So which if my points was wrong, and which right?

My post was long…but if you want to claim the logic/evidence highground, then …err…you need to offer some evidence to back up your logic :<)

Oh, and leave out the ad hominem quips next time, it only makes _your_ position look less reasoned.

As tim f @15 points out, the point seems to have been missed that funding isn’t simply being withdrawn, it’s just a case of the playing field being levelled and the C of E having to compete on the same terms as other bodies seeking funding.

Good to see the return of Just Visiting. I enjoy long, incoherent posts, particularly when the author clearly hasn’t the faintest idea what the words “logic” or “evidence” actually mean but seems to think that his ramblings exemplify the use of both.

>The Church of England is, naturally enough, an obscenely wealthy organisation.
>It has around £4.8 billion in assets from which it derives an income

For a start, about 65% of that alleged “obscene” wealth is the asset base of the staff pension fund. Check out the Church Commissioners accounts for where the income is spent.

Would you be arguing on the PO Pension Fund being spent on keeping Post Offices open? Thought not.

You’ve aggregated all the income from thousands of different charities into one organisation “The Church of England”, which doesn’t exist (it was hilarious watching the NSS displaying their ignorance in their supposed-specialist area trying to pin a data access request on a non-existent organisation the last couple of years re de-baptism), never mind combining different legal categories of funds – some of which are designated; and I think you’ve left some bits out too.

And that’s without even touching the heritage (where a reasonable comparison should perhaps be with public funds received by e.g., the National Trust), or faith-schools aspects.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I don’t expect the state to subsidize opera and ballet any more than I expect them to subsidize circuses or burlesque shows. Why is that so unreasonable?

Ah, I see. Thanks.

I’m not sure what difference that would make though. I imagine then that nothing would change, simply that the cathedrals will receive their money from a different department.

I think you have misunderstood what is going on here. My understanding is that the grants for this kind of work have not been removed, but the established Church will no longer have preferential treatment and all cases of heritage will be judged on merit – what architecture needs maintaining, does it have any special cultural or historical value, etc.

I welcome this, as I welcome all moves towards disestablishment however small. The alignment of church & state does neither church nor state any good in the long term.

I was under the impression that with regards to some things, we do not look at them purely through economic value. I presume that next you will propose we do away with theatres and the like because they cannot support themselves on their own weight, and if they want money they can whore themselves out to corporations and become more popular instead of using taxpayer money.

That’s kind of the point of tax grants. If everything we supported was economically viable on its own, we wouldn’t need to support it. The government provides for those who cannot provide for themselves. I never thought I’d hear this kind of thing from what is supposedly “our side”.

Judging from the track record , I think you may be in a minority here on LC in believing: “everyone it entitled to believe/practice any form of religion providing that is is lawful and not harmful to individuals who cannot consent to involvement.”

“Seemingly you are a supporter of that achitecture” – I assume you’re replying to Adrian…good luck..

Regards architecture then, it looks like you’re saying the tax-payer should not support any kind of architecture historic maintenance? As the buildings all ‘represent their institutions’ – or do you feel that some institutions’ buildings deserve state support and others not ? How would you decide?

“The christian religion, as I remember it from school…”

Don’t think anyone can deny the truth of your comments there; although for 100% squeaky clean accuracy you might have said:

“Christianity, alongside it’s theological/spirital core, also places great emphasis on the practical realm of loving thy neighbour and tending to the poor”

Your description of medieval architecture reveals your barbaric and philistine mind. Most people (unlike the leftist anti-British scum that frequent this website) actually believe that preserving English heritage is important. A far greater, more unjust and more unpopular burden on the British taxpayer, are the overly-generous benefits paid to the millions of oafs, baby-machines and fraudulent refugees. The left of course fully supports this, which is why this article has nothing to do with the tax burden and everything to do with attacking an English institution it hates.

Your objectivity or lack of it, comes through loud and clear here.

I’m not taking a line on the CoE at all – just pointing out that your piece is appalling unbalanced.

Equally shocking is the lack of any kind of research.

* the story about the English Heritage grant cut is not news – it was 3 weeks ago.

* silliness like “That Franklin felt compelled to make that particular remark tells us pretty much everything we need to know about the mindset of organised religion.”

If that’s ‘all you need to know’ – then clearly you are trying _really hard_ to avoid knowing anything about religion.
And of course, suggesting that the CoE, the catholic church, the Sunnis the Shia the Buddhists the Hindus the Salvation Army… can all be understood from one historic event.

