The Sunday Telegraph leads with this story about how there are reportedly more Roman Catholics living in Britain than Anglicans, based on figures for church attendance as well as census data. As a former Anglican and now atheist with a Catholic wife of decidedly liberal persuasions, I look upon this news item with a relaxed attitude. Part of the shift is down to the loss of nerve of the Anglican church, not to mention the impact of trends like mass immigration from eastern Europe, such as Poland. I am not a fan of the idea of national churches anyway – like the US Founding Fathers I support a separation of church and state – although I do believe that in certain respects, the Anglican church, and the wonderful hymns and literature it is associated with, is an often elevating part of British, and certainly English, culture. But the church was a political creation, remember, with all the faults that implies. Up until the middle of the 19th Century, recall, atheists, Dissenters, Catholics and Jews faced all manner of barriers to entering British public life, although in practice this meant that many non-Anglicans ended up driving the Industrial Revolution – like the Quakers – precisely because they had a hard time entering certain professions or going into politics. But this prejudice was still wrong even if the unintended consequences could be beneficial with the benefit of hindsight.
I am blogging this from the very decadently Catholic south of France, in Cannes. Just thought I would mention that.
Is total church attendance or affiliation rising or falling over there?
Here, it’s dropping, and that’s provoked the handwringing from the usual suspects about how society is becoming immoral. Apparently, people are now fornicating and cooking meth on Sunday mornings because they’re not in church. (Except for me, dang it.)
I suspect that the church attendance thing is symptom rather than cause. I’ve known too many atheists who were perfectly decent people, and too many people who put the Jesus fish outline on their business cards and then turned out to be scam artists, to fall into that trap.
Symptom of what? You got me. If I knew anything I wouldn’t be on teh internets at a quarter to five in the morning.
This reminds me of Disraeli’s comment “Another Bishop Dead ! Damn ! I do believe they die to vex me.”
When the government plays a major role in picking who will lead the church it is not good for either the government or the church.
Seen from acroos the pond, this British goverment and this Anglican church deserve each other.
BTW Jonathan, Is the Boullabaisse at Tetou’s in Golf Juan as good as ever ?
Actually, it was Britain’s reputation for tolerance in the 16th through 19th Centuries – relative to the rest of Europe – that attracted so many non-Anglicans to the country.
Further, there is a good case for suggesting that a strongly religious society is necessary for robust capitalism. Free-wheeling capitalism necessitates much destabilization and this may only be possible among a people that can find an anchor in faith. After all, the most robust capitalist societies in history — the British Empire and the current US — were and are very religious.
Whereas in countries that have rapidly lost religious belief, like continental Europe and Canada, the state has emerged to dampen the destabilizing effects of capitalism.
I say this as an atheist myself, but I think there is something to it.
This is quite a sad indictment of our modern times and modern culture. I am a Christian, C of E by denomination, I don’t often attend Sunday services as my job doesn’t permit it, but that does not mean my belief in my church is in any way diminished.
It seems to me that for the masses consumerism it the new religion, with Capitalism as its God. Just check out the shopping centres on a Sunday to see the worshipers of wealth performing their consumerist rituals.
It appears to me that the more wealthy a society grows, the less religious it becomes. I am sure when the economic position of Poland rises to that of its more prosperous western neighbours, they too will loose their religious values.
I do not discriminate against any religion, but this country has for over 400 years been free from Papal laws, and that is how I hope it will remain. The latest spat about abortions should make us sit up and think?
As for citing the US as an example of separation between religion and state, it could hardly be further from the truth. Name one presidential candidate who has not tolled the religious bell in order to show his/her acceptability for the position? And anyone who has spent time in small town America will know that those who do not belong to any denomination are basically ostracized in their community; hardly behavior one could comfortably call secular?
I don’t quite know what Jonathan Pearce meant by the Anglican Churches loss of nerves? Where has the Anglican Church lost its nerve? We have in my opinion the best Arch Bishop of Canterbury, a man of intellect, kindness and without bigotry, a leader of the church who conforms to the doctrines of The Christ, rather than following some Royal/political line. I agree things were not right in the past, but lets not forget how the Vatican behaved in the past.
Finally, I would like to point out that people’s religious values normally return when catastrophe faces the populace. The cloud of global warming will be doing this pretty shortly I would imagine its silver lining will be higher Church attendance.
The mistake Anglicanism made was to make religion boring. It took all the mystery and magic out of it.
