pap

Don't read too much into the One Direction award. It's voted for by the public, which actually means "feverishly repeat-dialled by 12-15 year old girls", at great expense to their parents, I would imagine.

Say what you will, but if you'd have seen that film when you were ten you'd have thought it the best thing ever.

I'm not sure. There is apparently a Jedi Temple over in Anglesey. Keep worrying that some Welsh bloke with a lightsaber will come to strike me down.

Link to Dawkins' press release.

I was, but gave it up and became an atheist instead. Do you know what the Jedi Order does to apostates?

When you see religious people clinging to the results of the last census by their nails, the direction of this country is pretty apparent. Dawkins was talking about the way a flat percentage is being used to justify Bishops being in the House of Lords, etc. He argues that not everyone who put Christian on the census is especially religious. 72% of people said they were Christian. Church attendances are falling - around 15% attend once per month or more, according to this article. Out of deference to Hamilton Saint's plea for some terms of reference, I think Church attendance is a pretty good indicator of where we're at. It's effort, time - it shows that you give a crap, basically. Then there's the fact that the message is being renewed at the congregation, and affirmed by others that share your belief. We were 4th from bottom in the Church League table attendance in a 2004 survey, and something notnowcato said earlier rings true; when he said that our church attendances were being boosted by Eastern European migrants. Poland is at the top of that league table, with around 75% church attendance. I think they'd be entirely justified in calling themselves a Christian country. The missing 57 percent shortfall in our numbers might say a prayer when they're in the sh*t, but Dawkins was right to suggest that's a poor basis for deciding the composition of the Government.

I doubt he's as good as Kevin Bacon in Footloose. He was in a town where it was illegal to dance, yet he danced anyway! He's a rebel, that Bacon. That's actually a very good formula for a movie. Put someone in a place where they can't do what they like, and have them do it anyway. Spice it up with some sexy people and kicking tunes, then simply stand back and watch the cash roll in. Look at how easy it is:- Anthony Worrall-Thompson moves to a town where it is illegal to cook. Synopsis: AWT moves to a town which has been entirely taken over by fast food corporations, who have their influence to pass ordinance banning the preparation of home-made food. AWT joins forces with guerilla underground Celebrity Chefs, who destroy the corporations hold on the populace through inventive cooking sessions held in secret locations. Eventually, the Chefs manage to smuggle well presented dishes into the food chain :- The corporations get wise, and send crack commandos into the area to flush them all out. The Chefs are presented with a simple choice. Scatter for safety, or stand together and fight. The Chefs join forces, using locally sourced seasonal vegetables to create the worlds largest Lancashire hotpot, which they boil and throw on the commandos. Fleets of executive automobiles stream from the corporate HQs, peppered with high velocity veal escalopes as they scream out of the gates. The Chefs secure the town, and the ordinance banning home-cooking is repealed. AWT is elected mayor by his peers, but retires in disgrace after being caught choring gear out of Walmart.* (*might leave this bit out) --- This sh*t writes itself mate. btw, I like your movie idea. Some would say that it's cruel to kill the world's best street dancer at the end of a film, but I think kids have it too easy in films. End of the Little Mermaid changed. And where's their Bambi, ffs? They're getting nine-legged street dancing. What more do they want?

I've just had to Google George Sampson to make any sense of this.

This was reported in Private Eye a couple of weeks ago, but check out About Andrew. Basically, if you were in the market for an Andrew Lansley, this would be the spiel. The Eye picked out this juicy tidbit:- Yes, Andrew - you most certainly have done that. Before, I simply thought you would massive underfund it. Now I know you'll probably destroy it beyond all recognition. Well I'm a convert. Anyone else?

It's always pleasing when left and right arrive on common ground. Now if you don't get out from under my bed, and sharpish, there'll be trouble. (don't forget to give Ms pap her trousers back)

As usual, someone makes a point that is crystal clear. Turkish is still confused.

Any chance of a poll, mods?

