Dear BWMA,

it seems to have eluded your attention that one question remains still unanswered. In your message to the USA, you write:

"The archetype kilogram is stored in a vault near Paris - and the US requires permission from the French government to examine it. Thomas Jefferson said: "If other nations adopt this unit, they must take the word of the French mathematicians for its length?So there is an end to it!"

There is strong evidence (see last thread), however, that this is indeed not so. Since you invoke the great name of Thomas Jefferson in order to describe an at best disputed political reality, I (and not only I) would like to know where you got this information from. I think that BWMA agrees that Thomas Jefferson, a great and enthusiastic truth-loving man, deserves to be called as a witness only for true and proven facts.

Looking forward to your answer as ever (I won't go away),

Andrew

We look forward to the reply.

Absolutely.

We must remember that BWMA is an organization, not a single person, and one person in an organization cannot be held accountable for the statements of another.

My reply in the other forum, which I doubt anyone read since that thread is so long, is reproduced below. One thing I would like to add is that LANGUAGE CANNOT ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED AT FACE VALUE. LOOK FOR THE CONNOTATION, THE SPIRIT OF THE MESSAGE THAT THE WORDS ARE TRYING TO CONVEY, rather than taking it literally with the purpose of proving someone wrong. Thomas Jefferson may not have said those exact words, but we may be able to deduce what he believed from his actions. (I am not exactly sure of historical facts here)


Let me take a humble shot at answering this question:
The message BWMA was trying to get across when it made this statement about the kilogram was that the metric system originated in France, was designed by Frenchmen, and is still administered in France. (Whether by the French or an international organization is just a techincal difference.) From a cultural perspective (assuming that you agree that weights and measures are a part of culture), the US would be losing part of its heritage by adopting the metric system. This is an emotional argument more than a practical one, but nevertheless could be quite effective.

I'm sure that technically, any country could inspect the standard kilogram without French consent, but I don't see why they wouldn't give consent, and I don't think it would be very wise to go in against their wishes even if it were legal. General standards of decency would require their permission. Also, it would be stupid to provoke their anger for such a silly matter.

Bud wrote

<<
... and is still administered in France.
>>

Bud, I think that you missed the point. The BIPM headquarters are in International territory that is surrounded by Paris, just as the UM headquarters are in International territory that is surrounded by New York.

Just as no UN diplomat travelling to the UN headquarters requires US permission to take anything between JFK Airport and the UN headquarters, so the accredited US official does not require permission to transport anything between CHarles de Gaulle Airport and Sevres. BTW, the accredited US official in respect of the BIPM is the US Ambassador to France.

"LANGUAGE CANNOT ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED AT FACE VALUE. LOOK FOR THE CONNOTATION, THE SPIRIT OF THE MESSAGE THAT THE WORDS ARE TRYING TO CONVEY"

Rubbish

Langauge is capable of being employed with great precision - I refer you to the Plain English Campaign (they have a website).

What you suggest is that interpretation (which is after all subjective) is all and expression and meaning can therefore be discounted.

One man's " spirit of the message" (without the need to SHOUT) is onother man's misunderstanding.

re: "I think that you missed the point. The BIPM headquarters are in 'international territory' that is surrounded by Paris, just as the UN headquarters are in 'international territory' that is surrounded by New York".


REPLY: You may be right that the BIPM headquarters are 'international territory'. But land belonging to the United Nations belongs to them, i.e. it's U.N. territory.

Three years ago my wife and I went on a Danube cruise from Regensburg to Budapest. For two nights, our steamer moored in Vienna, bang opposite the U.N. headquarters there. It was being hugely extended at the time we were there with another massive building going up. So we decided to take a look. It was only possible to visit a bleak visitors' office and a conference hall. Everything else on that site was heavily guarded by armed U.N. Police, there were high walls and barbed wire fences etc. all around it, and the whole building had an atmosphere which I would describe as a cross between Dartmoor Prison and a Soviet gulag.

The U.N. has gained significant chunks of territory from the U.S. in recent years - many parts of their national parks, or example, have been handed over to U.N. ownership lock, stock and two smoking barrels. You can only enter these 'conservation' areas with U.N. permission

"Welshlander" may wish to realise that his browser is automatically putting that post name in before he hits the post.

To be a "Welshlander" you should really have been born in Wales!

So you are anti-choice then?

Its up to you - but I just think that to be Welsh you should be - erm - "Welsh"

Or am I being too obvious here?

"Or am I being too obvious here?"

Yes.

a. Someone born in Wales who moves to England at the age of 25?

b. Someone born in Wales who moves away permanently 1 year after they were born?

c. Someone born in Wales who moves away permanently 1 minute after birth (Assume born in the ambulance?

d. Someone born in Scotland who makes thieir home in Wales at the age of 25?

e. Someone born in Scotland who makes thieir home in Wales at the age of 55?

f. Someone born in England who moves to Wales permanently 1 minute after birth (ambulance again)?

Someone who was born in wales.
ie - as there take their first lungful of air that person would be within the nation of Wales - simple.

I'm not into this "my parents were born in wales therefore I can play for the national team" stuff.