I was brought up a Welsh Non Conformist. Sunday was a few hymns, flowery hats, and a twee sermon. All over mercifully swiftly. Then it was down the pub, back home for sunday lunch and a snooze over the afternoon film in front of the telly.
At least Catholicism still has all the bells and smells.
No I am not worried at all. What would worry me is if large amounts of people started to convert to Islam.
With the current, and previous, leaders of the Anglican Church in the UK, it is not at all surprising to see that Catholicism is superceding (superseding?) it. Many people profess to being anglicans in the UK but attend church only on 3 occasions – baptism, marriage and death. It is unfortunate maybe but our Queen is Defending a Faith which is in terminal decline.
It’s a mistake to measure religions by attendance figures alone. Some religions have very high attendance figures – but most of its followers don’t have a clue what it’s about because the main text is in Arabic. This confers a monopoly on those who can understand the text and a requirement on the rest to attend services so that they can follow the self appointed leader’s interpretations. …. a bit like Catholicism 500 years ago with Latin
But the King John bible put into English men’s hands a bible that every man could understand and so at once stripped the religious authorities of their monopoly on interpretation and the need to attend worship to understand a religion. As a result there’s less need for an Anglican to attend and so attendance is lower for the C of E.
So it’s a bit like the comparisons they used to draw by looking at Soviet output figures and I’d have thought a good atheist liber would be aware that its just a tad misleading.
I like Tony once thought of joining the Catholics because their rituals seemed to be more religious and their leader more profound. But at the end of the day I’m a barbarian and while I’ll listen to the pope, I couldn’t follow his authority. And just as I didnt’t cease to be English because Tony was in charge, I won’t stop being C of E because Rowan is.
The churches seem determined to drive people away. They destroy all tradition and replace it with boring “youth culture” including, the Sunday Telegraph informs us, “disk jockey services”. And the politics is also boring and stupid.
For example, in the United States the big Protestant churches (including litterally big – such as some of the mega chuches) are, much to the pleasure of the B.B.C., turning away from sermons about Hell fire and abortion – to talk about “human rights” and “the environment” and they are now wondering why fewer people are going to church.
Of course if people want leftist poltics they can simply switch on the television or pick up a newspaper, and their children get it every day at school.
As for Britian, I went to church a few days ago – St Peter and Paul in Kettering.
There was a crib scene – but with a wall round it.
There was some writing to explain the wall.
It represented the “illegal wall put up by the Israeli state as part of the occupation of Palestine…..”
No doubt the next step will be to take down the image of the evil Jew on the walls of the Church, and the image of the evil Jewess in the Lady Chapel.
I walked out.
And the Anglican Church wonders why its services are not well attended.
I’m sorry but that must be some USA in an alternate universe. I have lived in several small US towns in four different states and no one gave a damn about my (lack of) religion.
It occurs to me that I don’t even know what (if any) religion my best chum in the States belongs to because the subject never came up.
A corrollary of what Paul says is that, if you are a Christian then falling CofE attendances is hardly a cause for concern. Clearly neither is it an issue for agnostics, atheists, Jews, Hindus or Pastafarians. So in answer to JP’s original question the answer is “No”.
Straycat: WRT Dr Williams what planet do you live on?
Giles: King James Bible, surely?
I have a few problems with the King James Bible – for example the mistranslation of thou shall not murder as as thou shall not kill.
This seems to have been part of an effort to please King James by down playing individual rights, and putting power in the hands of rulers on Earth.
Still the language is inspiring (a lot of it going all the way back to Tyndale’s work).
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS GOT OUT OF ORDER SOMEHOW.
Small town U.S.A. – or big city U.S.A. come to that.
Of course Churches are welcoming – why should they not be.
But I have never heard of a newcommer being forced to go.
“If you do not go people will ignore you”.
Like here you mean?
I have lived on this housing estate for more than twenty years and I do not know people’s names.
Give me “small town U.S.A.” reaching out any time.
In Britain, or many of the secular big cities of the United States, you could be laying sick for days and no one would come to see why you were not about.
Indeed if I died this very night I doubt anyone would know for weeks.
BACK TO THE CORRECT ORDER.
No translation is going to please everybody. For example, the choice of a few words in the complex matter of translating Greek to English (let alone Hebrew to English) can make good works a vital part of being a Christian, or hardly part of being a Christian at all.
History also gives something to a text.
Both the King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer carry centuries of English/British history now.
