Religion

[Mr Mosquito]

Not so neatly side-stepped PB. You and I both know exactly what the Bible is, and more importantly, isn't.

If it's The Word of God, then God is all I've said.

If it's not, then why give it mystical status, and why should I believe a word of it?

ruraldean, you previously stated: "None of this debate, which has been reasonably conducted so far, is about politics. It's about God. Blimey, I'm an atheist and I'm trying to keep it on track. For the record I will not indulge your political diversions. You want to debate the subject of the thread then I'm happy to join in."

......as the subject of the debate is actually 'religion', what do you make of the following headline......

The Pope has made an unprecedented attack on the Government, accusing it of hampering religious freedom with its 'unjust' equality laws.

Pope Benedict claimed that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination "actually violates natural law" because it stopped worshippers remaining true to their beliefs. I'm not a Catholic but I'm absolutely delighted that the Pope has spoken out against the Labour Party. This is yet another direct Labour Party attack on the freedom to believe and associate with others who believe the same. The zealot Toff led Labour Party have now invoked against them the missionary zeal of the Catholic church. Will a long overdue Holy crusade against Gordon Brown and Co follow?

[newboy]

ruraldean, you previously stated: "None of this debate, which has been reasonably conducted so far, is about politics. It's about God. Blimey, I'm an atheist and I'm trying to keep it on track. For the record I will not indulge your political diversions. You want to debate the subject of the thread then I'm happy to join in."

......as the subject of the debate is actually 'religion', what do you make of the following headline......

The Pope has made an unprecedented attack on the Government, accusing it of hampering religious freedom with its 'unjust' equality laws.

Pope Benedict claimed that legislation introduced by Labour to end discrimination "actually violates natural law" because it stopped worshippers remaining true to their beliefs. I'm not a Catholic but I'm absolutely delighted that the Pope has spoken out against the Labour Party. This is yet another direct Labour Party attack on the freedom to believe and associate with others who believe the same. The zealot Toff led Labour Party have now invoked against them the missionary zeal of the Catholic church. Will a long overdue Holy crusade against Gordon Brown and Co follow?

The beliefs in this case are related to Catholic anti-homosexual mantra. Let's not even start on how sexist the Catholic church is either.

So if a belief is both held morally reprehensible by the majority of the nation and also illegal according to democratically-founded law, why should religions be allowed to break the law and continue medieval thinking under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

The Pope is marginalising sections of society due to harmful outdated beliefs and because it has a pop at Labour you're delighted with that?

[Mr Mosquito]

The Pope is marginalising sections of society due to harmful outdated beliefs and because it has a pop at Labour you're delighted with that?

Yep, I'm thrilled to bits with the Pope having a go at New Labour because our ancestors fought for religious freedom of worship during the civil war - the Labour Party are thus attacking our religious freedoms as fought for at great cost by our ancestors. The defence of our freedoms has come from an unlikely source - The Pope - but he is to be congratulated. I'd also like to see ex Labour leader Tony Blair and his fellow Labour Party lawyer criminals prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq.

[newboy]

Yep, I'm thrilled to bits with the Pope having a go at New Labour because our ancestors fought for religious freedom of worship during the civil war - the Labour Party are thus attacking our religious freedoms as fought for at great cost by our ancestors. The defence of our freedoms has come from an unlikely source - The Pope - but he is to be congratulated. I'd also like to see ex Labour leader Tony Blair and his fellow Labour Party lawyer criminals prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq.

Can you explain why religions can say and do what they want but the rest of us can't under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

Why should a religion be able to discriminate against gay people, women and people of other religions and have the priviledge of tax-free income whilst everyone else has to pay tax and obey the law?

Can you also explain how 'religous freedom' is indeed freedom when it translates as the suppression of/discrimination against others?

Basically religious freedom is a blank cheque for religion to do what it likes in spite of laws and ethics adopted (and in many cases voted for) by the masses. How can this be a good thing?

[Mr Mosquito]

Can you explain why religions can say and do what they want but the rest of us can't under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

Why should a religion be able to discriminate against gay people, women and people of other religions and have the priviledge of tax-free income whilst everyone else has to pay tax and obey the law?

Can you also explain how 'religous freedom' is indeed freedom when it translates as the suppression of/discrimination against others?

