NationStates Jolt Archive

Does the Church of England have any political power when it comes to new laws or changing laws (I don't mean just officially, I mean like unofficially too like a lot of persuasion/pressure on the government)?

In the Lords they vote.

I know they distribute cake . . .

Well, yes. You'd be surprised at the pressure they can put on the politicians. And, like my esteemed co-poster Melatoa pointed out, they vote in The House of Lords.

It has too much power and like any religious institution, it should have no political clout whatsoever because it does not represent ALL people, only those that follow its doctrine.

Very, very little power.

They have seats in the House of Lords, and measures passed by the General Synod of the church become part of the law of England upon Royal Assent.

I believe that certain archbishops vote in the lords, presumably in the capacity of the moral conscience of the nation (anachronistic? much?), however, this may well have been done away with, or the number depleted, by the recent lords reform bill.

Beyond that, what power can they wield?

I believe that certain archbishops vote in the lords, presumably in the capacity of the moral conscience of the nation (anachronistic? much?), however, this may well have been done away with, or the number depleted, by the recent lords reform bill.

Beyond that, what power can they wield?

I think their vote in the lords is an hereditry thing, which as we know young Tony is trying to get rid off. I think but don't quote me on that one.

I believe that certain archbishops vote in the lords, presumably in the capacity of the moral conscience of the nation (anachronistic? much?), however, this may well have been done away with, or the number depleted, by the recent lords reform bill.

Beyond that, what power can they wield?

Considering the rapidly diminishing number of people who actually attend C of E, I would be surprised if they held any actual political power in terms of voters.

Does it bollocks.

I know they distribute cake . . .

and death.

and death.

cake...death...cake..death....death...cake...death-cake....

The Church of england hands out Death Cake!

Now if only they had Death By Chocolate Cake!

Considering the rapidly diminishing number of people who actually attend C of E, I would be surprised if they held any actual political power in terms of voters.
Even for those who attend regularly, it seems that the Church of England is just a load of empty ritual now anyway. They don't seem to take a position on anything these days. I think it's the evangelical churches that are growing.

and death.
You! Cake or death?

Even for those who attend regularly, it seems that the Church of England is just a load of empty ritual now anyway. They don't seem to take a position on anything these days. I think it's the evangelical churches that are growing.

Here in the US, the only position the C of E takes that is of interest to the Episcopals here is the one on gays.

It's causing a lot of Episcopal churches here in the US to split from the C of E permanently.

Does the Church of England have any political power when it comes to new laws or changing laws (I don't mean just officially, I mean like unofficially too like a lot of persuasion/pressure on the government)?
They get seats in Parliament, which the government actually wants to keep, despite their talk on Lords reform.

cake or death!? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY)

Here in the US, the only position the C of E takes that is of interest to the Episcopals here is the one on gays.

It's causing a lot of Episcopal churches here in the US to split from the C of E permanently.
My parents used to be C of E but my rather homophobic dad thinks that they don't take a 'firm moral position' on the issue. So now we've switched to a good old homophobic evangelical chruch, which I'm forced to attend :mad:

Considering the rapidly diminishing number of people who actually attend C of E, I would be surprised if they held any actual political power in terms of voters.

Indeed. Not that Rowan Williams has he spine to even approach a political issue at any rate.

My parents used to be C of E but my rather homophobic dad thinks that they don't take a 'firm moral position' on the issue. So now we've switched to a good old homophobic evangelical chruch, which I'm forced to attend :mad:

Sue your parents. Aint forcing you to take part in a religion illegal? Or in the US, 'a violation of your Constitutional rights' (which is the same thing really but sounds better)?

Yes, too much.

In direct terms, they have seats in the House of Lords and the Queen can theoretically veto legislation (although doing so would prompt a constitutional crisis: she's only given power on the tacit assumption that she won't wield it).

Indirectly, they run a significant proportion of state schools and get privileged access to the PM and other Cabinet ministers.

Incidentally, did anyone else read Rowan Williams pathetic defence of the bishops in the Lords? It was in the Sunday Times yesterday IIRC. He used the example of William Wilberforce as an example of 'Christian conscience' having a positive influence in government, while ignoring the fact that the Anglican church owned slaves, preached that slavery was acceptable (and even condoned) in the Bible, and continued to use slaves until they were forced to stop by an act of Parliament.

Sue your parents. Aint forcing you to take part in a religion illegal? Or in the US, 'a violation of your Constitutional rights' (which is the same thing really but sounds better)?
I couldn't see it being illegal, in Britain or America.

