Religious do not have monopoly on virtue, Queen tells synod

[onager]

For lurking Freepers/fundies, that's Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain. Not Ted Haggard.

People of faith do not have a monopoly on virtue as British society was now "more diverse and secular", the Queen told the Church of England today in an address to its governing body.

Speaking at Church House, central London, she told members of General Synod that believers and atheists were equally able to contribute to the prosperity and wellbeing of the country.

The Queen, who is supreme governor of the Church of England, said: "In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and none."

But, recalling the words of Pope Benedict XVI from his UK visit last September, she said churches "and the other great faith traditions" retained the potential to inspire "great enthusiasm, loyalty and a concern for the common good".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/23/queen-synod-virtue

Hmph. Well, what I remember of Pope Panzer's U.K. visit is his whining about "aggressive" non-believers.

So I like to think the Queen was really sending him a message: Dear Herr Ratzinger - In case you wondered, this is my response to your churlish remarks about "aggressive secularism" during your recent visit. BTW, I rule a real nation, not a fictional "state" composed of a few hundred kiddie-diddlers in over-decorated prom dresses. So lest you misconstrue the subtlety of my message, it's just another way of saying, in the nicest way possible - FOAD, asswipe.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. LOL for your first sentence....

[Duppers]

2. oh,oh,oh, my sides

Your note from Her Majesty The Queen is killing me. :rofl:
You should be writing for Bill Maher!

Thanks, Onger. I needed that.

[PassingFair]

3. My grandfather had 6 sisters, and he was the only sibling to immigrate...

to the US.

ALL of my relatives in England and Scotland
are Atheists.

I was very surprised to learn this, person by
person, visit by visit.

Britain is a very secular place, and Scotland
is even more so.

So, I don't doubt where I get it from, but
I was very surprised when I figured it all out!

[LeftishBrit]

4. Though I'm in general somewhat anti-monarchist...

In THIS case, I'll give a rousing cheer with the best of them: 'Three cheers for the Queen!'

Though the religious right is nothing like as strong in Britain as in America, there had been an unpleasant strain of anti-secularism in some quarters, especially in the run-up to, and after, the General Election. Especially since Tories tend to be very pro-Monarchy, I hope that the Queen's comments will help to nip such attitudes in the bud.

[DeSwiss]

5. "The religious do not have monopoly on virtue..."

The Abrahamic religions in-general and the Christian and Islamic religions in particular have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with virtue. They may have been considered virtuous back in the Neolithic/Bronze Age when barbarity was more regularly practiced. And even though many of these religious sects may take part in various charitable activities which are generally beneficial to society, what they do is hardly exclusive or virtuous simply because they're being carried out by some religious sect. This is particularly so since what they do is also done by secular and humanist organizations without any pretense about being ordained by some god with showy displays of its magnanimity.

And yet religious beliefs (for those who have actually taken the time to read and learn about them) are themselves barbaric by today's standards. Because a deity who can only engender "fealty, love and devotion" through coercive threats of eternal hellfire and damnation is not virtuous in the slightest and anyone who thinks this is so, hasn't a clue what the word virtue means.

The Abrahamic religions are and have always been about promoting ignorance, division and hatred against "The Other" and it is these repulsive and ugly character traits of these institutions, that have been advanced throughout history under the guise of some higher knowledge and/or virtue.

However, these religions aren't about virtue. They're all about MANIPULATING and CONTROLLING people. And getting people to ignore their own intellect and reason in favor of hoo-doo, ritual and emotional blackmail and by evoking FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN & DEATH.

"Integrity and honesty, not objectivity and certainty, are the highest virtues to which the theological enterprise can aspire. From this perspective, all human claims to possess objectivity, certainty, or infallibility are revealed as nothing but the weak and pitiable pleas of frantically insecure people who seek to live in a illusion because reality has proved to be too difficult. Papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy are the two ecclesiastical versions of this human idolatry. Both papal infallibility and biblical inerrancy require widespread and unchallenged ignorance to sustain their claims to power. Both are doomed as viable alternatives for the long-range future of anyone." ~Bishop John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality?

{That's Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, not Ted Haggard! LOL!!!} ;)

K&R

[AlecBGreen]

6. how many agree with this statement?

"...she said churches 'and the other great faith traditions' retained the potential to inspire 'great enthusiasm, loyalty and a concern for the common good'."

There are some who argue that faith has nothing to offer but bad fruit. I dont believe that, and apparently neither does the Queen.

[dimbear]

7. I agree.

Religion isn't going away soon. It needs fixing, not destruction. IMHO.

[darkstar3]

8. I do.

*That sound you hear is the jaw of many a frequent reader, especially one from down under, hitting the floor*

I agree with the statement in part. I think religion has "the potential to inspire." Full stop.

[AlecBGreen]

9. it always good to find common ground DS

Dont you think it has the potential to inspire concern for the common good? I think that certainly trumps "enthusiasm" and "loyalty" dont you?

[darkstar3]

10. I'm sure it does.

But I think it dangerous to focus only on the potential for positive inspiration. Doing so can lead to several nasty consequences, not least of which is a social environment that would allow religion to be blatantly used as a tool to inspire great evil.

[AlecBGreen]

11. possibly

Jesus said to be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves. The vast majority of us have a hard time doing both to our full capability.

I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if people did what MLK tried: complete and utter non-violent passive resistance to evil and injustice. Do you think it would work if people simply refused to in any way participate in an unjust, evil society? Can sitting out really work? To use a different example, if all the slaves who used to be in America sat down and collectively refused to move, would they have eventually won? I suppose the plantation owners might have killed them out brought in replacements, but if they too passively resisted, do you think in the end they would have won?

[darkstar3]

12. You might as well ask what happens

if everyone can be convinced to completely ignore the speed limit. True unification cannot be found, even in the resistance against an injustice like slavery.

I don't think stubborn refusal to participate does much of anything, except get you killed in a whole lot of scenarios.

[AlecBGreen]

13. if everyone ignored the speed limit...

Id be dead inside a week. My old volvo does 65 and thats it. Any higher and she gets a wicked shimmy and makes a rattle that promises a swift death if I dont slow down immediately. Its bad enough now the speed limit went up to 70 here in VA.