NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by other topic of the same name

Some labour MP's have been called for disestablishment of the Church of England, mainly moaning about how the Monarch cannot be a Catholic.

Not that it matters, politicians making decisions about the Monarch is like the poachers deciding the fate of the gamekeeper. Her Majesty would never alow it, she is very dedicated to her role as protector of the faith. Prince Charles however has said he might change the coronation oath to be protector of all faith, so then things might change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/3868700/Labour-MPs-back-separation-of-state-and-Church-of-England.html

So what do you lot think? Should the law's of succession change so we can have a non-CofE Monarch or not.

It should allow for a monarch to have their own belief. It shouldn't be legislated. They should be free to believe what they will, just as a commoner does.

In the past it was vitally important not to have a catholic king because that would mean rule from Rome, you think that still applies to not only the king but the PM also.

how about we actually commit to separating church and state first?

though I am fairly certain that the time of religious wars in Europe is over so why not?

Not that it matters, politicians making decisions about the Monarch is like the poachers deciding the fate of the gamekeeper

only they can...I guess poachers can to I guess :confused:

I think being a Defender of all Faith is noble-ish but sounds very presumptious, then again it is the British monarchy heh ^^; sounds good but I don't feel that it would work out so well!

In the past it was vitally important not to have a catholic king because that would mean rule from Rome, you think that still applies to not only the king but the PM also.

thats not how Catholicism really works though (also I think having a protestant monarch was put in place due to the whole "kill non-believers" thing)

Well old Queen Lizzy has said she takes her role as Governor of the CofE very seriously, I don’t see how the politicians can take that away from her if she doesn’t want to. She has a coronation oath and has said she will stick to it. But like I say, things might change when Charlie takes the throne

thats not how Catholicism really works though (also I think having a protestant monarch was put in place due to the whole "kill non-believers" thing) First started with King Henry VIII splitting away because he couldn’t re-marry, we all know the story.

In the past it was vitally important not to have a catholic king because that would mean rule from Rome, you think that still applies to not only the king but the PM also.

Rule from Rome??? How?

Rule from Rome??? How?

the Spanish have an armada you know *frames you for the gunpowder plot* (obscure 1500's cold war reference)

Rule from Rome??? How?

Because if you didn't play nice and agree with Mr Pope, you'd be excommunicated.

That's a no-no if you're catholic, apparently. Hence you towed the Papal line.

Rule from Rome??? How?
I believe Catholics were the national bogeyman before the Germans, Jews, fascists, communists and Muslims in that order.

the Spanish have an armada you know *frames you for the gunpowder plot* (obscure 1500's cold war reference)

Funny you should mention them... they also have a Catholic monarch. And were still one of the first countries to establish the rights for gays to marry.

So the influence of the pope on politics is not exactly obvious when you look at it, is it?

Well old Queen Lizzy has said she takes her role as Governor of the CofE very seriously, I don’t see how the politicians can take that away from her if she doesn’t want to.
The monarch is bound by the law and has been for centuries.

Because if you didn't play nice and agree with Mr Pope, you'd be excommunicated.

That's a no-no if you're catholic, apparently. Hence you towed the Papal line.

See above. ;)

I think being a Defender of all Faith is noble-ish but sounds very presumptious, then again it is the British monarchy heh ^^; sounds good but I don't feel that it would work out so well!

Well, "Defender of The Universe" was taken:

http://www.marchandler.com/images/voltron%20a.jpg

The monarch is bound by the law and has been for centuries. On issues relating to the Monarch and her only she has to give permission for the issue to be discussed in Parliament, if there is no permission then the discussion wont happen. It happened with something to do with royal prerogative and the Iraq war. That and laws have to pass royal assent, which she could just not give. But let’s not discuss the powers of the Monarch, that’s a totally different subject.

What do you think on having a devout catholic as PM, look at Ireland, they still haven’t legalized abortion.

I don't think the Church should be dismantled, it's an important part of our culture and heritage, However Church and State should be kept firmly seperated - an Nation closeted by Religion can never advance

Still, at least most of the Church of England don't believe in God.

