The opinion of the guardian of Christianity in Britain: neither here nor there | Editors

Something very strange is going on. The Chairman of the Commission for equality and human rights considers that it needs to tell employers it’s okay to celebrate Christmas, and that it would not offend unbelievers. The Prime Minister announced in Parliament that, of course, people should be able to speak freely about their religious beliefs. In the laboratory argues that there should be a duty of “reasonable accommodation” to religious belief. These are all symptoms of deep concern and confusion about the role of Christianity in British life.

Britain is a country with an established Church in England and the other national Church of Scotland, the secular ruling class and the population is largely indifferent to purely Christian beliefs and, in the vast majority, do not want to go to Church, which displays a growing hostility to the concept of “religion” at all. There are also significant religious minorities, primarily Muslims, who have their own arguments with secularism and Christianity.

Some churches see their control of the school as a way to return to relevance, and the government is tempted by the idea that a Christian based learning gives better results than a purely secular, although the best studies show that faith works in practice as a proxy for selection on the basis of class and parental wealth.

A lot of noise based on tendentious to claim that conservative Christians who can’t discriminate against gay people thus discriminated against. The argument is hardly convincing. Although there were important issues of freedom of speech involved in the case of the ashers bakery in Belfast and in some other recent cases that have not appeared in court, Christians are not prosecuted if they did not have the opportunity to realize their beliefs in ways that harm others. As the followers of any other religion.

These bans are not purely the introduction of secular law on religious believers. They are also the introduction of one of the types of religious beliefs to another. There are people, driven by equally sincere and (theologically speaking), also claimed religious beliefs from both sides of the debate.

Moreover, the conservative Christian case is fundamentally undermined when he broke with the perspective of “religious” freedom, and not what is actually meant that land rights should follow specifically Christian principles. Religion is notoriously difficult to define as atheism. Decide what kinds of beliefs deserve special protection, even if no one should be regarded as theologically true is very difficult. Unfortunately, it is also necessary. You cannot create a nation or any community without shared moral values and practices, and surprisingly difficult to solve, so to speak, from first principles, how to transfer those values beyond platitudes and into action. There are some discussions of secular unwarranted assumption that all real differences of political and Religious views differ or only trivial or false. In fact, they may be inextricably mixed, and the religious aspect can make political disputes much harder to resolve.

Nervousness on Christmas is an absurd expression of the real emptiness in the heart of the soulless technocracy

Here, the Christian criticism has something to offer the rest of the country. There is a long tradition of religious thought on the development of virtues and values. The Christian version is derived from Socrates and Aristotle, but these philosophers believed that virtue was entirely compatible with slavery and infanticide, so it was pretty heavily modified since then. The Central insight is that as individuals and societies or social groups, to develop their values by living them. Moral questions cannot be fully answered reasoning: we know what these creatures are we; we develop virtues and vices by practicing them. A compassionate society that treats its members with sympathy, not one that makes speeches about the need to do so.

More subtly, the values of society are developed and supported by its institutions. These should not be three branches of government. Really important that many of them do not. The unions, food banks, football leagues, even reading groups all have the right, but many will always be religious. It would be foolish and was self-destructive to make such groups feel useless and unwanted. Nervousness for Christmas, or even for the expression of religious beliefs, it’s ridiculous, an expression of the real emptiness in the heart of a soulless technocracy.