'nuff said

What about someone who is born in an ambulance in Wales but is not breathing at birth. They are then given oxygen as soon as they have passed over the bridge into England.
Makes you think, doen't it?

So by your reckoning someone who spent only the first second of their life in Wales and the rest elsewhere (Think cockney accent etc)would be Welsh.

Whilst someone who spent all of their life in Wales (Think Welsh accent, called Dai etc) except for the first second would not be.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Imagine being born in Wales, that would make you Welsh.

Makes you think doesn't it?

What about commenting on the other scenarios outlined above?

Or is being Welsh nothing to do with culture, contribution to the society, use of language etc, but simply something over which you have no control whatsoever?

ie. No choice allowed (by Steve)!!!!

Makes most of us think, doesn't it

I believe you are reffering to someone who is british.

if i moved into number 14 it would not mean that I was born there - although i would come from the same street.

btw - you are only talking to me.

and this may be getting "epeist boring".

I will continue this thread if there are others enjoying the to's and fro's.

So, does anyone want me to continue the wind-up/ irony/ reverse irony/ etc etc with Mr Welshlander stuff?

Using a felt pen mark the screen below with a tick

[Yes] - Yes this conversation is fascinating - keep it up

[No] - I believe I have lost the will to live and will kill myself shortly.

Write here what lead you to this decision:



----------------------------------------------------

Then - Unplug your monitor and send it to the BWMA address who will send it onto me for marking.

Sorry, but monitors can not be sent back, however there is a small prize for the best responses.

Apart from the very odd references (the perils of overconsumption are well noted in the press!), no answers then. Just a cop out, or.....well fill in the gap: "boring". You say a lot with your lack of response. Not up for a challenge then, or was it "irony" boyo?

Makes us think, doesn't it?

What about the racist comment Herr Steve?

Sorry about using all-capital letters for part of my last post. I didn't mean to shout or offend anyone, only attract attention to what I thought was the important part of my message.

Ah! The perils of the shouting capital letters!

Unfortunately one cannot deduce the tone of voice from mere text.

ISN'T IT A NICE DAY?

(apparently temperature will be 80F today - "how to cook a "David Blaine""!)

Fortunately, there are no legal definitions as to what makes someone 'English', 'Scottish', 'Welsh' etc.

These are therefore matters which people can argue about amongst themselves, safe in the knowledge that the one thing they all are is British.

Incidentally, who plays for the national team and the anthem used before their matches are have similarly non-official significance.

"Fortunately, there are no legal definitions as to what makes someone 'English', 'Scottish', 'Welsh' etc."

Not entirely sure about that one - I guess each country is a legal seperate "thing" but the individuals of the UK have no legal seperation. Open to others on that one (except "you-know-who" - er - only joking, before "you-know-who" says something about "choice"!!!)

"These are therefore matters which people can argue about amongst themselves, safe in the knowledge that the one thing they all are is British."

As a Welsh unionist I agree 100% with that.

"Incidentally, who plays for the national team and the anthem used before their matches are have similarly non-official significance"

So are they official laws regarding the laws of the game rather than the laws of the land?

One thing - the Welsh national anthem *IS* official and gets played before a game, much like Scotland, N.Ireland and Ireland.

So how come england use the British national anthem?

SteveH wrote

<<
So how come england use the British national anthem?
>>

Guess what Steve, I agree with you.

"So are they official laws regarding the laws of the game rather than the laws of the land?"

Yes, the rules on playing for international football teams are set by FIFA.

"One thing - the Welsh national anthem *IS* official and gets played before a game, much like Scotland, N.Ireland and Ireland."

The choice of anthem is made by the appropriate FA. They can choose anything they like, it does not depend on the rules of their country, of which Wales has none.

"So how come england use the British national anthem?"

Because the FA made and continues to make the wrong choice. They believe that God Save The Queen is the English anthem, which compounds the confusion of identity which exists in England in particular.

British identity should be more representative of us all, and there should also be greater opportunity to express it.

Actually it is, or at least was, the English anthem, writen to celebrate the defeat of the Scots.

Here is verse 6:

Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush.
God save the King!

Let's hope we lose this dreadful dirge one day

...and once a lady who bought a KFC found a fried chicken head in her sandwich.

Pure URBAN MYTH my friend, usually whipped up by English nationalist (having a pop at Scots) and Scottish nationalists (look "our" anthem hates us, thus we should be independant).

Yes that verse does exist, but it is NOT part of the anthem - never has been.

It was written satirically at the time.

There are many official versions of the Brit anthem and that verse does not appear in any of them.

The main official versions are 1 verse, 2 verse and 4 verse.

The usual rendition is:

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen
God save our Queen!
Send her victorious
Happy and Glorious
Long to reign over us
God save our Queen!

But for the recent Golden Jubilee the second verse was added - perculiarly it was also added to the World cup for when England(!) played - from my memory it goes something like this:

Thy choicest gifts in store
on her be pleased to pour,
long may she reign:
may she defend our laws,
and ever give us cause
to sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen!

My opinion is that England should adopt "Jerusalem" as her national anthem.