Or in the US, 'a violation of your Constitutional rights' (which is the same thing really but sounds better)?

Um...what?

I couldn't see it being illegal, in Britain or America.

Depends how old you are. I'm pretty sure it's against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Church has one major power. A mysterious power to make everyone burst out laughing whenever they finish whatever nonsense suggestion that they have just made. Unless of course they disagree with the government on something the public also does, which is rare given how out of touch the Church is with real life.

Depends how old you are. I'm pretty sure it's against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

to bring them to religious services? No. Not even in the slightest.

I will also note that UN conventions aren't exactly what we would call "legally binding"

Depends how old you are. I'm pretty sure it's against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Probably the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act) too, although the government could abolish it tomorrow. With their love for state sponsored indoctrination, it wouldn't surprise me.

Sue your parents. Aint forcing you to take part in a religion illegal? Or in the US, 'a violation of your Constitutional rights' (which is the same thing really but sounds better)?
...

Our national sport is footie, rather than The Manifold Adventures of the Judicial System.

And no, I don't actually think it is illegal, and I don't think there's anything in the Human Rights of Children about it, to be honest.

to bring them to religious services? No. Not even in the slightest.

No. To force them to take part in a religion that is against their religious views.

Yes, too much.

In direct terms, they have seats in the House of Lords and the Queen can theoretically veto legislation (although doing so would prompt a constitutional crisis: she's only given power on the tacit assumption that she won't wield it).

Indirectly, they run a significant proportion of state schools and get privileged access to the PM and other Cabinet ministers.

Incidentally, did anyone else read Rowan Williams pathetic defence of the bishops in the Lords? It was in the Sunday Times yesterday IIRC. He used the example of William Wilberforce as an example of 'Christian conscience' having a positive influence in government, while ignoring the fact that the Anglican church owned slaves, preached that slavery was acceptable (and even condoned) in the Bible, and continued to use slaves until they were forced to stop by an act of Parliament.

Number 1, I've read that quoted differently
Number 2, stop judging all Christians on past actions of the Church of England. The majority of Christians today see harming people as very wrong (in fact one of the most important commandments is to love thy neighbour) - so the 'Christian conscience' is a conscience that does NOT approve of suffering and actually condemns it.

Seems I was wrong about the UNCRC - it was referring to the State imposing religion on the child.

But I'm sure current English Law could be used - like it's detrimental to the mental welfare of the child, so it would be child cruelty

But I'm sure current English Law could be used - like it's detrimental to the mental welfare of the child, so it would be child cruelty
...

I don't think that many people actually think that being brought up in a religious family when they're of a different faith (Atheism is a faith before you point that out) is detrimental to one's mental welfare.

Stop being stupid about what is a fairly petty issue.

Yes, too much.

In direct terms, they have seats in the House of Lords and the Queen can theoretically veto legislation (although doing so would prompt a constitutional crisis: she's only given power on the tacit assumption that she won't wield it).

Indirectly, they run a significant proportion of state schools and get privileged access to the PM and other Cabinet ministers.
Unfortunately, though, I think one of the effects of a more multi faith and secular society will be more religious intervention in politics, although I don't have any kind of study to back this up. I don't think it's any surprise that 'God told me to invade Iraq' Blair has allowed Creationism to be taught in our schools, either.

Incidentally, did anyone else read Rowan Williams pathetic defence of the bishops in the Lords? It was in the Sunday Times yesterday IIRC. He used the example of William Wilberforce as an example of 'Christian conscience' having a positive influence in government, while ignoring the fact that the Anglican church owned slaves, preached that slavery was acceptable (and even condoned) in the Bible, and continued to use slaves until they were forced to stop by an act of Parliament.
There were plenty of MPs that supported slavery, too, but we still have Mps in Parliament.

No. To force them to take part in a religion that is against their religious views.

yes, they are, after all, children. The idea that it could be made illegal to make your child attend religious ceremonies is kinda....silly.

Now I can't 100% speak for British law, but the constitution doesn't even come CLOSE to touching that.

Number 1, I've read that quoted differently

Read what quoted differently?

Number 2, stop judging all Christians on past actions of the Church of England. The majority of Christians today see harming people as very wrong (in fact one of the most important commandments is to love thy neighbour) - so the 'Christian conscience' is a conscience that does NOT approve of suffering and actually condemns it.

Nice strawman, why don't you try addressing what I actually said rather than what you wanted me to say?

