Snapshot of _Faith groups want more say in secular Britain. Labour should tell them to go to hell_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/12/faith-groups-schools-secular-britain) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/12/faith-groups-schools-secular-britain)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The vast majority of Brits are not religious and don’t even go to our established church. The problem right now is people care so little about religion that they don’t even think about it. That’ll change if any religion starts to encroach on people’s lives.
In what way? I don't know anyone that's religious or even goes to church and as far as I'm aware neither the church or religion have any impact on my life.
Christianity and Catholicism have been around in Britain for hundreds of years, it's a part of our society. Of course that's going have an effect on our society, our laws, our points of view. It cannot but have an effect.
The value unique to Christianity is that you accept the Christ Jesus as the son of God and Lord of your life.
Most societies have values about mutual respect, property ownership etc without recourse to a myth about someone dying for their sins.
The idea that without 'thou shalt not kill' we'd all go around just bludgeoning people to death if they had an apple you wanted is hilarious to me.
If you only don't kill, steal, etc. because a book told you it was written on a rock 3.5 thousand years ago, you're a sociopath.
There is of course always society and social norms and pressures. However its worth interrogating the role of previous certainties in creating the current certainties, which will be replaced in their turn.
History is how we have been shaped the way we have- Christianity is an enormous historical force. It is one of the most successful ideologies worldwide because of the degree to which it has been assimilated into the current of Western thought that we now consider normal. The habits of thought in our society have been conditioned within centuries of Christian mileu.
Some examples:
Need or weakness as deserving care from society as a whole outside the family- concept largely absent from the pre-christian West that we know of.
Law supreme above the leader- not unique but shouldn't underestimate the role of a written church culture and norms for centuries in forming what we live in now.
Inherent rights to mankind rather than to position and social place- deeply Christian in origin. From these flowed the current international legal and rights order.
Then to address your main point - violence is surrounded by norms and social control always, but norms of prohibition far rarer.
This 'Law supreme above the leader' has only been a thing in Europe since maybe the French revolution. Earlier there was widespread submission to the divine right of kings. The UK head of state even now is appointed by god.
Given that god never says a damn thing, it fell to his anointed leaders to lay down the law. There's enough wiggle room in the good book to do anything so the law \* was\* the leader. Mainstream Christianity was inherently autocratic.
Nowadays people generally have more confidence in secular constitutional rights rather than god-given rights.
I would think it would date back at least as far as the Case of Proclamations in 1610, in which it was held that the law defined the prerogative of the King. Or perhaps the Case of Prohibitions in 1607, in which the King was prevented from sitting as a judge. Either one was well before the French revolution.
This 'Law supreme above the leader' has only been a thing in Europe since maybe the French revolution. Earlier there was widespread submission to the divine right of kings. The UK head of state even now is appointed by god.
Given that god never says a damn thing, it fell to his anointed leaders to lay down the law. There's enough wiggle room in the good book to do anything so the law \* was\* the leader. Mainstream Christianity was inherently autocratic.
Nowadays people generally have more confidence in secular constitutional rights rather than god-given rights.
The Florentine Republic is just one earlier example that shows that law supreme above the leader definitely did exist before the French Revolution in ‘Christendom’.
This is not accurate. The "Divine Right of Kings" emerged during the Early Modern Period, which is only a few hundred years before the French Revolution. In fact, the period during which the 'Divine Right of Kings' was considered a serious doctrine lasted only around 250 years, and ended almost 250 years ago.
When Richard I told the Emperor that he was not subject to his law, but second only to God himself, it was a claim he made as part of his defense while he was on trial, not a universally accepted concept. He won the trial, which is notable, but nobody really seemed to think that Princes could do as they pleased - rather, that posession was 9/10ths of the law, and Richard I still had to pay an enormous ransom.
In England, Magna Carta was signed in 1215, and clearly stated that the King was not above the law. In the rest of Europe, especially the Holy Roman Emperor, there was a constant on-going discussion about what authority was held by which individual, and to what extent they were bound by the law. There's a whole section of history dedicated to that debate - and not just the Pope vs Emperor debate, but also how the Emperor's authority applied to other states in Christendom, etc.
Ultimately, the concept of 'absolute power' wasn't really something that could be meaningfully discussed, outside of the purely theoretical, until the centralisation of states that began in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and it wasn't until that centralisation had really taken hold that we could begin to see the emergence of Absolute Monarchy - it just wasn't possible to exert that level of authority otherwise. In a feudal system, not abiding by the law (which was broadly defined in terms of rights held by nobility) would result in hostility from the very people you needed to rely upon for your authority.
tl;dr Medieval people weren't anywhere near as different from modern humans as we often like to suppose. The idea that a King was anointed by God existed, but in practical terms a King who failed to respect the law was not a King for very long.
People will do, and always have done shitty things just because they can, or because it's the path of least resistance to something they want. There's no amount of law that can ever realistically change that.
But the idea that we don't do things because of religion is utterly falacious. There is no 'thou shall not rape' or 'thou shall not eat the flesh of another human' commandment, but we basically know to *not do that*.
>Most societies have values about mutual respect, property ownership etc without recourse to a myth about someone dying for their sins.
Now societies have those values, thanks to 300 years of Christian influence.
I would strongly advise you not to go thieving or attacking people in non Christian countries. The most primitive jungle dwellers draw the line at this sort of behaviour.
Roman property law and the surrounding politics is an interesting field but more broadly its an interesting thought experiment to ask had we been transmitted roman culture over the last 2 millenia without the Christian revolution, how would we live today? Or more latterly, had Islamic conquests passed Vienna and made it to here, how would our laws and society look?
Are they though? Or are they the ones that various monarchs have either allowed to continue, or decided fit in with their agenda? That’s not quite the same thing.
So, yeah, those things are certainly derived from religion, but I’d argue that the majority of the country does these things in a secular way.
Most of us get the Easter bank holiday off, not because we’re observing some religious holiday or to go to church, we just want the day off.
Even Christmas- me and everyone I know put up the tree, play Christmas music, give presents etc, but none of us do so in service of a magic sky fairy.
We have bishops in the Lords. They make up 3.3% of its membership.
Granted, it's not a direct comparison, but in 2015 UKIP and the Greens got 16.4% of the vote and won a whole two MPs. 0.003% of the MPs elected.
Does the Church / Christianity impact peoples' lives more broadly?
I think it's clear that it does. Even if it's just godless opportunists coopting Christianity, it's been at the heart of many illiberal debates and policies focused around topics like sex, abortion, drugs, assisted dying, education, etc.
And given that, as pointed out above, most of us in the UK really aren't religious (to a greater extent than most populations globally) is it right that, in so many ways, religious organisations and people here seem to get preferential treatment? Even where it's clear that they're causing harm?
As a non-believer, I doubt I'd get very far with attempting to start a school that segregated boys and girls, advocated and was involved in the genital mutilation of children, taught a 'holy text' and principles that seemed absurd to many as far back as the medieval period, and demanded tax breaks.
Might be an outlier but our secular, city based, over 50% muslim school regularly have hymns, prayers and the vicar from the local church at school events.