Basically religious freedom is a blank cheque for religion to do what it likes in spite of laws and ethics adopted (and in many cases voted for) by the masses. How can this be a good thing?

On the contrary, the Labour Party is discriminating against the religious beliefs of many in the general population. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 recognizes religious rights. Article 18 is the key text:Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

[newboy]

On the contrary, the Labour Party is discriminating against the religious beliefs of many in the general population. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 recognizes religious rights. Article 18 is the key text:Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Ok, I'll take the bait - what if practising a religion impinges on the beliefs or rights of others. What takes precedence?

Taken to an extreme - if I was to start a religion whose basic tenet was to hunt down everyone who used the name 'red goblin' on forums and torture them to death, would you still stand for that?

Maybe that's not so extreme - some religions in Africa use child sacrifice - would you stand up for their relgious freedoms?

Can you answer the questions I raised please? How can something that takes away the rights and freedoms of others be justified?

Can you explain why religions can say and do what they want but the rest of us can't under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

Why should a religion be able to discriminate against gay people, women and people of other religions and have the priviledge of tax-free income whilst everyone else has to pay tax and obey the law?

IMHO everyone should have the right to believe in what they want, but as soon as they start actually harming others then you can stuff 'freedom to do what the **** I want'.

[Mr Mosquito]

Ok, I'll take the bait - what if practising a religion impinges on the beliefs or rights of others. What takes precedence?

Taken to an extreme - if I was to start a religion whose basic tenet was to hunt down everyone who used the name 'red goblin' on forums and torture them to death, would you still stand for that?

Maybe that's not so extreme - some religions in Africa use child sacrifice - would you stand up for their relgious freedoms?

Can you answer the questions I raised please? How can something that takes away the rights and freedoms of others be justified?

Can you explain why religions can say and do what they want but the rest of us can't under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

Why should a religion be able to discriminate against gay people, women and people of other religions and have the priviledge of tax-free income whilst everyone else has to pay tax and obey the law?

IMHO everyone should have the right to believe in what they want, but as soon as they start actually harming others then you can stuff 'freedom to do what the **** I want'.

The Catholic Church is a long established church (over 1,500 years old) and they were the state religion of this country, they quite rightly see our Labour Government as attacking their religion. One of the chief instigators of this attack is the Toff Labour Party anti working man Harriett Harman - surprise surprise - there's a protest movement known as 'Fathers for Justice' that's come about due to her activities. 500 years ago the Catholic Church may have had her condemned and burned as a witch for her activities and most people at the time wouldn't have given toss about her and her beliefs.

The ZanuLiebour Party have now got a lot more enemies over this.

[newboy]

The Catholic Church is a long established church (over 1,500 years old) and they were the state religion of this country, they quite rightly see our Labour Government as attacking their religion. One of the chief instigators of this attack is the Toff Labour Party anti working man Harriett Harman - surprise surprise - there's a protest movement known as 'Fathers for Justice' that's come about due to her activities. 500 years ago the Catholic Church may have had her condemned and burned as a witch for her activities and most people at the time wouldn't have given toss about her and her beliefs.

The ZanuLiebour Party have now got a lot more enemies over this.

My Grandmother is about 1,500 years old but that doesn't make her either right about stuff or relevant today.

How can something that takes away the rights and freedoms of others be justified?

Can you explain why religions can say and do what they want but the rest of us can't under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

Why should a religion be able to discriminate against gay people, women and people of other religions and have the priviledge of tax-free income whilst everyone else has to pay tax and obey the law?

[Mr Mosquito]

My Grandmother is about 1,500 years old but that doesn't make her either right about stuff or relevant today.

How can something that takes away the rights and freedoms of others be justified?

Can you explain why religions can say and do what they want but the rest of us can't under the banner of 'religious freedom'?

Why should a religion be able to discriminate against gay people, women and people of other religions and have the priviledge of tax-free income whilst everyone else has to pay tax and obey the law?

I can't explain why the world is the way it is. The Pope is required to give moral and ethical guidance and that's what he's done - that's his job. The Catholic Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope and he leads a flock of about one billion people - you'd be better off asking him your questions as I'm not even Catholic. Anything the Pope says thus carries far more weight than any utterances from our Labour Government, their High Priestess Harriett Harman, and their European Unionist puppet masters. Our Labour Government is heading for a big confrontation over this.

