The next two posts are about clerics, Christian ones, in Britain making opposite pronouncements concerning the struggle between the Christian outlook and standing up to or appeasing the Muslim one.
Well, reading this article frames the argument a tad – it basically confirms that Britain is seemingly a post-Christian nation:
Religion Does More Harm Than Good
More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension – greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.
Some other sobering stats after the jump
Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as "a religious person". A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious – including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian.
When a majority of people of a nation are no longer religious, I would not categorize that nation as a Christian nation. Just by definition, a Christian nature needs to be religious AND believing in the Christian faith.
Older people and women are the most likely to believe in a god, with 37% of women saying they are religious, compared with 29% of men.
The above emphasis on the small, three letter word, is mine. I thought it odd, in an article concerning religion, that "God" was spelled in lower case.
To me, that is as indicative as anything else that, even in such a liberal paper as the Guardian, that the reporter and God knows (pun intended) how many layers of editors, would allow that.
The findings come at the end of a year in which multiculturalism and the role of different faiths in society has been at the heart of a divisive political debate.
But a spokesman for the Church of England denied yesterday that mainstream religion was the source of tension. He also insisted that the "impression of secularism in this country is overrated".
The impression seems to square with the empirical evidence there, guy! If the majority of people are not religious, then again by definition, it is a secular society.
"You also have to bear in mind how society has changed. It is more difficult to go to church now than it was.
Balderdash! Last I heard, even in Britain, no one was barring the doors, exacting entrance fees, setting up roadblocks in front of churches, or playing games late at night with alarm clocks. If people don’t want to go, they aren’t going to go!
This is merely an excuse.
Communities are displaced, people work longer hours – it’s harder to fit it in. It doesn’t alter the fact that the Church of England will get 1 million people in church every Sunday, which is larger than any other gathering in the country."
Let me give you a small hint….in a country that has 58 million, the percentage going to the Anglican church, THE official state sponsored church is 1.7%. Not exactly bragging rights, dude.
Or in this case, in terms of attendance, dud.
The Right Rev Bishop Dunn, Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle, added: "The perception that faith is a cause of division can often be because faith is misused for other uses and other agendas."
So, how’s the preaching doing? While that in itself sounds "preachy", I’m trying to make a point. If that many people have such a negative attitude or outlook towards the Christian faith, what have the leaders, the clerics, done to create this attitude?
It sounds like me that this is a failure of leadership than of the flock iteself. If the leaders were leading correctly, and spreading the Gospel correctly, this attitude would not exist (and either would the empty churches).
Which then begs the question: if one can empirically see that the priests are not doing their jobs locally, how much faith (again, pun intended) should we have in other things (see next two Posts here and here)?