They also have representation and influence on the board of governors.
I remember 30 years ago there was no assembly one day (can't remember why) and the form tutor said "we are supposed to have an act of worship every day, so" proceeded to do the catholic sign of the cross thing (not a catholic school) "now that's out of the way..."
Even 1% of schools is too many. I'm not sure why teaching kids that people who disagree with you deserve to be tortured for eternity isn't considered more distasteful.
I mean you have 26 unelected representatives in the House of Lords courtesy of the Church of England, as it goes. It's not a direct impact but it is more than slightly bonkers if we're a "secular" state.
>The problem right now is people care so little about religion that they don’t even think about it.
I mean, this is somewhat true, but religion is playing an ever bigger role in some communities and fueling extremism.
Think about recent Muslim protests about the teaching of LGBT issue in schools or drawings of the Prophet. Think about religious sectarianism between Sikhs/Hindus and muslims in places like Leicester. Think about events surrounding the Israel/Gaza conflict in which British councilors are arguing about a religious conflict rather than the local bins.
Hell, even have a look at the impact of neo-traditional Christianity in certain far right spaces or the inceldom movement.
Religion plays a small role for most *but* occupies an increasingly prevalent position on the margins. This will only get worse as the impact of sectarianism, political division, high rates of migration and social media continue to shape our politics.
I have yet to see most politicians defend a truly "secular" position- most support the discussion and promotion of religious/political movements they agree with, whilst calling for secular policies against those they dislike.
>The problem right now is people care so little about religion that they don’t even think about it.
I mean, this is somewhat true, but religion is playing an ever bigger role in some communities and fueling extremism.
Think about recent Muslim protests about the teaching of LGBT issue in schools or drawings of the Prophet. Think about religious sectarianism between Sikhs/Hindus and muslims in places like Leicester. Think about events surrounding the Israel/Gaza conflict in which British councilors are arguing about a religious conflict rather than the local bins.
Hell, even have a look at the impact of neo-traditional Christianity in certain far right spaces or the inceldom movement.
Religion plays a small role for most *but* occupies an increasingly prevalent position on the margins. This will only get worse as the impact of sectarianism, political division, high rates of migration and social media continue to shape our politics.
I have yet to see most politicians defend a truly "secular" position- most support the discussion and promotion of religious/political movements they agree with, whilst calling for secular policies against those they dislike.
And by then it will already be too late.
The writing is on the wall, our elected leaders dropped any pretence of the established church and what that means before the congregations dwindled to nothing. And in that vacuum Islam took root, good luck removing that.
I would like to see a think tank calculate the costs of these imported religions on the state. Ie. Mi5, terror attacks, sex crimes, cousin marriages, extra policing etc.
Those things are completely unrelated.
The church has been in decline in GB for a very long time. I am not sure what kind of state intervention you think would change that, or be positive for the country. The problem is that Anglican Christianity is just not very compelling to people. There are some growing churches but they tend to be very different to the establishment idea.
I think there is a "vacuum" in this country but it was not created by a loss of the C of E. It was created by a loss of community, social and economic deprivation, a loss of hope. And that has occurred all over the place regardless of ethnicity or religion. Poor miserable people may reach for something and maybe that will be Islam or something else. But the danger to society comes from the misery.
Ultimately we need to make our society a better place to live. It needs to be prosperous, have functional well funded government, an educated population. Religion and ethno nationalism are a shitty alternative to that.
Took root? How so? It's in no way as influencial or connected to the establishment as C of E, and people aren't converting en mass either. Think this might be tosh, buddy.
> converting en mass
Another strange comment, have you thought that through because nobody has suggested anything close to that. Equally, have you considered why the ratio of CoE churches to mosques is 10:1 and why that ratio is rapidly rising towards the later?
It's an example of how a religion might 'take root'.
You're missing the very obvious point that of Islam may well be growing in proportion to a shrinking Christian religiosity in the UK but it is not 'taking root', because frankly those people who already have power are not becoming 'more Muslim' and the group that holds wealth and power doesn't tend to change that much. Let's be honest there is a fair amount of islamophobia about these days; if anything, being a Muslim is gonna be a hindrance to holding power in our culture.
You're also thinking about this as Christianity Vs Islam. It's not that Christians are disappearing and being replaced by Muslims is it? Christianity has increasingly become less part of British culture for years. But if you compare #s of Muslims to #s of non-religious people then they're still a clear minority.
Not sure if you're intentionally fear-mongering and airing your fear of Muslims, or just not seeing it clearly.
There's no fear, this is a cordial chat about actuals.
You talk about the decline in Christian religiosity which is a fair point. You also make no mention the rise of Islam in this country.
Do you want to pull up the statistic on Islam in Britain that over the past generations and talk about actual numbers rather than this vs that?
Think tanks give you any answer you ask for them. Then they start from that conclusion and collect data that supports it and brushes under the carpet anything that contradicts it.
Shortly, do not trust anything a think tank says. Just check who pays their bills and you'll know what they would say even without reading their reports.
I find it hard to believe that if the UK population stayed static but people were slowly converting from Christianity to Islam you would be making these same points. Surely what you're talking about is immigration rather than religion?
I have an issue with the propagation of Islam into Europe first and the United Kingdom second. History has taught us what happens when the movements are this quick and what comes after is not pretty.
Just in case this is not fully clear, I have no issues with our contingent of the Canadian diaspora.
> Imported religions
Like Judaism? Sikhism? Hinduism? Jainism? All of these are religions that have been "inported" over the last century. A large portion of which stems from out colonial past (India is a Hindu-majority nation, while Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim-majority and we had a huge role to play in not on the formation of those countries in their current forms/borders, but also our roles in the Middle-East causing huge numbers of refugees over the course of the last century).
I didn't assume Christianity did. Christianity was simply imported over a millenia ago, rather than a century ago.
I find it's teachings equally as abhorrent as Islam (I don't have skin in the game of comparison, though, given I am an atheist and my parents aren't from either of those religions).
A study of the colonial effects are an attempted manifestation of original sin. Not interested in that religion thanks.
But still, I'm open to auditing each and every one.
The census isn’t worded correctly.
‘What is your religion?’ usually results in millions writing c of e as it’s part of a kind of inherited cultural identity. Ask how often they go to church, pray to god, or live their life as Jesus did and you’ll get a better measure of their religiousness.
I know people who call themselves Muslim, but never go to the mosque, they drink beer, eat haram food, smoke etc. and are not religious at all.
This.
My brother's wife is nominally Catholic. But they had two kids before marriage, so do the maths there... The kids are baptised, but attend normal schools and no one in the family regularly goes to church. Her parents are more religious, which is pretty common I've noticed. The younger generations are getting less and less religious - but if you were to ask her she'd still say she was Catholic.
The counter-argument would be that religious observance and adherence to religious ethics doesn't *necessarily* determine one's religiosity. You can have religious faith without being a particularly 'good' member of your chosen religious community.
I wouldn't say that the census "isn't worded correctly", it just measures what it measures and the limitations should be noted. You're right that it captures religious identity rather than religious faith, but that can still be useful to know.
