NationStates

.
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?

In Britain, other than some opposition to same-sex rights, I don't think the Church has too big an impact on the state (even with the Lords spiritual). This is why I thank my lucky stars I don't live in the US, where separation of Church and State doesn't really occur. The irony is that, with our Monarch the Head of State and head of the CofE, we still seem to be less governed religiously than the USA.

I'm not religious myself, nor do I believe that you have to be to have decent morals or ethics, but I do feel that the Church in England is on the whole a good thing. We're lucky, in that we tend to have cuddly Christians, generally, as opposed to the "God hates fags" (didn't know he felt that strongly about smoking) across the pond.

The Church of Sweden, which is a Lutheran church, is very liberal. Homosexuals are allowed to may in their churches and the Bishop of Härnösand (which is about 5 hours north of Stockholm) is lesbian. I guess though, the CoS had to reform to conform with the minds of a very secular and liberal nation.

That being said the Lutheran Church of Finland, which I was born into is still quite conservative, when it comes to homosexuality. Perhaps in time that will change, but we're still doing better than most American churches.

I find that most who are "Against" not just christianity but all organized religion have either been in the faith growing up and has grown out of it out for many reasons...or they are doing it because Richard Darwin commands them to do so

Also, its not mostly the religion that people get pissed off about its more the leadership not following the teachings of their religion.

Machiavellionia wrote:In Britain, other than some opposition to same-sex rights, I don't think the Church has too big an impact on the state (even with the Lords spiritual).

If I remember correctly, the Church offered other Churches places among the Lords Spiritual. There was a Rabbi but when he retired (from the Lords? Doesn't sound right does it. Why would anyone do that? They have to turn up once a week or something, enter the Lords, leave again ... hang out having free booze and snacks if they feel that way inclined ...anyway) and a Mullah. I think the Mullah is still there, a place is open for any Rabbi who wants it ... something like that.

You mentioned the House of Lords, so I am duty bound as a Socialist and Republican to make fun of them.

The Lords don't get to Consent any more, and all the Advising they do could be done by emailing junkmail@number10.gov.uk

"Lords Spiritual and Temporal in This Place Assembled" lol. And Sea Lords, what's with them? I'll bet they're all Men.

This is why I thank my lucky stars I don't live in the US, where separation of Church and State doesn't really occur. The irony is that, with our Monarch the Head of State and head of the CofE, we still seem to be less governed religiously than the USA.

Yes, that was my point.

CoE has gotten better due to it's privileged position with respect to government. Some of the democratic will to liberalism over the last couple of centuries has "rubbed off" on the CoE.

I'm not religious myself, nor do I believe that you have to be to have decent morals or ethics, but I do feel that the Church in England is on the whole a good thing. We're lucky, in that we tend to have cuddly Christians, generally, as opposed to the "God hates fags" (didn't know he felt that strongly about smoking) across the pond.

Still, it's only one example.

"Established Churches" include Shia and Sunni Muslim ones (Sunnis seem less intrusive on the state, think CoE in England v. Catholic in Ireland). Christianity in the Philippines. Something to do with saunas and lots of healthy safe bumsex in Sweden. I don't by any means claim to be making a general observation about all Established Churches.

It's just that one example which really struck me.

Anglican is a closely related Church to Church of England I think. Probably the same thing, but they changed the name so people would stop throwing rocks and breaking their windows.

Orcoa wrote:I find that most who are "Against"

Now there's a thought. I'll add a poll.

not just christianity but all organized religion have either been in the faith growing up and has grown out of it out for many reasons...or they are doing it because Richard Darwin commands them to do so

They're a big family those Darwins.

Do you mean Charles? The one with thousands of species named after him who banged up his cousin?

Jafas United wrote:The Church of Sweden ... the Bishop of Härnösand is a lesbian.

Forgive me editing the quote. But this just looks so good on the page. A lesbian Bishop.

I guess though, the CoS had to reform to conform with the minds of a very secular and liberal nation.

That being said the Lutheran Church of Finland, which I was born into is still quite conservative, when it comes to homosexuality. Perhaps in time that will change, but we're still doing better than most American churches.