(and not Land of Hope and Glory - cos I quite like that one and it doesn't mention "England").

P.S. The Brit anthem was first heard in Drury lane, London.

Lichtenstein (As we all probably know now) use the same "theme" (different words)

You're wrong - simple as that

To be accurate about these things, the National Anthem has no official status in the UK, its use being merely traditional.

Thus there are no official words, and the words used are based on tradition. I am aware of at least 15 different verses which have been written at one time or another and which can be found in printed versions. Anyone can write a verse to the tune, and many people have done so as it is an easy thing to do. Simply because a verse is written and performed does not mean that it is 'a verse of the National Anthem'.

Essentially, everyone agrees on the first verse, which is 'gracious Queen'. The second verse is now understood to be 'choicest gifts', as an earlier verse condemning papacy and later enemies in general is now no longer used.

The most well known set of additional verses (which are not well known at all) are those by WE Hickson (1803-1870), namely 'native land', 'rightous laws' and 'land alone'. There are many other obscure attempts at special versions to celebrate particular events. This is a good thing in that anyone can write words to the tune and put it in the National Anthem, their own creation sharing equal status with that of the more familiar verses. One thing is clear, and that is if you ever see any hymn book or concert programme with the words printed as 'verse 1 this, verse 2 that', remember it has no authority other than that of the person who wrote it, and if you were to write your own it would be equally valid.

For more see:
http://www.scoutingresources.org.uk/countries_anthems.html

As for the 'Marshal Wade' verse, this is one of the more infuriating myths which abound. We hear it in claims such as 'the fifth verse of the Anthem is anti-Scottish', or even 'the sixth verse of the Anthem is anti-Scottish'. This verse was only used in practice for a few weeks or months around the time of the '45 Jacobite uprising. It is not 'the fifth verse', but 'a verse'. There is no evidence that this verse has been performed at any official event anywhere in the world at any time in the last 250 years.

For more see:
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/monscot.html

“GOD SAVE THE QUEEN is sung in the United Kingdom as a matter of tradition. It has never been proclaimed the national anthem by an Act of Parliament or a Royal Proclamation”

http://www.britain-info.org/faq/xq/asp/SID.274/qx/showfaq.htm

http://ingeb.org/songs/godsaveo.html

As for an English anthem, I would agree that 'Jerusalem' would be the most appropriate choice, although there is a problem with the Christian theme of the first verse.

This is in preference to 'Land of Hope and Glory', which is preferred by England in the Commonwealth Games. It is better to include the word 'England' to make things clear. Another example of a poor choice is 'Rule, Britannia!', which is very wrongly sung by English football fans.

From the official Monarch's website:

'God Save The King' was a patriotic song first publicly performed in London in 1745, which came to be referred to as the National Anthem from the beginning of the nineteenth century. The words and tune are anonymous, and may date back to the seventeenth century.

In September 1745 the 'Young Pretender' to the British Throne, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, defeated the army of King George II at Prestonpans, near Edinburgh. In a fit of patriotic fervour after news of Prestonpans had reached London, the leader of the band at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, arranged 'God Save The King' for performance after a play. It was a tremendous success and was repeated nightly thereafter. This practice soon spread to other theatres, and the custom of greeting the Monarch with the song as he or she entered a place of public entertainment was thus established.

There is no authorised version of the National Anthem as the words are a matter of tradition. Additional verses have been added down the years, but these are rarely used. The words used are those sung in 1745, substituting 'Queen' for 'King' where appropriate. On official occasions, only the first verse is usually sung, as follows:

God save our gracious Queen!
Long live our noble Queen!
God save the Queen!
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the Queen.

An additional verse is occasionally sung:

Thy choicest gifts in store
On her be pleased to pour,
Long may she reign.
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the Queen.

The British tune has been used in other countries - as European visitors to Britain in the eighteenth century noticed the advantage of a country possessing such a recognised musical symbol - including Germany, Russia, Switzerland and America (where use of the tune continued after independence). Some 140 composers, including Beethoven, Haydn and Brahms, have used the tune in their compositions.


===

I think we may be mixing "official" with "authorised" here.
Although I agree the with lack of "authorisation" I also affirm that it is the UK's "official" anthem - recognised world-wide as the most familiar.

"As for an English anthem, I would agree that 'Jerusalem' would be the most appropriate choice, although there is a problem with the Christian theme of the first verse"

Er - why? The country is a christian one under a christian head of state with primary laws based on the (christian) 10 commandments. it's hardly an islamic state (yet - ooh, controversial).
I know even athiests who like "Jerusalem".

And you can't have "Land of Hope" because its too neckhair standing uppingly good for just England!

BTW - at this point I will need to remind folk that surely the Welsh anthem is one of the best melodic anthems in the world? Listening to the anthems before a Wales v Italy game is always great stuff (for both those anthems)

Recent change to the words of "Bread of Heaven" chorus (welsh foottie/rugby hymn) when Wales are playing good soccer:

"Are you watching
Are you watching
Are you watching Eng - ger - land?
...eng - ger - land ......(pause)
Are you watching Eng - ger - land?"