I'm pretty well travelled thanks, and as some have shown, just because you go places doesn't necessarily mean you learn anything.

I disagree. You are making claims without backing them up with anything. I've listed the Ten Commandments, and nearly all of them are perfectly legal. So tell me, if we are such a Christian country, why haven't we bothered to incorporate these inviolable Commandments into our statute books?

You either don't know a lot about law, or don't know a lot about Christianity. Or alternatively, maybe I don't. Would you care to offer more alternatives where Christian ideas intersect with our values ( our laws )? I might have missed something.

The values we live by are enshrined in UK law. They coincide with some, but not all Christian values. Let's run over the Ten Commandments, shall we? I know these come from the Old Testament, but they still form part of Christian beliefs. 1) Thou shalt have no other gods The law directly contradicts this commandment. 2) No graven images or likenesses Not law. 3) Not take the Lord's name in vain Not law. People do it all the time. 4) Remember the Sabbath day. Ok, we all know when Sunday is, but all the shops are open now. Not law. 5) Honour thy mother and thy father Not law. 6) Thou shalt not kill We have a winner. Enshrined in law. 7) Thou shalt not commit adultery. Not law, although it can be considered grounds for a divorce. Thou shalt not steal. Enshrined in law. 9) Thou shalt not bear false witness. Sort of law. You're not going to get nicked for fibbing unless you do it under oath. 10) Thou shalt not covet. Not law. In fact, consumerism is built on coveting. Right, you have a score of 2.5/10 on the Old Testament. Care to re-assess your claim, mate?

Much better question My passport says that I'm a Citizen of the United Kingdom. That's good enough for me.

Church attendances, for a start.

Alternatively, you could rephrase your question to "Is the United Kingdom a kingdom"?

I think the clue is in the name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

"Britain is a Christian country!", says non-religious person. Better not let Turkish see this. He hates hypocrisy.

Well, its an issue with hypocrisy all around. I know people who are genuine believers, in that they truly live their lives according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, to the extent where I've seen them turn paying work down because it is incompatible with their beliefs. I don't agree with them, but they get kudos for at least practising what they preach. You're right to call out people who get married in churches despite not having any religious convictions, and are, as SaintAndy666 points out, only doing it because its a nicer/more traditional setting. Equally though, I find almost as much hypocrisy in people that'll tell you that they are Christian, yet spend all their time doing distinctly un-Christian things. You are 100% right to call out hypocrisy where you see it. It's central to the whole debate. After all, what else is hypocrisy apart from the difference between what people say and what people do? I'd humbly suggest that if you are looking for more "hilarious" moments, you'd probably find more mirth by widening your demographic.

Well, you're focusing on the rituals instead of the message. Do you really think the country is run according to the teachings of Jesus Christ? And like saintbletch, I would be interested in knowing whether you are a practising Christian.

I am happy for my kids to experience a broad range of perspectives, which they can take or leave based on the evidence available to them, and crucially, their own decision making process. Now you may be trying to wind me up by suggesting that Ms pap wears the trousers. If you'd like to believe that, knock yourself out. I have to admit, I'd probably have a much stronger opinion if getting involved in religion was a one-shot deal. e.g. once you get involved in it, you're in it forever. However, my own experience tells me that's not the case. I used to believe when I was in primary school. I don't anymore, and I'm sure my broad experience is not unique. Digressing a little, I see my job as a parent as preparing the kids for the world outside, to teach them not to accept things at face value and to have the confidence to assert their own opinion. If that ends up being in conflict with my own views, that's perfectly fine.

Interesting point on the Big Questions from Jonathan Bartley, author of "Faith and Politics after Christendom". JB: "This country has never been a Christian country. I don't think it is now. Let's take our definition, controversially, as the values of Jesus Christ. Is this country really endorsing the values of Jesus Christ?" Nicky Campbell: "What would it look like were it to endorse the values of Jesus Christ?" JB: "We might forgive our enemies a little bit more. We might have a more equal society. We might not encourage a capitalist system that makes people compete against each other."