Lutherans, dunno much about them. Got the name Luther I guess ... probably broadly Protestant.

Two questions:

1. How long has the church been Established there?
2. Is the Finnish variety more or less progressive than the Lutheran Church elsewhere?

I'm not asking you to be super-expert. Anything is more than I know.

Ailiailia wrote:.
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?

The Puritans didn't leave England to flee religious persecution. They fled so they could religiously persecute.

Organized religion has the potential to be a great force for good. In many ways, it already is- even the super-ebil bloodsucking child-fiddling gay-hating Roman Catholic Church does a huge amount of charity work, not to mention preserving many of the world's greatest works of art and architecture. Occasionally they'll even take a stand against immoral or oppressive governments, such as in Nazi Germany where Clemens August Graf von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, helped to expose and end the Nazis' mass euthanasia project. The Church of England is great because it's modern and forward-thinking whilst still preserving all the tradition, pomp and ceremony of the medieval church, which all those boring Protestants want to do away with.

Ailiailia wrote:

Orcoa wrote:I find that most who are "Against"

Now there's a thought. I'll add a poll.

not just christianity but all organized religion have either been in the faith growing up and has grown out of it out for many reasons...or they are doing it because Richard Darwin commands them to do so

They're a big family those Darwins.

Do you mean Charles? The one with thousands of species named after him who banged up his cousin?

Sorry I should of meant Richard Dawkins

Ailiailia wrote:

Jafas United wrote:The Church of Sweden ... the Bishop of Härnösand is a lesbian.

Forgive me editing the quote. But this just looks so good on the page. A lesbian Bishop.

It's fine.

Martin Luther may be rolling in his grave, but if the Lutheran church wants to survive in Sweden it has to get with the times.

Lutherans, dunno much about them. Got the name Luther I guess ... probably broadly Protestant.

Yes. The Lutheran Church is the first Protestant church.

How long has the church been Established there?

The Finnish Lutheran Church itself was established in 1809. However, Lutheranism itself has been in Finland since the Reformation, around the 1520s, but until 1809, we were part of the Lutheran Church of Sweden.

Is the Finnish variety more or less progressive than the Lutheran Church elsewhere?

Compared to the other Nordic varieties i.e. Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic, it's probably the most conservative. Though its probably more progressive than the German and American Churches.

I'm not asking you to be super-expert. Anything is more than I know.

I don't know the Lutheran Church all over. I'm Lutheran in name only, though I don't practise. But I'm here to help.

Orcoa wrote:Sorry I should of meant Richard Dawkins

I know.

Jafas United wrote:
I don't know the Lutheran Church all over. I'm Lutheran in name only, though I don't practise. But I'm here to help.

Lino? Isn't that a type of flooring?

Ailiailia wrote:

Orcoa wrote:Sorry I should of meant Richard Dawkins

I know.

Anyway, I find Richard Dawkins one of the biggest loudest asshole in the atheist community which sucks because most of the Atheists I have meet in my life that are from that same group are quite nice.

Forster Keys wrote:

Jafas United wrote:
I don't know the Lutheran Church all over. I'm Lutheran in name only, though I don't practise. But I'm here to help.

Lino? Isn't that a type of flooring?

It took me a while to figure out what you were saying.

LINOs, RINOs and DINOs, oh my!

Old Tyrannia wrote:Organized religion has the potential to be a great force for good. In many ways, it already is- even the super-ebil bloodsucking child-fiddling gay-hating Roman Catholic Church does a huge amount of charity work

Let me stop your right there.

This is not a thread about whether Churches do good or bad. It's about whether Establishing a particular church is good or bad.

The Roman Catholic Church is Established in these places:

• Costa Rica
• Liechtenstein
• Malta
• Monaco
• Vatican City

The usual source.

If you'd like to compare the Bishops in any of those places, to Bishops generally in the Catholic Church, and make inferences about the effect that Church and State are having on each other where the religion is established, I'm sure it would be interesting and on-topic.

But this is not a general for/against religion thread. If you don't mind.