(replaces "Bread of heaven - bread of heaven etc)

"Er - why? The country is a christian one under a christian head of state with primary laws based on the (christian) 10 commandments."

This is not a 'Christian country'. True that we have an established Church, but how many people are members of it? About 40%. I would be very interested to know how many newborn children are indoctrinated into it today, I would expect it is less than this amount.

We have a census result which tells us that the UK is 72% Christian. This is a ridiculous assertion, when other surveys tell us that at least 15% of these people do not believe in God and most doubt the truth of the Resurrection, which is the fundamental tenet of Christian belief. I learned recently that the Church of England has essentially abandoned the idea that a god literally exists, absurd though it may sound. The number of regular church attenders is miniscule and civil weddings now rank at more than 70% of the total.

It is highly offensive to attempt to maintain the fiction that this is a Christian country by imposing such things as school prayer. Using highly Christian words in an anthem would be part of the same thing. Of course, the National Anthem is certainly monotheistic, but Jerusalem is overtly Christian.

"I know even athiests who like "Jerusalem"."

I happen to count myself amongst them, and I like Jerusalem a lot, but the state should not be used to promote the Church, because the nature of religion is exclusive: one cannot logically be a member of more than one religion and at the same time hold no religious belief.

State symbols such as flags, anthems, mottos, pledges etc. should not concern religion, as this should be a matter for the individual.

I have now found the statistics:

The proportion of newborn children baptised into the Church of England in England and Wales in 2001 was 18%.

Ross - you opinion is based upon massageing the figures by an atheisy point of view.

Athiests make up very few in this Country - most atheists find themselves becoming quite agnostic if you push them.

This *IS* a Christian country whether you like it or not. Being Christian does not mean that it's anti-athiest or anti-muslim. Pakistan is a muslim country that is not anti-Christian.

I first laughed at your put-down of the census results - however I then realised that is if you are 100% athiest you will have naturally overlooked one MAJOR point - not everyone believes in "organised religion". Perhaps you were not aware that you can be Christian an NOT go to church?

BTW - in my particular "church" we neither Christen or Baptise people - so I am not in that 18% - however I would still confirm that, when it came to the crunch, I am Christian.

However I am not a religious person - this may confuse you since you appear to be vehemently anti-religion.

"It is highly offensive to attempt to maintain the fiction that this is a Christian country by imposing such things as school prayer. Using highly Christian words in an anthem would be part of the same thing. Of course, the National Anthem is certainly monotheistic, but Jerusalem is overtly Christian."

I think there should be prayer at lower school - with the choice not to "join in" if you find the thing unpalatable (!)

Most of the world is Christian, some of it is muslim, then there are Hindu and Jewish nations. Get used to it.

Your view on Christianity seems to reflect your view on people who prefer to choose what measures they want to use.

End of sermon

(I've tried to write this reply so many times, and now I've finally done it!)

"Athiests make up very few in this Country - most atheists find themselves becoming quite agnostic if you push them."

As indeed do most people in the UK when asked 'do you believe in God?'.

"This *IS* a Christian country whether you like it or not."

What exactly is a 'Christian country'? I would say it is one in which the majority of citizens are members of a Christian organisation and, importantly, one in which a Christian ethos permeates society. We are not in such a situation. Only a minority of citizens are members of the state church, and most are not active members.

How does a Christian ethos make itself apparent? Fair enough most people conduct their lives in accordance with 'Christian moral values', but these
are the same values that can be found in the beliefs of any number of religions, including notably Judaism and Islam. They are essentially the rules of common humanity: that we should not murder people, that we should be kind and considerate towards others and that we should have respect for their private lives. These are the values that can be found in international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights, and there is nothing specifically 'Christian' about them.

Indeed, Judeo-Christian belief happens to prohibit adultery, sex outside marriage and homosexuality. How many UK citizens have violated their own rules? How many have worked on Sunday? How many have been envious of their neighbour's possessions and sought material gain (think capitalism)? How many have taken the 'name of the Lord' in vain?

"you were not aware that you can be Christian an NOT go to church?
However I am not a religious person - this may confuse you since you appear to be vehemently anti-religion.
BTW - in my particular "church" we neither Christen or Baptise people - so I am not in that 18% - however I would still confirm that, when it came to the crunch, I am Christian."

This all concerns non-practising Christians. My argument is simply that, if Christianity only ever makes itself known in answer to a census question, and in no other way at all, how exactly is this meant to be a 'Christian country'?

Christian belief is that Jesus Christ was God on Earth and died for the sins of humanity. This is fundamental and cannot be skirted. I once asked a supposed Christian: 'do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God?', and the response was 'now you're getting a bit deep!'. The reality is that it was not deep; it is the shallowest possible description of Christian belief. Many of those who claim to be Christian are in fact not; they are simply repeating what they have been told is their religion in earlier life.

The existence of 50%+ agnostic moralists does not constitute a Christian society. It certainly does not warrant the spending of public money on a state church or the retention by bishops of 28 ex officio seats in our Upper House of Parliament. It does not justify using the unifying, secular symbols of flag and anthem to promote a Christian belief, in the same way that these symbols should not be used to promote either non-Christian religions or atheism.