[newboy]

I can't explain why the world is the way it is. The Pope is required to give moral and ethical guidance and that's what he's done - that's his job. The Catholic Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope and he leads a flock of about one billion people - you'd be better off asking him your questions as I'm not even Catholic. Anything the Pope says thus carries far more weight than any utterances from our Labour Government, their High Priestess Harriett Harman, and their European Unionist puppet masters. Our Labour Government is heading for a big confrontation over this.

I can't ask him the questions since he's answerable to no-one apparently.

But you're happy for him to come here and essentially preach hate-filled mantra to score cheap points off Labour?

You're happy for an undemocratically elected person to come over here and say that it's ok to discriminate against gay people and women because it scores points against a democratically-elected, mainly accountable government, who themselves are put into positions elected by their own activists.

If you hate Labour, fine - don't vote for them. But just because the Pope doesn't agree with them doesn't mean he's some kind of hero. Where was the Pope when it came to decisively dealing with decades of child abuse that has been covered up at very top levels? Where is the Pope's accountability in terms of aids policy? The Pope has wealth that the people you are rallying against can only dream of - in what way is he morally superior to the people you mention?

Having one billion people supporting you doesn't make you right, certainly not in any moral sense. Especially if those billion people have no say in you getting that power and have next to no influence over your policy.

As much as I think Harriet Harman is an idiot, we've at least got the power collectively to remove her and ultimately she's answerable to that. The Pope gets a free ride and that shows in the contempt that he holds for most of his own, let alone those non-believers.

And as for the crux of this entire impending dispute - do you think the Pope is right to promote discrimination against women and gay people? You've still not answered that.

[Mr Mosquito]

Where was the Pope when it came to decisively dealing with decades of child abuse that has been covered up at very top levels?

I agree that child abuse is a major and serious failing within the Catholic Church. However, I welcome the Pope's criticism of the anti working man and pro European Union Toff led Labour Party. I note also that the Labour Party was all for discriminating against Saddam Hussein and his regime via a costly and - very arguably - illegal war.

[Mr Mosquito]

And as for the crux of this entire impending dispute - do you think the Pope is right to promote discrimination against women and gay people? You've still not answered that.

I don't understand how the Pope is discriminating against women and gay people.

[newboy]

I don't understand how the Pope is discriminating against women and gay people.

Really wasn't difficult...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...ation+women+gay

And that's just the current pope. Look further and you'll find masses (no pun intended) or articles on how misogynist the Catholic church is.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catholic+misogyny

BTW - loved the link to http://www.arrestblair.org/ - ta!

[Mr Mosquito]

Really wasn't difficult...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...ation+women+gay

And that's just the current pope. Look further and you'll find masses (no pun intended) or articles on how misogynist the Catholic church is.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=catholic+misogyny

BTW - loved the link to http://www.arrestblair.org/ - ta!

I'm just wondering whether the Labour Party will stop the segregation of women in Mosques next. I just love the way the Tony Blair 'politically correct' lawyer creed are making yet more enemies for themselves.

Will it be a Catholic Guy Fawkes or a Muslim Bin Laden that will finally send the Labour Party high command to their maker?

[newboy]

I'm just wondering whether the Labour Party will stop the segregation of women in Mosques next. I just love the way the Tony Blair 'politically correct' lawyer creed are making yet more enemies for themselves.

Will it be a Catholic Guy Fawkes or a Muslim Bin Laden that will finally send the Labour Party high command to their maker?

I dunno - they'll go away soon as a result of democracy - unlike the Pope. But don't you find it odd that you're giving credence to the Pope but are anti-Blair when Blair himself is a very devout catholic and head of a faith initiative to promote religion across the world?

[Mr Mosquito]

I dunno - they'll go away soon as a result of democracy - unlike the Pope. But don't you find it odd that you're giving credence to the Pope but are anti-Blair when Blair himself is a very devout catholic and head of a faith initiative to promote religion across the world?

I thought that Tony Blair recently turned to being Catholic just six months after leaving office. Next he'll be joining the Tory Party if they come to power.

