Arguing about Religion

Who isnt? Some interesting ones:

William Rees Mogg on why its best not to act against a church or religion:

Society has no choice but to act against a church or religion that attacks social order, as some Muslim groups do. In the reigns of Queen Elizabeth I or King James I the English Government was justified in acting against Catholic plots, though many Catholics were unjustly punished and were pushed into extremism. British policy in Ireland has never been forgiven.

The Catholic Church believes that doctrine would be prejudiced if Catholic agencies arranged adoption for same-sex couples. After 2000 years, the Church is not going to change its mind because of a vote in the House of Commons. In matters of faith and morals, the Catholic Church sees itself as sovereign, because it is teaching the doctrine of Jesus. The Church may not break British law, but it will certainly not break its own law.

A prudent prime minister knows the limits of his own authority. He can pass laws, but he cannot enforce consent. The great religions command strong loyalties. It would be a great mistake if the British Government decided to take them on, and a pity if the Leader of the Opposition supported a policy of compelled uniformity.

David Vance on the influx of eastern europeans:

So, the reformation is now in reverse, with the decline of the Protestant faith accelerating as the Anglican Church totally fails to stand up for Christian principles, and the only real leadership is that being shown by the Roman Catholic church. I make no apologies for my fundamentalist Protestantism and I wonder about this massive influx of Roman Catholicism coinciding with the tenure of a Labour Government containing prominent Roman Catholics and whose historical inner city voting base is Roman Catholic.

James at Nourishing Obscurity on seperating Church and State

The separation of state and religion should be sacrosanct. There is no place for any religion to be aggressively and temporally enforced. Religion is a personal belief. That’s all. Better one person who truly believes than a billion who are coerced.......Christianity, having no secular basis, therefore cannot be a state religion. Thus, to compare adherents of different religions, as if numerical supremacy has anything to do with it, is illogical. On the other hand, the state can claim to nominally support a certain religion, e.g. Christianity but that’s as far as it goes. This was clearly demonstrated in the discussion with Pilate - JC was the first to argue for the separation of Church and State

Steve at Pub Philosopher on concessions, the road to Sharia', one of several posts:

...it is likely that there will be increasing demands for Muslims to be allowed to live under Sharia. For this reason, any concessions to religious minorities, whoever they are, would be extremely unwise. You may not agree that adoption agencies should be compelled to help gay people adopt children, or that hotel owners should be forced to accept bookings from gay couples but if a law is passed there should be no exemptions. Allowing people to obey a different set of laws on the grounds that they have a strong religious belief would set a dangerous precedent.

Into a few of which ive put my oar as I try to work it all out.