"I think there should be prayer at lower school - with the choice not to "join in" if you find the thing unpalatable (!)"

Shame then that *the law requires* anyone attending a state school (ages 4 to 18, with Y12/13, and anyone staying on, who could be 19) to *worship God* every school day of their lives. If this requirement was imposed on anyone else there would be uproar. I think that worship should be offered, but should be clearly divided from assembly, and the fact that it
is optional should be made known. The policy we have had since 1944 of compulsory school prayer is intended to continue the pretence that this is a Christian country, and that the essential element in cohesive communities is religious observance. The fact that school prayer is now reluctantly enforced and represents the only widespread religious observance in the UK today speaks for itself. It is the final token of an active religious identity.

"Your view on Christianity seems to reflect your view on people who prefer to choose what measures they want to use."

It is quite different in fact. I believe that everyone should be entitled to worship, free from the control of the state. This means both that the state should not force people to worship and that it should not prevent them from doing so. It should not exclude individuals by applying religious qualities to what should be religiously neutral national symbols, institutions and procedures. In a spirit of mutual respect, the right of everyone to freedom of religion should be respected.

"My argument is simply that, if Christianity only ever makes itself known in answer to a census question, and in no other way at all, how exactly is this meant to be a 'Christian country'?"

It's also interesting to note that 390 000 people entered 'Jedi' as their religion on the census. This was as a result of a campaign by Star Wars fans, and such people were entered under the category of 'no religion'.

Suppose that this campaign had not been conducted. Would these 390 000 people have entered 'none' in answer to religion? I sincerely doubt that most of them would, and a majority would have entered 'Christian'. If a cheap campaign to publicise Star Wars was sufficient to knock out a belief in Christianity (which claims to provide an explanation for the existence of humanity itself), then I think we can safely conclude that the Christian belief such people have is nothing more than purely nominal.

Replies to Ross's observations on whether or not Britain is a Christian country are interleaved below:


re (Ross): What exactly is a 'Christian country'? I would say it is one in which the majority of citizens are members of a Christian organisation and, importantly, one in which a Christian ethos permeates society. We are not in such a situation. Only a minority of citizens are members of the state church, and most are not active members.

REPLY: I have to agree with much of this, and of course the proportion of Christian believers has declined significantly over the past century. However, if you take a look at the history of Britain and the history of England in particular, you will find strong threads of the Christian faith interwoven into the fabric of English (British) life.

Let's start with King Alfred the Great. This remarkable man has a statue to him in Winchester High Street (Winchester was the capital of his Kingdom, Wessex). As the plaque beneath his statue proclaims, he was "The Founder o the English Nation". Universally respected and revered by his people (still the only English monarch to be called 'Great', he codified and devised a set of criminal and civil laws for the English people which formed the foundation of laws still in existence 1,200 years later (jury trial among them - E.U. take note!). The Bible and its principles of justice werer at the root of many of those laws. For good meausure Alfred also translated into the developing English language parts of the Bible from the Latin).

As the established Church of England (Roman Catholic) became more and more corrupted in the Middle Ages, many ordinary English people turned to the Bible, virtually a suppressed book (by the R.C. Church) in parts of the Middle Ages. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, many of these believers were called Lollards, and the most notable Bible believer of the time was John Wycliffe, who completed the first full translation of the Bible into the English language. Following his death, the Roman Catholic authorities, who hated him, exhumed his body, burnt it and scattered his ashes on the River Soar (Leicstershire). Those who were believers said that his ashes would float down the Soar, into the Trent, out into the North Aea and then around the globe, which they said at the time was a metaphor for the hoped-for subsequent spread of the knowledge of the Bible around the world from England. How very true that was to become, since it was substantially from England (and Scotland and Wales) that the Christian faith was spread over the centuries across the globe.

The reign of the remarkable Christian 'Boy King' Edward VI (1547-1553), the subsequent reign of terror under Queen Mary (1553-8) when 284 Protestants were burnt to death for simply refusing to accept Roman Catholic doctrine, and the glorious reign of Queen Elizabeth confirmed England as a Protestant (i.e. Christian) nation with Christian belief deeply ingrained into the fabric of the country together with an accompanying love of freedom and civil liberty.

The settlement of 1688 which included the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Rights confirmed once again Britain as, nominally at least, a Protestant country which oicially believes in the authority of the Bible. Even today, the reinging monarch of the United Kingdom is presented at her/his Coronation with the Bible and urged to accept and follow its 'lively oracles'.

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw Christian missionaries from these islands sacrifice their careers and lives to spread knowledge of the Bible to other lands, often living in poverty and spending years learning the languages of those they visited and translating the Bible into native tongues. Hence for example the remarkable spread of the Anglican church throughout the world, notably in Africa - where many of its adherents and leaders are far more sincere and upright Christians than those now running the Church of England here in Britain.

Britain tended to prosper most at times when Christian belief was most widespread. Most recently in 1940 when the British army was threatened with disaster at Dunkirk, King George VI called a national day of prayer and the miraculous three-day calm in the English Channel and Hitler's inexplicable decision to delay his advance by three days followed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian belief is that Jesus Christ was God on Earth and died for the sins of humanity. This is fundamental and cannot be skirted. I once asked a supposed Christian: 'do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God?', and the response was 'now you're getting a bit deep!'...

