Good link about our Faith Minister. Why?

[ippy]

Obviously I know my own thoughts and would like to hear others

http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/01/02/what-is-a-faith-minister-for/

Regards to all ippy

[Anchorman]

Obviously I know my own thoughts and would like to hear others

http://freethinker.co.uk/2018/01/02/what-is-a-faith-minister-for/

Regards to all ippy

Er.......whose "faith minister"?

[Nearly Sane]

Er.......whose "faith minister"?

To bč fair to the ippster, I think he's allowed to raise this without flagging the whole devolved issue.


It seems a sop rather than a serious post. That the notional head of state is the head of a church seems far more problematic

[Anchorman]

To bč fair to the ippster, I think he's allowed to raise this without flagging the whole devolved issue.


It seems a sop rather than a serious post. That the notional head of state is the head of a church seems far more problematic

Whoa!
Surely the fact that ippy assumes that this chap has some influence in the UK is relevent?
As for Lizzie's position as head of the CofE?
Nothing to do with the UK....nor should Lizzie's bishops have any say on UK issues.
What England does with the whole shebang is England's business.

[Nearly Sane]

Whoa!
Surely the fact that ippy assumes that this chap has some influence in the UK is relevent?
As for Lizzie's position as head of the CofE?
Nothing to do with the UK....nor should Lizzie's bishops have any say on UK issues.
What England does with the whole shebang is England's business.

I don't think ippy does make that assumption. He simply linked to the article which also doesn't make the assumption. 

And Liz's position of the head of CoE has obvious impacts on being the head of state in the UK.

[Aruntraveller]

What England does with the whole shebang is England's business.

So no point posting about the USA, Iran, India, Australia, Scotland (in my case), England (in your case), etc. etc.

[ippy]

It's not so much a problem to me that we have someone appointed as a minister of faith, I assume he has a constituency somewhere, shouldn't he be dealing with his constituency's matters, why do we need anyone else dealing with religious matters in a place of authority?

I thought we have plenty of that lot already dealing with faith matters, why do we need a minister for faith? It's difficult for me to think of any kind of governmental position that's much more useless than this one?

Regards to all ippy

[Walter]

It's not so much a problem to me that we have someone appointed as a minister of faith, I assume he has a constituency somewhere, shouldn't he be dealing with his constituency's matters, why do we need anyone else dealing with religious matters in a place of authority?

I thought we have plenty of that lot already dealing with faith matters, why do we need a minister for faith? It's difficult for me to think of any kind of governmental position that's much more useless than this one?

Regards to all ippy

a minister for Funny Walks is to be appointed in the next few days apparently.

[ippy]

a minister for Funny Walks is to be appointed in the next few days apparently.

Probably of more use than a faith minister, how about a minister for Lancastrian clog makers?

ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

a minister for Funny Walks is to be appointed in the next few days apparently.

I wouldn't like to try to follow in his/her footsteps!

[Anchorman]

So no point posting about the USA, Iran, India, Australia, Scotland (in my case), England (in your case), etc. etc.

 


Eh?
England has appointed a 'faih minister.
England still has the anachronistic hangover of an established church.
The matte is only concerning the rest of us when the unelected bishops in the coffin dodgers club in Westminster vote in issues that concern those of us who are not part of their sphere of influence.

[Nearly Sane]

 


Eh?
England has appointed a 'faih minister.
England still has the anachronistic hangover of an established church.
The matte is only concerning the rest of us when the unelected bishops in the coffin dodgers club in Westminster vote in issues that concern those of us who are not part of their sphere of influence.

As Trent covered are we only concerned with what happens in our countries under devolution, or can I just ignore Trump because nothing to do with me, guv'nor?

[Robbie]

Be careful what you say, if he or she has a silly walk they probably have a disability; they're saying, "People with silly walks do not hide yourselves away! You are as fine as anyone else. We in the UK (or England) celebrate our differences. Look how well I'm doing".

I didn't know we had faith ministers in England though vaguely remember the idea being floated & can't imagine what they do that isn't already done amongst people of faith or no faith who believe in equality and fair play for all.

