Political prisoner, activist, journalist, hymn-writer, emerging thinktanker, aspiring novelist, "tribal elder", 2019 parliamentary candidate for North West Durham, Shadow Leader of the Opposition, "Speedboat", "The Cockroach", eagerly awaiting the second (or possibly third) attempt to murder me.
Wednesday, 23 March 2011
"Essentially Passive"?
Thus has the European Court of Human Rights described the Crucifix in Italian classrooms. So we might as well allow it, since it is harmless. Are we really supposed to be happy, or at least satisfied, with that?
Many people fell away from Christianity in the West because Christians have not made a convincing case for the truth of their religion. It isn't reasonable to expect people to obey a religion they don't believe in.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you, but I have only just encountered your blog & I am assuming that you are a Christian & that you are upset by seeing the Crucifix described in a dismissive way.
I believe that decades ago nobody would have described the Crucifix the way it is described in the OP. It would have been seen as a potent symbol of the church, which would have been viewed as a powerful force by friend & foe alike. No-one would have dismissed a Crucifix as "Essentially Passive."
Because most Europeans don't believe in the claims made by Christianity, the public significance of the trappings of the faith have greatly declined. The only thing that will ever change this would be if more people became practising Christians. For that to happen those people would need to be converted to the faith.
It is my experience with many Christian bloggers that they describe secular judgements like this as being imposed by an elite on a still Christian public rather than as a natural consequence of a widespread decline in Christian faith. If that doesn't apply to you David then I apologise.
ho! Ho! HO!
ReplyDeleteMany people fell away from Christianity in the West because Christians have not made a convincing case for the truth of their religion. It isn't reasonable to expect people to obey a religion they don't believe in.
And the pertinence of that to this post is what, exactly?
ReplyDeleteho! Ho! HO!
ReplyDeletePerhaps I have misunderstood you, but I have only just encountered your blog & I am assuming that you are a Christian & that you are upset by seeing the Crucifix described in a dismissive way.
I believe that decades ago nobody would have described the Crucifix the way it is described in the OP. It would have been seen as a potent symbol of the church, which would have been viewed as a powerful force by friend & foe alike. No-one would have dismissed a Crucifix as "Essentially Passive."
Because most Europeans don't believe in the claims made by Christianity, the public significance of the trappings of the faith have greatly declined. The only thing that will ever change this would be if more people became practising Christians. For that to happen those people would need to be converted to the faith.
It is my experience with many Christian bloggers that they describe secular judgements like this as being imposed by an elite on a still Christian public rather than as a natural consequence of a widespread decline in Christian faith. If that doesn't apply to you David then I apologise.
"Because most Europeans don't believe in the claims made by Christianity"
ReplyDeleteReally? Says who?