* So – you want to stop public funding of Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Angkhor Watt, Notre Dame, Machu Picca, half of Athens and Rome!, countless European Cathedrals…

Because they are all linked to religion too.

* ‘Would you bail out an industry that’s in that kind of state?… errrr a £1Bn turnover organisation, and we’re talking ~£3M/pa for specific and listed building works – that is no bailout

* “obscenely ostentatious monuments” to you maybe, but haven’t you considered the possibility that they might be some of the UK’s finest historic construction to others?

* You fail to even attempt to give a pcture of what the buildings at stake are: the page you refer to says:

“The impact will be particularly acute on older buildings. Lincoln cathedral, which dates from the 12th century, receives around a quarter of its income for conservation work from English Heritage. ”

Not many of those around the world.

* if you accept that these buildings are of historic value – then if the CoE pulled out – who would pay for their upkeep?

The article you linked to says that the grant in question covers only 10% of the cost of uptake of those buildings.

So the cheapest bill for the tax-payers -is to let the church pay the 90% as it does now!

* the article doesn’t mention the tourism benefit of the cathedrals (the great grand children of those New England folk you mention, actually spend money in the UK wanting to see buildings half century or more older than anything they have)

* you use six-former language like ‘an obscenely wealthy organisation’ – but fail to make even the smallest case for WHY ‘obsene’ fits.

I looked at the page you linked to – it started off with:
‘It takes just over £1000 million a year to run the Church of England, financing its 13,000 parishes and 43 cathedrals.

It’s a BIG organisation – so it has BIG turnover.

So I clicked a bit deeper

13,000 parishes – 20,000 ministers, 1,600 chaplains to prisons, hospitals, the armed forces and in education.
“It ordained 552 new clergy in 2007, the highest number since the year 2000″ -so that means training colleges.
Plus countless church halls, that very often used by the wider community at less than the rental cost of similar commercial space.

It’s Big.

“Repairs to church buildings and cathedrals cost a total of £134.5m (almost 12%).”
Big money.

“Parish and cathedral operating costs (which includes inter alia expenditure on services, education, outreach and community work as well as running costs) were £189.4m”

“£106.4m (9%) was spent on generating funds across the Church, although this includes trading costs, parish hall costs etc. ”

“Administration costs were £57.4m or 5% of total expenditure.”

Not bad even compared to commercial bodies.

I wonder if you think a public sector body (more equivalent to the church that a commercial body) could run something so big on less money?

Anyway, I just two two clicks and 2 minutes research.

So over to you, how do you justify ‘obsenely wealthy’?

* mis-information: strangely, the tax payer gets something for the ‘£10 billion a year that the taxpayer current puts up to fund religious schools’ – like teachers and classroms and books and things…. so it ain’t a gift to the church.

* “and who knows for sure how much more taxpayer’s money goes into the CofE’s coffers by way”

Right, so when you don’t know, just suggest and make innuendo anyway – nice.

* missing the point award: You say “the Church of England is merely being asked to make its case for heritage funding on the same terms as everyone else who makes an application to funding for the upkeep of an important historical building”

But funny, there aren’t many bodies with 12th century cathedrals etc – so having a special fund, with people specialising on that sector, would probably be more efficient (lower admin costs) than throwing it all into one fund covering everything from 12th cathedrals to 20th century ‘perfect examples of the period’ concrete things.

* Your use of language continually reveals the axe you want to grind: “The Church of England is, naturally enough, an obscenely wealthy organisation…..getting their grubby hands on…obscenely ostentatious monuments…screws money out of the state…In its own eyes it continues to occupy a unique place in society, for all that there is, today, precious little evidence to support such a claim…woe betide anyone who choose not to defer to its its increasingly delusory pretensions of grandeur…surfeit of ostentatious historical piety (ostentatious your favourite word then Unity?)…”

* you argue that the CoE should not have a surplus of income over expenditure? Err, isn’t saving for a rainy day just prudent? No organisation hits 100% balance every year, not even my little parish counil.
Have you checked back to see whether some years it loses and some it gains?

* Ignoring facts you don’t like: It looks like cathedral congregations have been digging deeper into their pockets anyway over the last few years: same source as above: “Annex 2.3, cathedrals 2000 – 2007, suggests that cathedral congregations, like parishes, have significantly increased their regular giving and tax recovered”.

Maybe you think the church-goers should be doing more?

