothic cathedrals are huge liabilities, and it costs lots of money to preserve them. They're of little use to churches in this day and age. Should they be torn down? If not, who should pay for their upkeep? We have the same problem with the Franciscan missions here in California. They're a terrific tourist attraction, but they don't work very well as churches any more. So, who should own them, and who should pay for their upkeep? -Joe- |
|
15 Jul 15 - 03:43 AM (#3723715) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Jim ...our house stands on an isolated crossroads, in the early fifties the door was always open, and the travellers knew that there was always a cup of tea" All very romantic Ake, but your earlier posting reads like the interviews MacColl and Parkerdid with householders who were claiming that "these people aren't real Travellers", and that they "don't want to live like us" and insisted that they be driven out of the society of "decent people" One man described "the dark-haired bints in long dresses dancing around the camp-fires" wearing earrings and beating tambourines". This is dangerous, racist nonsense and has led to the persecution of today's Travellers that we witnesses (and sometimes experienced because of our association with them), throughout the time we worked with them. Nobody knows for certain how Travellers originated - the earliest of them probably came from Asia, but persecution, urbanisation and inter-marriage makes nonsense of claims of being "a real Gypsy" or "a real Romany" - a term used to scapegoat the Scots and the Irish, sadly, often by English Travellers. The offensive description you give of " the scrap metal merchants, and cowboy builders who con the elderly all over this part of Scotland", is largely due to Travellers losing their traditional rural occupations, moving into cities and picking up the worst of city habits. It may describe a small number of them, and it equally applies to groups of settled people using shady methods to eke out a living in post-Thatcher Britain. As someone who describes himself as a Socialist, you really should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt that you are. I agree entirely with what Jack Blandiver said about your equally nonsensical view of the working class. Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 04:04 AM (#3723717) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver As a Catholic, I've heard that, but I wonder if it's true It is. Same with all other medieval cathedrals in the UK. Though York Minster often hosts events by other faiths (at a cost) the rite is very much Anglican. Much emphasis is placed on continuity of Christian Worship at these sites, but it's the discontinuity that makes it interesting. https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/our-buildings/cathedrals.aspx |
|
15 Jul 15 - 04:38 AM (#3723724) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash I think most people can understand the vast cost of maintaining such buildings as Durham Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, however the church now charges exorbitant amounts of money to even enter the building. They do set aside a small chapel at York Minster for people who just want to pray. This is carefully screened off so you cannot see the interior of the main building. I, for one, refuse to pay the fee to enter such a building and confine myself to looking at the external architecture. At York adult admission is £10 for the minster or £15 for the minster and tower. I would gladly make a donation (probably equal to if not exceeding the fee) if I were not being "forced" to pay it. However judging by the number of people who do visit each day, week, month, year (some 1,600,000 in 2000) visitor fees alone are substantial, that is not taking into account money spent on tourist tat which seems to be ever present(and in increasing amounts) at such venues together with guide books, candles etc etc. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 05:42 AM (#3723736) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX The buildings were paid for by the fruits of the labour of working people in the area. I guess some credit might be due to effective planning and management by the fuedal heirarchy - but they paid themselves well enough for that. Unlike (as it would seem) some folks here I can't go round these places without being reminded of the inequality and authoritarian nature of the society that built them. But unlike the same folks here I don't think that is relevant now - it's in the past. I still think it's OK for some of those in the present day heirarchy to be chosen to express their views in an organised talking shop. Otherwise they and the rest of the gang there would be doing it behind closed doors. They may still be but leaks revealing hypocrisy and inconsistency spread fast now. Just at the moment they same to be arguing against current inequalities. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 05:50 AM (#3723737) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome On an early visit to London I was quite amazed at the high cost of entering Westminster Abbey compared to the free entry to Westminster Cathedral. On looking it up I see that the Abbey is now £20 for a standard adult ticket while the Cathedral is still free apart from entry of £6 to the viewing gallery in the tower and there is a separate exhibition of treasures for which the cost is £5. At least it is free to just have a look round. Not sure what this tells us though. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:13 AM (#3723741) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash "I still think it's OK for some of those in the present day heirarchy to be chosen to express their views in an organised talking shop. Otherwise they and the rest of the gang there would be doing it behind closed doors. They may still be but leaks revealing hypocrisy and inconsistency spread fast now" My problem XX as I have said before the church has 26 seats in the House of Lords in perpetuity. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any say in the matter. We, the people, cannot decide we do not like what they are saying or doing and remove them. It can easily be argued that they are not representative of the population, a small minority of people attend church on a regular basis and those numbers are propped up by the migrant population (which is sure to "please" a number of posters on this forum.) The House of Lords in it's current format is an anachronism which is past it's sell by date, but as I've previously stated that is a separate discussion. I would prefer if people would stay on the main argument much as I love architecture. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:17 AM (#3723743) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver At York adult admission is £10 for the minster or £15 for the minster and tower. Peanuts compared to what you get for your money. As I said earlier, if you Gift-Aid it, it's valid for a whole year. I don't think you can say fairer than that really. Unlike (as it would seem) some folks here I can't go round these places without being reminded of the inequality and authoritarian nature of the society that built them. But unlike the same folks here I don't think that is relevant now - it's in the past. History is integral to our heritage. For sure, it's pretty rancid but the old hierarchies endure defining the nature of British society from the homeless to the monarchy. Remember, such functionalist conservatism is an integral part of Christian thinking. As they still sing : the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate - God made them high and lowly - He ordered their estate. All things bright and beautiful etc. Not sure what this tells us though. It tells us that Westminster Abbey (c. 1090) is a very different sort of place to Westminster Cathedral (c. 1903). Love them both myself; the latter was recently mistaken for a mosque by the idiots of UKIP. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:30 AM (#3723746) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any say in the matter. This is a democracy. When enough people want change, it will happen. The fact is that it is not an issue for many people at all. When did you last hear it being discussed anywhere other than Mudcat? We have abolished hereditary peers. We have gay marriage. When enough people want change, it happens. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:39 AM (#3723750) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Jack, As XX has clearly stated these buildings were erected by the labour of "the people" the masons, the carpenters etc etc. Now I, and you, have to pay to visit a so-called house of god. Something fundamentally wrong with that in my book. BTW I do understand the massive cost of upkeep. I used to be responsible for the running of various buildings in my employ for most of the last twenty years of my working life. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:45 AM (#3723752) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Not wishing to put too fine a point on it KAOH FUCK OFF!!! |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:47 AM (#3723753) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Now I, and you, have to pay to visit a so-called house of god. Why should you expect something for nothing? Attendance at services is free, but a voluntary collection will be made. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:48 AM (#3723754) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Rag, re. your post 15 Jul 15 - 06:45 AM, No. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 07:12 AM (#3723758) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Jack, As XX has clearly stated these buildings were erected by the labour of "the people" the masons, the carpenters etc etc. Nothing so very clear about it, Raggytash - it's just rhetoric, and quite inaccurate at that. These buildings were erected by highly skilled labourers and master of various guilds in direct employ of the Church and it does us good to remember their artistry & cough up a miserly fee in the hope it's directed to the upkeep so that future generations may enjoy it too. Am I remembering that it costs somewhere in the region of £20,000 a week just to keep York Minster warm & dry? This is hardly Folk Art we're talking about here, despite some cunning flourishes on the vernacular of the time, theological & otherwise. For £10 quid you're getting access to the enduring legacy of human ingenuity however ill-founded or mis-directed, but the same might be said of the Pyramids or Stonehenge or my humble old Victorian terraced house or the M6. So I happily pay my tenner for a few hour's time-travelling whilst seeking out the devil that endures in the details of the centuries. I'm an atheist so God really has nothing to do with it. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 07:23 AM (#3723762) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Jack, As I've previously stated I do not mind contributing to the upkeep of the building but to have someone forbid me to enter unless I pay does not sit right with me. The Anglican Church is an extremely wealthy organisation, even I was surprised at the vast amount of investments they had two years ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23467750 |
|
15 Jul 15 - 07:26 AM (#3723763) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX As XX has clearly stated these buildings were erected by the labour of "the people" No I didn't. I said "The buildings were paid for by the fruits of the labour of working people in the area." The masons etc were paid by money collected as taxation, tithes and so on. However, even if a building was put up by public subscription maintenance has to be paid for. Whether it is from general taxation or a fee on the door is a debate that goes beyond old churches. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM (#3723765) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford You can not get in to the Tower of London without payment. You can attend a service at any church or cathedral for nothing. Most churches are left open and free all day too. Perhaps you expect them to pay you something Rag? |
|
15 Jul 15 - 07:49 AM (#3723767) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Minor point but attending a service is not nothing. It is time that could be far better spent appreciating the art and architecture of the building. I do not know for certain but I strongly suspect that if you started wandering round the abbey during a service you would be asked to sit down or leave. As to the difference between Westminster abbey and cathedral, yes,the age is significant but is not the cost in maintaining both very high? If so, why does one charge and the other not? Anything to do with one giving something back to the people while the other, being part of the state, is still taxing them? Just asking. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:12 AM (#3723770) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw You can get into Salisbury Cathedral without paying if you really want to dig in, but you have to run the gauntlet of the extremely vigilant staff at the "voluntary donations" booth! :-). I think it's a suggested £7.50 these days. The same applies at Bath Abbey (wonderful) but the suggested donation is two quid. Pay up! |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:30 AM (#3723776) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "These buildings were erected by highly skilled labourers and master of various guilds" No they weren't - the intricate work may be carried out by artisans and craftsmen (who were very much a part of the labouring classes - certainly not princes, Dukes, Bishops, merchants...) but the heavy lifting was done by unskilled labour - no diffrent from any other job requiring a mixture of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour. Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:32 AM (#3723779) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Times I've been to Westminster Cathedral I was in the company of practising Catholics who attended for Mass. I don't think Westminster Abbey has the same intensity of devotion somehow - maybe that's true of Anglicanism as a whole?? I never sense much religion in York Minster - just the occasional call to prayer or a wee service going on in as side chapel - it's mostly happy tourists. Do you get tourists in Westminster Cathedral in the same way I wonder? Even in the Mersey Funnel the place seems weirdly votive somehow. Norwich Catholic Cathedral likewise (well worth a look by the way). I used to attend Evensong in Durham Cathedral because of the music - nice to sit up there and be immersed in so vivid a choral tradition unbroken but a brief hiatus during the republican era. I don't think you have to pay though... |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:44 AM (#3723780) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "You can not get in to the Tower of London without payment." No church, or cathedral is in any way comparable to The Tower of London with all its displays. You don't have to pay to enter art galleries and museums in Britain - far more culturally important and informative than anything any church, and essential to our and our children's education. Only a tenth of the population visit church. and well over half the voting population are opposed to paying for and in many cases allowing religious schools. Perhaps the churches should be considering changing for services as it is very much a minority habit. Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM (#3723782) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver no diffrent from any other job requiring a mixture of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour. Do you get much unskilled labour on a building site? Not in my young day! You got a lot of pride in a job well done & well earned pay packet whatever the time-served skill. Sorry if this getting all a bit Auf Wiedersehen, Pet! (and I know I'm talking to a skilled spark) but you have an even more exacting cause for precision at all stages of the job in medieval Romanesque & Gothic architecture. Then as now - unskilled meant unemployed. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:50 AM (#3723784) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford There is much more to see in a church or cathedral than just the building, and the services are the reason they exist. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM (#3723789) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket laughing "services are the reason they exist." More God botherers nonsense. There are thousands of old buildings that used to be churches but like Jesus, society has less use for them than they used to when the majority of people were superstitious. Even those that are used for rituals, many have lottery grants that include making the building available for non Jesus use. I sang at a concert in a church only a few weeks ago. Booked for a concert of acoustic roots. The church has to demonstrate being active in attracting bookings for community use that has nothing to do with their hobby. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 10:55 AM (#3723800) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "£Do you get much unskilled labour on a building site?" Compared to what? Hod carriers, mixers, general labourers, tea lads, all need certain skills, but how would compare them with sparks, carpenters, plumbers.. all of whom come with training and certification (nowadays) "Then as now - unskilled meant unemployed." Fair enough, but you mentioned highly skilled labour, masters and guilds, which is what I was responding to. "There is much more to see in a church or cathedral than just the building" o there isn,t, basically you go in to look at the architecture (unless they have the odd Caravaggio hanging on the wall) "and the services are the reason they exist." Nine people out of ten have rejected general use of the ordinary church, and those people who use Cathedrals and Abbeys for worship are miniscule, and quite often confined to the elite. As Musket says, you don't need an elaborate, cold draughty damp and often neglected building to worship, anywhere will do. When one local church was renovated years ago, the faithful went to mass in the pub (Gleesoms, for anybody who knows this area). As god is supposed to be everywhere, you don't need a building at all. Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 11:33 AM (#3723813) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services. Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those. Churches may allow other events between services but, as I said, the services are the reason churches exist. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 11:40 AM (#3723816) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Churches may allow other events between services but, as I said, the services are the reason churches exist. Howsabout.... The Fall - Manchester Cathedral 29/05/2015 |
|
15 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM (#3723818) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those. I don't think that is strictly true. People pay for various things at, for instance, All Souls, Bolton or Circomedia at St Paul's, Bristol. As churches fall out of use they will, thankfully, be better utilised and provide a service rather than just, er, a service... :-) |
|
15 Jul 15 - 12:24 PM (#3723824) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Musket People pay to use a holiday let I own in Fife that used to be a chapel.. Still got the altar, although I moved it to the back where we built a kitchen annex. It makes an excellent island, and we had a double butler sink cut into it. Most old ruins that used to be churches are run by English Heritage, NT etc, and people pay good money to walk round them. They may have been built to the glory of some god or other, but they remain to the glory of man and heritage. By the way, many churches do not "allow" other things but are required to open up the use of the building in return for certain charitable funding. It isn't in the gift of the church to dictate terms when agreeing to conditions, same as any other applicant for grants. Do you think people only visit churches because of the weekly rituals? No wonder it's called the god delusion.... |
|
15 Jul 15 - 12:27 PM (#3723825) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services." Leaving aside the hoodoo, if they no longer fulfill their purpose for a significant enough number of people, they should be closed or given to communities for something else. Many Church of Ireland Protestant Churches are used as music venues, and some for heritage centres Tuamgraney Why continue to keep buildings that are empty, especially if they become dangerous if they are not maintained or unused (perhaps god is looking for new tenants up there!!!) Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 12:31 PM (#3723828) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome For the third time... Change hands. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 02:49 PM (#3723850) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash " Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those" You mean like Fountains Abbey, Tintern abbey? You really are a complete and utter wanker |
|
15 Jul 15 - 02:55 PM (#3723852) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "You really are a complete and utter wanker" You-can-not-be-serious!! Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 02:55 PM (#3723853) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Did those 'fall out religious use', or where their occupants kicked out ? |
|
15 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM (#3723855) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Whalley's pretty neat too. And who can resist the gnomic abbey ruins at Bury St. Edmonds?? Bury St. Edmonds June 1st 2014 I think it's free to get in - but people DO want to see them. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 03:29 PM (#3723857) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Mudcat pedant were... Some here feel poor use of the language you were taught lessens your impact. To be fair, it is the piss poor quality of some treachers. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 03:38 PM (#3723861) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Treachers, pedant?? |
|
15 Jul 15 - 04:09 PM (#3723865) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford People pay to use a holiday let I own in Fife that used to be a chapel.. Like Dave's two examples, they might pay to use them, but not just to see them. Historic ruins are in a different category. Most old ruins that used to be churches are run by English Heritage, NT etc, That is not true of churches that have just fallen out of use, which was what I said, and which stands. "The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services. Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those. Churches may allow other events between services but, as I said, the services are the reason churches exist." |
|
15 Jul 15 - 05:19 PM (#3723878) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST There are other uses changes of use |
|
15 Jul 15 - 06:33 PM (#3723882) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket shaking his head Ah well. I should have known those Keith hadn't thought of were in a different category. He just meant those people don't pay to visit. Silly old Musket. Those that people pay to visit are just er What was it again Keith? 😂😂😂 Oh and allowing other uses? Allowing? It's just that I wouldn't want you to call the good people who apply for grants to be hoodwinking The Charities Commission. Yes. Some do rent out because they allow it to be so. Many rent out because they are required to, and not by your imaginary friend. If churches merely existed for their members, we'd have more bingo halls. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 08:00 PM (#3723894) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Did those 'fall out religious use', or where their occupants kicked out ?" They ran out of customers - it was either that or a Tesco. Jim Carroll |
|