REPLY: The Bible does indeed require faith in Christ as the Eternal Son of God and requires believers to admit that they are sinners in the face of an almighty and holy God.

John 3 vv. 16-19, Romans 10 v. 9 and 1 Timothy 1 v. 15 are just three verses which spring to mind to confirm that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The existence of 50%+ agnostic moralists does not constitute a Christian society. It certainly does not warrant the spending of public money on a state church or the retention by bishops of 28 ex officio seats in our Upper House of Parliament. It does not justify using the unifying, secular symbols of flag and anthem to promote a Christian belief, in the same way that these symbols should not be used to promote either non-Christian religions or atheism.

REPLY: The symbol of the United Kingdom, the Union Jack, or to be pedantic the Union Flag, contains the crosses of three individuals:

1. St. George, who lived in Asia Minor from 287 A.D. to 325 A.D., and died a martyr after being imprisoned and tortured for two years for refusing to bow down to statues of the Roman Emperor

2. St. Andrew, who was reputed to have been crucified sideways (hence the diagonal saltire), and

3. St. Patrick, the Welsh saint who went on to evangelise Ireland.

The Christian heritage of this country is absolutely undeniable.

But Christians would not necessarily argue for a state religion; all we require is the freedom to practise our faith ('Rendere unto God what is God's; render unto Caesar what is Caesar's). Nevertheless we would point up the distinct and many advantages to the British people of the Christian heritage they have inherited. Incidentally, when under Emperor Constantine (310 A.D.) the Roman Empire first adopted Christianity as the official religion, the official established Christian church began its slow decline into the mediaeval horrors of the Roman Catholic church at its worst (viz., the Inquisition).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shame then that *the law requires* anyone attending a state school (ages 4 to 18, with Y12/13, and anyone staying on, who could be 19) to *worship God* every school day of their lives. If this requirement was imposed on anyone else there would be uproar.

REPLY: Ross, are you absolutley sure about this? I understood that those who were confirmed atheists or confirmed members of other religious faiths could ask for their children to be excluded from this act of worship - and in any case, isn't the 'act of worship' *recommended* rather than obligatory? I am absolutely sure that some schools do *not* now have a daily 'act of worship' and nothing is done about them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[The 'act of worship']...is the final token of an active religious identity.

REPLY: No. There are many other such 'tokens' still remaining in this country. Look for example at any war memorial in this country and the list of names of those who died 'In the service of God and the King', or whose inscription reads: 'To the Glory of God'. Or look at the inscription above the judge in any criminal Court in the land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I believe that everyone should be entitled to worship, free from the control of the state...

REPLY: This has been true in Britain ever since the Protestant Reformation. But it is not true of a great many countries in the world today.


_____
ENDS

I am very pleased and slightly surprised to have the pleasure of almost entirely agreeing with Tony on this issue. I particularly concur with the arguments about the totalitarianism and corruption of the Roman Catholic Church, and how the Protestant churches do indeed provide a more accurate interpretation of the Christian message.

"The symbol of the United Kingdom, the Union Jack, or to be pedantic the Union Flag, contains the crosses of three [Christian saints]."

This is true, but does not concern me greatly. To me, the primary meaning of the Union flag (as distinct from the Union jack, which looks completely different) is of unity of the various nations making up the UK, a concept and symbol which is very important to me. It is a union of English, Scottish and Welsh/Irish symbols which I think of when considering the flag. For this reason, I see no problem with the current flag, and the recent suggestion that we should add black lines to it was one of the more absurd things I have ever heard.

"Christians would not necessarily argue for a state religion; all we require is the freedom to practise our faith ('Rendere unto God what is God's; render unto Caesar what is Caesar's). Nevertheless we would point up the distinct and many advantages to the British people of the Christian heritage they have inherited."

This is fine. The origin of this discussion was that I had reservations about an overtly Christian hymn being used as the National Anthem, or being adopted as an 'unofficial' anthem of England. This is because it is most appropriate for the state to avoid promoting a particular religion.

"Ross, are you absolutley sure about [the collective worship rules]? I understood that those who were confirmed atheists or confirmed members of other religious faiths could ask for their children to be excluded from this act of worship"

They can; my point concerns the children themselves. If they have a conscientious objection to participating in religious worship and either (a) their parents wish them to do it or (b) their parents do not wish to withdraw their children for fear of depriving them a full role in the school community, such a person is bound in law to worship against their will, which is a clear breach of Article 9 of the European Convention. It is only politically possible for such breaches to exist and to be expressly sanctioned and indeed mandated in law because the victims are children, who in accordance with clear case law have the competence to exercise their Article 9 rights as soon as they are able to understand the issues involved.

"- and in any case, isn't the 'act of worship' *recommended* rather than obligatory? I am absolutely sure that some schools do *not* now have a daily 'act of worship' and nothing is done about them."

The wording used is "each pupil in attendance...shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship". I would have no problem if the school was simply bound to provide worship or to consider whether or not to provide it, but this is not the case. Every time I read that subsection my disbelief at its existence increases.