However Church and State should be kept firmly seperated - an Nation closeted by Religion can never advance We've done fairly well so far

I don't think the Church should be dismantled, it's an important part of our culture and heritage, However Church and State should be kept firmly seperated - an Nation closeted by Religion can never advance

I have a splendid idea. Let's just make the church of England part of the National Trust.
That way, we keep the cultural heritage and tourists get to see a bit of a spectacle on appointed days. :wink:

Still, at least most of the Church of England don't believe in God.

The most atheist form of Christianity on the planet. Followed closely by Catholicism. :)

It's worth pointing out that only England and Scotland have established state churches, and that it's a different state church in each case: the Church of England is Anglican/Episcopalian, and the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.

Wales and Northern Ireland have no established state church.

Therefore separation (and why can no one spell separation around here?) of Church and State would require separate acts of disestablishment in both England and Scotland. Disestablishment of the English Church could take place through an Act of Parliament via Westminster, but it's not entirely clear to me whether disestablishment of the Scottish Church would currently fall under the purview of Westminster or Holyrood.

Any attempt by Westminster to disestablish the Church of Scotland without the agreement of the devolved Scottish Parliament would no doubt be highly controversial.

However, you could theoretically remove the Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England - freeing the Monarch to be of whatever faith he or she chooses - without actually disestablishing the Church. You could instead invest supreme authority in a synod of Bishops or some such. The Monarch need not be of the same faith as the established church. After all, the Church of Scotland manages to trundle on despite the fact that the Queen of the United Kingdom is an Anglican rather than a Presbyterian.

And while I admit that the precedent's not a happy one, we have had a Catholic Monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and King of Presbyterian Scotland in the form of James II & VII.

On issues relating to the Monarch and her only she has to give permission for the issue to be discussed in Parliament, if there is no permission then the discussion wont happen. It happened with something to do with royal prerogative and the Iraq war. That and laws have to pass royal assent, which she could just not give. But let’s not discuss the powers of the Monarch, that’s a totally different subject.
MPs can't disuss the existance of the monarchy, but other than that have the power to introduce bills and create law on any subject, including the affairs of the monarchy, such as, for example, Parliament requiring Edward VIII to abdicate. And for the record, the monarch does not give assent to bills, that is done by Lords Commissoners so she doesn't have to.

What do you think on having a devout catholic as PM, look at Ireland, they still haven’t legalized abortion.
Have you not considered that the vast majority of Irish people are catholic, banned it in a referendum and there are many Protestant US states that would happily do the same?

What do you think on having a devout catholic as PM, look at Ireland, they still haven’t legalized abortion.

What, like Tony Blair?

I have a splendid idea. Let's just make the church of England part of the National Trust.
That way, we keep the cultural heritage and tourists get to see a bit of a spectacle on appointed days It's still the largest religious denomination in the country by a long shot, still more than a million people go to the services on Sunday so I don’t think its time to turn the Church into a tourist attraction just yet.

It's still the largest religious denomination in the country by a long shot, still more than a million people go to the services on Sunday so I don’t think its time to turn the Church into a tourist attraction just yet.

Why not? It's what the Catholic church already is, the world over.

See above. ;)

To be fair, I was replying in the context of the original question which you framed to a statement that included the phrase "in the past" :p

To be fair, I was replying in the context of the original question which you framed to a statement that included the phrase "in the past" :p

Even then... have a look at the European map anytime in the past 500 years : most of the countries have Catholic rulers. Yet those rulers happily did as they pleased for most of the time. ;)

What, like Tony Blair? He was in the closet

MPs can't disuss the existance of the monarchy, but other than that have the power to introduce bills and create law on any subject, including the affairs of the monarchy, such as, for example, Parliament requiring Edward VIII to abdicate. And for the record, the monarch does not give assent to bills, that is done by Lords Commissoners so she doesn't have to.
In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. Due to the Crown's refusal to consent to the bill's hearing, it was automatically dropped.

I have a splendid idea. Let's just make the church of England part of the National Trust.