, not to mention preserving many of the world's greatest works of art and architecture. Occasionally they'll even take a stand against immoral or oppressive governments, such as in Nazi Germany where Clemens August Graf von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, helped to expose and end the Nazis' mass euthanasia project. The Church of England is great because it's modern and forward-thinking whilst still preserving all the tradition, pomp and ceremony of the medieval church, which all those boring Protestants want to do away with.

I read that through. On-topic please.

The Danish Church (Lutheran) is for quite the most part relaxed about many things. The current government are attempting to legalise homosexual marriage in church as well, and apart from a few priests the largest objections they had was that priests shouldn't be forced to marry a homosexual couple against their conviction (But should refer the couple to a priest who want to).

In general, I'd say that most Danes have a quite relaxed relationship to the church. I think currently more than 80% of all Danes are members of the church, but most of those are basically cultural-religious; they go to church around Christmas, Easter and at weddings, funerals and baptism/confirmations.

I would not say that established religion necessarily is evil, we see counterexamples here, but I find it funny that the counterexamples here provided seem to be restricted in their temporal power, that liberal values in society has influenced the church. Am I completely off here, or is there a correlation between "non-evil" church establishments (Though evil is clearly subjective and here it's for a lack of better wording) and restrictions in temporal power?

Jafas United wrote:

Forster Keys wrote:
Lino? Isn't that a type of flooring?

It took me a while to figure out what you were saying.

LINOs, RINOs and DINOs, oh my!

It's an acropun. I'm impressed I must say.

Getting to your post longer post. Mean to answer all in order but that really was good.

Ailiailia wrote:

Machiavellionia wrote:In Britain, other than some opposition to same-sex rights, I don't think the Church has too big an impact on the state (even with the Lords spiritual).

If I remember correctly, the Church offered other Churches places among the Lords Spiritual. There was a Rabbi but when he retired (from the Lords? Doesn't sound right does it. Why would anyone do that? They have to turn up once a week or something, enter the Lords, leave again ... hang out having free booze and snacks if they feel that way inclined ...anyway) and a Mullah. I think the Mullah is still there, a place is open for any Rabbi who wants it ... something like that.

You mentioned the House of Lords, so I am duty bound as a Socialist and Republican to make fun of them.

The Lords don't get to Consent any more, and all the Advising they do could be done by emailing junkmail@number10.gov.uk

"Lords Spiritual and Temporal in This Place Assembled" lol. And Sea Lords, what's with them? I'll bet they're all Men.

This is why I thank my lucky stars I don't live in the US, where separation of Church and State doesn't really occur. The irony is that, with our Monarch the Head of State and head of the CofE, we still seem to be less governed religiously than the USA.

Yes, that was my point.

CoE has gotten better due to it's privileged position with respect to government. Some of the democratic will to liberalism over the last couple of centuries has "rubbed off" on the CoE.

I'm not religious myself, nor do I believe that you have to be to have decent morals or ethics, but I do feel that the Church in England is on the whole a good thing. We're lucky, in that we tend to have cuddly Christians, generally, as opposed to the "God hates fags" (didn't know he felt that strongly about smoking) across the pond.

Still, it's only one example.

"Established Churches" include Shia and Sunni Muslim ones (Sunnis seem less intrusive on the state, think CoE in England v. Catholic in Ireland). Christianity in the Philippines. Something to do with saunas and lots of healthy safe bumsex in Sweden. I don't by any means claim to be making a general observation about all Established Churches.

It's just that one example which really struck me.

Anglican is a closely related Church to Church of England I think. Probably the same thing, but they changed the name so people would stop throwing rocks and breaking their windows.

I am sorry I must correct you Anglicanism is a religion based around the fusion of Catholic and Protestant traditions following an Episcopal Polity. The CofE is an Anglican Church and so is the Episcopal Church in the United States.

Ailiailia wrote:

Machiavellionia wrote:In Britain, other than some opposition to same-sex rights, I don't think the Church has too big an impact on the state (even with the Lords spiritual).

If I remember correctly, the Church offered other Churches places among the Lords Spiritual. There was a Rabbi but when he retired (from the Lords? Doesn't sound right does it. Why would anyone do that? They have to turn up once a week or something, enter the Lords, leave again ... hang out having free booze and snacks if they feel that way inclined ...anyway) and a Mullah. I think the Mullah is still there, a place is open for any Rabbi who wants it ... something like that.

