301. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290377 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 4:26 am

Irate states "The public are ignorant."

No we are not. Or are you not a member of the public?

302. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290339 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 3:08 am

Brian James "Scientists are rarely interviewed for thier opinions on anything outside thier field of expertise, sometimes not even then."

Why should they be interviewed outside their area of expertise? I don't get that argument at all.

303. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #290335 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 2:55 am

BrianJames "Pure science is not even on the radar of the public. Science to them means technology, this is an issue we have to address."

Methinks yo do protest too much. Try walking round aany half decent bookshop in the UK or a decent public library or look at the BBC News web site or any half decent newspaper (as well as the Daily Mail). Developments in science are not only widely and frequently reported but also, similarly, read.

In the main bookshop in the town where I live, science books probably outnumber books on religion by 10-1 or maybe 20:1 (depending on definition of science).

We can all whing about how ignorant others are of our own knowledge. So what? Historians complain that "the public" don't understand history, economists that "the public" and much of business are ecdonomically illiterate, engineers that people don't get engineering.

It is a fact of life that we all specialise and all have deeply limited knowledge of most areas outside of our core expertise.

Complaining that the "public" are ignorant belongs in the Daily Mail and the Torygraph. It's the whinge of the old fart through history.

Even if people are well educated, they will be attacked with the same idiotic nonsense. As the philosopher Isiah Berlin once concluded, clever people are either those with a little knowledge of a lot of subjects or those with a lot of knowledge about a single subject. None of us are real polymaths. Indeed, we are all basically rank amateurs about the vast majority of subjects.

I point out that you to, Brian, are a member of the very same public which you seem to despise for their ignorance.

304. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #290319 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 2:08 am

Daniella - in the case of the USA, it is very questionable that the fundies are a minority. Have the population of the USA believes man was created by God less than 10,000 years ago.

305. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290316 by Roger Stanyard on November 25, 2008 at 2:03 am

jgirolamo - how old do you think the earth is and how did you arrive at your conclusion?

306. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #290119 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Fatcitymax - Part of Turkey IS in Europe. Turkey/The Ottoman Empire has had a presence in Europe for hundreds of years. Good grief, Ataturk modelled Turkey on Western European standards.

The one thing the Turks are not is stupid. Your comment slaps of racism.

307. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290116 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 4:36 pm

Frankus1122 - the Canadians were well respected for their sterling efforts, especially the Dieppe raid.

The people that flew those bomber missions were seriously brave. He was very lucky to have survived 35 missions.

One group that has not got all the credit it deserves are the West Indians. They provided a lot of pilots for the RAF and they were all volunteers. At the height of the Battle of Britain, their life expectancy was measured in days.

308. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #290112 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Daniella - it is exceedingly common for American fundies to claim that nobody in the USA has the right of freedom from religion.

This whole fundie set up deeply worries me.

I find it beyond comprehension that in the first decade of the 21st century, in the richest and most successful country on this planet and with a long and honourable track record of universal education, that maybe 20% of the population are raging idiotic religious bigots little distinguisable from Wahibists.

The whole shooting match is based on ignorance and arrogance - ignorance of religion, ignorance of history, ignorance of science, ignorance of politics.

The whole shooting match is also jam-packed full of hate - for science, non-believers, other religions, foreigners, gays, blacks, liberals, the educated, democracy....

It is rotten to the core - lacking humility, compassion or humanity. It's utterly, utterly fraudulent.

I can only put it down to deep seated fear of the society they live in. It's insecurity, a movement completely ill at ease with itself and seriously screwed up as a result.

309. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290100 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 4:01 pm

DP "Ohh is it like one of those free passes the jews got to a concentration camp?"

Nah, you shouldn't have any worries like that. Indeed, you will not doubt feel very at home. Rabies is endemic there.

310. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290092 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 3:33 pm

DP, well let me put it like this. The people that ran it wore white coats.

The free pass isn't voluntary.

Still, as we are all "commies" you won't have to pay for it.

311. 'Imagine No Religon' Billboard Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga

Comment #290090 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Daniella - insecure to the point of paranoia. I'm not joking either.

312. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290083 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm

DP says "Dam ungrateful europeans. The least you could of done is pretend to like capitalism and freedom. But don't worry, after Russia decides to invade europe because they ran out of cheese or something, we will come and save you guys again. Maybe this time you can have a little gratitude and drop this whole socialism philosophy."