[ruraldean]

ruraldean, you previously stated: "None of this debate, which has been reasonably conducted so far, is about politics. It's about God. Blimey, I'm an atheist and I'm trying to keep it on track. For the record I will not indulge your political diversions. You want to debate the subject of the thread then I'm happy to join in."

......as the subject of the debate is actually 'religion', what do you make of the following headline......

The Pope has made an unprecedented attack on the Government, accusing it of hampering religious freedom with its 'unjust' equality laws.

Surprisingly I'm with the Pope on this one.

Take working men's clubs for instance. It seems ridiculous that they can't limit their membership to men only, because by definition that's their very reason for existence. By the same token the Catholic Church is defined by it's beliefs (whether I agree or not) and should be allowed to run itself according to those beliefs. Understanding that religious faith transcends reason, and that religious freedom is enshrined in law, it seems reasonable that they should employ whom they choose, and exclude those who act against their beliefs.

A politician was saying this afternoon that he felt the Pope was out of order and discriminating against gays, and he was asked if he would employ a member of the BNP. His answer was, "No I wouldn't". Game set and match to the questioner I think.

Oh, and the "equality laws" are anything but. They are yet another PC attempt at positive discrimination designed to favour the rights of the minority over the majority, not provide equality.

Probably a disappointing answer, but life's full of surprises.

[ruraldean]

Newboy, much as you and I have fought shoulder to shoulder on here, I'm afraid I must disagree with you on the gay discrimination thing.

A homosexual seeking work for the Catholic Church = a black man seeking Head of Admin at the BNP.

I wouldn't work for the Catholic Church because I'm an atheist. I wouldn't expect the Church to employ me for the same reason. It causes me no offence whatsoever, because clearly we're not on the same page. It doesn't seem like rocket science to me and in no way would I feel discriminated against. If I were gay why would I seek a job with an organisation whose views I would fight to oppose.

People get carried away with the word "rights". It is not the "right" of a gay man to work for anyone. You might as well say it's the "right" of the bloke over the road to work for me, and he's a "right" tosser. Real "rights" have been eroded by this Government and it's European cronies, and the right to decide who to employ is just one that's disappeared.

[Philip Belgrave]

Not so neatly side-stepped PB. You and I both know exactly what the Bible is, and more importantly, isn't.

If it's The Word of God, then God is all I've said.

If it's not, then why give it mystical status, and why should I believe a word of it?

Perhaps by virtue of its sheer durability ?

Here we have stuff written over two thousand years ago :dedicated people throughout history have translated it, printed it ,preached and promulgated it, frequently at the cost of their lives.

I refuse to believe that they were all gullible ,misguided mugs.

It's still one of the world's best sellers . People still quote from it, even your goodself.

It must have something going for it, surely.

[newboy]

I thought that Tony Blair recently turned to being Catholic just six months after leaving office. Next he'll be joining the Tory Party if they come to power.

He's always been very devoutly catholic - he just kept it hidden for fear of being thought of as a nutter. Again, Google is your friend.

[newboy]

Newboy, much as you and I have fought shoulder to shoulder on here, I'm afraid I must disagree with you on the gay discrimination thing.

A homosexual seeking work for the Catholic Church = a black man seeking Head of Admin at the BNP.

I wouldn't work for the Catholic Church because I'm an atheist. I wouldn't expect the Church to employ me for the same reason. It causes me no offence whatsoever, because clearly we're not on the same page. It doesn't seem like rocket science to me and in no way would I feel discriminated against. If I were gay why would I seek a job with an organisation whose views I would fight to oppose.

People get carried away with the word "rights". It is not the "right" of a gay man to work for anyone. You might as well say it's the "right" of the bloke over the road to work for me, and he's a "right" tosser. Real "rights" have been eroded by this Government and it's European cronies, and the right to decide who to employ is just one that's disappeared.

Nice analogy, but the anti-discrimination thing is a (rather feeble I admit) way of fighting against the prejudice. The catholic church (and major Islamic religions) are very anti-gay and misogynist and that's very visible from it's 'recruitment' policy through to preachings and ultimately throught to the violent actions of it's more idiotic followers.

It's almost endemic, from the most insiduous wording used throughout its teachings through to the most extreme actions of the nutters.