You are right in that the number of schools who fully comply with the law, certainly at secondary level, is very small, and many do not now make any provision for worship at all. There are OFSTED protestations, but no further action is normally taken, except in the case of Salisbury v Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

"[The 'act of worship' is not the final token of an active religious identity]"

War memorials are not contemporary examples, but were built in the past. It is true that the Royal Arms state both 'Dieu et Mon Droit' and 'Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense', which is also reflective of past traditions. When speaking of 'tokens', I mean active examples which exist now. The only active example of Christian belief in the UK today is an enforced act of worship, which must remain on the books lest we ever admit that, in general, we are no longer Christian. As we have seen, it is essentially only the law itself that now remains.

"Protestant Reformation"

Was there no equivalent persecution of Roman Catholics after the Reformation? I fear there may have been, and of course there were exclusions, such as the prohibition on Catholic Members of Parliament until the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

Thanks for all that, Tony. That made very interesting reading. I more or less agree with all that you said. Again I am not a religious person and the chapel of Wales is very "all-encompassing" when it comes to a (religious) liberal attitude. Even the "church building" itself is not seen as important. It's more to do with what's in your heart than physical "stuff".
I always found it strange, though, in such an open, free church that to strictly be "of it" you should declare that the pope is the anti-christ!

==========

I know it's a side issue but also thanks for this bit:

"3. St. Patrick, the Welsh saint who went on to evangelise Ireland"

A nice reminder of the roots of St Pat!

Also it should be remembered that the act of union was done by a Welshman, thus you don't see a dragon on the Union flag.

There are a tiny bunch of Welsh Nationalists who like to play the "there ain't no dragon in the union flag" card!


(to "Welshlander": The welsh flag has a dragon on it!)

"To me, the primary meaning of the Union flag (as distinct from the Union jack, which looks completely different) "

I thought the only difference was the "aspect ratio" ?

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure. It is true that the Union jack is the flag when flown from a jackstaff. I understand that, to be correct, it should have a wide white border around the outside of the flag.

The civil flag is in proportions 1:2, whereas the Army's flag is in proportions 2:3. This causes the St Patrick chevrons to abut at right angles to the centre. In a correctly drawn version of the civil flag, all four chevrons are quadrilaterals.

For more, see:
http://www.jdawiseman.com/papers/union-jack/union-jack.html

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme: or unto governors...."
- 1 Peter 2:18

True, although in true biblical style this is contradicted by Acts 5:29:

"We ought to obey God rather then men"

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.."
- Exodus 21:2-6

The moral of the story is: don't get married whilst a slave.

re (Ross) - REPLIES ARE INTERLEAVED:

To me, the primary meaning of the Union flag (as distinct from the Union jack, which looks completely different) is of unity of the various nations making up the UK, a concept and symbol which is very important to me. It is a union of English, Scottish and Welsh/Irish symbols which I think of when considering the flag. For this reason, I see no problem with the current flag, and the recent suggestion that we should add black lines to it was one of the more absurd things I have ever heard.

REPLY: Last year, Active Resistance to Metrication prodcued four postcards to promote ourselves and generate some income. Two were photographs of professionally-amended signs, one set in Portsmouth and one in Broxbourne, Hertfordshire. The third was a superb cartoon featuring Steve Thoburn about to be executed by an E.U. executioner. The fourth was a card which simply showed the four flags of the four nations of the United Kingdom (yes, *including* the Welsh dragon). Underneath the four flags is the slogan: "United we Stand, Divided we Fall". As we explain on the back of the card, this was a reference to the forthcoming break-up (if the E.U. has its way) of England into nine regions, each with its own 'Parliament'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"[The 'act of worship' is not the final token of an active religious identity]"

War memorials are not contemporary examples, but were built in the past. It is true that the Royal Arms state both 'Dieu et Mon Droit' and 'Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense', which is also reflective of past traditions. When speaking of 'tokens', I mean active examples which exist now. The only active example of Christian belief in the UK today is an enforced act of worship, which must remain on the books lest we ever admit that, in general, we are no longer Christian. As we have seen, it is essentially only the law itself that now remains.

REPLY: You could have included the numbers of nominal Christians, or even non-Christians, who still opt for marriage in a Christian church. Or the numbers who rarely if ever go to church but request a Christian funeral. War memorials not contemporary examples? Every November 11th, there are in Britain thousands of commemorations which take place around them. The Coronation ceremony is explicitly Christian and Protestant. In some parts of Britain the traditional Sunday remains i.e. a day of rest - visit the Western Isles or the Protestant parts of Northern Ireland. But, yes, these symbols of our Christian past are disappearing bit by bit. Whether we are wise to get rid of them is another question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Protestant Reformation" - Was there no equivalent persecution of Roman Catholics after the Reformation? I fear there may have been, and of course there were exclusions, such as the prohibition on Catholic Members of Parliament until the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829.