You mentioned the House of Lords, so I am duty bound as a Socialist and Republican to make fun of them.

The Lords don't get to Consent any more, and all the Advising they do could be done by emailing junkmail@number10.gov.uk

"Lords Spiritual and Temporal in This Place Assembled" lol. And Sea Lords, what's with them? I'll bet they're all Men.

This is why I thank my lucky stars I don't live in the US, where separation of Church and State doesn't really occur. The irony is that, with our Monarch the Head of State and head of the CofE, we still seem to be less governed religiously than the USA.

Yes, that was my point.

CoE has gotten better due to it's privileged position with respect to government. Some of the democratic will to liberalism over the last couple of centuries has "rubbed off" on the CoE.

I'm not religious myself, nor do I believe that you have to be to have decent morals or ethics, but I do feel that the Church in England is on the whole a good thing. We're lucky, in that we tend to have cuddly Christians, generally, as opposed to the "God hates fags" (didn't know he felt that strongly about smoking) across the pond.

Still, it's only one example.

"Established Churches" include Shia and Sunni Muslim ones (Sunnis seem less intrusive on the state, think CoE in England v. Catholic in Ireland). Christianity in the Philippines. Something to do with saunas and lots of healthy safe bumsex in Sweden. I don't by any means claim to be making a general observation about all Established Churches.

It's just that one example which really struck me.

Anglican is a closely related Church to Church of England I think. Probably the same thing, but they changed the name so people would stop throwing rocks and breaking their windows.

I believe the CoE is a church denomination in its own right, but it falls under the banner of the wider Anglican church. Thus you have Tutu who is an Anglican in South Africa, but obviously not part of the Church of England. The Anglican church probably stemmed, then, from the Church of England during the colonial period.

But in England they are one and the same.

Johz wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:

If I remember correctly, the Church offered other Churches places among the Lords Spiritual. There was a Rabbi but when he retired (from the Lords? Doesn't sound right does it. Why would anyone do that? They have to turn up once a week or something, enter the Lords, leave again ... hang out having free booze and snacks if they feel that way inclined ...anyway) and a Mullah. I think the Mullah is still there, a place is open for any Rabbi who wants it ... something like that.

You mentioned the House of Lords, so I am duty bound as a Socialist and Republican to make fun of them.

The Lords don't get to Consent any more, and all the Advising they do could be done by emailing junkmail@number10.gov.uk

"Lords Spiritual and Temporal in This Place Assembled" lol. And Sea Lords, what's with them? I'll bet they're all Men.



Yes, that was my point.

CoE has gotten better due to it's privileged position with respect to government. Some of the democratic will to liberalism over the last couple of centuries has "rubbed off" on the CoE.



Still, it's only one example.

"Established Churches" include Shia and Sunni Muslim ones (Sunnis seem less intrusive on the state, think CoE in England v. Catholic in Ireland). Christianity in the Philippines. Something to do with saunas and lots of healthy safe bumsex in Sweden. I don't by any means claim to be making a general observation about all Established Churches.

It's just that one example which really struck me.

Anglican is a closely related Church to Church of England I think. Probably the same thing, but they changed the name so people would stop throwing rocks and breaking their windows.

I believe the CoE is a church denomination in its own right, but it falls under the banner of the wider Anglican church. Thus you have Tutu who is an Anglican in South Africa, but obviously not part of the Church of England. The Anglican church probably stemmed, then, from the Church of England during the colonial period.

But in England they are one and the same.

This and this-
I am sorry I must correct you Anglicanism is a religion based around the fusion of Catholic and Protestant traditions following an Episcopal Polity. The CofE is an Anglican Church and so is the Episcopal Church in the United States.

It is the third largest branch of Christinity which follows the protecals 1692 Book of Common Prayer.

Johz wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:

If I remember correctly, the Church offered other Churches places among the Lords Spiritual. There was a Rabbi but when he retired (from the Lords? Doesn't sound right does it. Why would anyone do that? They have to turn up once a week or something, enter the Lords, leave again ... hang out having free booze and snacks if they feel that way inclined ...anyway) and a Mullah. I think the Mullah is still there, a place is open for any Rabbi who wants it ... something like that.