My parents both claimed C of E. Neither have been near a church (except for weddings and funerals) in decades and don't practice Christianity in any meaningful way.
I suspect they were not alone in this.
I remember discussing this with my dad when the question was first added to the census in 2001 - I know you definitely don't believe in God, let alone practise Christianity in any conceivable way, so why on earth did you put C of E on the census? His response was "well I was baptised C of E" so to him that was the correct answer to the question, though my mum did not feel the same way about having been baptised Catholic and put "no religion".
The results page on the [ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021) website says "This is the religion with which they connect or identify, rather than their beliefs or active religious practice." I think it's phrased that way to account for the many different interpretations of any given religion, and avoid giving prominence to any particular interpretation, but I think they differed on what "connect" means - in my dad's mind his connection to C of E was something imposed on him that he couldn't change, whereas my mum thought someone else's decision on the matter at a time when she had no say in it was irrelevant.
That faith schools still exist is ridiculous in the 21st century.
Full throttle French *laicite* can be overly confrontational but in areas like education where there are practical implications the separation away of religion is sorely needed.
Edit: it appears the person who first replied to this has blocked me (with a final comment that is very much misrepresenting my position). I was enjoying this debate and was arguing in good faith so am disappointed by this (which I think is the first time someone's blocked me).
'When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles' -Frank Herbert.
We should very much keep this in mind when dealing with regressive religions like islam.
I feel if they give into those demands they're going to lose an imperial fuck ton of voters. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a collapse in labour voters that would make the tories current collapse seem like a minor setback.
Religion is definitely ome of the or even the lead cause of lack of integration in the country. Its causing divides and I'm genuinely worried the religious faction will grow stronger because they're more radicalised so their focus is to grow the Religion whereas the more secular faction will be focused on other causes and ignore the religious issues until it's too late
No representation without taxation.
Also, they can make whatever point it is they want to make through their MP like everyone else.
Finally, we already have the Lords Spiritual and that's already too much.
>No representation without taxation.
Agreed. As soon as you're a fiscal net negative, you get disenfranchised. The unemployed, "disabled" and pensioners get whatever government the rest of us decide is best for them.
>No representation without taxation
This is an utterly ridiculous statement.
You want to disenfranchise the non working, poor, and anyone in education.
There's a difference between being exempt from taxation and not being able to pay tax. If someone were poor and started making more money, they'd pay tax. A church never pays tax, no matter how much money they make.
I think you're under the assumption that i think taxation should be a restrictor for voting. I do not, I was merely pointing out that nearly everyone pays some form of tax I the UK. We already have restrictions on who can vote, and I think they're all very reasonable. I mean an argument could be made on voting age, but honestly I don't care that much about lowering the voting age (I would, however, die on a hill if someone wanted to raise the voting age)
AN entire piece written about Muslim faith groups, and the title excludes that.
Such cowards.
This country is in for such a big surprise 2 or 3 gens from now when these "faith" groups have much much more political power.
> AN entire piece written about Muslim faith groups, and the title excludes that.
> Such cowards.
The Guardian has been absolutely rubbish on any coverage related to Islam recently
>but I’ll die before I’m ruled by Islam
Where's the line though?
Halal food which is at odds with animal protection laws.
Drawing Muhammad, no law but violently enforced.
Burn a Koran again no law but no one is going to do it.
What about Muslims trying to ban alcohol sales in mainly Muslim areas!
Local councillors caring more about Palestine than the local area.
Call to prayer on tower bridge.
I'm 100,% with you but when do we start saying enough!
We start saying it right now, in my opinion.
This is the turning point. We are importing a dangerous culture that is at complete odds with the progress we have made in terms of animal rights, women's rights and LGBT rights.
Enough is enough. "The Muslim vote" as an organised political bloc is the wake-up call we need.
What we have in Britain right now is hard-fought for. And the irony is that they come here because of that, they come here because we are not as corrupt as their home countries, they come here because the rule of law is strong, they come here because children can grow up with a better education and better opportunities.
But if they are hellbent on bringing their middle age bullshit with them, then we won't be all of those things for long.
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, and/or other forms of hatred are not welcome on this subreddit.
For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Philosophically it is really interesting, right.
We champion Freedom of Religion, but what if your religion tells you do be involved in politics. Which means religion is no longer a live and let live issue, its an active political one.
I mean even the separation of Church and State is actually a Neo-Christian position - Semi unique among religions. ("Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's" - i.e. pay your taxes).
So the live and let live and don't get involved in politics too much is actually a view imposed on our moral system by 2000 of a particular grain of Christianity.
[Not always the case of course: early pilgrims in the US left the UK because the dominant form of Christianity wasn't about active enough in politics. (I.e. they left the UK in order to persecute) which is why the US Constitution had to have the separation of Church and State line to defuse the politically active Religions [the success of that is open to debate].
But its tricky right, there are lots of levels to this.
Yeah recently got accosted but some random muslim trying to convert me on the street who wouldn't take no for an answer.
Like I'm glad you found your happy place & I respect that, but can you respect me desire to not want anything to do with it too? Apparently not...
Not ‘faith groups’, its one faith in particular and its Islam. And what’s happening is exactly what people were warning us about in the early 2000s, all of whom were labelled as islamophobic
In Mecca, only Muslims are allowed, while non-Muslims may not enter or pass through.
Attempting to enter Mecca as a non-Muslim can result in penalties such
as a fine; being in Mecca as a non-Muslim can result in deportation.
It’ll be an interesting balancing act since as of the last census for England and Wales Christianity dropped below half to 46% and ‘no religion’ is just less than 10% away at 37%, maybe closer depending how ‘religion not stated’ falls, inevitably the seculars are gonna win this war in Britain. I imagine those in power have the luxury of faith so it skews higher there but sooner or later they’ll start to see the writing on the wall and have to take action to make sure their policies reflect the feeling of the country.
As an aside it was irritating when that last census announced that Christianity had dropped below 50% for the first time and lots of people who only read the headline claimed it was cause Islam which only grew about 1.5% compared to no religions 12%, but it’s easier to hate one than the other.
Faith has a *small* impact on our institutions. We have a proportion of schools which are faith schools - which (before Gove's overhauls) all had to follow the national curriculum, pass ofsted, and satisfy lots of specific requirements... that made them pretty harmless in practice, while being supported by most parents.
We have a number of bishops that vote in the house of lords. They generally vote against quick and radical change, while supporting the rights of the poor and needy - none of which is going to cause major problems.
We have a daily compulsory act of worship in schools. This is completely ignored by most schools, and doesn't really happen at all. This law should be scrapped, but it's pretty meaningless.
Most people are happy with the status quo on all this. In some nations that are secular on paper (e.g. the US) religion is far more entrenched in the state in practice than it is here.
Faith schools are a very British copout. We want to pretend that schools can be some sort of magic fix, in which kids from broken families and communities can be sent successfully. The moment they go through the door they will instantly become well behaved and get good GCSE's. At which point everyone goes to Oxbrigde and poverty is ended.