REPLY: Protestants were burnt to death for simply disagreeing with the beliefs of the Roman Catholic priests. Notably there was a sharp divide on 'transubstantiation' - the Roman Catholics' amazing claim that they had the power to translate the bread and wine into the *actual* body and blood of Christ. Against that, the Protestants maintained that te Bible conferred no such power on the priest and that the bread and wine were merely *symbolic*.

Some Catholics were legitimately executed for treason - and only after due process. *Not one* was executed just for what s/he believed.

It must at all times be remembered that the Pope is one of the world's most powerful *political* figures. Catholics were executed for plotting with the Pope's men to restore Papal authority in these islands. Thus when in 1553 'Bloody Queen Mary' [hence 'bloody Marys' of course] was installed as Queen, the very next day she despatched a messenger to Rome including these words in a letter to the Pope: "I am your faithful daughter and England has returned to the Roman Obedience".

Restrictons on Roman Catholics have gradually been removed. Strangely enough, on the very day the King attended Parliament in 1829 to witness the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, his Crown fell off and bounced down the steps of the House of Lords. A few jewels were dislodged in the process and a few horrified flunkeys were scratting around on the ground trying to locate them all (they were successful in the end).

It was only the second time that the English monarch lost his Crown. The previous occasion was in 1214 when King John was publicly humiliated. Because he had in some instances appointed his own bishops to the Church of England and not bishops of the Pope's choosing, he had been threatened by the Pope with excommunication and other consequences. He therefore reluctantly agreed to reinstate the payment of a yearly bounty to the Pope. When he formally announced this concession, the Pope's legate took off his Crown and kicked it around in the dust. Unsurprisingly, this lamentable situation stirred the barons and bishops of England who met in Bury St. Edmunds Abbey later that year (a stone tablet in the orm of a moving poem commemorating this event is on the Abbey Gardens ruins today) and plotted the meeting that was to lead King John, in 1215, to sign 'Magna Carta'.

Magna Carta was of such significance that the much-respected Sir Geoffrey Howe even referred to it in the 'Westminster Hour' last month as a justification for compulsory metrication!

ROTFL!

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.."
- Mark 16:17-18

"As we explain on the back of the card, this was a reference to the forthcoming break-up (if the E.U. has its way) of England into nine regions, each with its own 'Parliament'."

I certainly hope that this does not happen, and indeed I expect it will not. In the meantime we have to roundly defeat Prescott's wild plans for 'regional government'.

"You could have included the numbers of nominal Christians, or even non-Christians, who still opt for marriage in a Christian church."

Indeed, I was interested to discover that anyone living in a Church of England parish has the right to marry in the local church. I also note that at least 70% of weddings are now conducted in civil ceremonies, including a majority of first marriages.

"Or the numbers who rarely if ever go to church but request a Christian funeral."

I fear that the lack of widely available substitutes causes most people to fall into this option.

"War memorials not contemporary examples? Every November 11th, there are in Britain thousands of commemorations which take place around them."

There are; my point is that in 1918 and 1945 there would have been no question that a new memorial should have a Christian inscription placed on it. If a memorial were being built now for the dead of Afghanistan or Iraq, we may hear in the news that there was some commotion over whether to include such an inscription. Certainly if we were commemorating the Unknown Soldier today, it would be very doubtful as to whether inscriptions about 'duty to God' and so forth would be appropriate, given that the soldier is 'unknown by name or rank' yet known to have been a monotheist.

"Notably there was a sharp divide on 'transubstantiation' - the Roman Catholics' amazing claim that they had the power to translate the bread and wine into the *actual* body and blood of Christ."

This is one of the more troubling aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine. I never really understood this as it seems to suggest that the Church is promoting cannibalism. It seems to be the height of superstition.

"Some Catholics were legitimately executed for treason - and only after due process. *Not one* was executed just for what s/he believed."

I fear that simply holding and practising Catholic belief may, at one time, have been considered sufficient evidence of subversion and treason.

"Strangely enough, on the very day the King attended Parliament in 1829 to witness the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, his Crown fell off and bounced down the steps of the House of Lords. A few jewels were dislodged in the process and a few horrified flunkeys were scratting around on the ground trying to locate them all (they were successful in the end)."

Interesting! I imagine George IV was well gone by that stage. Which Crown was it?

If we are so Chrisitian why are you so happy to use words of days and months named after Teutonic gods, roman emperors and god as well? Surely you should not be encouraging these heathen practises and lobby for the re-introduction of our old celtic names for days and months. Go on Steve, let's have 'em.

re: "If we are so Chrisitian why are you so happy to use words of days and months named after Teutonic gods, roman emperors and god as well? Surely you should not be encouraging these heathen practises and lobby for the re-introduction of our old celtic names for days and months..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not to mention Easter, named after the ancient Babylonian heathen goddess Astarte, popular in many pagan cultures of the Middle East, and 'Christmas', essentially of course a 'Christianised' version of thhe old pagan and Roma winter festival of Saturnalia.

These points - including the naming of months and days after heathen gods and Roman emperors - do not detract from the essential argument with which I think Ross agrees, namely that there has been a strong Christian thread running through the fabric of English and British history since the time of Alfred the Great or even earlier

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.."
- Psalms 137:9

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.."
- Psalms 137:9