[Nearly Sane]

Defend the right of some religious to have the head of state as head of their established church?

[Robbie]

When Prince Charles becomes King he said (a while ago but he did say it), he would disestablish the CofE. He'll be reminded of that when the time comes and many will want to hold him to it. Can't be that many years ahead. My view is the CofE should be disestablished.

I was interested that Baroness Warsi had been a Minister for Faith which shows its not all about 'church'; on looking her up, found this:-
"..was Minister of State for Faith and Communities, until her resignation citing her disagreement with the Government's policy on the Israel–Gaza conflict in August 2014".

To me, the requirement for a Minister for Faith is superfluous but I noted the "Communities" bit which is more general and important. One could say of course that it depends on the individual communities, we might cheer if we approve of them and strongly object if we don't!  All the more reason not to have such a minister.

Just my musings on a subject to which I'd previously never given any thought, thanks to Ippy for posting the thread.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Chuck suggested that he would take  the title defender of all faiths rather than defender of the faith. He wouldn't have the authority to disestablish the CoE.

[Nearly Sane]

It's not so much a problem to me that we have someone appointed as a minister of faith, I assume he has a constituency somewhere, shouldn't he be dealing with his constituency's matters, why do we need anyone else dealing with religious matters in a place of authority?

I thought we have plenty of that lot already dealing with faith matters, why do we need a minister for faith? It's difficult for me to think of any kind of governmental position that's much more useless than this one?

Regards to all ippy

Given he's a Lord, he won't have a constituency but unless you want to apply they argument to all ministers that they shouldn't be ministers, then it's simply you special pleading here.


I don't see any problem with having administer that would liaise with faith groups who might work separately or together to carry out community activities that would support govt policies. It's an important part of many peoples lives and affects how they interact with society.

[ippy]

Given he's a Lord, he won't have a constituency but unless you want to apply they argument to all ministers that they shouldn't be ministers, then it's simply you special pleading here.


I don't see any problem with having administer that would liaise with faith groups who might work separately or together to carry out community activities that would support govt policies. It's an important part of many peoples lives and affects how they interact with society.

why do we need anyone else dealing with religious matters in a place of authority? Like I said, N P NS.

Kind regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

why do we need anyone else dealing with religious matters in a place of authority? Like I said, N P NS.

Kind regards ippy

 See 'again 'I don't see any problem with having administer that would liaise with faith groups who might work separately or together to carry out community activities that would support govt policies. It's an important part of many peoples lives and affects how they interact with society.'

[Robbie]

I think Chuck suggested that he would take  the title defender of all faiths rather than defender of the faith. He wouldn't have the authority to disestablish the CoE.

I had to think, "Who is Chuck?", before reading the rest of your post. Never heard him called that before, sounds American.

Yes he did say that but also said something like he favoured disestablishment, thought it an anachronism.

[Harrowby Hall]

Why would he favour disestablishment if he thought it to be an anachronism?

[ippy]

 See 'again 'I don't see any problem with having administer that would liaise with faith groups who might work separately or together to carry out community activities that would support govt policies. It's an important part of many peoples lives and affects how they interact with society.'

See again post 6 on this thread, perhaps you might read the second part this time. N P.

Kind regards ippy

[Nearly Sane]

See again post 6 on this thread, perhaps you might read the second part this time. N P.

Kind regards ippy

My reply was in response to that. Given that you appear unable/unwilling to answer that, then I presume any attempt at dialogue is worthless. Have a nice day.

[Robbie]

Why would he favour disestablishment if he thought it to be an anachronism?

Apologies oh pedantic one (bow) . I really should read what I have written before posting.
He believes (or believed) the monarch being head of the Church of England to be an anachronism.

[ippy]

My reply was in response to that. Given that you appear unable/unwilling to answer that, then I presume any attempt at dialogue is worthless. Have a nice day.

I keep on forgetting you are unable/unwilling to understand anything short of a three or four volume thesis, there, silly me, enjoy your day N P and I give you my full permission to feel free, make anything you like from my posts.

Kind regards ippy

P S Don't forget, you now have my full permission N P.