Let me help you:

Rowan Williams claimed that the Anglican representation in the House of Lords is a positive thing by default, purely because they're Christian, and used the example of an Christian MP to support this claim.

I pointed out that using William Wilberforce's abolition movement to justify an Anglican prescence in the House of Lords is absurd because the Anglicans didn't oppose slavery, they actively took part in it! This isn't to say that all Christians are bad and own slaves (I've no idea how you got that idea from my post), simply that the bishops can't be expected to be more ethical than any other Lord simply because they're Christian and so there's no reason for the CofE to get any kind of special representation.

It has too much power and like any religious institution, it should have no political clout whatsoever because it does not represent ALL people, only those that follow its doctrine.

I should point out that yes, Bishops do sit in the house of lords, but so do the most senior positions of the other major faiths in the UK

Unfortunately, though, I think one of the effects of a more multi faith and secular society will be more religious intervention in politics, although I don't have any kind of study to back this up. I don't think it's any surprise that 'God told me to invade Iraq' Blair has allowed Creationism to be taught in our schools, either.

Agreed.

There were plenty of MPs that supported slavery, too, but we still have Mps in Parliament.

I've addressed this misunderstanding of my post in my reply to Multiland but here's an abbreviated version.

1. Rowan Williams' claimed that the Anglican representation in the House of Lords is necessary to provide a moral, independant viewpoint.

2. I reponded that the Anglican church didn't just fail to condemn morally reprehensible acts in the past, it has actively condoned and taken part in them. This also applies to the bishops' opposition to gay rights legislation.

3. As the bishops don't provide an ethical perspective, and often provide an un-ethical perspective, there's no reason to keep them. If they want to stand for election or get themselves appointed on their own merits in a reformed House of Lords then that's their business.

Rowan Williams claimed that the Anglican representation in the House of Lords is a positive thing by default, purely because they're Christian, and used the example of an Christian MP to support this claim.


Of course he would think that, just as any socialist would think that a majority of socialists is good, or a nationlist would think that a majority of nationlists is good. There is nothing unusual here.

You'd be surprised at how much the CofE can pressure the government. Things like abortion and euthanasia the government are often told the moral view point by the CofE and incorporate their view into the legislation.

And the Lord Bishops of course.

Its all rather good.

Also with reference to my honourable friend above;

England is an ANGLICAN country - therefore of course we're gona have ANGLICANS in our law system, to uphold our monarchies religion in the creation of laws.
And did you know that a practising catholic can't become prime minister?

I should point out that yes, Bishops do sit in the house of lords, but so do the most senior positions of the other major faiths in the UK

Not necessarily. The Lords Spiritual (the 26 most senior Anglican bishops) are de facto members and the government has no say in the matter; individuals such as the Chief Rabbi may be appointed as Lords Temporal but this is based (in theory at least) on their own merits rather than as a result of their position.

Of course he would think that, just as any socialist would think that a majority of socialists is good, or a nationlist would think that a majority of nationlists is good. There is nothing unusual here.

I'm a socialist and I most certainly do not think that a majority of socialists would be a good thing for the House of Lords.

I'm a socialist and I most certainly do not think that a majority of socialists would be a good thing for the House of Lords.

You know what I meant.

i may not live in the UK, but if the house of lords/commons are anything like the congress of the us then the answer is everything influences them. personally i think bribers, blackmailers and extortionists (lobbyists) have more power then the church. then again, i'm not from the UK...

You know what I meant.

Not really, I'd be happier if ideology was kept out of the upper house as much as possible. The Commons is the place for ideological debate; the Lords should be examining the feasibility of legislation and pointing out any loopholes or consequences which the Commons missed. If they veto a bill, it should be vetoed because of pragmatism rather than idealism.

Does the Church of England have any political power when it comes to new laws or changing laws (I don't mean just officially, I mean like unofficially too like a lot of persuasion/pressure on the government)?

No significant power, but, like many groups, can be persuasive. The seats in the Lords are a small 'real' power, but that's about all.

They have seats in the House of Lords, and measures passed by the General Synod of the church become part of the law of England upon Royal Assent.

This is the wrong way round. General Synod votes on Church matters (as it should, it's the Governing body of the Church). It must then wait for Parliament to formally adopt what it decides. This is generally just a nodding through process (although I believe an MP will occasionally try and hold something up).

The Church must get Parliament's approval because of Establishment, not the other way round. It's not as if Synod could declare war on Cyprus or something.