Well, it’s not that they aren’t helping, I read ‘More people do unpaid work for church organisations than any other organisation – Eight per cent of adults undertake voluntary work for church organisations’

And they contribute to their communities: “More than 136,000 volunteers run children / young people activity groups sponsored by the Church of England outside church worship”.

Certainly in my town, the central KidzKlub run by volunteers across a range of churches get more kids through their doors than all the council youth clubs put together!

And this was interesting.
“Church of England congregations give more than £45 million each year to other charities – that’s even more than the BBC’s annual Children in Need appeal.”

S’funny, that ‘obscenely wealthy’ tag now starts to sound rather ostentatious :<)

Also don’t be so quick to buy into the rightwing myth that the mines were going to close anyway. See Seamus Milnes book the enemy within for more.

I do think, though, the State should step in and subsidise C of E buildings – and also enable them to be used for non-religious purposes outside of service times as a quid pro quo. I echo some of what Comment 2 said. The C of E is quite a liberal national religion and it makes sense to support it to encourage it to stay that way!

I think if there were no such thing as coal, or if there was coal but it provided no heat, whatever it’s adherants claimed, and if coal worshipers went to war with purveyors of non-existant North Sea gas at the slightest provocation, the coal industry should, indeed, have been left to die.

Not seen much from you recently, Unity, glad you are back and on form.

Not really, no.

The decline of the mining industry was certainly hastened, to some extent, by the politically motivated actions of the Thatcher government, but much of it had been declining for some considerable time before the shit hit the fan in the 1980s, so many of the pits that went then would have gone by now anyway, albeit (arguably) in a rather less damaging manner.

So far as the architectural heritage of the Church of England goes, most of the more impressive parts are, strictly speaking, more the heritage of the medieval Catholic church, given that all major Gothic stuff pre-dates the Reformation and I doubt very much that any of that is genuinely under serious threat.

As for the rest – remember the CofE owns around 12,500 listed buildings of which only just over 40 are cathedrals – their future is likely to be much more open to question, largely because a significant number are increasing ceasing to viable as places of worship due to declining congregations. That doesn’t mean to say that they don’t have a future at all, simply that the may not have a future as a church and could, perhaps, be better disposed of for other purposes.

Sorry, but if you can’t provide for yourself and your god’s also decided to get out of the providing business as well then that’s just tough luck – you’ve got no business asking the taxpayer to pick up the slack.

Erm, would you care to expand that sentiment towards causes that you approve of as well as those you disapprove of?

As it happens, I totally agree that the CofE doesn’t need state subsidy and would probably be better off in the long run were it to be disestablished as the state religion. Of course, we’d lose any leverage we might have over it, leverage which has delivered us a fairly benign national religious character compared to some other places which have more of a ‘free market’ in religion, as it were, but I think that’s outweighed by the sheer common sense of church-state separation. (Or maybe I’m just a bit of a liberal ideologue on this point).

But I think there’s a deeper question here. We (speaking for the whole of society here!) derive some benefit from financing the CofE to some limited extent. For a start, we can apply pressure to ensure that the CofE acts in a way that the rest of society approves – allowing women a greater role, combating discrimination, promoting tolerance of alternative lifestyles within the Christian (and wider) community, etc. There’s also a view that religion itself is a public good that promotes trust, community cohesion and various forms of pro-social behaviour (I don’t subscribe to this view, but it’s not entirely false either). Finally we can argue that churches and some of the associated pageantry are part of our national heritage and should be preserved in much the same way that other monuments and sites of historical importance are. As such, we can compare the CofE to other beneficial institutions, such as science or arts funding, which don’t fall under the remit of the ‘core’ (law ‘n’ order, schools ‘n’ hospitals, national defence) activities of the state.

Your argument is that whilst there are benefits to the existence of the CofE, we shouldn’t fund it whilst there exists a private organisation that can reasonably do so itself. But that’s only a fairly short step away from saying that we should not fund scientific research as there are plenty of companies that do it too, or that we should not fund asylum seekers as there are charities that can do this. The arguments are, logically, fairly similar. I suspect that we’re going to hear a lot more of this kind of thing in the near future, as the Tories will expect us to ‘look to our own defences’ as the state retreats.

I don’t have too much of a problem with this, as I think we’d all be better off if the state was more focused on doing a good job of its core functions, and I’d rather have more generous benefits than more ‘initiatives’ to harass the unemployed. The nightmare scenario is that we lose both and whatever money is saved ends up going on inheritance tax cuts and the like. I wonder which would make a better spending choice, IHT cuts or the CofE?