DP, when you turn up to save us all from our numerous shortcomings, we'll give you a free pass to Doolallytat.

They could probably well do with such an interesting case study.

313. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290081 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Steve, yep, I forgot about that. Well, after Dunkirk, the entire British Army did have three Boer War rifles left to defend us against the entire might of the German armed forces had they invaded.

314. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290078 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm

"Thank you, Roger."

Your welcome, Titania.

The Brits, though, very well recall being alone in 1940 standing up to Germany. It was not a happy time for the Brits.

Probably the most evocative statement of the entire WW2 was the Lowe cartoon of a bedraggled and defeated British soldier standing on the White Cliffs of Dover facing Europe and say "very well, us alone".

315. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290071 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 2:50 pm

"Hold on a minute! Are you telling me its not really like that? I think this is just another trick by you european marxist socialist trying to lie and confuse us americans."

DP, in your case it isn't difficult.

316. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290069 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Sciros - I think the UK would have gone bust by 1942 had not the US entered the war. Don't forget we had sold off all of our family silver to pay for WW1.

Don't forget that the Americans supplied both money and their armed forces. I also suspect that the Red Army was critically dependent on US help. Russia could not feed itself in WW2 (by a long margin). The Red Army lived off American bully beef and spam.

I can't for the life of me see how the British armed forces could have invaded Europe without the Americans. We were completly defeated in 1940 and that was just on one front, France. We didn't IIRC, have a single military victory until 1943. Moreover, the subsequent invasion of Europe took place on two fronts.

317. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #290060 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Polestar - of course. The whole EU thing is somewhat of a fudge between disparet nation states. It doesn't help that the further one goes East, the more chaotic the countries are.

Fuller - Turkey has been a secular state since the days of Ataturk. Technically it is considerably more secular than the UK. Turks are much more liberal about religion that is the case in many other Muslim areas and at least one major branch of Islam there is exceedingly liberal by any standards.

I guess that Turkey's political problem is that it has not sufficiently moved on from Ataturkism.

I don't think Europe is in a good position to start slinging mud at Turkey. The last time I counted there were 44 nation states in Europe. Of those only six (I think *) have had a continuos history of democracy since the days of Ataturk (i.e. within living memory).

* Iceland, Ireland, the UK, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland.

318. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290039 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Titania - other way round. You were too late to do much in WW1 and we held the fort against Hitler whilst the USA buggered around until it was forced against its will into WW2.

Neveretheless nobody forgets the contribution the USA made to our finances and war effort or the contributions to Europe after WW2.

One minor point that Americans sometimes forget is that British and Commonwealth troops outnumbered American troops in invading Europe.

The other issue in Europe is that the allies did not break the back of the German army. it was the Red Army that did that.

319. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290030 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Wosret says "There's a suck born again every minute. "

In that case, where do all the other fundies come from?

"Evangelicals are one of the dumber breads of christian."

Maybe but several I have talked to and worked with are a different cup of tea altogether. It's a broad term that is not the same as fundie. A significant percentage of US evangelicals are simply not fundies at all. In the UK the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church can also be very liberal (it can be very bigoted as well).

320. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #290010 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Goldy "Probably doesn't realise most of the world's population does not have a thanksgiving holiday...."

You may well be right. A staggering number of American fundies have no idea whatsoever about Europe. They seem to think that it is primarily the home of the next anti-Christ, full of degenerate socialists and "commies" living in dire poverty and rampant crime and off of public welfare. I doubt whether one in ten could locate Europe on a map.

I had a long conversation a couple of years back with a French evengelical (he taught at the Sorbonne). He pointed out that American evangelicals were prepared to pour billions into Europe to "save us" (if they could, of course, seen a return on their investment).

321. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289996 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Sciros, the born again idea has a long tradition in Christianity. However, "born again" these days is basically a 1950s American religious invention. It's a big money making trick for dubious American (and Australian) pastors.

I first came across it in the sixties as a lad. It was utterly unconvincing to me then. These days a lot of the nutters pushing it are creationists, end-time/Rapture wackjobs and Word Faith money grubbers. They target the less bright.

The other trick is to target the vunerable such as people who have just seen their relationship break up or have gone through bereavement. People's judgement is often flawed under such circumstances. I've seen people caught that way only to change their minds somewhat later. When that happens, they are ostracised by other members of the church that caught them out.