I agree that tea should receive generous government subsidies *nods*

What, like Tony Blair?

I thought he turned evangelical?

Even then... have a look at the European map anytime in the past 500 years : most of the countries have Catholic rulers. Yet those rulers happily did as they pleased for most of the time. ;)

That's the difference between a Catholic, and a devout Catholic ::D

That's the difference between a Catholic, and a devout Catholic ::D

The difference between a Catholic and a devout Catholic is like the difference between a domestic cat and the Yeti. ;)

The difference between a Catholic and a devout Catholic is like the difference between a domestic cat and the Yeti. ;)

Exactly! And who'd want a yeti as a monarch, that spent all day supplicating Shang-ri-la? (Although it does sound fun)

I have seen plenty of devout Catholics' footprints - that's proof enough. I hear there have also been unconfirmed sightings in the Vatican.

In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refused to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorize military strikes against Iraq. Due to the Crown's refusal to consent to the bill's hearing, it was automatically dropped.
That doesn't mean that the Queen refused consent or has the power to refuse consent. The day to day perogatives of the crown, such as granting assent to the introduction and assent of primary legislation (IIRC secondary legislation is done in person), is done by other people, who act on government orders, so that the Monarch doesn't have to.

In theory, the Monarchy could perhaps unilaterally revoke letters patent that give lords commissoner the power to grant assent to legislation and then veto legislation disestablishing the CofE, but to do so would take time, enough for Parliament to do something about it, and would spark a major constitutional crisis.

i don't really give a shit. we shouldn't have a monarch in the first place, but since we do, church and state should be seperated. since the queen is the state, she should have nothing to do with religion or keeping any faith at all, apart from her own personal beliefs.

Has anyone actually said whats wrong with the Queen being head of the CofE, I see nothing wrong with it but why do you?

Has anyone actually said whats wrong with the Queen being head of the CofE, I see nothing wrong with it but why do you?
It's an anarchronism from an era when religious freedom was not tolerated and loyalty to the state meant loyalty to one particular religion. The government should not be involved in governing one particular faith and in this day and age there is no religion which is in any way superior or more official than any other.

Religion and politics shouldn't mix.

Has anyone actually said whats wrong with the Queen being head of the CofE, I see nothing wrong with it but why do you?

favouritism of one religious organisation, greater potential for religion to influence the state...

So what do you lot think?
Keep it the way it is.

Be easier to do what we normally do, namely change things in practice and ignore what our laws actually say, we're good at that. But I'd like the monarch to cease being head of the Church of England, I think it'd be more sensible.

I really don't see why the Crown needs to be so inclusivised.

Why does the UK still have the monarchy? The main reason is tradition. If you are going to retain a merely ceremonial monarchy for the purpose of tradition, you should by all means keep their traditions of ascension.

It would be a different matter if the Crown was granted actual administrative power.

Prince Charles however has said he might change the coronation oath to be protector of all faith, so then things might change.

Ah, from the protector of an irrational belief to the protector of irrational belief itself. How wonderful.

Ah, from the protector of an irrational belief to the protector of irrational belief itself. How wonderful. Smug twat

Smug twat

great retort.

Was it Blair or Bush I heard say something along the lines of "I have mulled this over, and I feel that this is right, and forgivable by God" or some such statement which made me feel nauseous.

Was it Blair or Bush I heard say something along the lines of "I have mulled this over, and I feel that this is right, and forgivable by God" or some such statement which made me feel nauseous.

what - separation of church and state?!:confused:

what - separation of church and state?!:confused:

It's related? Isn't it? Politicians = state. God = church? Anyway, I feel faith/religion has no place in the political arena.

I'm not sure how much power the Queen really has, and how much, if it even does, influence politics.

It's related? Isn't it? Politicians = state. God = church? Anyway, I feel faith/religion has no place in the political arena.

I'm not sure how much power the Queen really has, and how much, if it even does, influence politics.

But how can you ever separate beliefs and state? It's part of the human condition. You can't ask people to ignore their convictions just because they are religious.... TBH honest political beliefs are just as faith-based, not based on empirical evidence, yet we elect people on that basis.

