Established Religion Is So Evil ...

[AiliailiA]

Yes, it is so evil.

Please read the first post before replying.

[Conspiracies Revealed]

If you're an atheist, you might actually want to support a state church. Countries with a state church actually have more atheists than countries without them.

I'd be fairly surprised if institution of a state church actually caused increases in the domestic Atheist population.

It does. Look at the atheist populations in the Scandinavian Counties and the UK, which have state churches. Then compare it to secular countries.

[The Jahistic Unified Republic]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... qzLJEzauTg

I was there. Tell the 100 something houses we helped rebuild that established religion is evil. There are extremes, then there are the other 90%.

[Auralia]

Insults detract from your argument. The Catholic Church supports science.

The Catholic Church only supports scientific theories that have been shown to be true beyond doubt so people won't continue to realize they still don't like science. They've essentialy been forced to support certain scientific theories.

The Catholic Church doesn't support any scientific theory - they're open to anything that's compatible with Catholic teaching. Scientific research is out of their domain - they deal with matters of faith and morals.

[AiliailiA]

So, what's your point?

That I don't see why an atheist would necessarily want there to be more atheists in their country, that I don't see how that would be a reason to support an established religion.

An atheist certainly could want more atheists in their country.
But the right way to go about that would be to persuade other people to atheism. Not to try to enforce it by law.

[Conspiracies Revealed]

Why would I want there to be more atheists in my country?

You accept that as true?

@Conspiracies Revealed: Interesting! Sounds like bullshit ... or am I just judging your opinions by your name? Something to back that up would be good.

ie. Rant, Source, or GTFO

Church of England: About 50% of people in the UK are atheist
Church of Norway: About 70% of people in Norway are atheist


Also Gallup did a survey, and if you look at the top 11 religious countries and the 11 least religious countries, most of the least religious countries haves state churches.

[Conspiracies Revealed]

The Catholic Church only supports scientific theories that have been shown to be true beyond doubt so people won't continue to realize they still don't like science. They've essentialy been forced to support certain scientific theories.

The Catholic Church doesn't support any scientific theory - they're open to anything that's compatible with Catholic teaching. Scientific research is out of their domain - they deal with matters of faith and morals.

What's the Vatican Observatory, again?

[Auralia]

"Progressive" churches that "change with the times" scare me. A lot. Christianity is based on absolute morality - in my opinion, churches which reject that principle aren't really Christian, and certainly aren't worthy of my membership or faith. That's why I'm a Roman Catholic.

Because Roman Catholicism doesn't "change with the times" or make an effort to be "progressive" except for the Second Vatican Council, and when Pope who promotes these things does so there is certainly no effort to saint him afterwards...except for Pope John XXIII.

The Second Vatican Council didn't contradict any of the Church's teachings.

[Auralia]

The Catholic Church doesn't support any scientific theory - they're open to anything that's compatible with Catholic teaching. Scientific research is out of their domain - they deal with matters of faith and morals.

What's the Vatican Observatory, again?

Fair enough. However, the Church doesn't take the findings from the Observatory and mandate that all Catholics believe them - their role as a Church and as a supporter of scientific research are completely separate.

[AiliailiA]

You accept that as true?

@Conspiracies Revealed: Interesting! Sounds like bullshit ... or am I just judging your opinions by your name? Something to back that up would be good.

ie. Rant, Source, or GTFO

Church of England: About 50% of people in the UK are atheist
Church of Norway: About 70% of people in Norway are atheist

I'd be mighty impressed if those two things were true. It would hugely support the idea I put in the OP.

However, it doesn't sound even remotely true.

Let's see some figures. Let's see a source for that.

[Johz]

Okay you're right. I'm clearly a month or two out of date.

That would be a valid point if we had any sort of nationally-elected representative in the house of Lords. Currently we do not. The bishops attempt to represent all people - including atheists if their rights were to be threatened - for example when fighting the benefit reform bill.

Small flaw in your reasoning. The bishops don't represent all people, because they campaign to have homosexuals treated as second class citizens. On that basis alone, I think there are reasonable grounds for me to say with absolute certainty that they should have no part in making laws.

Edit: Also, in case it wasn't clear, when I said MP I was referring to the house of commons, where the elected officials go. If bishops want to "represent all people", they should stand for election, just like everyone else.

But there are no Bishops in the House of Commons. In the HoC there are elected leaders who represent their constituencies. In the House of Lords, theoretically at least, there are non-elected figures of authority, and thus any form of representation of the majority of people.

The majority of bishops are actually very supportive of gay rights. Alas, there is the issue of gay marriage, and they are slightly more supportive of a traditional view that states that the role of marriage is to bring children into the world. There are some bishops, and certainly a larger number of clergy, that would support gay marriage, but the politics of the church as a whole means that the more official position must be against gay marriage.

[Conspiracies Revealed]

Church of England: About 50% of people in the UK are atheist
Church of Norway: About 70% of people in Norway are atheist

I'd be mighty impressed if those two things were true. It would hugely support the idea I put in the OP.

However, it doesn't sound even remotely true.

Let's see some figures. Let's see a source for that.

[Johz]

To be fair, to be fair, most Christian denominations do not view homosexuality in itself as a sin. They view acting upon your homosexuality (i.e. having sex with the same gender) as a sin, and that is a choice.

Wait, what part of that is fair?

What part of "you were born with no legs, you can't ride that bicycle" is fair?

[Leepaidamba]

.
The Church of England is one of the most tolerant and progressive Christian Churches.

This is the Church that so many people emigrated to get away from. In the US, still wary of it when it came time to do the Constitution.

The CoE has gotten better.