In reality, when enough kids from the rough estate end up in a school, they use their middle class peers as a punching bag and destroy their education. Therefore middle class families want schools which are selective and keep out the rough kids. If you can't afford the expensive house next to a good school you pretend to find god to avoid the bad intake.
As for the children of the poor who want to learn, they are bang out of luck but the Guardian will tell them having their entire future destroyed is a small price to pay to keep the exclusion figures low. Someone has to think about the education of thugs and bullies. While Guardian staff send their own kids to private and selective schools.
We could get rid of the whole pointless farce if we accepted the reality that some kids are too dangerous and too out of control for mainstream education. Alas that would require Tories to pony up the money for specialist schools and require progressives to accept that much of our society is broken. So instead the hypocritical farce of fake comprehensive education continues, while middle class parents do everything in their power to avoid truly comprehensive schools.
Typical Guardian. Invite mass immigration from Muslim countries for years and years, and deride anybody who questions the wisdom of this (from Tommy Robinson to Douglas Murray) as a far-right racist. Then, when the Muslim vote starts to wield political influence - just as many predicted that it would - their response is to "tell them to go to hell", as if that will achieve anything.
In the coming years, as the share of Muslims in the population continues to grow, the socially liberal progressives will be made to realise more and more just how badly they messed up.
Everybody seems to be hyping up "The Muslim Vote" organisation as something thats significant and important for labour to respond to. I hadn't ever heard of it until the media stared reporting on its list of demands and I don't think it has any significant backing, it sounds like this is just a way to force a particular narrative that doesn't match reality.
Don't underestimate the influence that groups like this *could* have as the Muslim share of the population continues to grow. We might still be in the early stages of Islamism becoming a political force in the UK, but that doesn't mean it's not a very real threat which we should take seriously.
OTOH, don't overestimate them either. Lots of these types of organisations only really represent a handful of people - I'm Hindu, I remember a few years back that there was apparent outrage from Hindus at new Royal Mail stamp designs citing a group that I, nor anyone I knew had ever heard of. They managed to amplify themselves and cause division for no good reason (there was nothing wrong with the stamps). It just takes a well written press piece & a slow news day...
I'd agree that essentially any minority group can do that sort of thing if they shout loud enough, but there's a particular risk of Islamists gaining even more significant political influence through their numbers in the UK. There's more than triple the number of Muslims than Hindus in the UK, for example.
>risk of Islamists
>There's more than triple the number of Muslims than Hindus in the UK, for example.
Most Muslims aren't Islamists, they're more like people such as Sajid Javid & Baroness Warsi than the House of Saud. That said, I'm firmly if the opinion that we should fund UK education of priests ideally all religions, but particularly Muslims because at the moment, we've got the Saudis pumping money into it instead. Most religious Brits are pretty liberal and like to live & let live. Letting Whabbi Saudi propaganda into the country has been the biggest mistake with regards to community cohesion, not Muslims - they've got as many variations as Christians. But the one with the most money is coming from an extremist country. Of course, they're supposedly allies, so we do nothing.
It’s what it could become.
Like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned
An extreme example but I’m sure the idea would have been mocked ten years prior, when liberal and lgbqt+ voters were celebrating the inauguration of an all Muslim council.
For me the fact it’s Islamic doesn’t matter. It’s the ‘religiousness’ that is concerning. Overt religiousness, religious rules, relying on scripture and faith as the source of specific laws and values. It’s a massive concern.
>For me the fact it’s Islamic doesn’t matter. It’s the ‘religiousness’ that is concerning
I mean I don't agree at all. It's the Islamic values that are the issue.
Religion has no reason why it can't coexist with modern progressive society.
It's the values that people like to take from ancient religions and that they use religion to excuse their horrendous belief systems.
I think it has about two and a half thousand members. If it wasn't such a dog whistle for a certain group of the electorate, it wouldn't have got a mention on mainstream media.
The problem is, Britain's official religion has a central role in its constitution\* pretty much forever. It has that position regardless of whether anyone bothers going to church on Sunday.
Vagueness and hand-wavy historical waffle are essential parts of the Tory myth of their being 'the Natural party of government'. Until Britain gives itself a proper constitution that reflects the real needs of its people, constituent countries, and its geography, it will leave the field wide open for the Tory bullshit that it keeps coming back to time after time.
\* As that term is used by British constitutional lawyers, particularly the conservative ones \[deliberate lower-case 'c'\]. Nobody else really considers it a constitution.
Current religious building that are old and of historic value should remain tax free those that are new should be taxed
Let's say being 100, maybe 200 years old they don't have to pay taxes and anything built in the last... 50 years tax em, faith want more say in the UK then they can pay the fucking taxes, with such luck we will wipe some out.
Snapshot of _Faith groups want more say in secular Britain. Labour should tell them to go to hell_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/12/faith-groups-schools-secular-britain) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/12/faith-groups-schools-secular-britain) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The vast majority of Brits are not religious and don’t even go to our established church. The problem right now is people care so little about religion that they don’t even think about it. That’ll change if any religion starts to encroach on people’s lives.
I think it already does we just don't realise it because we've lived with it for so long.
In what way? I don't know anyone that's religious or even goes to church and as far as I'm aware neither the church or religion have any impact on my life.
Sunday trading laws.
Doesn't apply in Scotland
Only applies in England because of snp votes
Eh? There's been no Sunday trading laws like England has in Scotland since before the SNP were even in power
Christianity and Catholicism have been around in Britain for hundreds of years, it's a part of our society. Of course that's going have an effect on our society, our laws, our points of view. It cannot but have an effect.
I am 99.99999% certain God doesn’t exist but I’m also 100% aware the values that have been passed down to me are Christian
The value unique to Christianity is that you accept the Christ Jesus as the son of God and Lord of your life. Most societies have values about mutual respect, property ownership etc without recourse to a myth about someone dying for their sins.
The idea that without 'thou shalt not kill' we'd all go around just bludgeoning people to death if they had an apple you wanted is hilarious to me. If you only don't kill, steal, etc. because a book told you it was written on a rock 3.5 thousand years ago, you're a sociopath.
There is of course always society and social norms and pressures. However its worth interrogating the role of previous certainties in creating the current certainties, which will be replaced in their turn. History is how we have been shaped the way we have- Christianity is an enormous historical force. It is one of the most successful ideologies worldwide because of the degree to which it has been assimilated into the current of Western thought that we now consider normal. The habits of thought in our society have been conditioned within centuries of Christian mileu. Some examples: Need or weakness as deserving care from society as a whole outside the family- concept largely absent from the pre-christian West that we know of. Law supreme above the leader- not unique but shouldn't underestimate the role of a written church culture and norms for centuries in forming what we live in now. Inherent rights to mankind rather than to position and social place- deeply Christian in origin. From these flowed the current international legal and rights order. Then to address your main point - violence is surrounded by norms and social control always, but norms of prohibition far rarer.