15 Jul 15 - 09:11 PM (#3723904) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Ten minutes' walk through the fields from my house is one of the tiniest churches I've ever seen, the CofE church of Our Lady and St Anne on Leverlake Road, a short step from the beach at Widemouth Bay, about three miles from Bude. Somewhat devoid of architectural merit, admittedly, but a charming spot nonetheless. |
|
15 Jul 15 - 09:54 PM (#3723912) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST, ^*^ And yet another use for a church. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 02:25 AM (#3723936) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket smiling Guildford Cathedral came in handy too when they wanted a location for a scene in The Omen. To be fair, that was "allowed" although impaling Dr Who with a bloody great crucifix was sacrilege! They should show more respect and deference to a Time Lord. Allowing their cathedral to be used to kill a Galefrian..... Bleeding well blasphemous |
|
16 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM (#3723946) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Churches do allow other uses between services, for which they may charge, but the church exists for the services, and was constructed "to the glory of God." That is not "hoodoo" Jim, it was how they spoke of it. That is also why they hung the bells in them Musket, and why they let you ring them. Churches no longer required for services are sold off. People use them, but no one visits just to see them when they are just another enclosed space. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM (#3723952) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX You mean like Fountains Abbey, Tintern abbey? My point was that those to were vacated in the Dissolution. So bad examples of paying to get into redundant churches. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 05:42 AM (#3723962) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver I came across a lovely wee church in deepest, darkest Norfolk a few weeks back - fallen from religious use it's now open to anyone who wants to inspect it's medieval wall paintings and / or have a wee pump on it's old harmonium. Naturally, I did both & made a wee recording - though heaven knows I'm no keyboard player, I just wanted to capture the feel of the place in sound. I also left a donation & WOULD have paid if asked. Saint Faith's. 19.5.15. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 09:28 AM (#3724014) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX When did God say he wanted all the fancy stuff? Many non-conformists manage to do without it, spending what dosh they had building little chapels in out of the way parts. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 12:44 PM (#3724075) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Have you been to st Mary's,houghton on on the hill, Norfolk . It was discovered overgrown and ruined and used by witches. Bob who "restored" it organised a couple of soldiers to scare them off apparently !. Lovely out of the way location, and some remnants of wall painting. It has a web site. I shall look up st faiths as we plan to go to Norfolk some time soon. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM (#3724087) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Going back to something Steve said earlier, I wonder why you can get away with not paying to see Salisbury cathedral but it costs about £15 to see that other local (presumed) religious edifice, Stonehenge? I cannot believe the the cost of upkeep is comparable! Maybe it is. Maybe in years to come the religions of both will be all but extinct! |
|
16 Jul 15 - 02:21 PM (#3724106) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray) St Faith, Little Witchingham |
|
16 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM (#3724136) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver Never been. Interesting story. Looks nice... St Mary, Houghton-on-the-Hill |
|
16 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM (#3724137) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST There are no hills in Norfolk. Get your God to make some, I'd hate to see you disappointed. A lot of posts missing on this thread. Ironic seeing the moderators call heritage anything outside of living memory. This is the real not new world we are discussing, prats. |
|
16 Jul 15 - 05:12 PM (#3724151) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Than there is Lud's church in the white peak. Very atmospheric and not built to the glory of anyone. Must say, when we got there, I did say a little word of thanks to the naiads of the Dane for letting me keep my feet on the thick ice in the valley above the river en route! :-) |
|
17 Jul 15 - 03:28 AM (#3724224) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket sans comfort blanket "Churches are built to the glory of God" But churches actually exist! I can see them, touch them and many years ago, my girlfriend and I got in through a back door of one late at night and had a right good shag. I think you'll find many churches, especially in the various empires western countries ran were built to the glory of suppressing the natives. Here in Blighty, many were built to the glory of having something bigger and better than "the other lot" have, or indeed what the town over there have. Built to the glory of vanity and hypocrisy. Still, they are useful to normal people as somewhere to visit and marvel at the architecture, style and get an insight into the past, when almost everyone was controlled and their lives moulded by simpleton superstition. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 03:40 AM (#3724227) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Will Fly GUEST: There are no hills in Norfolk. GUEST obviously doesn't know north Norfolk - try finding the lovely old, ruined church in Corpusty, or dip inland from the north Norfolk coast near Blakeney and Cley. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 03:55 AM (#3724229) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash Dear XX my post of 15 July 02.49 PM is not factually incorrect at all. It was made initially to a post which stated: " Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those" I replied "You mean like Fountains Abbey, Tintern abbey?" Perhaps you could tell me which bit is FACTUALLY incorrect. However I do appreciate that the occupants may have been kicked out so I'll suggest you might want to look at http://www.visitchurches.org.uk/ Which fits your model a little better |
|
17 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM (#3724230) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Raggytash PS I stand by the second remark you objected to. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:03 AM (#3724233) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Also for the benefit of obnoxious guest......st Mary's is at the end of a long unmade road going.......uphill !. And btw, at the church they have some sea shells found at the site during renovation. Might give you a clue as to when my God " made " that hill !. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM (#3724248) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jack Blandiver The church at Cley is among my favourites. Here's a plc I took back in May: St, Margaret's, Cley-next-the-Sea, from the graveyard of St, Mary's at Wiveton. Plenty of hills in Norfolk; none of them to do with the Biblical flood, alas. It was people puzzling over finding seashells on high ground that helped inspire such mythology in the first place. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM (#3724250) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Musket, I told you how the church and cathedral builders described their work. You somehow know better, as usual. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:49 AM (#3724251) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Raggytash |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:59 AM (#3724252) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Publisher's note from Great Medieval Churches and Cathedrals of Europe: 120 Classic Engravings By Jules Gailhabaud. "The design and construction of churches-cathedrals in particular-employed a vast range of workers-architects,masons, carpenters, sculptors, glass workers, woodcarvers and unskilled laborers who toiled for years-often for a lifetime-to erect these edifices dedicated to the glory of God." Course at Trinity College, Dublin. HA4323 To the Glory of God: the art and architecture of the medieval church c.1100-1220 |