Without wanting to sound all Scot. Nat., what the report actually said was that there are more Roman Catholics than Anglicans in England. They’ve outnumbered Anglicans in Britain for quite some time. However, they don’t outnumber Protestants as a whole, so the Telegraph’s headline, “Britain is a ‘catholic (sic) country'”, is somewhat misleading (the paper has always been rather pro-Rome, and I think there may be an element of mild triumphalism in play).
What I found surprising was that in Scotland, RC attendance is falling dramatically faster than the Church of Scotland’s, dropping by a full 25% since 2000. That’s not the impression I’ve had, living here, but I’ve no reason to doubt it and I wonder why there’s such a difference between Scotland and England. The established Churches’ losses are comparable, at around 20%.
Paul: Amen (to coin a phrase) to your first comment. If an established Church is to mean anything in this day and age, it should be a place of comfort, familiarity, solidity and tradition. Religion is be an essential part of it of course, but in a sense it’s almost incidental to those other qualities. It’s generally agreed that the CofE has never really been much about religion, and despite its reputation, neither has the Church of Scotland – it’s really pretty similar, with a more Caledonian flavour. People want the hymns they know, a quiet prayer, a Bible reading, a general, rather vague, sermon about yielding not to temptation or some such, and that’s it. Attempts to be “relevant”, “inclusive”, etc., tend to turn out quite the opposite.
Is the Boullabaisse at Tetou’s in Golf Juan as good as ever ?
Alas, I have only tried shrimps, prawns, moules, some crab and a little red mullet. But give me time….
Further, there is a good case for suggesting that a strongly religious society is necessary for robust capitalism.
There is also a good case for suggesting that a strongly religious society, such as 16th Century Spain or much of the current Middle East, is a serious handicap for capitalism, or any form of enterprise that is consistent with individual liberty. I see no necessary cause and effect here; it is a widely discussed thesis that Protestantism was part of the process that led up to the Industrial Revolution, but that is far from a conclusively accepted thesis.
And anyone who has spent time in small town America will know that those who do not belong to any denomination are basically ostracized in their community; hardly behavior one could comfortably call secular?
That comment will come as a bit of a surprise to all my agnostic/atheistic friends who live and work in places like New York, Silicon Valley, etc. It might apply to parts of small-town America, but I am not sure; the massive book sales of Dawkins, Hitch and Sam Harris suggest that there is not quite the uniform requirement that Americans pay obeisance to religious belief that the cliches suggest. However, it is true that the days when an unbeliever reaches the Oval Office are some way off.
straycat says that separation of church and state in the USA is false, since currently all the candidates are mentioning their faith. I think he has it wrong. In the US the form is more separation of state from church, in that there is no favoritism between religious confessions. In Europe the plan seems to be separation of church from society, with religious faith being a slightly disreputable habit best left private. Thus hijabs and kippahs are banned in France, but generally quite acceptable in the States. In the US, faith is important to most people, and hiding it behind a facade of false secularism would cut an important element of one’s moral decision-making out of the loop.
Now , for a real state-church fight, a look at the Guardian comments over the recent Popish conversion of Tony Blair is an eye-opener. On the left, anyone defecting from an undying belief in INGSOC is surely headed for the stake.
Separation of Church and State has been shown for the most part to be a bad idea. The United States Consitution established nothing of the sort. The federal government was, of course, kept separate from religion primarily in recongition of the fact that its composite states would have different established churches . The Federal Constitution did not establish a church because it was intended to be a union of autonomous republics. Jefferson coined the famous phrase for his own state, but, as everyone knows, Virginia had an established church during his lifetime. Only in the 20th century were the writings of Thomas Paine confused with the American Constitution and the Separation of Church and State made into a fundamental American Principle. Entirely coincidentally, the U.S. became a less free country at the same time.
The first country to embody separation of church and state in its constitution was revolutionary France. Subsequently, again, no doubt, by dint of coincidence, it descended into a bloody nightmare within 4 years. The first country to use the phrase “separation of Church and State” in its constitution was the U.S.S.R, I think we can get the jist now.
The U.S., of course, did certainly bring into being a relationship of church and state different from that of early modern Europe and, by and large, the gamble paid off. However, we now know this was the equivalent of betting all one’s money at the roulette table, winning and then advising one’s children to do the same. (In a similar way the success of America has made the very crap idea of Written Constitutions and Bills of Rights popular worldwide with almost uniformly disastorous results).
The facts show that the most secure protection of liberty is an established national church combined with toleration for congregational diessenting minorities on the strict proviso that they do not try to usurp the established church’s function. Everything else is erroneous theory and hogwash.