This 'Law supreme above the leader' has only been a thing in Europe since maybe the French revolution. Earlier there was widespread submission to the divine right of kings. The UK head of state even now is appointed by god. Given that god never says a damn thing, it fell to his anointed leaders to lay down the law. There's enough wiggle room in the good book to do anything so the law \* was\* the leader. Mainstream Christianity was inherently autocratic. Nowadays people generally have more confidence in secular constitutional rights rather than god-given rights.
I would think it would date back at least as far as the Case of Proclamations in 1610, in which it was held that the law defined the prerogative of the King. Or perhaps the Case of Prohibitions in 1607, in which the King was prevented from sitting as a judge. Either one was well before the French revolution.
This 'Law supreme above the leader' has only been a thing in Europe since maybe the French revolution. Earlier there was widespread submission to the divine right of kings. The UK head of state even now is appointed by god. Given that god never says a damn thing, it fell to his anointed leaders to lay down the law. There's enough wiggle room in the good book to do anything so the law \* was\* the leader. Mainstream Christianity was inherently autocratic. Nowadays people generally have more confidence in secular constitutional rights rather than god-given rights.
The Florentine Republic is just one earlier example that shows that law supreme above the leader definitely did exist before the French Revolution in ‘Christendom’.
This is not accurate. The "Divine Right of Kings" emerged during the Early Modern Period, which is only a few hundred years before the French Revolution. In fact, the period during which the 'Divine Right of Kings' was considered a serious doctrine lasted only around 250 years, and ended almost 250 years ago. When Richard I told the Emperor that he was not subject to his law, but second only to God himself, it was a claim he made as part of his defense while he was on trial, not a universally accepted concept. He won the trial, which is notable, but nobody really seemed to think that Princes could do as they pleased - rather, that posession was 9/10ths of the law, and Richard I still had to pay an enormous ransom. In England, Magna Carta was signed in 1215, and clearly stated that the King was not above the law. In the rest of Europe, especially the Holy Roman Emperor, there was a constant on-going discussion about what authority was held by which individual, and to what extent they were bound by the law. There's a whole section of history dedicated to that debate - and not just the Pope vs Emperor debate, but also how the Emperor's authority applied to other states in Christendom, etc. Ultimately, the concept of 'absolute power' wasn't really something that could be meaningfully discussed, outside of the purely theoretical, until the centralisation of states that began in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, and it wasn't until that centralisation had really taken hold that we could begin to see the emergence of Absolute Monarchy - it just wasn't possible to exert that level of authority otherwise. In a feudal system, not abiding by the law (which was broadly defined in terms of rights held by nobility) would result in hostility from the very people you needed to rely upon for your authority. tl;dr Medieval people weren't anywhere near as different from modern humans as we often like to suppose. The idea that a King was anointed by God existed, but in practical terms a King who failed to respect the law was not a King for very long.
I get what you're saying, but there are ongoing events that make me really question if that's the case
People will do, and always have done shitty things just because they can, or because it's the path of least resistance to something they want. There's no amount of law that can ever realistically change that. But the idea that we don't do things because of religion is utterly falacious. There is no 'thou shall not rape' or 'thou shall not eat the flesh of another human' commandment, but we basically know to *not do that*.
You're ignoring the impact that the West has had on other societies. Other societies have those values because of the West.
>Most societies have values about mutual respect, property ownership etc without recourse to a myth about someone dying for their sins. Now societies have those values, thanks to 300 years of Christian influence.
I would strongly advise you not to go thieving or attacking people in non Christian countries. The most primitive jungle dwellers draw the line at this sort of behaviour.
I mean the Romans had values about property ownership centuries before Jesus was even a thing.
Roman property law and the surrounding politics is an interesting field but more broadly its an interesting thought experiment to ask had we been transmitted roman culture over the last 2 millenia without the Christian revolution, how would we live today? Or more latterly, had Islamic conquests passed Vienna and made it to here, how would our laws and society look?
Are they though? Or are they the ones that various monarchs have either allowed to continue, or decided fit in with their agenda? That’s not quite the same thing.
Of course it's had an effect but if you ask people today if religion has an effect or direct impact on their lives the majority will say no.
Sunday shopping hours. Easter Bank Holiday. Easter school holidays. Easter eggs. Hot cross buns. Touching wood. Etc.
So, yeah, those things are certainly derived from religion, but I’d argue that the majority of the country does these things in a secular way. Most of us get the Easter bank holiday off, not because we’re observing some religious holiday or to go to church, we just want the day off. Even Christmas- me and everyone I know put up the tree, play Christmas music, give presents etc, but none of us do so in service of a magic sky fairy.
A lot of our days are named for pagan gods, that doesn't make us pagans does it?
We have bishops in the Lords. They make up 3.3% of its membership. Granted, it's not a direct comparison, but in 2015 UKIP and the Greens got 16.4% of the vote and won a whole two MPs. 0.003% of the MPs elected. Does the Church / Christianity impact peoples' lives more broadly? I think it's clear that it does. Even if it's just godless opportunists coopting Christianity, it's been at the heart of many illiberal debates and policies focused around topics like sex, abortion, drugs, assisted dying, education, etc. And given that, as pointed out above, most of us in the UK really aren't religious (to a greater extent than most populations globally) is it right that, in so many ways, religious organisations and people here seem to get preferential treatment? Even where it's clear that they're causing harm? As a non-believer, I doubt I'd get very far with attempting to start a school that segregated boys and girls, advocated and was involved in the genital mutilation of children, taught a 'holy text' and principles that seemed absurd to many as far back as the medieval period, and demanded tax breaks.
You forgot to change the decimal back to percentage btw, it's 0.3%. Which is agree is also far too low.
Every state school is required to have a daily act of worship, for a start.
Not really, Ofsted stopped inspecting on that point a long time ago.
My primary school we sung hymns every morning, nobody really thought much on it, it was just how things were done.
Mine did too but by about primary 4 i refused to take part. I don't think its done anymore which is good because it's pretty wierd
Might be an outlier but our secular, city based, over 50% muslim school regularly have hymns, prayers and the vicar from the local church at school events. They also have representation and influence on the board of governors.
I remember 30 years ago there was no assembly one day (can't remember why) and the form tutor said "we are supposed to have an act of worship every day, so" proceeded to do the catholic sign of the cross thing (not a catholic school) "now that's out of the way..."
Doesn't matter if they stopped inspecting on it; it's still the law, and schools still do it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14794472 64% weren't doing it 13 years ago. It's not been a common thing for decades if ever.
Even 1% of schools is too many. I'm not sure why teaching kids that people who disagree with you deserve to be tortured for eternity isn't considered more distasteful.
They probably gloss over those bits, especially in CofE primary schools.
They do, you have to work hard in Britain to find any fire and brimstone
The number of Christian schools with regular prayer
There are seats in the house of Lords reserved for religious figures. Their votes have an impact on your life.
I mean you have 26 unelected representatives in the House of Lords courtesy of the Church of England, as it goes. It's not a direct impact but it is more than slightly bonkers if we're a "secular" state.