|
17 Jul 15 - 05:00 AM (#3724253) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX Raggytash What was factually incorrect, as I pointed out at 16 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM was that those two did not 'fall out of use' but were taken over by the crown at the dissolution. Their occupants were kicked out. It was clear from the context that Keith's 'fallen from religious use' meant churches that had become redundant. There was then plenty of discussion about what he did mean (including a link from me to one sold off to become a mosque - if forget to add the XX). Deliberatley missreading Keith's posts makes a group of you just look like playground bullies going after the awkward kid. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 05:00 AM (#3724254) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Musket laughing No you didn't Keith. Yes, they describe it so. They had no alternative but to believe it, as opposed to these enlightened times. But you didn't say that. You stated that they were built to the glory of God, you never said that those building them believed it to be such a glory. Your later qualifications would be useful at the time, if only to prevent people from forming views on what you actually typed. Clapton forbid that you would wish to stand by provocative outpourings eh? In any event, those paying for early cathedrals built them to the glory of keeping the peasants subdued with folklore. The barons found religion rather useful. Today, they only exist because normal people pay to visit them. Without such income, The CofE especially would let them crumble or flog them off, as they do other churches apparently built to the glory of their God. (Glory of CofE bank balance, take your pick.) I know a couple of hills in Norfolk. To be fair, they wouldn't pass muster as "undulating" in most counties but fair do's and all that. You can get exercise in Norfolk. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM (#3724256) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome Deliberatley missreading Keith's posts makes a group of you just look like playground bullies Keith does it all the time. To be kind I often say we speak a different language but most other people seem to understand my meaning. To be unkind I would say he does it on purpose to provoke reaction and cause arguments. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 06:27 AM (#3724266) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll They may have been "dedicated to the glory of God."" by those who commissioned them, on the other hand, they were far more likely to have been built to establish their authority over the faithful - religion has always been a source of power - and wealth - for those 'chosen by god' Just been reading (and viewing) some of the accounts of the too-ing an froe-ing of the various brands of religion in Henry VIII time; makes the Winter Palace arguments in St Petersburg following the Russian Revolution look like a schoolyard squabble over a bag of sweets. The Church, when many of these buildings were being put up, were little more than businesses touting for custom. That they left us with breathtakingly beautiful places to visit is unarguable, but it doesn't change any of the facts. If you have any doubt of this I suggest you try Desmond Seward's 'The Monks of War' (The Military Orders), or anything on the Borgias or the Medicis. Regarding deliberately misreading Keith's posts" - nobody is doing this, nor ever has - Keith says what he means to say, then, when he is challenged, back-peddles, or claims he is only the messenger It's a bit much to be accused of bullying somebody who accuses those who disagree with him of being "sad" (about half a dozen times recently) or, naive or "muppets" (interminably) Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM (#3724272) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford You stated that they were built to the glory of God, you never said that those building them believed it to be such a glory. There is no contradiction. I am sorry if you misunderstood, but I was telling you "that they were built to the glory of God" by their builders. And they were. That was their belief. What is your point or is this just another petty and vindictive bit of nonsense? |
|
17 Jul 15 - 07:47 AM (#3724274) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "There is no contradiction." Yes there is There is nor evidence what the people who actually did the building believed - it was a medieval peasant society and nobody gave a toss what they thought as long as they did as they were told and payed their taxes. "That was their belief." You ca repeat this as often as you like (as you will), but we have no idea what the actual builders, or those who were commissioned to build, believed. Perhaps there's some "expert" out there to show us otherwise? Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:17 AM (#3724277) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford It's a bit much to be accused of bullying somebody who accuses those who disagree with him of being "sad" (about half a dozen times recently) About twice I think, and not to anyone disagreeing with me. I used it to describe the antics of a small group on the Tunisia beach massacre thread after it was left to them. Many of the victims had not even been buried. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:21 AM (#3724278) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash Isn't it amazing that the idiot is prepared to believe that churches etc "were built to the glory of God" because (as he said to Musket) " I told you how the church and cathedral builders described their work" Yet these statements were written hundreds of years ago. Certainly not in the last twenty years and I doubt if you could find them in a bookshop today. Dual standards .............. again. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:27 AM (#3724289) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash " I used it to describe the antics of a small group on the Tunisia beach massacre thread after it was left to them" This is from someone who posted to that same thread on the very last day it was used. Is that leaving it to them, just 4 hours 41 minutes?? |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM (#3724291) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Medieval Islamic Symbolism and the Paintings in the Cefalù Cathedral, Volume 1 By Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen "..., it seems rather remarkable that the paintings in Cefalu Cathedral have been allowed to remain so unobserved. This is apparently due to the fact that they simply can not be seen from the floor of the cathedral. For more than 800 years they have embellished the wooden roof construction solely to the glory of God." |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:36 AM (#3724292) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash "Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen publishes articles on arts and crafts, decorative arts, industrial design, graphic art, interiors, etc" Cutting edge stuff then. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:36 AM (#3724293) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford A Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600 to 1500. "Architects, sculptors and mosaicists from a wide range of different, and often distant regions pooled their skills in order to erect a temple to the glory of God, " |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:44 AM (#3724295) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw One of the most stunning things I've ever seen inside a church is the giant mosaic depicting the last judgement in the cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta in Torcello, in the Venetian lagoon. It takes up the whole back wall of the church. Put it on your to-do-before-I-die list! |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM (#3724296) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective By Fred Kleiner Re Pisa Cathedral, "The Pisans, according to a document of the time, wanted their bishop's church not only to be a monument to the glory of God but also to bring credit to the city." |
