• Government management

    From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sat Aug 23 20:54:06 2025
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    A Chinese friend wrote to me recently with a query:

    As the summer holiday draws to a close and my new semester approaches, I
    am preparing to write an article on foreign religious policies. Given
    your extensive expertise in this field, I would greatly appreciate your guidance. Specifically, I would like to know:

    Does the British government have any official regulations or publicly available documents regarding religions or religious personnel? Could
    you provide any materials on religious management or religious personnel management (in the UK or other countries) if it is convenient?
    If possible, I would also value your insights or recommendations on
    exemplary models in this field.
    =========

    This is my reply:

    Back in the 1400s there was only one church in Britain, the Catholic
    church. In the 1530s King Henry VIII split away from the Catholic church
    (it is a very discreditable story, but basically he wanted to divorce
    his wife and the Catholic church would not allow it). He established the Church of England, which had the same doctrines as the Catholic church
    except instead of the pope, the king was the head of the church.

    In the 1600s many people disagreed with the Church of England doctrines
    and, more or less, said that if Henry VIII can set up his own church, so
    can we! Matters such as the method of baptism or the day of worship or
    the way in which the church should be governed, were at the basis of
    these break-away churches. At first they were persecuted by the Chuch of England, but by the 1750s it became recognised that religion should not
    be controlled by the secular state unless the practice of that religion threatened the lives or well-being of other people.

    This change in attitude was hastened by the English Civil War, where the royalists were Church of England or even Catholic, and the
    Parliamentarians were, for the most part, Puritans who wanted to either
    reform the Church of England (CofE) or establish a new church.

    In England, therefore, the CofE remains the official religion and its
    leaders - bishops and archbishops - are given a place in the government
    (the House of Lords). However there is complete freedom for each
    individual to choose whether he belongs to the CofE, the Catholic
    church, or some other smaller church. Or, of course, to follow some non-Christian religion such as Buddhism, Islam or Hinduism or any other religion, or to be an atheist or humanist and not follow any religion at
    all.

    With the exception of radical Islam and a very few strange African "churches"[1], the government does not interfere with any religion.
    Police do not spy on believers or attend religious meetings. Churches
    may publish any literature they wish without seeking government approval
    and sell or otherwise distribute it as they wish. There is control over broadcasting, but that is simply because Britain is relatively small and
    close to Europe, so the amount of bandwidth available for radio and
    television is limited. *Any* radio or TV station, whether religious or secular, must have a licence from the government and is granted a
    specific frequency on which to broadcast.

    The arrival of the internet has largely removed this restriction and
    churches are free to broadcast services, Bible studies, religious
    propaganda without any government interference. I myself have set up www.nwtv.co.uk and have never experienced any interest from the government.

    America was founded in the 1600s by people who experienced persecution
    from the Church of England. They therefore hold very firmly to the
    principle of total religious freedom and the separation of church and
    state. Churches and other religions have the same freedoms which we have
    in Britain, but there is no official national church comparable to the
    CofE. Although we in Australia are not as fanatical about it as the
    Americans, we also have complete religious freedom. I have relatives in
    both America and Australia and have personally attended churches in both countries. I have never heard of the police or the government attempting
    to control any church or religion (or lack of religion).

    Unfortunately the same cannot be said of other countries I have visited
    and where I have preached. In Egypt, for example, the police regularly
    attend church services (usually in plain clothes disguise) to check for
    any anti-Islamic sentiment or any Muslims who may attend with a view to leaving Islam. The same is true in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Turkey.
    India is less controlling, though there are laws against attacking other religions and the police will occasionally check that what is being
    preached does not contravene those laws. (These are countries which I
    have visited. Other countries may have the same attitudes.)

    As a child I visited Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, where the communist
    governments were actively anti-Christian, and I experienced at
    second-hand the persecution of Christians. As an adult I have visited
    Hungary (my daughter-in-law is Hungarian) and the Czech Republic and
    have heard tales of persecution when communism was in power contrasted
    with the religious freedom now enjoyed, which is comparable to that in
    the rest of Europe.