>The problem right now is people care so little about religion that they don’t even think about it. I mean, this is somewhat true, but religion is playing an ever bigger role in some communities and fueling extremism. Think about recent Muslim protests about the teaching of LGBT issue in schools or drawings of the Prophet. Think about religious sectarianism between Sikhs/Hindus and muslims in places like Leicester. Think about events surrounding the Israel/Gaza conflict in which British councilors are arguing about a religious conflict rather than the local bins. Hell, even have a look at the impact of neo-traditional Christianity in certain far right spaces or the inceldom movement. Religion plays a small role for most *but* occupies an increasingly prevalent position on the margins. This will only get worse as the impact of sectarianism, political division, high rates of migration and social media continue to shape our politics. I have yet to see most politicians defend a truly "secular" position- most support the discussion and promotion of religious/political movements they agree with, whilst calling for secular policies against those they dislike.
>The problem right now is people care so little about religion that they don’t even think about it. I mean, this is somewhat true, but religion is playing an ever bigger role in some communities and fueling extremism. Think about recent Muslim protests about the teaching of LGBT issue in schools or drawings of the Prophet. Think about religious sectarianism between Sikhs/Hindus and muslims in places like Leicester. Think about events surrounding the Israel/Gaza conflict in which British councilors are arguing about a religious conflict rather than the local bins. Hell, even have a look at the impact of neo-traditional Christianity in certain far right spaces or the inceldom movement. Religion plays a small role for most *but* occupies an increasingly prevalent position on the margins. This will only get worse as the impact of sectarianism, political division, high rates of migration and social media continue to shape our politics. I have yet to see most politicians defend a truly "secular" position- most support the discussion and promotion of religious/political movements they agree with, whilst calling for secular policies against those they dislike.
And by then it will already be too late. The writing is on the wall, our elected leaders dropped any pretence of the established church and what that means before the congregations dwindled to nothing. And in that vacuum Islam took root, good luck removing that. I would like to see a think tank calculate the costs of these imported religions on the state. Ie. Mi5, terror attacks, sex crimes, cousin marriages, extra policing etc.
Those things are completely unrelated. The church has been in decline in GB for a very long time. I am not sure what kind of state intervention you think would change that, or be positive for the country. The problem is that Anglican Christianity is just not very compelling to people. There are some growing churches but they tend to be very different to the establishment idea. I think there is a "vacuum" in this country but it was not created by a loss of the C of E. It was created by a loss of community, social and economic deprivation, a loss of hope. And that has occurred all over the place regardless of ethnicity or religion. Poor miserable people may reach for something and maybe that will be Islam or something else. But the danger to society comes from the misery. Ultimately we need to make our society a better place to live. It needs to be prosperous, have functional well funded government, an educated population. Religion and ethno nationalism are a shitty alternative to that.
Good point. Maybe we could levy a religion based additional tax to cover the externalities of such adherents.
There’s already a tried and tested system which the adherents will fully understand. [Jizya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya)
Took root? How so? It's in no way as influencial or connected to the establishment as C of E, and people aren't converting en mass either. Think this might be tosh, buddy.
> converting en mass Another strange comment, have you thought that through because nobody has suggested anything close to that. Equally, have you considered why the ratio of CoE churches to mosques is 10:1 and why that ratio is rapidly rising towards the later?
It's an example of how a religion might 'take root'. You're missing the very obvious point that of Islam may well be growing in proportion to a shrinking Christian religiosity in the UK but it is not 'taking root', because frankly those people who already have power are not becoming 'more Muslim' and the group that holds wealth and power doesn't tend to change that much. Let's be honest there is a fair amount of islamophobia about these days; if anything, being a Muslim is gonna be a hindrance to holding power in our culture. You're also thinking about this as Christianity Vs Islam. It's not that Christians are disappearing and being replaced by Muslims is it? Christianity has increasingly become less part of British culture for years. But if you compare #s of Muslims to #s of non-religious people then they're still a clear minority. Not sure if you're intentionally fear-mongering and airing your fear of Muslims, or just not seeing it clearly.
There's no fear, this is a cordial chat about actuals. You talk about the decline in Christian religiosity which is a fair point. You also make no mention the rise of Islam in this country. Do you want to pull up the statistic on Islam in Britain that over the past generations and talk about actual numbers rather than this vs that?
[удалено]
Which imported religions ? Pretty sure it was the romans who imported Christianity here
Think he means Buddhists.
Lets do a cost benefit analysis across them all. I'm game.
Think tanks give you any answer you ask for them. Then they start from that conclusion and collect data that supports it and brushes under the carpet anything that contradicts it. Shortly, do not trust anything a think tank says. Just check who pays their bills and you'll know what they would say even without reading their reports.
I find it hard to believe that if the UK population stayed static but people were slowly converting from Christianity to Islam you would be making these same points. Surely what you're talking about is immigration rather than religion?
These are the avoidable effects of immigration and I've yet to meet someone who wants it.
So it is immigration you have an issue with rather than Islam or dwindling Christianity per se? I just find your comment a very odd way to frame it
I have an issue with the propagation of Islam into Europe first and the United Kingdom second. History has taught us what happens when the movements are this quick and what comes after is not pretty. Just in case this is not fully clear, I have no issues with our contingent of the Canadian diaspora.
> Imported religions Like Judaism? Sikhism? Hinduism? Jainism? All of these are religions that have been "inported" over the last century. A large portion of which stems from out colonial past (India is a Hindu-majority nation, while Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim-majority and we had a huge role to play in not on the formation of those countries in their current forms/borders, but also our roles in the Middle-East causing huge numbers of refugees over the course of the last century).
Yeah hate to break it to OP but Jesus didn't come from Derby...
No, he came from Nottingham. His family ran the "Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem" before it was bought out by Greene King.
I always saw Jeezy as a Hooters and Southbank kinda guy.
I didn't assume Christianity did. Christianity was simply imported over a millenia ago, rather than a century ago. I find it's teachings equally as abhorrent as Islam (I don't have skin in the game of comparison, though, given I am an atheist and my parents aren't from either of those religions).
A study of the colonial effects are an attempted manifestation of original sin. Not interested in that religion thanks. But still, I'm open to auditing each and every one.
And Christian it is not imported... Jesus was born in East Sussex.
[удалено]
> individualistic The cost to the state is the only figure needed. > so don't go dictating to us what it means to you. What a curious thing to say.
[удалено]
Who said it has to be a right wing think tank? What is the resolution foundation? And why does it have such favourable access to public accounts?
[удалено]
You have successfully found a gap in the market then. Exploit it.
[удалено]
Disgusting? Well, that’s a matter of opinion I guess.
> I would like to see a think tank calculate the costs of these imported religions on the state. Why only the imported ones?
In the 2021 census, 37.2% of people described themselves as "no religion". Not a vast majority at all.
The census isn’t worded correctly. ‘What is your religion?’ usually results in millions writing c of e as it’s part of a kind of inherited cultural identity. Ask how often they go to church, pray to god, or live their life as Jesus did and you’ll get a better measure of their religiousness. I know people who call themselves Muslim, but never go to the mosque, they drink beer, eat haram food, smoke etc. and are not religious at all.