I did an unpublished report on one of the Australian church, Hillsong, on this and it was distressing to see how they treated "members" who didn't toe their line. At the end of the day, it was about money.

322. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289983 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Frankus1122 - you are probably right. Sounds like an American evengelical chancer who has decided to drop[ in, preach and save souls. The give away is his comment on Bill Maher - the film has not, IIRC, even been on theatrical release outside of the USA and he doesn't realise than 95% of the world is not American.

323. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289973 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 12:51 pm

"All "religions" can't be true because they teach opposites."

Neither can Christianity given that there are 2,000 non-Protestant versions of it and at least 29,000 Protestant versions, allthe latter drawing on Sola Scriptura which is a 16th cntury invention, never mentioned in the Bible.

The Bible itself is historically serious inaccurate, scientifically impossible, allegorical, ambiguous and frequently contradictory. Much of it is outright fabrication. It also varies according to which denomination one belongs to. It basically allows anyone to believe what they want in it. There is simply no agreement amongst Christians as to what it says.

324. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #289964 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Popeye - I'm not a lawyer and have very limited knowledge of European Union law but the basic principal of EU membership is that a state must incorporate EU Aquis into its domestic law and operate as a fully fledged democracy. If it falls down on the latter it can, indeed, be kicked out.

The aquis is supposed to be incorprated before or at the time of joining the EU. If the Aquis is over-written or ignored there is resort to EU law and law courts. EU law oversides national law.

325. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289948 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Jgirolamo "I am amazed that you have not known anyone whose life has completely changed as a result of a born again experience. Even before it happened to me I saw it but ignored it."

So what?

I've know several people who have been through a "born again" experience who have subsequently decided that it was a complete con trick and walked away from the whole shooting match.

The evangelists involved have all imported their dubious conversion techniques from the USA.

326. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #289931 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Can anyone understand what the heck jgirolamo is talking about?

327. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #289928 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 11:57 am

dead Yeti - might be a problem but in general British MEPs are usually very lonely people when it comes to their constituents. They may well be keen to do anything to help you.

328. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289925 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 11:45 am

DP says "Ahh euthanasia, is that a liberal agenda? But I will much rather cause universal healthcare to crumble."

I thought a man of your business acumen could easily turn matters to your advantage. Buy some shares in a pharmaceuticals company pruducing medication for your obviously severe condition, let the "socialised" health care system squander gadzillions buying them and then, Bob's your uncle - you've made a few shekels.

329. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289914 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 11:29 am

Titania - don't tell me she is into drinking a yard of ale?

330. Letter to the European Parliament on Turkey's banning of RichardDawkins.net

Comment #289909 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 11:25 am

This is a big step in the right direction. Fundamentalists have used the legal system in the past to do serious damage to those that criticise them.

It's worth taking a look at how the Australian fundamentalists and creationists tried to destroy Ian Plimer in the 1990s. They very nearly bankrupted him. Like Richard, Plimer is a high profile academic (he's probably the leading geologist in Australia) and has been highly critical of creationists.

Ian might want to speak for himself but it gives me the distinct impression that he was forced out of criticising the creationists because they nearly bankrupted him in civil court cases.

IIR Adnan Oktar has used civil law before to stop public criticisms of his behaviour and activities.

Oktar is no minnow in the creationst movement, btw.

331. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289896 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 11:05 am

Vaal - well the standard Fundie crapola is that he will be a European, probably head of the European Union (I jest not).

However, one fundie recently claimed that it will be Satan in Obama's body. Obama will be shot, his sould disappear (wherever) and Satan then will imediately enter his body and he will return back to life without anyone knowing what will happen.

An alternative explanation can be found by consuming 20 pints of beer and a large quantity of LSD, stuffing one's head up a dead bear's bum and then just make it up as you go along.

332. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289885 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 10:53 am

DP - I doubt it. Any intelligent doctor would see you have a seriously terminal problem and quietly put you to sleep.

333. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289882 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 10:50 am

God fearing Atheist - are you sure?

334. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289865 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

Of course not DP. He was obviously a very saintly character who practised free market economics on a grand scale - and very profitably. He also got rid of all those namby pamby European "liberals" who stood in the way of his path of righteousness.

So what's you deep insight on Vlad the Impaler? - dangeous lefty who raised taxes to impale people on stakes in the way that Obama plans or just a clever businessman maiximising his profits in an exciting entrepreurial venture?

335. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289859 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 10:17 am

I dunno about the others here, but it seems to me that this whole End Times/Rapture Ready crapola is actually a form of mass paranoia.

It's the same as claims that Obama is the anti-Christ, Muslim, communist and kills babies.

Seems to me that there are some deeply insecure people around amongst the fundies.

336. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289856 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 10:11 am

Hungarianelephant - ironically the British fundies tried to get my "nefarious activities" investigated by the police. Trouble is, they couldn't tell the police what these "nefarious activities" were supposed to be. I remain equally as intrigued as to what they might be.

This sort of crapola is common amongst fundies. I also have an outstanding threat from a pal of the cretinist Kent Hovind to "expose me" worldwide on television and radio. Trouble is the nutter doesn't know what he is going to expose me for.

337. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289851 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 10:03 am

Hungarianelephant - Whatever you do don't tell anyone, least of all the people in this forum.

338. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #289847 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 9:57 am

DP - Yes but anyone whose politics isn't to the right of Ghengis Khan is the anti-christ to you.

339. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289843 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 9:44 am

Peacebeupon - We had quite good or very good teachers but some were clearly demotivated by the way the school was run (one ended up an alcoholic, for example).

In retrospect it was a very strange place. One big benefit, though, is that to this day I can walk into any organisation and know pretty well instantanously, whether my face fits or not - whether I feel comfortable or otherwise. Methinks anyone who has been through a form of institutionalised sadism and intercine warfare will probably have the same skills.

It's one reason I could never work in the City of London (financial services).

I do not use the term sadism lightly here. The Welsh calvinistic psychopath there was described as a sadist in the Daily Torygraph fairly recently.

340. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289836 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 9:24 am

Well the best piece of subversion in religious assembly that I saw was on the last day of the 5th year. About half the pupils at that time didn't stay on to do A levels.

Half way through the service during a prayer (eyes supposed to be closed), in unison and pre-planned, they stood up and walked out of the assembly and the school, never to return. The look on the headmaster's face was truely astonishing.

It was a brilliant piece of protest. There was sod all the school could do about it either.

I have to say that from aged 11 to 16, the school was basically ghastly. The 6th form was fun but that was because it was voluntary. The bastards simply could not push you around.

341. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289829 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 9:11 am

Peacebeuponme says "Roger Stanyard - Pah, you don't get to pin me down on that one. Your avatar is clearly a composite. So far I've identified Roger Moore's eyes, Charles Clarke's ears, Mick Jagger's original mouth and Andrew Lloyd Webber's hair. I suspect the neck might be Burt Reynolds and I'm working on the nose."

Well, you can't see the bit from Erol Flynn.

342. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289826 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 9:09 am

Peacebeuponme says "As for the hymns, since we were welsh, we were told that we absolutely had to sing well, so as to not let the side down as it were."

We had a Welsh calivinistic pyschopath as deputy head master and in charge of school discipline.

Religious services were just another method of low level warfare against him. I learned to grunt well at grammar school!

343. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289820 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 9:02 am

Al rawandi "At my public high school there wasn't a whiff of religious endorsement, despite the overwhelming Christian majority."

Same experience as me in English state schools. So what?

The whole issue was take it or leave it and virtually everyone took the latter course.

The schools may have a legal requirement to offer religious education and religious services but pupils are not forced to attend either. They can opt out.

Religuos Education is not about promoting a state sponsored church. It's teaching about religion in general - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism or whatever. We were introduced to the lot include the wackos such as Mormons and JWs.

Despite the legal requirement, most schools pay lip service to offering either. Many, such as myself, think the whole half-hearted game is a complete waste of space.

BTW, from memory, of the 650 pupils I was at grammar school with, I can only recall just one who regularly attended church. Attitudes are very different in the UK from the USA.

344. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289811 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:48 am

Al Rawandi says "You assume that because American politicians openly speak about their religion that this means there is no secularism."

I've never said or assumed that.

345. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289810 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:44 am

Hungarianelephant: "Still, you have to feel a bit sorry for Half-Man-Half-European-Cup."

Wait a minute....are you suggesting that there is something wrong with people whose ears stick out?

I demand equal rights for ugly people!

346. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289805 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:33 am

Epeeist - I forgot to add that the normal tersm of state financing for CofE school buildings is that the CoE normally provides part of the costs. IIRC its about 5-10%.