    As a pastor, I have never been asked to report to the police or been interviewed by them. I am free to preach on any subject whatsoever and
    do not seek sanction for what I say from anyone, whether inside or
    outside the church. I do not keep any record of who attends my churches
    and church membership lists[2] are purely for church use and are never submitted to the government or the police. I have personally published literature (duplicated or photocopied) and distributed it to the public without any censorship or control.

    You may find these URLs useful, particularly the second one, which is
    more or less an official government statement.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_Kingdom https://www.gov.uk/guidance/freedom-of-religion-or-belief-understanding-this-human-right
    https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/religious-beliefs-in-the-united-kingdom-great-britain.html

    However I would like to make one comment. In the 1600s religious freedom
    was a new thing and people often had the attitude that "My religion is
    right and it should be imposed on everyone". This could lead to
    violence, both on the personal level (in pubs or between neighbours) or
    even on the national level (as in the English Civil War). I sometimes
    think that a bit more government control - not of beliefs but of the expression of those beliefs - would not have been a bad thing. Today, in Britain and in the West generally, we have learned to accept diversity
    and to respect that other people can have opinions different from our
    own. We can, therefore, debate religious - or, indeed, political - ideas without resorting to violence.

    I am not so familiar with China and its present state that I could
    recommend the same complete freedom of thought and expression which we
    have in the West. Perhaps in Chinese society, such freedom would lead to violence or even anarchy. However my opinion is that the government
    should seek to encourage responsible behaviour and respect for other
    opinions so that sooner rather than later people will have the necessary self-control - and government-control will no longer be necessary. This
    may take a generation or two to achieve, but it should be the ultimate
    aim of government. After all, employing secret policemen costs money and
    if people become capable of policing themselves, it will be a great
    saving in money for any government!

    I hope these comments are helpful to you and will be more than happy to
    answer any further questions you may have.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down

    Note 1: These so-called "churches" seem to be merely ways in which
    individuals become rich at the expense of the public, often by selling
    fake cures for diseases like cancer. They are rightly controlled or even closed down by the government, mainly by prosecuting the supposed
    pastors. Claims to cure cancer, whether made by religious figures or practitioners of alternative medicine, are strictly forbidden.

    Note 2: Church members have certain privileges within the church, such
    as being allowed to officiate at certain services. For example, only a
    church member can preach or lead out in communion or baptise. It is
    useful for these purposes, therefore, for the church to have a system of membership records. However my personal experience is that they are very sloppily maintained and are frequently inaccurate - but that is another matter!
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Madhu@enometh@meer.net to uk.religion.christian on Sun Aug 24 07:08:58 2025
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    * "Kendall K. Down" <108d68u$2cc53$1@dont-email.me> :
    Wrote on Sat, 23 Aug 2025 20:54:06 +0100:
    A Chinese friend wrote to me recently with a query:
    [...]
    This is my reply:

    [An impressive if gargantuan summary, thanks-for-sharing,]

    America was founded in the 1600s by people who experienced persecution
    from the Church of England. They therefore hold very firmly to the
    principle of total religious freedom and the separation of church and
    state. Churches and other religions have the same freedoms which we
    have in Britain, but there is no official national church comparable
    to the CofE. Although we in Australia are not as fanatical about it as
    [...]

    However I would like to make one comment. In the 1600s religious
    freedom was a new thing and people often had the attitude that "My
    religion is right and it should be imposed on everyone". This could
    lead to violence, both on the personal level (in pubs or between
    neighbours) or even on the national level (as in the English Civil
    War). I sometimes think that a bit more government control - not of
    [...]

    A common "wisdom" often repeated on "leftist usenet" is that those who
    went to ameirca on grounds of religious freedom were seeking the freedom
    to impose their own stictures, something they could not do in the old
    world.



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sun Aug 24 04:14:47 2025
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 24/08/2025 02:38, Madhu wrote:

    A common "wisdom" often repeated on "leftist usenet" is that those who
    went to ameirca on grounds of religious freedom were seeking the freedom
    to impose their own stictures, something they could not do in the old
    world.
    That is partly true and is why I spoke of people believing that they
    were right and therefore their view should be imposed on everyone.
    However America was big enough geographically that if they persecuted
    you here, you simply went there and started another settlement!

    By the time of the Declaration of Independence, the Americans had
    realised the folly of their ways and made it a fundamental rule that government shall not make any laws with regard to religion.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2