And yet because of religious freedoms it's never really been challenged. So how would you address it? You can't legally force the church to change it's teachings/texts, you can't arrest the preachers. The only thing you can legally do is to highlight the absurdity of the employment policy and it's contradiction of human rights through discrimination.

And the analogy you use only goes so far. Despite it's openly anti-gay stance there are numerous gay people and women who are devout catholics and want to have a career in the church but can't. Again, a very quick search on google..

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_19_27/ai_n6077705/

It would be nuts for a black man to join the BNP. You'd think it would be nuts for a gay man or woman to want to be ordained in the catholic church, but it still happens.

[newboy]

Perhaps by virtue of its sheer durability ?

Here we have stuff written over two thousand years ago :dedicated people throughout history have translated it, printed it ,preached and promulgated it, frequently at the cost of their lives.

I refuse to believe that they were all gullible ,misguided mugs.

It's still one of the world's best sellers . People still quote from it, even your goodself.

It must have something going for it, surely.

Not necessarily. People for tens of thousands of years worshipped the sun as a god. Not so long ago people thought all of the bible, even the bits we find nutty now, were Gospel.

Increased knowledge is gradually eroding the credibility of the bible. It's an inevitable trend.

Thousands of people right now devoutly believe in Mormonism and Scientology despite them being both recent and easily discretiable. In hundreds of years time do you think they'll be more credible just because of age?

[Mr Mosquito]

Perhaps by virtue of its sheer durability ?

Here we have stuff written over two thousand years ago :dedicated people throughout history have translated it, printed it ,preached and promulgated it, frequently at the cost of their lives.

I refuse to believe that they were all gullible ,misguided mugs.

It's still one of the world's best sellers . People still quote from it, even your goodself.

It must have something going for it, surely.

It could also be argued that The Bible - holy writ - has helped change history on may occasions. The Bible and how it was read and by whom was at the heart of the Reformation in Europe during the 1500's. The translators unlocked the Bible from the Latin - the dead language of ancient Rome - the Bible was then being translated in the European languages and good copies of the Holy Scriptures were soon beginning to come off the presses in Germany in great numbers. The common man in Europe then had free access to the Biblical teachings. In England it wasn't long before groups such as the Puritans - armed with Biblical teachings - began to challenge the status quo (Toff led society). The civil war resulted and ordinary lay men such as Oliver Cromwell were even managing to quote from the Bible on the battlefield to give added spice to their great cause.

Some of our English Puritan ancestors then took the Bible to America where even today we can see the remnants of their English Civil War battlefield slogans on the coinage of the USA - "In God We Trust".

[ruraldean]

Hi Newboy.

I suppose I come at this from a business perspective. As someone who has been an employer I resent anyone telling me I must employ anyone of a particular type (which is the essence of this new legislation), and instinctively support those who feel the same way. With regard to religion I'm afraid that once you give something special prominence, particularly in Law, then you have to lie in the bed you make. Until they abolish it that is.

I still disagree on the human rights issue though. You may have seen a recent job ad had to be pulled which asked for a "Reliable" fork lift truck driver. The word "Reliable" had to go because it discriminated against unreliable people. Soon they'll be passing legislation which forces us to employ thick people, although this will hardly be promoting a minority group.

[Mr Mosquito]

Hi Newboy.

I suppose I come at this from a business perspective. As someone who has been an employer I resent anyone telling me I must employ anyone of a particular type (which is the essence of this new legislation), and instinctively support those who feel the same way. With regard to religion I'm afraid that once you give something special prominence, particularly in Law, then you have to lie in the bed you make. Until they abolish it that is.

I still disagree on the human rights issue though. You may have seen a recent job ad had to be pulled which asked for a "Reliable" fork lift truck driver. The word "Reliable" had to go because it discriminated against unreliable people. Soon they'll be passing legislation which forces us to employ thick people, although this will hardly be promoting a minority group.

It's all about state control - there's no problem with state control in certain instances (war time and national survival) but there can be a problem with the type of people that control the state - especially in this country. Christian religion actually forms the bedrock of law in this country - it's thus not wise for you to be so dismissive of our state religion. Or what was our state religion?

