Advanced Search

Report: More than Half of Britons Have No Religion

By
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Feb. 23 2008 01:04 PM ET
[-]Text[+]
E-mail Print RSS More on Topic AddThis Button

More than half the British people admitted they have no religious adherence, revealed a new U.N. report published this week.

Unlike the 2001 National Census conducted by the United Kingdom – which said nearly 72 percent of the population is Christian – the 23-page U.N. report, published Thursday, showed that two-thirds of the population claims no religious affiliation, according to UK newspaper The Times.

The report by U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, called for the disestablishment of the Church of England because it no longer reflected “the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations.” Jahangir contends the role and privileges of the Church of England should be challenged given the new statistics on the state of religion in the United Kingdom.

The treatment of Muslims living in Britain and the government’s battle against terrorism was another topic of focus in the report.

According to the report, there is an “overall respect for human rights and their value,” but it cited research that shows 80 percent of Muslims in Britain feel they have been discriminated against. In particular, the report criticized a terrorism act that allows police in some areas to stop and search people without having to show reasonable suspicion, according to The Times.

From 2004 to 2006, there has been an 84 percent increase in searches of people with “Asian appearance” under this act, compared to an increase of 24 percent for white people, the report noted.

U.N. special rapporteur Jahangir, although a strong proponent in the belief that religion should not be given a lower priority than other rights, acknowledged in the report that some religious laws are “unacceptable.” She said the argument by some Muslim leaders that their religious tradition should override the rights of women is “unacceptable.”

Just a day before the report was published, the Archbishop of Canterbury also said some of the ways that Sharia laws were practiced were “appalling.”

“What I was trying to say the other day is that Sharia law is a very, very wide-ranging scheme of legal understanding within historic Islam,” the Archbishop said at a public lecture in Great St Mary’s Church after being criticized for saying that some parts of Sharia could be integrated into the British legal system.

“It is rooted in the sense of doing God’s will in the ordinary things of life,” Williams said. “[But] in some of the ways it has been codified and practiced across the world, it has been appalling.”

Williams specifically criticized the way the system applied to women in countries such as Saudi Arabia.

Jahangir, 55, was twice the chair of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and was released from house arrest in Lahore in November. She has faced punishment under her own government for her outspoken human rights advocacy and for criticizing the government’s human rights violations. Jahangir has been attacked by Islamic radicals for what they consider her liberal stance on religion.

BACK TO TOP Print E-mail More on Topic AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments

Most recent comments
scitsonga
  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:01 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
seed "As per your stawman arguments and general fallacies that I noted, it is not a character assassination. It is merely the illogical thoughts that you proceed with on the post on a regular basis"

If by illogical, you mean you disagree with my posts, then I am sure I am 'illogical" in your view. If you could show one example of what you consider an illogical post on my part then, perhaps we could see if you made your case. On theological arguments, admittedly I don't have much to say, its all been discussed ad nauseam over hundreds of centuries. I prefer discussions of chemistry and physics and politics. As recall from your posts, you have little interest and knowledge of science, your "logic" seems to be of a theological nature.


"Curios, are you a hard agnostic (nobody can know whether or not God exists)? Or a soft agnostic (you personally do not know if God exists)?"


I have no idea if God(s) exist, I have no evidence for its existence. Its certainly possible that a god exists, its also possible one does not. The notion that a god that created the universe as we know it would be all consumed concerning the judgement of mankind seems silly considering the known universe contains billions of galaxies with billions of stars each . Seems like god would have better things to do. No one else knows either, whether there is a god unless god presented itself to them and perhaps announced " I am God, creator of you and the universe". If that were to occur, then I suppose one would know if there is a god.

How about you seed? Has that happened to you. Do you have direct evidence for God?

One other point. If there is a god, I doubt seriously a person would be sent to eternal torture for not "believing"- that seems pointless and illogical. But hey, what do I know, you already stated that I am illogical.

flagged myself for an addition
seedplanter
  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:55 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
citsonga,

As per your stawman arguments and general fallacies that I noted, it is not a character assassination. It is merely the illogical thoughts that you proceed with on the post on a regular basis. They tend to lack much, if any substance and are generally derogatory in nature. They do reveal a lack of personal incentive on your part to do a little investigation. There’s no need to be a die hard about it. And I doubt I will take the time, or at least any time soon to search them out to list them for you. It shouldn’t be much of a surprise however, since this does seem to be the general systematic ‘objectivity’ which you tend to assume.