You mentioned the House of Lords, so I am duty bound as a Socialist and Republican to make fun of them.

The Lords don't get to Consent any more, and all the Advising they do could be done by emailing junkmail@number10.gov.uk

"Lords Spiritual and Temporal in This Place Assembled" lol. And Sea Lords, what's with them? I'll bet they're all Men.



Yes, that was my point.

CoE has gotten better due to it's privileged position with respect to government. Some of the democratic will to liberalism over the last couple of centuries has "rubbed off" on the CoE.



Still, it's only one example.

"Established Churches" include Shia and Sunni Muslim ones (Sunnis seem less intrusive on the state, think CoE in England v. Catholic in Ireland). Christianity in the Philippines. Something to do with saunas and lots of healthy safe bumsex in Sweden. I don't by any means claim to be making a general observation about all Established Churches.

It's just that one example which really struck me.

Anglican is a closely related Church to Church of England I think. Probably the same thing, but they changed the name so people would stop throwing rocks and breaking their windows.

I believe the CoE is a church denomination in its own right, but it falls under the banner of the wider Anglican church. Thus you have Tutu who is an Anglican in South Africa, but obviously not part of the Church of England. The Anglican church probably stemmed, then, from the Church of England during the colonial period.

But in England they are one and the same.

Doesn't the Archbishop of Canterbury have some official capacity in terms of being (for want of a better expression) the head of the entire Anglican ministry?

Baring of course the CoE as Liz runs that right?

Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f wrote:

Johz wrote:I believe the CoE is a church denomination in its own right, but it falls under the banner of the wider Anglican church. Thus you have Tutu who is an Anglican in South Africa, but obviously not part of the Church of England. The Anglican church probably stemmed, then, from the Church of England during the colonial period.

But in England they are one and the same.

Doesn't the Archbishop of Canterbury have some official capacity in terms of being (for want of a better expression) the head of the entire Anglican ministry?

He is the head of all of the sees in the Anglican Communian. Though his power is more symbolic than say The Pope.

Jafas United wrote:

Ailiailia wrote:
Forgive me editing the quote. But this just looks so good on the page. A lesbian Bishop.

It's fine.

Martin Luther may be rolling in his grave, but if the Lutheran church wants to survive in Sweden it has to get with the times.

And I wonder (wrt the thread subject) whether an Established church being pulled into the future actually influences other churches. Churches all to some extent compete with each other (for congregation) and the Established one has a certain advantage if it teaches "moral rules" which are closer to the civil law.

How long has the church been Established there?

The Finnish Lutheran Church itself was established in 1809. However, Lutheranism itself has been in Finland since the Reformation, around the 1520s, but until 1809, we were part of the Lutheran Church of Sweden.

OK. That's a fair while. If there is any "church follows state" effect it should be noticeable by now.

Is the Finnish variety more or less progressive than the Lutheran Church elsewhere?

Compared to the other Nordic varieties i.e. Swedish, Danish, Norwegian and Icelandic, it's probably the most conservative. Though its probably more progressive than the German and American Churches.

So, evidence against I guess. It's OK, I'm not wedded to the idea in the OP.

I'm not asking you to be super-expert. Anything is more than I know.

I don't know the Lutheran Church all over. I'm Lutheran in name only, though I don't practise. But I'm here to help.

Practising is for Catholics.

"Dear, are you all right in there?"
"Yes dear, I'm just practising for when we have children"

The Realm of God wrote:

Johz wrote:I believe the CoE is a church denomination in its own right, but it falls under the banner of the wider Anglican church. Thus you have Tutu who is an Anglican in South Africa, but obviously not part of the Church of England. The Anglican church probably stemmed, then, from the Church of England during the colonial period.

But in England they are one and the same.

This and this-
I am sorry I must correct you Anglicanism is a religion based around the fusion of Catholic and Protestant traditions following an Episcopal Polity. The CofE is an Anglican Church and so is the Episcopal Church in the United States.

It is the third largest branch of Christinity which follows the protecals 1692 Book of Common Prayer.

That was confusing, but seems to be on-topic. Carry on.