|
17 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM (#3724299) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,XX You could probably find modern-day icon painters who said their works were to the glory of god. The tour guides at these cathedrals we pay to go round spin the line of craftsmen doing it to the glory of god, with the hidden details that no-one would see etc. Do we have contemporary writings suggesting that they were merely wage slaves rather than workers subscribing to a delusion of the age ? If you are arguing that the glory of god bit was just to keep the peasentry in awe then the craftsmen could have been in awe as well. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 09:16 AM (#3724304) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "Do we have contemporary writings suggesting that they were merely wage slaves rather than workers subscribing to a delusion of the age?" We have no evidence either way, but we do have historically recorded disturbances such as The Peasants Revolt and similar uprisings in Europe to indicate that all was not sweetness and light as far as the relationship between the peasantry and the Church was not all sweetness and light. The Church held massive power and influence in Europe - it part part of a ruling establishment headed my monarchs "chosen by God" to rule. To suggest that they ruled without opposition was a nonsense and to take the word of people who still don't question the authority of the church is equally so. There has ever been a study of the relationship between the state and the people, basically because the peoples' opinions were never taken into consideration and remain unknown and probably unknowable. You only have to examine the folk literature to see that criticism of the church and the state was deep-rooted in the peasantry - that is common to all feudal societies. Stupid quotes out of context by believers mean nothing - "the Pisan's" would be a reference to the privileged classes in Pisa as interpreted by the church - the unnder-classes were never asked their opinion - if they were, where were they recorded? "To the Glory of God" was an advertising slogan little different than "fabulous pink Camay", with the backing of divine authority. Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM (#3724310) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Raggytash "You could probably find modern-day icon painters who said their works were to the glory of god" Of course you probably could/would they are depicting religious themes and are probably/possibly of a religious bent otherwise they would be painting such works. Is it really that difficult to figure that out. However someone quotes "according to a document of the time" and believes it as gospel. The same person who excluded first hand accounts of WW1 as being biased/not true/written by people with a personal agenda/not published by proper historians and sold in proper bookshops. Amazing |
|
17 Jul 15 - 11:09 AM (#3724322) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Musket My impersonation of Jesus on a rubber cross is performed to the glory of God. Without such beliefs, it wouldn't be as funny. Keith.. You said that churches exist to the glory of God and their purpose was the services to that effect. No bloody mention of superstitious medieval minds, but what you think, irrationally, is the purpose of old churches still sitting there. Your qualification of the matter came after various people gave examples that proved you wrong. No need to do what you did, none whatsoever. Everybody here on Mudcat is nice and understanding when one of us gets muddled and gets it wrong. Steve says silly things about a third rate football team in Scouseland. Dave puts the wrong folk group at the top of his list, Jim is Jim occasionally. None of us bend our earlier silliness to try to look as if we never said it. Try joining the human race eh? |
|
17 Jul 15 - 11:16 AM (#3724324) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll A pretty handy summing up of the situation from 'The History Learning Site' Works for me Jim Carroll The Medieval Church played a far greater role in Medieval England than the Church does today. In Medieval England, the Church dominated everybody's life. All Medieval people – be they village peasants or towns people – believed that God, Heaven and Hell all existed. From the very earliest of ages, the people were taught that the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them. Everybody would have been terrified of Hell and the people would have been told of the sheer horrors awaiting for them in Hell in the weekly services they attended. The control the Church had over the people was total. Peasants worked for free on Church land. This proved difficult for peasants as the time they spent working on Church land, could have been better spent working on their own plots of land producing food for their families. They paid 10% of what they earned in a year to the Church (this tax was called tithes). Tithes could be paid in either money or in goods produced by the peasant farmers. As peasants had little money, they almost always had to pay in seeds, harvested grain, animals etc. This usually caused a peasant a lot of hardship as seeds, for example, would be needed to feed a family the following year. What the Church got in tithes was kept in huge tithe barns; a lot of the stored grain would have been eaten by rats or poisoned by their urine. A failure to pay tithes, so the peasants were told by the Church, would lead to their souls going to Hell after they had died. This is one reason why the Church was so wealthy. One of the reasons Henry VIII wanted to reform the Church was get hold of the Catholic Church's money. People were too scared not to pay tithes despite the difficulties it meant for them. You also had to pay for baptisms (if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died), marriages (there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin) and burials – you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven. Whichever way you looked, the Church received money. The Church also did not have to pay taxes. This saved them a vast sum of money and made it far more wealthy than any king of England at this time. The sheer wealth of the Church is best shown in its buildings : cathedrals, churches and monasteries. In Medieval England, peasants lived in cruck houses. These were filthy, usually no more than two rooms, with a wooden frame covered with wattle and daub (a mixture of mud, straw and manure). No cruck houses exist now – most simply collapsed after a while as they were so poorly built. However, there are many Medieval churches around. The way they were built and have lasted for centuries, is an indication of how well they were built and the money the Church had to invest in these building. Important cities would have cathedrals in them. The most famous cathedrals were at Canterbury and York. After the death of Thomas Becket, Canterbury Cathedral became a center for pilgrimage and the city grew more and more wealthy. So did the Church. Cathedrals were vast. They are big by our standards today, but in Medieval England they were bigger than all buildings including royal palaces. Their sheer size meant that people would see them from miles around, and remind them of the huge power of the Catholic Church in Medieval England. To work on the building of a cathedral was a great honour. Those who did the skilled work had to belong to a guild. They would have used just the most basic of tools and less than strong scaffolding to do the ceilings. However, if you were killed in an accident while working in a cathedral or a church, you were guaranteed a place in Heaven – or so the workers were told. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 11:23 AM (#3724328) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST The first paragraph Jim still applied in 1960's England and still applies in large areas of Ireland today I would think. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 11:47 AM (#3724332) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford You said that churches exist to the glory of God and their purpose was the services to that effect. No. I said, "The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services." "The churches were built to the glory of God," They were, and I have shown that it is not just me saying that. "and still only exist as churches for the holding of services." That is true. When no longer required for services they are sold off for other use. What is your point Musket? Are you just determined to make some petty objection to anything I say? Is that why you followed me to the Iraq thread? |