Curios, are you a hard agnostic (nobody can know whether or not God exists)? Or a soft agnostic (you personally do not know if God exists)?
seedplanter
  • Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:58 am
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Paleological evidence for evolution?

I find that suspect.
agentorange20
  • Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:37 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
1man,

"hence . . .evolution "

Oh please, do tell what significant issues you see in evolution as a theory, I'd love to hear them. i take it you've not heard of any of the DNA related evidence for evolution? Or any of the fossil evidence for evolution? Or any of the paleological evidence for evolution?
citsonga
  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:58 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Well 1man, you put a lot of stuff out there, which I have to say is well thought out and I can agree with a good part of it.

"Facts are only the result of being, existence, and/or actions. Information is gathered and is considered fact....yet no fact will give you the answer to life"

You are probably correct on this point. Science can tell us how, but not why.

" even if science can pinpoint beginning in it's own eyes will never give purpose to any of it, what then are they searching for? To gain more knowledge...what a futile thing (in the respect of evolution)"
Good point, good question. At times I don't think there is much point ultimately, but I dont dwell on it much, mostly think about philosophical topics of this nature over a few beers. I guess I just figure what it is, is what it is and leave it at that. i dont concern myself with the hereafter particularly I like science because I find it interesting. In all probability I figure the knowledge I have accumulated in my brain will probably be lost when the heart stops and the O2 stops flowing to the cells. But again, I dont think about it much. I learn for the now, and leave the future, for the, ah, the future. I hope that makes some sense to you. I dont think I have a need to be thinking of an afterlife. I figure when the light a re out so to speak, they are out and it wont really matter.

"Surely you can't really acknowledge all that evolution concludes as fact?"

It might


"In response to know everything lets have truce, this is a Christian Post in verity this is a place for christians to communicate, so in like manner you kind of ask for scrutiny upon your beliefs also. Granted we have contradicting worldviews we must find a point of reference in order to communicate intelligently without being condescending."

Well stated my friend

Got to go, its getting late... thanx for you thought provoking comments.
citsonga
  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:20 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Mr seedplant, one other thing, you posted "the only thing citsonga knows how to do is spout off with straw man arguments."

Please point out the "straw man arguments", I would like to know what those might be. Let me thank you in advance of your response to these inquiries.
citsonga
  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:16 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Mr. seedplant, I thought your religion was about love and understanding. Whats all this character assassination stuff? I'm rather disappointed in your conduct.

rather than insulting me, allow me to repost my question to you from an earlier post from you:

seedplant "Citsonga, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to take a little more self-initiative in educating yourself."

in reference to??????

Please point out specifically my flawed comments. Perhaps they require clarification, I would be happy to do that.

I would also like to thank agentorange for reminding you that I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Also, I have no idea what you mean by naturalist. Please tell me what that means. I know what a naturalist is in my own mind, but I suspect you have something more sinister in mind.
seedplanter
  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:40 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
Agent, I will at least give you credit as to having the capacity to engage in intelligent conversation. That’s a whole lot more than I can say for citsonga. I’m surprised that you would defend him, agnostic or not. Actually, I thought he was a pantheist. At any rate, he is a naturalist and an atheist in practicality. The only thing citsonga knows how to do is spout off with straw man arguments.
1man
  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:04 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
hence . . .evolution
agentorange20
  • Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:11 pm
  • : 0
  • : 0
  • Flag
"Atheism is a metal disorder. "

Come on Seed, he's not even an athiest. he's agnostiic....besides, look who's talking. you're the one with the belief, or should I say faith in a god. if anything is coined as a mental disorder, it's when you think things exist without credible evidence.
Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts.

Comment on this story

ID Password
Submit Don't have a Christian Post ID?Signing up is easy. Click Here