I don't see an issue with the spiritual beliefs a politician holds, what is important is that they act on the manifesto and mandate you expect and which they campaigned on. It is immaterial whether they based that on faith or anything else, if you agree with it, you elect them to act on it.

It's related? Isn't it? Politicians = state. God = church? Anyway, I feel faith/religion has no place in the political arena. The Church of England doesn’t influence the state, the fact because the Queen is Supreme Governor you could say the state influences the Church.

Basically, CofE is safe. Catholic or Muslim for example, well then your opening up to outside influences such as the pope or thoughts/believes that are not tolerable in a western country. Of course just because the Monarch is a member of said religions doesn’t mean they will turn out to be a nut job, but I'd rather be on the safe side.

But it’s not up to me nor is it the place of any common man to make these decisions, I think this is an area that should be left firmly in the hands of Her Majesty herself.

Basically, CofE is safe. Catholic or Muslim for example, well then your opening up to outside influences such as the pope or thoughts/believes that are not tolerable in a western country.


You fucking fool, how is Catholicism not tolerable in western countries? And Islam, come to think of it?

You fucking fool, how is Catholicism not tolerable in western countries? And Islam, come to think of it?

harsh... but I can't help feeling... also quite fair.

harsh... but I can't help feeling... also quite fair.

I won't stand for idiocy 3 hours from Christmas.

I won't stand for idiocy 3 hours from Christmas.

bah humbug to idiocy!

bah humbug to idiocy!

Indeed. I've been on a crackdown of late.

You fucking fool, how is Catholicism not tolerable in western countries? And Islam, come to think of it?
Catholicism is open to outside influence; Islam can contain some unwelcome views. When you are Head of State of “England” and head of the Church of England it is you that influences the church, not the other way round.


I won't stand for idiocy 3 hours from Christmas. Neither will I

Catholicism is open to outside influence; Islam can contain some unwelcome views. When you are Head of State of “England” and head of the Church of England it is you that influences the church, not the other way round.

And that's not tolerable in Western society how?

Neither will I

Better leave the thread then.

And that's not tolerable in Western society how?
Sorry, perhaps I could have been clearer. I meant that some hard line Islamic beliefs, such as those on homosexuality, would not be tolerable.

Better leave the thread then.
Its my thread, I dont think so.

Sorry, perhaps I could have been clearer. I meant that some hard line Islamic beliefs, such as those on homosexuality, would not be tolerable.

Well you could say that about the Church of England. I've heard you say things about homosexuality.

Well you could say that about the Church of England. I've heard you say things about homosexuality. We don’t imprison or execute them

We don’t imprison or execute them

Neither do Muslims in England, so I don't see your problem.

Neither do Muslims in England, so I don't see your problem. Muslims are not in charge.

Muslims are not in charge.

Exactly, so why can't we tolerate them so long as they're not in charge?

Exactly, so why can't we tolerate them so long as they're not in charge?We can tolerate them, but were talking about the highest position in the land. Lets forget Muslims for a second. Imagine a Catholic Monarch; all that would achieve is opening up a whole new can of worms. We English may have short memories but what about the Irish, it could cause major constitutional upheaval for the sake of nothing.

We English may have short memories but what about the Irish

What about them. They've been independent for nearly 90 years, I doubt they care who's monarch.

What about them. They've been independent for nearly 90 years, I doubt they care who's monarch. Sorry, Northern Irish.

Sorry, Northern Irish.

Big difference. Well, I doubt a Catholic monarch would make a difference. They don't have the power to hand territory over, and rightly so.

Big difference. Well, I doubt a Catholic monarch would make a difference. They don't have the power to hand territory over, and rightly so. I think a protestant loyalist might think differently, even if it is just a symbolic thing.

I think a protestant loyalist might think differently.

But they shouldn't. Just because the monarch is Catholic doesn't mean the IRA scum will restart, or Northern Ireland will be handed over. They're still in majority, remember.