With the increasing influence of Islam in this country, the likes of Labour's High Priestess and lawyer Toff Harriett Harman will certainly not prosper for much longer. From the ancient Greek religion it could be that Cyclops - Gordon Brown - has taken his one good eye off the ball with regard to that.

[ruraldean]

It's all about state control - there's no problem with state control in certain instances (war time and national survival) but there can be a problem with the type of people that control the state - especially in this country. Christian religion actually forms the bedrock of law in this country - it's thus not wise for you to be so dismissive of our state religion. Or what was our state religion?

And talking of State Control - that's exactly why Christianity became the State religion. Have an objective look at the Emperor Constantine for a look at how religion was used to further political ends and bring about control of the masses. Are you saying I shouldn't be dismissive of religion because it's a political tool? Do you think that we would not have evolved a workable set of rules (Laws) without Christianity? Should I try harder to believe in the unbelievable because the State has found it useful?

[newboy]

And talking of State Control - that's exactly why Christianity became the State religion. Have an objective look at the Emperor Constantine for a look at how religion was used to further political ends and bring about control of the masses. Are you saying I shouldn't be dismissive of religion because it's a political tool? Do you think that we would not have evolved a workable set of rules (Laws) without Christianity? Should I try harder to believe in the unbelievable because the State has found it useful?

I agree that state control over our lives is unjust and unwarranted. However I still feel that in the grand scale of things it's superior to religious control over our lives - at least state control can be removed through democratic means.

I believe that the argument for the last day or two has been about the state imposing human rights law to counter religious freedoms that suppress people's lives. The lesser of two evils if you like, since that's all the state has got to fight with.

In an ideal world we'd all be free to do the hell that we want as long as it doesn't impose on unconsenting others. However I fail to see why some people think that state control is bad, but religous control (based on pre-medieval thinking and imposed with no ability to change/adapt through democratic means) is good.

[ruraldean]

I agree that state control over our lives is unjust and unwarranted. However I still feel that in the grand scale of things it's superior to religious control over our lives - at least state control can be removed through democratic means.

Agreed, although I've been trying for the last three elections with no success.

I believe that the argument for the last day or two has been about the state imposing human rights law to counter religious freedoms that suppress people's lives. The lesser of two evils if you like, since that's all the state has got to fight with.

Also agreed.

In an ideal world we'd all be free to do the hell that we want as long as it doesn't impose on unconsenting others. However I fail to see why some people think that state control is bad, but religous control (based on pre-medieval thinking and imposed with no ability to change/adapt through democratic means) is good.

Also agreed. Blimey. I'm not a supporter of Church control, but feel when it comes to who anyone can employ the State should butt out. If I only want to employ one-legged black dwarves (sorry, people of restricted growth) then as it hurts no one else I reserve that choice. The State won't let me though. (Don't ask me why I would).

[Mr Mosquito]

And talking of State Control - that's exactly why Christianity became the State religion. Have an objective look at the Emperor Constantine for a look at how religion was used to further political ends and bring about control of the masses. Are you saying I shouldn't be dismissive of religion because it's a political tool? Do you think that we would not have evolved a workable set of rules (Laws) without Christianity? Should I try harder to believe in the unbelievable because the State has found it useful?

Of course religion can be used as a political tool - the Scottish King Charles I insisted that he had a God given right (not a legitimate right) to rule England. As you well know certain people had other ideas and his head ended up at boot level while a sharpened axe sliced through his noble neck. You could go back to the old religion of our ancestors and offer the blood sacrifice of our political leadership to appease the Gods. It seems that when things went wrong for our ancestors it would often be their leaders that would be sacrificed.

[newboy]

Of course religion can be used as a political tool - the Scottish King Charles I insisted that he had a God given right (not a legitimate right) to rule England. As you well know certain people had other ideas and his head ended up at boot level while a sharpened axe sliced through his noble neck. You could go back to the old religion of our ancestors and offer the blood sacrifice of our political leadership to appease the Gods. It seems that when things went wrong for our ancestors it would often be their leaders that would be sacrificed.

From my limited perspective I find it odd that you root against the state as a domineering controlling evil entity, and yet seem to happily accept religious 'wisdom' and edicts.

In what way is religious control better than a democratically elected one? In what way has religion (less so for CofE) not tried to control peoples lives?