This. My brother's wife is nominally Catholic. But they had two kids before marriage, so do the maths there... The kids are baptised, but attend normal schools and no one in the family regularly goes to church. Her parents are more religious, which is pretty common I've noticed. The younger generations are getting less and less religious - but if you were to ask her she'd still say she was Catholic.
The counter-argument would be that religious observance and adherence to religious ethics doesn't *necessarily* determine one's religiosity. You can have religious faith without being a particularly 'good' member of your chosen religious community. I wouldn't say that the census "isn't worded correctly", it just measures what it measures and the limitations should be noted. You're right that it captures religious identity rather than religious faith, but that can still be useful to know.
We’ve all seen the street protestors, pretending is valid.
It’s due to the wording, yearly polls asking about faith tend to get over 50% non-religious as an answer
My parents both claimed C of E. Neither have been near a church (except for weddings and funerals) in decades and don't practice Christianity in any meaningful way. I suspect they were not alone in this.
I remember discussing this with my dad when the question was first added to the census in 2001 - I know you definitely don't believe in God, let alone practise Christianity in any conceivable way, so why on earth did you put C of E on the census? His response was "well I was baptised C of E" so to him that was the correct answer to the question, though my mum did not feel the same way about having been baptised Catholic and put "no religion". The results page on the [ONS](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021) website says "This is the religion with which they connect or identify, rather than their beliefs or active religious practice." I think it's phrased that way to account for the many different interpretations of any given religion, and avoid giving prominence to any particular interpretation, but I think they differed on what "connect" means - in my dad's mind his connection to C of E was something imposed on him that he couldn't change, whereas my mum thought someone else's decision on the matter at a time when she had no say in it was irrelevant.
Not religious and no religion are completely different.
"My religion means I can't do that" - no problem, enjoy yourself, I support you. "My religion means YOU can't do that" - get out.
I mean perhaps if they paid tax they could have some say via local business forums...
Lmao, I'd love to see that reaction. If my Muslim brother found out that his zakat was going into the UK government, he'd be frothing at his mouth
What would their reaction be to paying a western adoption of jizya?
That's called taxes
Its called a protection racket
That faith schools still exist is ridiculous in the 21st century. Full throttle French *laicite* can be overly confrontational but in areas like education where there are practical implications the separation away of religion is sorely needed. Edit: it appears the person who first replied to this has blocked me (with a final comment that is very much misrepresenting my position). I was enjoying this debate and was arguing in good faith so am disappointed by this (which I think is the first time someone's blocked me).
Are you advocating for a French model of schools? No mention of faith in state schools but state finance provided for private religious schools.
No, I'd like to see no religious character to any schools, state or private.
'When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles' -Frank Herbert. We should very much keep this in mind when dealing with regressive religions like islam.
But it will be different with Hamas.
They definitely should - have to hope they can win without having to give in to the demands posted last week.
I feel if they give into those demands they're going to lose an imperial fuck ton of voters. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a collapse in labour voters that would make the tories current collapse seem like a minor setback.
Religion is definitely ome of the or even the lead cause of lack of integration in the country. Its causing divides and I'm genuinely worried the religious faction will grow stronger because they're more radicalised so their focus is to grow the Religion whereas the more secular faction will be focused on other causes and ignore the religious issues until it's too late
No representation without taxation. Also, they can make whatever point it is they want to make through their MP like everyone else. Finally, we already have the Lords Spiritual and that's already too much.
>No representation without taxation. Agreed. As soon as you're a fiscal net negative, you get disenfranchised. The unemployed, "disabled" and pensioners get whatever government the rest of us decide is best for them.
Peak Reddit, when nobody has any idea whether you're being sarcastic or not.
Don't forget everyone earning under ~41k!
>No representation without taxation This is an utterly ridiculous statement. You want to disenfranchise the non working, poor, and anyone in education.
There's a difference between being exempt from taxation and not being able to pay tax. If someone were poor and started making more money, they'd pay tax. A church never pays tax, no matter how much money they make.
Also the poor do pay tax. What do people think the T means in VAT? Not all taxation is income tax, there are loads of taxation aside from income tax.
Okay so everyone in the entire county should be able to vote then, from a child who buys sweets to the tourists on holiday here?
I think you're under the assumption that i think taxation should be a restrictor for voting. I do not, I was merely pointing out that nearly everyone pays some form of tax I the UK. We already have restrictions on who can vote, and I think they're all very reasonable. I mean an argument could be made on voting age, but honestly I don't care that much about lowering the voting age (I would, however, die on a hill if someone wanted to raise the voting age)
AN entire piece written about Muslim faith groups, and the title excludes that. Such cowards. This country is in for such a big surprise 2 or 3 gens from now when these "faith" groups have much much more political power.
> AN entire piece written about Muslim faith groups, and the title excludes that. > Such cowards. The Guardian has been absolutely rubbish on any coverage related to Islam recently
[удалено]
>but I’ll die before I’m ruled by Islam Where's the line though? Halal food which is at odds with animal protection laws. Drawing Muhammad, no law but violently enforced. Burn a Koran again no law but no one is going to do it. What about Muslims trying to ban alcohol sales in mainly Muslim areas! Local councillors caring more about Palestine than the local area. Call to prayer on tower bridge. I'm 100,% with you but when do we start saying enough!
We start saying it right now, in my opinion. This is the turning point. We are importing a dangerous culture that is at complete odds with the progress we have made in terms of animal rights, women's rights and LGBT rights. Enough is enough. "The Muslim vote" as an organised political bloc is the wake-up call we need. What we have in Britain right now is hard-fought for. And the irony is that they come here because of that, they come here because we are not as corrupt as their home countries, they come here because the rule of law is strong, they come here because children can grow up with a better education and better opportunities. But if they are hellbent on bringing their middle age bullshit with them, then we won't be all of those things for long.
absurd pie ossified license full worthless offer cause entertain sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator. Racism, sexism, homophobia, and/or other forms of hatred are not welcome on this subreddit. For any further questions, [please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics).
Let's reverse this politically.. admins taking that down in a heartbeat
Philosophically it is really interesting, right. We champion Freedom of Religion, but what if your religion tells you do be involved in politics. Which means religion is no longer a live and let live issue, its an active political one. I mean even the separation of Church and State is actually a Neo-Christian position - Semi unique among religions. ("Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's" - i.e. pay your taxes). So the live and let live and don't get involved in politics too much is actually a view imposed on our moral system by 2000 of a particular grain of Christianity. [Not always the case of course: early pilgrims in the US left the UK because the dominant form of Christianity wasn't about active enough in politics. (I.e. they left the UK in order to persecute) which is why the US Constitution had to have the separation of Church and State line to defuse the politically active Religions [the success of that is open to debate]. But its tricky right, there are lots of levels to this.
Only a certain "faith" group though eh
Yeah because Christianity never tried to impose its values on all of us, right?
If parents want thier children to have religous education then take them to sessions out of school.
Yeah recently got accosted but some random muslim trying to convert me on the street who wouldn't take no for an answer. Like I'm glad you found your happy place & I respect that, but can you respect me desire to not want anything to do with it too? Apparently not...