The implications of a severence of the throne and church would be highly interesting. Firstly, it would necessitate a change in episcopatic structure to appoint a new head. Secondly, it might emperil the numerous cathedrals and minsters of the church. Regarding the throne, to sever the throne from church would require a new location for the coronation, and an entire new panoply for the coronation itself.

However, the prohobition of royal marriage, or conversion, to catholicism could be removed without the necessity to remove the monarch from her role as head of state.

However, the prohobition of royal marriage, or conversion, to catholicism could be removed without the necessity to remove the monarch from her role as head of state.

I made a thread about this, I think it was when I was still Adunabar. Catholics are now legible for monarchy.

I made a thread about this, I think it was when I was still Adunabar. Catholics are now legible for monarchy.

That's news to me, but welcome news. Doesn't the phrase "seperation of church and state" strike you as a little blunt or simplistic as the basis of a polity?

I made a thread about this, I think it was when I was still Adunabar. Catholics are now legible for monarchy. Then why did Parker Bowles have to convert before she married Charles?

But they shouldn't. Just because the monarch is Catholic doesn't mean the IRA scum will restart, or Northern Ireland will be handed over. They're still in majority, remember. The IRA weren’t responsible for all the violence, loyalists had there fair share too. And I think they would see a catholic monarch as a great betrayal to them, I don’t know how they would take it but I don’t want to find out.

religion doesnt need to have a place in politics.

Then why did Parker Bowles have to convert before she married Charles?

Because that was before, obviously. *Facepalms*

The IRA weren’t responsible for all the violence They did most of it.I don’t know how they would take it but I don’t want to find out.

Whine, probably, then just get on with things.

The implications of a severence of the throne and church would be highly interesting. Firstly, it would necessitate a change in episcopatic structure to appoint a new head. Secondly, it might emperil the numerous cathedrals and minsters of the church. Regarding the throne, to sever the throne from church would require a new location for the coronation, and an entire new panoply for the coronation itself.
I must say that's a bloody interesting idea. If the throne is separated from the CoE, where would any coronation be held?

Would Parliament see the investment of the monarch, or would that be too much like a presidential thing?

It does seem odd that we do hang on to the whole CoE thing quite so much, since I imagine that a large proportion of the population of the UK is now either only vaguely Christian or leaning more towards agnosticism.

The Queen's roles, as both head of the church, and head of state are symbolic more than anything else. The real place where church and state are entwined is the 'Lords Spiritual' in the House of Lords. I am staunchly atheist, and generally left wing, but have no problem with the House of Lords because it works. I would like to see them widen membership of the Lords Spiritual to include senior members of all faiths in the UK, including humanists/atheists - step forward Lord Dawkins.

The Queen's roles, as both head of the church, and head of state are symbolic more than anything else. The real place where church and state are entwined is the 'Lords Spiritual' in the House of Lords. I am staunchly atheist, and generally left wing, but have no problem with the House of Lords because it works. I would like to see them widen membership of the Lords Spiritual to include senior members of all faiths in the UK, including humanists/atheists - step forward Lord Dawkins.
That's a good idea - bar that twat Dawkins. The man's abominable. He'd cause much more trouble that it would be worth.

The Queen's roles, as both head of the church, and head of state are symbolic more than anything else. The real place where church and state are entwined is the 'Lords Spiritual' in the House of Lords. I am staunchly atheist, and generally left wing, but have no problem with the House of Lords because it works. I would like to see them widen membership of the Lords Spiritual to include senior members of all faiths in the UK, including humanists/atheists

Yeah I agreed with this. Until here:

step forward Lord Dawkins.

We can tolerate them, but were talking about the highest position in the land. Lets forget Muslims for a second. Imagine a Catholic Monarch; all that would achieve is opening up a whole new can of worms. We English may have short memories but what about the Irish, it could cause major constitutional upheaval for the sake of nothing.
On the other hand, I'm sure many Northern Irish Catholics appreciate having a Protestant head of state. What's good for the goose is good far the gander, as it were.

I would like to see them widen membership of the Lords Spiritual to include senior members of all faiths in the UK, including humanists/atheists - step forward Lord Dawkins.
Fuck that.