Has it been a drag on the political liberalization of Britain? ... doesn't look that way.

Anybody who knows much about the Church of Sweden, etc, is invited to give other examples.

Or counter-examples.

Maybe Establishment of the Church isn't actually such an evil after all?

There's a joke made by secularists at times: 'If we wanted an atheist country, we'd make it a Christian country first/we'd be asking for an established national church', or something like that.
I think you're making a bad comparison.
A non-secular state is not much of a problem when the established religion is not much of a problem itself. In the various European countries where this is the case that's because 1) there's great religious diversity, and 2) religiosity is low, and for these reasons the established religion has little reason to be intrusive. However, in countries where there is less religious diversity and people are more religious, the established religion is more likely, even almost certain, to be intrusive. Add to this the decreased tolerance towards people of other religions or none at all by the religious majority which one can expect, and you've got a recipe for disaster.

Meanwhile, in our hypothetical secular state where we can also vary whatever parameter we want, it doesn't really matter how religious everyone is and how diverse all the religions are. The government is free from religious interference, and while in a more religious country like the United states you'll have people getting upset about it and trying their utmost to get rid of it, even denying it outright, you're still just as free to practice whatever religion you happen to or none at all and nobody can really do anything about it just as in those liberal non-secular places. However, you're a lot better of than in the more conservative non-secular countries. And as I've said, that's regardless of who's the majority and how big that majority is.

In other words, a secular state and a good non-secular state are largely indistiguishable, and perhaps a non-secular state is even preferable in that respect. Only when one considers all non-secular states though is it clear that a secular state is overall preferable.

[AiliailiA]

I'd be mighty impressed if those two things were true. It would hugely support the idea I put in the OP.

However, it doesn't sound even remotely true.

Let's see some figures. Let's see a source for that.

[

Thanks. I like graphs.

I can't tell what the first graph is about. It's from wikipedia, but "bsa" doesn't help me much. Boy Scouts of America?

The second graph shows England and Norway at about 30% Atheist, with more "non-religious" as well.

I like that you showed me something, but without links to where the graphs came from it doesn't mean much.

[Conspiracies Revealed]

[

Thanks. I like graphs.

I can't tell what the first graph is about. It's from wikipedia, but "bsa" doesn't help me much. Boy Scouts of America?

The second graph shows England and Norway at about 30% Atheist, with more "non-religious" as well.

I like that you showed me something, but without links to where the graphs came from it doesn't mean much.

British Social Attitudes.

Link 1

The second link was from Pitzer college, but the website it was on removed it.

[AiliailiA]

Wait, what part of that is fair?

What part of "you were born with no legs, you can't ride that bicycle" is fair?

Gimme that bicycle, some old bicycle parts, and an oxy welding kit. I'll have your legless person riding in no time. The saddle will be more comfortable too!

[Johz]

What part of "you were born with no legs, you can't ride that bicycle" is fair?

Gimme that bicycle, some old bicycle parts, and an oxy welding kit. I'll have your legless person riding in no time. The saddle will be more comfortable too!

Will he still have to wear that horrible spandex stuff?

[AiliailiA]

The second link was from Pitzer college, but the website it was on removed it.

Yah. That's usually a bad sign.

BSA is also "no religion" not atheist.

I wouldn't base an argument off either of those, but still it's useful. Not sure what the hell is going on there in Vietnam ...

For being the first to bring anything remotely resembling quantitative analysis to the thread, you get cookies.

...wait, I've eaten all my cookies. Would you like a tomato?

[Disserbia]

Because Roman Catholicism doesn't "change with the times" or make an effort to be "progressive" except for the Second Vatican Council, and when Pope who promotes these things does so there is certainly no effort to saint him afterwards...except for Pope John XXIII.

The Second Vatican Council didn't contradict any of the Church's teachings.

Changed the attitude of of the church to other religions in a pretty huge way I'd say.

[AiliailiA]

Gimme that bicycle, some old bicycle parts, and an oxy welding kit. I'll have your legless person riding in no time. The saddle will be more comfortable too!

Will he still have to wear that horrible spandex stuff?

The client will be pedalling with both hands and steering with their mouth. Obviously, the saddle will need to provide more linear, lateral and torsional support than the standard bicycle saddle. A lot more. Perhaps with straps.

I don't think I could provide that if the client turns up wearing baggy shorts and refuses to strip down. It will have to be the spandex.

[AiliailiA]

The Second Vatican Council didn't contradict any of the Church's teachings.

Changed the attitude of of the church to other religions in a pretty huge way I'd say.

Seems you came into this thread saying the Church shouldn't change, and it's great that the Catholic Church hasn't changed ...

but now you're saying the 2VC changed the attitude of the church "in a pretty huge way" ?

You are confusing me.

[Disserbia]

Changed the attitude of of the church to other religions in a pretty huge way I'd say.

Seems you came into this thread saying the Church shouldn't change, and it's great that the Catholic Church hasn't changed ...

but now you're saying the 2VC changed the attitude of the church "in a pretty huge way" ?

You are confusing me.

I came into this thread saying that anyone who dismisses established religion as evil is not someone I'd bother to have a conversation with...
I really don't want to read through all those documents again. I'll try to find which one I was referring to. It might have been from Paul VI but I doubt it.

[Free South Califas]

Not sure what the hell is going on there in Vietnam ...

Makes sense to me. It's a communist country of relatively recent vintage. China is low, but the Chinese govt has been playing dirty pool against their religious populations for a long time now and have generated no small amount of bitter determination, I'm sure.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Not sure what the hell is going on there in Vietnam ...

I find the stats for Israel more amusing, what with what it is.