The other issue is that it is not the state that is responsible for them but local authorities. But then that gets us into the issue where local education authorities get their money from.

347. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289802 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:30 am

Epeeist says "Not my understanding, the premises are owned by the state and all but a small percentage of the running cost are also state funded."

I checked this out a couple of years ago so my memory may be faulty. However, my understanding is that when a school says it is "CofE Aided" it means that it is owned by the Church of England but aided by the state. The premises are actually owned by the Church.

You are right about running costs but the CofE pays for the teacher training of RE masters.

The position is, of course, different from the new generation of academies which are basically franchises.

Off topic, I also tried to look at who actually owns British universities. There is a real can of worms there.

348. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289798 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:23 am

Peacebeuponme says "This may all change when Big Ears gets in. He wants to be more vocal. This is this shit-for-brains, homeopathy loving, defender of all the faiths.

Those who are ambivalent about the monarchy, or who are mild monarchists often bang on about the constitutional crisis that would occur should a monarch exercise their theoretical power. I'm quite excited to think that this may actually get tested in a few years time."

Of course. I must admit I take the view that the monarchy is an anacronism. I suspect that most people are largely indifferent to the issue because the Queen is a well-liked person, especially as, over the years, she has stoped being so aloof and has proved to me wast most of us are, part of dysfunctional families.

Big Ears (Brian) has the hereditary problem that the royals have never (at least in the 20th century) been that bright. Even Brian's best friends would not call him an intellectual.

Indeed, being intellectually challenged is probably the reason why the USA exists (see George III).

Well, maybe, given that Elizabeth is still head of state of the largest country in North America.

349. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289789 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:13 am

Steve says "What I am after is a society in which religious beliefs don't have public influence. That protects the religious as much as anyone else. The deal is that they shut up about gay rights, abortion, women's rights and so on, and at the same time they have the freedom to believe what they like, and practice their religion in peace.

That deal should sound good to most religious people in a multi-faith society in which religious belief is declining."

Agreed, with the addition that religious belief is actually collapsing rather than declining. Trouble is, as it does so, it is falling more and more into the hands of fundies.

350. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #289780 by Roger Stanyard on November 24, 2008 at 8:01 am

Al Rawandi - maybe but in practice UK politics are a lot more secular than in the USA. I am unaware of ever voting for a politician that has let it be known in the hustings what his religion is.

One of the simple reasons why UK politics is much more secular than in the USA is pretty obvious. The British are not very religious.

The monarchy is slightly different because we don't, of course, vote for the head of state and, in any case, she is only a titular head of state. That means she keeps her mouth shut and stays out of anything political or controversial.

Moreover she is only titular head of the Anglican Church. IIRC, legally, she isn't even that and is not legally required to be so.

Yep, you are probably right to point out that a about a third of British state financed schools are owned by (mostly) the Anglican or the Catholic Church and that some 46 bishops sit in the upper chamber (equivalent of your senate).

However, the Anglican (established) church is, in effect, controlled by the state, not the other way round. Moreover, it is the stablished church only in England, which doesn't exist as a political entity. It is not the established church in Scotland or Wales or Northern ireland.

Moreover, the upper house (House of Lords) is, in essence, a dump to keep otherwise troublesome people out of political mischief.

It remains one of the world's great mysteries what you actually have to believe to be a member of the Anglican Church. God is probably not one of the beliefs. This year, on 2 sperate occasions, I've actually met two "Muslim Anglicans".

In the case of state schools, religious education and religious assemblies are still compulsory. However, in practice they are mostly a very bland form of Anglicanism which offends no-one and convinces no-one. In fact, this is possibly the prime reason why the British are so indiffent towards religion or irreligious.

Basically the game in England after the civil war was to make the Anglican church responsible for keeping the lid on religious extremism (read Catholics and Protestant fundies).

Different country from the USA, different attitudes, different ways of doing things.

IIRC, some 40% of UK politicians profess to have no religious beliefs at all. If a politician claimed to be a "born again", then he/she would have problems in getting elected. Most people would think such politicians as being nuts.

When it comes to a number of key issues in the USA in the cross over between politics and religion, the differences become even more apparent.

There is virtually no public debate, for example, over abortion or stem cell research.

BTW, if the monarchy were abolished and replaced by an elected president, it wouldn't make much difference to the Westminster model of democracy. See the Republic of Ireland to see why.