The last thing we need is Dawkins claiming to speak for all atheists.

Meh....Doesnt matter to me....the Church of England doesnt have the kind of power or influence that the Roman Catholic Church does....at least not by itself...


Not to mention...Its really none of my business, lol....I, personally, would call for a National Vote...maybe put it on the ticket with your next national Election...

Meh....Doesnt matter to me....the Church of England doesnt have the kind of power or influence that the Roman Catholic Church does....at least not by itself...


Not to mention...Its really none of my business, lol....I, personally, would call for a National Vote...maybe put it on the ticket with your next national Election...

Roman Catholic Church has no influence here, correct me if I'm wrong but I think I few wars were fought over it, no?

Roman Catholic Church has no influence here, correct me if I'm wrong but I think I few wars were fought over it, no?

I'm sure none of the Catholic MPs we have listen to our resident cardinal or the Pope....

To say that Anglican Church has influence but the Catholic church doesn't is a nonsense.

I'm sure none of the Catholic MPs we have listen to our resident cardinal or the Pope....

To say that Anglican Church has influence but the Catholic church doesn't is a nonsense. It has more influence than the catholic church, we have Anglican Bishops in the lords and in the past it has certainly influenced the way our country went compared to Catholic countries.

Googled it, came up with some interesting stuff.

The Act of Settlement of 1701 decrees that the monarch cannot be a Roman Catholic, and neither the Monarch nor the heir to the throne can marry a Roman Catholic.

This may seem anachronistic, in our multi-religious society today, but there is -- whatever one may think of it -- a reason.

At the Queen's coronation she is asked, "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland … and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs? … Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements? … Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law?"

The Protestant doctrine is that the national monarch is supreme governor, next under God, of all estates in his or her realm.

At the Pope's coronation it is said to him, "Receive the Tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art Father of Kings and Princes, Ruler of the World, and Vicar on Earth of Jesus Christ."

The Roman Catholic doctrine is that the Pope has international authority over all national monarchs.

Thus, the Protestant and Catholic conceptions of monarchy are quite different.

A practising Catholic monarch would submit to the Pope as the highest temporal and spiritual authority in the land, and this would have religious, constitutional, political and social implications for the country - although the extent to which these would impact upon an increasingly secular society, is indeed arguable.

Protestants would advocate that the time to abolish the Act of Settlement is when the Pope abolishes his absolute claims.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/moncst.html

Since canon law requires that all children of Roman Catholics be brought up in that faith, such a proposed amendment would eventually create an exclusively Catholic royal dynasty, whose primary allegiance would be to the higher spiritual and temporal authority — the Papacy. ... If one bothers to read the Act, it is evident that it is not the result of some irrational prejudice or blind bigotry. It represents the effort of people who had experienced oppression to preserve their successors from having to suffer autocratic and despotic government. It is one of those foundations on which British liberties rest.
In countries where Rome’s grip is surer — Uganda, Haiti, the Philippines — there is concerted effort to control government departments, the media and education, which many papal encyclicals have stated rightly fall under Rome’s aegis. Religious freedom in such countries is virtually non-existent. ... The Papacy is, by its own admission, a political institution, and still claims universal legislative authority or jurisdiction. It would be intolerable to have, as the sovereign of a Protestant and free country, one who owes any allegiance to the head of any other state. It may take decades to realise, but if the monarch, the supposed guardian of the liberties of the people, owes allegiance to the very power intent on limiting those liberties, we will have undone centuries of common law.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2003/11/11/catholic-monarch-for-england.htm

Roman Catholic Church has no influence here, correct me if I'm wrong but I think I few wars were fought over it, no?

I'm sure none of the Catholic MPs we have listen to our resident cardinal or the Pope....

To say that Anglican Church has influence but the Catholic church doesn't is a nonsense.

It has more influence than the catholic church, we have Anglican Bishops in the lords and in the past it has certainly influenced the way our country went compared to Catholic countries.

Well, as Im not actually from the UK...I was speaking of world wide influence...just for the record, lol....