|
17 Jul 15 - 11:47 AM (#3724333) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. excluded first hand accounts of WW1 That's 'cause they're dead. On the other hand, you CAN find them in book shops. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM (#3724334) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome 'ere, co-Messiahs. We missed a couple of tricks I think. Firstly, did we get any representation in the house of lords? Surely if mere bishops can get there, we can. Secondly, we could have got round having to rent a hall for the holy bingo. We could have had one built to our glory! Just imagine it. Stained glass windows, private cubicles for 'confession' (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). To get the Muslims in as well we could call it 'Mecca'... :D tG |
|
17 Jul 15 - 12:21 PM (#3724341) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Yeah, as long as you can get a replacement clickety-click and two fat ladies for the ones you lost in that car park. Nearly got bloody lynched last time by two elderly women who spotted that those numbers never came up meaning they'd never had a cat in hell's chance of winning. Yeah, House of Lords would be good. You get three hundred quid for just sticking your nose in the door then you can be off to run the bingo. Where is the house of lords anyway? Is it anywhere near Oswaldtwistle? I could start looking for a cheap joint nearby to do the bingo in... |
|
17 Jul 15 - 12:35 PM (#3724345) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "No. I said, "The churches were built to the glory of God, " The churches were built as a symbol of power - you've had your evidence on that one, which you8 will continue to ignore. When these churches were built religion was a business. You could even buy your way ingto Heaven via Indulgences and Pardons (see Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale - The Canterbury Tales) Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jul 15 - 12:54 PM (#3724352) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link maybe this petty bickering is due to thinking in absolutes of one or the other, rather than both and. there may have been some less than virtuous motives in church construction , including oneupmanship between parishes/local lords, but who sees the intricacies of art and craftsmanship hidden in the heights of these ecclesiastic structures when initially erected ?. who was it done for ?. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 12:58 PM (#3724354) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "and still applies in large areas of Ireland today I would think." Sorry - missed this. It's interesting to have been around in Ireland over the last couple of decades. Since the clerical abuse/industrial schools/Masgdelene Laundries broke scandal broke, the faithful have had course to reflect their relationship with the church. The church has lost its grip on peoples' minds in a big way, church attendences have dropped radically and political influence has waned (see the referendums on Gay marriage and pregnancy termination. During the latter, the church threatened to excommunicate all politicians who voted for it, but it was still passed (weak as it was). After the Same-Sex marriage vote, the Bishop of Dublin said that the church needs to wake up to what's happening. Now, religious schools are coming under scrutiny - my day must be jumping for joy in his urn! The grip the English church had on peoples' minds appeared to loosen between the wars - now it is a bit of a cypher clung on to by politicians - just in case..... The religious content of the 'swearing of allegiance" in the British Parliament was abolished in 1977. The role of the church in British society was always summed up for me when I had to state my religion for official purposes; up to comparatively recently, if you said, "none" you were entered as "Church of England" (as good as none). Here in Ireland they have taken to writing down "not disclosed". Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM (#3724367) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Well, pete, if only we could resurrect Michelangelo and Tintoretto and ask 'em. I have a feeling that they'd answer, to make a bob or two out of my talent. Why did Mozart compose The Magic Flute? To make his living, that's why. He was hopeless with money and was in debt at the time. The Beethoven late quartets, the most sublime music ever composed, were written to a commission. No guessing about this then, eh, pete? |
|
17 Jul 15 - 02:33 PM (#3724370) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, The churches were built as a symbol of power - you've had your evidence on that one, which you8 will continue to ignore. Noted not ignored Jim, but not at all convincing. The church had real power and needed no symbols. This from Durham World Heritage site, produced by Durham University. "The building of monumental cathedrals in the middle ages was a reflection of faith and the channel for much of the creative energy of medieval European society. Although cathedral building was driven by religious figures or institutions, it was often a community effort. From the mid-twelfth century, the Church started granting indulgences (forgiveness of sins) to those who would help to build a church or cathedral, and therefore, rather than going on crusades, which had been a popular means of absolving sins in the late eleventh century, people dedicated more effort to the construction of houses of God instead. There was always a faction among the pious that disapproved of excessive spending on the construction and decoration of lavish religious buildings, but these were a minority, and the dominant feeling was one of great enthusiasm, ambition, and a desire to excel in this quest to construct magnificent buildings reflecting God's glory. As cathedrals took decades, and often even centuries to complete, few people who worked on them expected to see them finished during their lifetimes. Being involved in the construction of a cathedral, even as the building patron, required a willingness to be part of a process that was larger than oneself." https://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/architecture/cathedral/construction |
|
17 Jul 15 - 03:00 PM (#3724377) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "but not at all convincing." Of course you're not, but then again, who expected you to It would take an acetylene torch you get into a mind as closed as yours. This really isn't for your benefit - it's to show what happens when yopu introduce a closed mind to facts - call it a lab experiment. Nobody here cares what you (don't) think, or even that you don't The rest is meaningless cut-'n-paste which in no way addresses the raelity of the situation. Try reading some of your "real" historians, instead of the adverts. Jim Carroll More |
|