Gabriel,
My hat is off to you. That is one of the most remarkable posts I have ever seen on Samizdata. Utterly illebral tommyrot. So we should all knuckle-under to whatever is the one true faith (though dissenters will be tolerated as long as they don’t get uppity)? Your solution is exactly that of the Caliphate. Are you aware of that? Coincidently that also came from the Archangel Gabriel. What if your dhimmis do get uppity? Jihad is it? If I don’t believe in your God, Gabriel, should I be prevented from obtaining high-office because of that? Should laws reflecting whatever denomination you’re into apply to an agnostic like me? Dear me, you’re a sadly misguided twat.
I have not called you a “fucking theocratic wanker with the same value as a parasitic nematode worm” purely because of the general bonhomie of the season.
So, how’s that established church/unwritten constitution thing working for the UK again?
Nick: that is a remarkable post. I’d suggest however, that we lower the tone and give Gabriel a chance to explain his position, hopefully backed with examples.
Not so great, but better than most places. You’re doing a bit better, I guess, but by 2010 you’ll have universal healtcare and be on our level. In any case, I said things more or less worked out in the U.S. but not elsewhere where the model was replicated, which is just a statement of fact.
I suppose it’s a question of whether one is interested in the actual historical situations that have and haven’t made people free, rather than abstract theory. I guess that’s more or less the difference between a Victorian Tory and Liberal so I’ll let that pass.
Plainly not. The concept of Calipahte exludes national churches and established churches preclude theocracy. My position is broadly that of Locke and Burke and I find your argument bemusing and ignorant.
I am not, never have been and never will be a Christian in general and and Anglican in particular, and my religious views are completely incompatible with both, so it would certainly exclude me. As for you, I don’t know. As long as you don’t specifically anathematise the 39 articles then like Viscount Melbourne, Palmerston, Lloyd George and Neville Chaimberlain, I imagine you’d be fine. (Though perhaps if the latter two had been excluded things would be better. We have, as it happens, never had a good non-Anglican P.M.).
The Church of England’s role in protecting English Liberties has been roughly 1000000% that of any of the Classical Liberal thinkers. If defending that legacy makes me a worm, so be it.
“The facts show….”
These 3 words always cause me to look at whatever foll0ws with a skeptical eye.
Gabrial is correct on the Constitutional position – States are allowed to have estabished churches under the Second Amenment (although the Federal government is not allowed to choose one) – but they are not allowed to persecute people who choose not to get involved in the established church.
But does this include the right to TAX?
At the time it was considered it did.
For example, New Hampshire had a list of five demoninations and each town had to pick one and tax to support its activities (the church being at town level was partly due to the strenght of Congregationalism in New Hampshire), and this system lasted till 1819.
However, it is perfectly possible to have an Established Church without having any tithes or “Church Rates” or whatever one wants to call a tax for religion. Britian has been in this position for a long time.
In Germany one has the reverse position – no Church is the official one, but there is still a tax for religion (one chooses to which Church it goes to on the form – I forget what happens if one declares oneself an athiest).
Also “seperation of Church and State” often meant something very different from what Nick thinks it should mean (the literal meaning of the words are on Nick’s side – but government folk do not care about truth).
“Disestablishment” was interpreted to mean not the end of a tax for religion – but the confiscation of Church property by the State.
Indeed, following French Revolutionary practice, regime after regime in Europe and Latin America stole all Church property (and murdered anyone who resisted) and made priests subject to government control – paid for by the State.
Yes “seperation of Church and State” came to mean total state control with the bills being paid for by the taxypayer.
This can be seen even in the 20th century with the 1905 “seperation of Church and State” in France where all Church property was stolen and priests subjected to control by local government.
But, Nick will say, that is flat contradiction to the words – it makes no sense.
Of course it makes no sense – it is government action.
The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally refused to cooperate with such government control, such (so called) “seperation of Church and state”, but it sometimes makes noises about cooperating with the disgusting “Patriotic Church” in the People’s Republic of China (disgusting because the officals of this “Church” cooperate with the Communist party regime in the persecution of real Catholics).
This would be like the Pope “reaching out” to the “Church” set up under the “Civil Constitution of the Clergy” set up by the French Revolutionaries.
The position under Islam is complicated – and my efforts to explain it are likely to be made less helpful to the reader because of my crap spelling.
Still here goes.
There is a small faction of Muslims that refuses to follow anything but the Koran (i.e. they ignore the writings of the Hadith), and as the Koran does not explicitely state the punishment for leaving Islam they say that apostasy should not be punished by man – only by God after a natural death.