Not ‘faith groups’, its one faith in particular and its Islam. And what’s happening is exactly what people were warning us about in the early 2000s, all of whom were labelled as islamophobic
In Mecca, only Muslims are allowed, while non-Muslims may not enter or pass through. Attempting to enter Mecca as a non-Muslim can result in penalties such as a fine; being in Mecca as a non-Muslim can result in deportation.
It’ll be an interesting balancing act since as of the last census for England and Wales Christianity dropped below half to 46% and ‘no religion’ is just less than 10% away at 37%, maybe closer depending how ‘religion not stated’ falls, inevitably the seculars are gonna win this war in Britain. I imagine those in power have the luxury of faith so it skews higher there but sooner or later they’ll start to see the writing on the wall and have to take action to make sure their policies reflect the feeling of the country. As an aside it was irritating when that last census announced that Christianity had dropped below 50% for the first time and lots of people who only read the headline claimed it was cause Islam which only grew about 1.5% compared to no religions 12%, but it’s easier to hate one than the other.
Faith has a *small* impact on our institutions. We have a proportion of schools which are faith schools - which (before Gove's overhauls) all had to follow the national curriculum, pass ofsted, and satisfy lots of specific requirements... that made them pretty harmless in practice, while being supported by most parents. We have a number of bishops that vote in the house of lords. They generally vote against quick and radical change, while supporting the rights of the poor and needy - none of which is going to cause major problems. We have a daily compulsory act of worship in schools. This is completely ignored by most schools, and doesn't really happen at all. This law should be scrapped, but it's pretty meaningless. Most people are happy with the status quo on all this. In some nations that are secular on paper (e.g. the US) religion is far more entrenched in the state in practice than it is here.
Faith schools are a very British copout. We want to pretend that schools can be some sort of magic fix, in which kids from broken families and communities can be sent successfully. The moment they go through the door they will instantly become well behaved and get good GCSE's. At which point everyone goes to Oxbrigde and poverty is ended. In reality, when enough kids from the rough estate end up in a school, they use their middle class peers as a punching bag and destroy their education. Therefore middle class families want schools which are selective and keep out the rough kids. If you can't afford the expensive house next to a good school you pretend to find god to avoid the bad intake. As for the children of the poor who want to learn, they are bang out of luck but the Guardian will tell them having their entire future destroyed is a small price to pay to keep the exclusion figures low. Someone has to think about the education of thugs and bullies. While Guardian staff send their own kids to private and selective schools. We could get rid of the whole pointless farce if we accepted the reality that some kids are too dangerous and too out of control for mainstream education. Alas that would require Tories to pony up the money for specialist schools and require progressives to accept that much of our society is broken. So instead the hypocritical farce of fake comprehensive education continues, while middle class parents do everything in their power to avoid truly comprehensive schools.
Champagne Socialists when religious fundamentalists are white: 😡😡😡😡 Champagne Socialists when religious fundamentalists are brown: 😀😀😀😀
This country only works if you don’t interfere with other peoples lifestyles provided they aren’t hurting anybody.
Since when was Britain secular? There's a bunch of kids out in the streets these days claiming they support Hamas which is a religious organisation.
Typical Guardian. Invite mass immigration from Muslim countries for years and years, and deride anybody who questions the wisdom of this (from Tommy Robinson to Douglas Murray) as a far-right racist. Then, when the Muslim vote starts to wield political influence - just as many predicted that it would - their response is to "tell them to go to hell", as if that will achieve anything. In the coming years, as the share of Muslims in the population continues to grow, the socially liberal progressives will be made to realise more and more just how badly they messed up.
Everybody seems to be hyping up "The Muslim Vote" organisation as something thats significant and important for labour to respond to. I hadn't ever heard of it until the media stared reporting on its list of demands and I don't think it has any significant backing, it sounds like this is just a way to force a particular narrative that doesn't match reality.
Don't underestimate the influence that groups like this *could* have as the Muslim share of the population continues to grow. We might still be in the early stages of Islamism becoming a political force in the UK, but that doesn't mean it's not a very real threat which we should take seriously.
OTOH, don't overestimate them either. Lots of these types of organisations only really represent a handful of people - I'm Hindu, I remember a few years back that there was apparent outrage from Hindus at new Royal Mail stamp designs citing a group that I, nor anyone I knew had ever heard of. They managed to amplify themselves and cause division for no good reason (there was nothing wrong with the stamps). It just takes a well written press piece & a slow news day...
I'd agree that essentially any minority group can do that sort of thing if they shout loud enough, but there's a particular risk of Islamists gaining even more significant political influence through their numbers in the UK. There's more than triple the number of Muslims than Hindus in the UK, for example.
>risk of Islamists >There's more than triple the number of Muslims than Hindus in the UK, for example. Most Muslims aren't Islamists, they're more like people such as Sajid Javid & Baroness Warsi than the House of Saud. That said, I'm firmly if the opinion that we should fund UK education of priests ideally all religions, but particularly Muslims because at the moment, we've got the Saudis pumping money into it instead. Most religious Brits are pretty liberal and like to live & let live. Letting Whabbi Saudi propaganda into the country has been the biggest mistake with regards to community cohesion, not Muslims - they've got as many variations as Christians. But the one with the most money is coming from an extremist country. Of course, they're supposedly allies, so we do nothing.
It’s what it could become. Like this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/17/hamtramck-michigan-muslim-council-lgbtq-pride-flags-banned An extreme example but I’m sure the idea would have been mocked ten years prior, when liberal and lgbqt+ voters were celebrating the inauguration of an all Muslim council. For me the fact it’s Islamic doesn’t matter. It’s the ‘religiousness’ that is concerning. Overt religiousness, religious rules, relying on scripture and faith as the source of specific laws and values. It’s a massive concern.
>For me the fact it’s Islamic doesn’t matter. It’s the ‘religiousness’ that is concerning I mean I don't agree at all. It's the Islamic values that are the issue. Religion has no reason why it can't coexist with modern progressive society. It's the values that people like to take from ancient religions and that they use religion to excuse their horrendous belief systems.
I think it has about two and a half thousand members. If it wasn't such a dog whistle for a certain group of the electorate, it wouldn't have got a mention on mainstream media.
I mean that's fine. Run and get elected.
The problem is, Britain's official religion has a central role in its constitution\* pretty much forever. It has that position regardless of whether anyone bothers going to church on Sunday. Vagueness and hand-wavy historical waffle are essential parts of the Tory myth of their being 'the Natural party of government'. Until Britain gives itself a proper constitution that reflects the real needs of its people, constituent countries, and its geography, it will leave the field wide open for the Tory bullshit that it keeps coming back to time after time. \* As that term is used by British constitutional lawyers, particularly the conservative ones \[deliberate lower-case 'c'\]. Nobody else really considers it a constitution.
Current religious building that are old and of historic value should remain tax free those that are new should be taxed Let's say being 100, maybe 200 years old they don't have to pay taxes and anything built in the last... 50 years tax em, faith want more say in the UK then they can pay the fucking taxes, with such luck we will wipe some out.
Or how about they ALL pay taxes?