17 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM (#3724378) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. This from Durham World Heritage site Ah, but was it written by an eminent, living historian who writes for the tabloid press and whose works are available in bookstores? (the requirement of the author agreeing with you has already been fulfilled) Otherwise its got to be bullshit. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:20 PM (#3724393) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Greg F. rather than going on crusades, which had been a popular means of absolving sins in the late eleventh century S'right - kill a Muslim for Jesus & get a "get out of jail free card". Kinda like today ........ |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:35 PM (#3724395) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford You people just do not want a reasoned discussion. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:41 PM (#3724397) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link So those composers constructed churches ?.....well you learn summat every day !. But even supposing we extend the examples to musicians, my comments still apply....ie you are still arguing absolutist one or the other . |
|
17 Jul 15 - 04:57 PM (#3724399) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw They composed music for churches, and those two artists, and many more, created great art for churches. Perhaps you don't know Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Mozart' s Great C minor Mass or Vaughan Williams's lovely Mass in G minor (RVW was an atheist). Not to speak of Bach. I went to the Accademia in Venice and saw some stunning altar pieces that must have taken months or years to produce. When you're a jobbing artist or musician, you do not produce your work for free out of the goodness of your heart. You have to make ends meet. Let not historical distance lend too much enchantment to your view. Get real, pete, in other words. |
|
17 Jul 15 - 05:55 PM (#3724407) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link I don't think getting paid for your work precludes it being also done for the glory of God, though granted it will if the artist is atheist. Unless you can show otherwise, I assume at least some of the others aimed at composing in honour of God, as well as earning a living. I think that is to " get real " ! |
|
17 Jul 15 - 06:30 PM (#3724414) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Well assuming is one thing, having evidence that their primary motive was for the glorification of God is another entirely. I tend to not go around assuming too many things. It keeps me out of trouble. But do continue to assume. |
|
18 Jul 15 - 03:20 AM (#3724474) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome I love that "unless you can show otherwise". A couple of contributors to Mudcat use it and it always makes me laugh. Maybe I should use it more and put the onus on other people to disprove any crazy theory I come up with. Unless you can show otherwise I assume you are a wanker. :D tG |
|
18 Jul 15 - 03:40 AM (#3724479) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "I don't think getting paid for your work precludes it being also done for the glory of God," Of course it doesn't, but neither does the building of multi-story office blocks imply that those who did the work worship mammon - the poor who built York or St Pauls.... or wherever... worked to stay alive and, in the case of churches, with no choice - they were given offers they could not refuse - part of the priest's power. We know the peasantry were ruled by fear - it's one of the few certainty's we have, and virtually nothing beyond that - everything else in based on claims by those who administered that fear. The Churches, like Royal palaces, were displays of wealth and power, not of god, but of his "chosen" representatives on earth. "You people just do not want a reasoned discussion." We'll consider one if you put one up - so far you have made an unqualified statement with nothing to back it up - you refuse to even acknowledge the facts of history that you have been given - common knowledge by real historians which can be found in real bookshops. Jim Carroll More common knowledge: "The Catholic Church wielded extreme power and influence during the medieval period, shaping the social, cultural, and political fabric of peasant life in Europe. Additionally, the church played an important role in determining a peasant's economic fate. Although the church itself was exempt from paying taxes, peasants were responsible for paying approximately ten percent of their earnings (either in cash or goods) in taxes to the church—known as tithes. The church threatened that the failure to pay tithes would result in the damnation of one's soul. Tithes are merely one example of several that lead to the church's substantial fortune. They were also used by figures of the Protestant Reformation, in the early sixteenth century, as an example of the Catholic Church's ostentatious and lavish conduct." |
|
18 Jul 15 - 04:01 AM (#3724482) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Pete said, " Unless you can show otherwise, I assume at least some of the others (non atheist) aimed at composing in honour of God, as well as earning a living. " I take that to mean that he has an opinion but an open mind. He is open to being shown that his opinion is wrong. I find that much more reasonable than people who make assertions and then just respond with abuse if anyone dares questions it. |
|
18 Jul 15 - 04:08 AM (#3724484) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome I take that to mean that he has an opinion but an open mind. He is open to being shown that his opinion is wrong. Exactly the same as me, Keith. Unless you can show otherwise I assume you are a wanker. I hold that opinion but am open to being shown it is wrong. Are you going to show me? |
|
18 Jul 15 - 04:17 AM (#3724487) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford I would have to know who you were referring to, but even then no-one is entitled to an opinion on such an intimate and personal matter. What gives you the right to pontificate about what a person might or might not do alone and in private? I suspect that everyone has masturbated at some time. Would you make it a crime? Would you be found guilty? Are you a wanker Dave? |
|
18 Jul 15 - 04:30 AM (#3724489) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Keith A of Hertford Of course, what I was really objecting to was you making a petty issue out of a perfectly acceptable and correctly used phrase, instead of engaging in serious discussion. Just playing with it. You people do a lot of that. |
|
18 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM (#3724500) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Jim Carroll "He is open to being shown that his opinion is wrong." He has been, as have you - neither of you choose to respond to the facts of history "I suspect that everyone has masturbated at some time." Oooo - "masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action" and a sin, according to the Church - what would god say? Jim Carroll |
|
18 Jul 15 - 06:28 AM (#3724512) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Dave the Gnome You object to my playing with a phrase while you totally negate the colloquial meaning of wanker, which I had already explained as someone who pleases no-one but himself. So, it is perfectly OK for you to play with a phrase but not for other people to do the same. Making up the rules as you go along once again. Or cheating as I have often pointed out. And yes, I am occasionally a wanker. As Rick Nelson said, you can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself. I will leave it to you to figure out which meaning I am referring to although I am sure you will chose the wrong one. |
|
18 Jul 15 - 06:29 AM (#3724513) Subject: RE: BS: Church V State From: Steve Shaw Pete is challenging us to prove the unprovable, having made an assumption, equally unprovable, to the contrary. Proof cannot be given either way though reasoning has been provided. But he doesn't listen, as ever. All the people who could confirm or deny what he claims are long dead. It's quite interesting that you rush to his support, Keith, in view of your usual attitude to matters historical. I'm just off to Waterstones to check this out. |
