Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 May '09 18:11
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8066000.stm

    (extract from the text)

    The British National Party has dismissed an appeal by senior Anglican church leaders for voters to boycott the party at next month's elections.

    The archbishops of Canterbury and York are urging people not to let anger over the MPs' expenses scandal drive them to vote for the party.

    BNP leader Nick Griffin said it was time the church grew up and began talking to them about issues.

    He accused them of letting MPs "off the hook" and turning on his party.

    In a joint statement, on behalf of the Church of England House of Bishops, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu said the English local and UK-wide European elections on 4 June were coming "at a time of extraordinary turbulence in our democratic system".



    Now, even though I disagree with the BNP, I wonder, shouldn't those bishops be saving souls instead of interfering in politics?
  2. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    24 May '09 18:18
    Originally posted by generalissimo

    Now, even though I disagree with the BNP, I wonder, shouldn't those bishops be saving souls instead of interfering in politics?
    Agreed,

    it shows, yet again, the inability of the church to understand the society within which it operates. It does more harm than good.
  3. 24 May '09 18:21 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Wheely
    Agreed,

    it shows, yet again, the inability of the church to understand the society within which it operates. It does more harm than good.
    Separation between church and state should have happened years ago, that would certainly avoid that kind of partisan behavior from angliacan bishops.

    As christians they should certainly tells the churchgoers to be tolerant and good to people regardless of their color and religion, however they shouldn't go around interfiring with politics that way.
  4. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    24 May '09 18:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Separation between church and state should have happened years ago, that would certainly avoid that kind of partisan behavior from angliacan bishops.

    As christians they should certainly tells the churchgoers to be tolerant and good to people regardless of their color and religion, however they shouldn't go around interfiring with politics that way.
    Church and state were separated years ago. In most countries at least.
  5. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    24 May '09 20:01
    Originally posted by Wheely
    Church and state were separated years ago. In most countries at least.
    But not the UK, which still has an Established church. Almost unbelievably, bishops from that church sit in the second chamber, the House of Lords.
  6. 24 May '09 20:19
    Originally posted by Wheely
    Church and state were separated years ago. In most countries at least.
    Can you name one?
  7. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    24 May '09 23:18
    Originally posted by Wheely
    Church and state were separated years ago. In most countries at least.
    and in most of those countries the church has steadily clawed its way back into positions of power and influence over the political process.
  8. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    25 May '09 05:51
    Originally posted by Wheely
    Agreed,

    it shows, yet again, the inability of the church to understand the society within which it operates. It does more harm than good.
    Are you suggesting that church leaders are not allowed to voice political opinions?

    Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, even bishops (or whatever the hell the Anglican version is).
  9. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    25 May '09 06:22
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Are you suggesting that church leaders are not allowed to voice political opinions?

    Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, even bishops (or whatever the hell the Anglican version is).
    No I'm not.

    I'm suggesting that the Church asking people not to vote for the BNP is counter productive.
  10. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    25 May '09 06:24
    Originally posted by DrKF
    But not the UK, which still has an Established church. Almost unbelievably, bishops from that church sit in the second chamber, the House of Lords.
    The head of the Anglican Church can not stop or create legislation and neither can the House of Lords.
  11. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    25 May '09 06:27
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Can you name one?
    The United States of America

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

    This, of course, isn't to say that a religious person can't hold office.
  12. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    25 May '09 06:36
    Originally posted by Wheely
    No I'm not.

    I'm suggesting that the Church asking people not to vote for the BNP is counter productive.
    It could well be.
    But they still have the right to say that if they want.

    Personally I think we should BNP'ers up with cricket bats, but that's just my love of humanity showing.
  13. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    25 May '09 06:47
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    It could well be.
    But they still have the right to say that if they want.

    Personally I think we should BNP'ers up with cricket bats, but that's just my love of humanity showing.
    I agree, they have the right to say what they want though I think they have a responsibility to be aware that their words will carry the weight of god for some people. With this in mind, I think they need to be careful.

    I would also agree the BNP are a dangerous bunch of arrogant thugs. Even forgetting, for a moment, their stance on immigration, their policies make me think of a nice forward drive to the boundary too.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 May '09 08:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Wheely
    I would also agree the BNP are a dangerous bunch of arrogant thugs. [...] their policies make me think of a nice forward drive to the boundary too.
    No. No. A pull to square leg. Head high. Almost a hook. Roll the wrists. All along the ground until they crash into the boards.
  15. Standard member Wheely
    Instant Buzz
    25 May '09 08:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. No. A pull to square leg. Head high. Almost a hook. Roll the wrists. All along the ground until they crash into the boards.
    I guess I am just a Strauss when we really need a Pietersen here!

    Hmm, switch hit sweep for 6.