They would have a similar view of the tax on unbelievers and other parts of the Pact of Omar (and so on). It is not in the Koran so it should not be done.
However, the traditional schools of Islamic law tend to agree that apostasy should be punished by death.
However, I think one of the schools thinks that another punishment (I forget what it is) is more fitting.
Also there is a view that life imprisonment is a more suitable punishment for women who leave Islam.
I believe there are four Sunni schools of thought on law (all of which were founded and developed many centuries ago).
Some stress reason more than others. The most “extreme” (from the Western point of view) used to be the smallest. But unfortunatly it is the school of legal thought associated with the Wahabbi and so got Saudi oil money behind it. Many young Muslims now think that the interpretations of this school of thought are THE interpretation of Islamic law – totall unaware that, only a few decades ago, this school of legal thought was the smallest and considered the least prestigious. Most of what might be called the “barking Moonbat” doctrines of Islamic law (for example that women should only have their eyes not totally covered, or that they should not drive, or ……) come from this school.
However, I am told, all the schools of Sunni legal thought agree with the idea that an act is good or evil because God says it is good or evil – not because of the very nature of the act, which could be reasoned out by a person who had no knowledge of religion (i.e. they take what we might call an extreme Calvinist postion).
However, I doubt this – because “voluntarism” (to use the Christian term for this point of view) is such an extreme position (for example so contrary to Aristotle – who was held in high regard by Islamic scholars) that it seems hard to believe that all the Sunni schools of legal thought agree with it.
Again I am told that the Shia do not agree with this, indeed the do not accept even the “closing” (the end of the time when reason could find out new basic ideas) which became popular among Sunni scholars in the 11th and 12th (Christain system of measument) centuries (although new ideas must be within the context of Islam of course) – but then they are divided.
I will use the Sunni number system to refer to the Shia factions – this is not disrespect, this is just because of my spelling.
The twelver Shia are the ones the West knows best – they dominate Iran and await the 12th, or hidden, Imam who will come and help with world conquest (at leasy that is the interpration of twelver doctrine held by the President of Iran, the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader – other twelver Shia may not agree).
The Sevener Shia are more mystical (so it is difficult to know exactly what their various factions believe) – but the Aga Khan is a well known leader.
The Fiver Shia (the Zs) tend to be the most rationalist (not to be confused with athiest “rationalist” of course).
They reject both the closing of the Sunni and the hidden Imam of the twelvers.
The Imams (NOT “Calphs” of course) of the fivers (the Z….s) ruled the Yeman till 1962.
Apart from all the above there are “liberal Muslim” thinkers who can be seen on Fox News and so on from time to time.
They have all sorts of nice opinions about the equal rights of religions, women’s rights …….. and so on.
Although whether their words have anything to do with Islam I leave to other to judge.
I will have a go at typing the names – although as I can not spell even in my own language this is going to be a mess (yes I have written them out first – but it is still going to be a mess). Anyway the schools are named after their founders (at least I believe that to be the case).
The Hanafi school is the oldest of the Sunni schools of legal thought – it has a reputation for complexity.
The Shafri school is supposed to be very systematic and logical – but remember this is systematic and logical within the context of the Koran and the Hadith, so the conclusions scholars of this schools come up with are not likely to always please Western folk (not that this would bother scholars of this school).
The Maliki school (popular in North and West Africa I am told) pays great attention to customary practice in the city of Medina at the time of rise of Islam – more stress on the practices there than on the Hadith.
And the youngest school is the that of the Hanbali.
Always the smallest – even after Wahhab came along in the 18th century (Christian system of time) as its self proclaimed champion (it is many centuries older than the 18th century).
It is extreme members of this school of relgious/legal thought who have boasted of smashing up musical instruments and attacking games of chess.
Sadly as the House of Saud has been backed by the Wahhabi for very many decades they throw oil money at this school (all over the world) and some of this money finds its way into the hands of very nasty people indeed.
It looks like becomming the most powerful school among young Muslims – especially in the West, where young Muslims are cut off from the traditional cultures of their parents and grandparents homelands – although even in these homelands its spread is very impressive.
The judgement of President Roosevelt to ally with the House of Saud (one of the last things he ever did – the meeting on the warship) may prove to have been unwise.
And the choice of Kim Philby’s father to betray the Hashamites (even giving details of the defences of their strongholds – where he had been as a guest) in favour of the House of Saud may prove to have been short sighted as well as treacherous.
Oh for the record, the Shia school of legal thought is called the Jafari school.
Now I wonder how many mistakes there are in the above.