The slow, whiny death of British Christianity

[thestoat]

Can't argue with that

[loCAtek]

I don't think any of these groups has a monopoly on truthfulness.

Granted, however using the logical fallacy of 'strawman' is far from making true statements.

[Scooter]

There hasn't been spiritual Christianity in the UK since the 1500's.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "dogma" and "spiritual". What was THE Christian Church in Western Europe until the early 1500s was as dogmatic any religious institution, second only to the remnant that was left after the Protestant splinters fell away during the Reformation, when it became even more dogmatic through the decisions reached by the Council of Trent. Conversely, several religious movements emerged in the UK in the 17th and 18th centuries (e.g. Methodism, Quakerism) that were founded on a more personal and less dogmatic relationship with God.

Which was what founded the colonization of America; to avoid religious persecution from the C of E, in order to practice more spiritual worship.

Which does not change the inaccuracy of the statement "There hasn't been spiritual Christianity in the UK since the 1500's."

[Andrew D]

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "dogma" and "spiritual". What was THE Christian Church in Western Europe until the early 1500s was as dogmatic any religious institution, second only to the remnant that was left after the Protestant splinters fell away during the Reformation, when it became even more dogmatic through the decisions reached by the Council of Trent. Conversely, several religious movements emerged in the UK in the 17th and 18th centuries (e.g. Methodism, Quakerism) that were founded on a more personal and less dogmatic relationship with God.

Which was what founded the colonization of America; to avoid religious persecution from the C of E, in order to practice more spiritual worship.

Actually, the earliest colonists in what is now the US came here to avoid the C of E's religious intolerance and, instead, to practice their own religious intolerance.

[loCAtek]

Which does not change the inaccuracy of the statement "There hasn't been spiritual Christianity in the UK since the 1500's."

Granted, I used hyperbole. It is more accurate to say the predominate religion in The UK since the 1500's has been state-run, not spiritually led.

[loCAtek]

Actually, the earliest colonists in what is now the US came here to avoid the C of E's religious intolerance and, instead, to practice their own religious intolerance.

...which was taken into account when the colonies sought to become a nation. This led to the inclusion of 'Freedom of Religion' in the constitution.

[Andrew D]

Actually, the earliest colonists in what is now the US came here to avoid the C of E's religious intolerance and, instead, to practice their own religious intolerance.

...which was taken into account when the colonies sought to become a nation. This led to the inclusion of 'Freedom of Religion' in the constitution.

Which has no bearing on the specious claim that those who "founded the colonization of America [did so] to avoid religious persecution from the C of E, in order to practice more spiritual worship."

[loCAtek]

I had the years off a bit. The C of E was established, and then;

Religious freedom and tolerance AKA 'The Great Migration'

The Puritans created a deeply religious, socially tight-knit, and politically innovative culture that is still present in the modern United States. They hoped this new land would serve as a "redeemer nation." They fled England and in America attempted to create a "nation of saints" or a "City upon a Hill:" an intensely religious, thoroughly righteous community designed to be an example for all of Europe. Roger Williams, who preached religious toleration, separation of Church and State, and a complete break with the Church of England, was banished and founded Rhode Island Colony, which became a haven for other refugees from the Puritan community, such as Anne Hutchinson.[5] Quakers were brutally expelled from Massachusetts, but they were welcomed in Rhode Island.[6]
[edit] Notes]

[rubato]

Quakers were occasionally murdered in the 'haven for religious refugees'.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The Constitutional amendment provision regarding the establishment of religion was put in in order to prevent the federal government, (at the time it didn't apply to the states) from setting up an official approved state church, similar to the Church of England. It was intended to serve as a check on the government to prevent it from engaging in the sort of religious persecution that frequently had taken place in Europe.

Over the years, (especially in the 1960s) the Supreme Court has, for better or for worse, (I would argue in many cases for worse) expanded the meaning of the "word "establish" far far beyond anything intended by The Founders....

They have taken a provision that was designed to limit government power, and protect religion expression and interpreted it in ways that expand government power for the purpose of curbing religious expression....

[Andrew D]

How do the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Establishment Clause expand government power?

[Big RR]

I'd like to see how you've concluded that as well. Indeed, I would think the rulings limited the power of government to force people to participate in religious activities and ceremonies in which they would rather not participate.

[Lord Jim]

the rulings limited the power of government to force people to participate in religious activities and ceremonies

I've got a whole bunch of definitional issues with that Big RR....concerning what constitutes "force"....

If anyone was ever "forced" to take pray, that would certainly be wrong...

But I don't see how prayers being offered at school events for example, in any way inherently "forces" participation and I disagree with the interpretation of "establishment" that extended the power of the state to prohibit this free exercise.

I don't see how the presence of the 10 Commandments on a plaque in a public building "forces" participation in some sort of "religious activity or ceremony", to cite another example, and the extension of state power prohibiting this is another interpretation of "establishment" that I see as huge over-reach...

And beyond these types of extension of state power into the free exercise of religion, additional damage has been done by the chilling effects of the message being sent, that encourages local government to go beyond that SC rulings just to avoid any possibility of trouble or costly law suits. Like towns prohibiting floats with religious themes from participating in "Winter" parades....

[thestoat]

But I don't see how prayers being offered at school events for example, in any way inherently "forces" participation

These are children. They have to go to assembly and they have to take religious indoctrination. As children, they would not understand that they might be allowed to refuse. Indeed, as a parent, I am myself unsure how I would go about excusing my children from having to participate in assemblies (where they all have to sing hymns).And my understanding is that religious indoctrination is compulsory in schools.

To me, that is being forced.

And beyond these types of extension of state power into the free exercise of religion, additional damage has been done by the chilling effects of the message being sent, that encourages local government to go beyond that SC rulings just to avoid any possibility of trouble or costly law suits. Like towns prohibiting floats with religious themes from participating in "Winter" parades....

I agree there. The whole idea of having a "Winterval" rather than a Christmas is, to my mind, repugnant. Like it or not, the UK is (currently) a Christian country. The "Winterval" is an attempt to not antagonise Muslim (and other faiths). I believe that is wrong since I don't see it as anything other than celebrating the religious values of the country - there is nothing stopping other religions holding their ceremonies too (as long as they are within the law).

[Big RR]

But I don't see how prayers being offered at school events for example, in any way inherently "forces" participation and I disagree with the interpretation of "establishment" that extended the power of the state to prohibit this free exercise.

OK, if you don't like "forced, try "coerced". I don't think a publicly funded school should be providing any religious indoctrination of any type, and can't see how telling the government it cannot do this is an expansion of government power.

I don't see how the presence of the 10 Commandments on a plaque in a public building "forces" participation in some sort of "religious activity or ceremony", to cite another example, and the extension of state power prohibiting this is another interpretation of "establishment" that I see as huge over-reach...

so you do not see the public funding and overt display of religious symbols of a particular faith somehow an public endorsement of religion. Again, I don't think the government, federal or state (at least since the 14th amendment) should be able to do this; how do you square it with prohibition on establsihment of a government-endorsed religion?

additional damage has been done by the chilling effects of the message being sent, that encourages local government to go beyond that SC rulings just to avoid any possibility of trouble or costly law suits. Like towns prohibiting floats with religious themes from participating in "Winter" parades....

True, but just because some officials overreact, either innocently or, I often think, to provoke a public reponse against the actual SC rulings/opinions (which do not go that far) i see no reason to discard the Constitutnal guarantees aganst government encroachment in religion.

[rubato]

dd

my recollection was faulty.