Majority of Britons believe state and church should be separate

DiscussionsHappy Heathens

Rejoignez LibraryThing pour poster.

Majority of Britons believe state and church should be separate

Ce sujet est actuellement indiqué comme "en sommeil"—le dernier message date de plus de 90 jours. Vous pouvez le réveiller en postant une réponse.

1jbbarret
Déc 13, 2013, 9:47 am

"A new Yougov poll has found that the majority of people in Britain think the Church of England should be separated from the state.
The poll asked the same questions about religion as were asked in a similar poll in 1957. It shows that in the time between the two there has been a catastrophic collapse in personal belief in the tenets of Christianity.
The poll, conducted for Prospect magazine asked "Should the Church of England and state continue to be connected?"
In 1957, 37% said it should separate with 37% saying should stay connected (26% didn't know). In 2013, 51% said church and state should separate with 27% saying it should remain connected (23% didn't know)."

We must hope (and pray?) that our queen lives long enough to see the wish come true.

2Taphophile13
Déc 13, 2013, 12:16 pm

And in other news from the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10510301/Scientology-is-a-religion-rule...

Some are worried about the possible tax ramifications. It's time to separate church and state and end tax subsidies for certain businesses.

3Booksloth
Déc 14, 2013, 7:16 am

Where to begin on these? I can see no sensible reason for the continuing connection between state and church so I won't comment further on that point except to ask why you think it is necessary that the current queen should be around the see the change? Am I missing something here?

As far as the Scientology ruling goes, this is a massively retrograde step in an age and a country where fewer and fewer people adhere to any religion at all. Like most people I only really became aware of this story when it was all but over but I can't understand why it was ever allowed to get this far when the initial dispute was over something as simple as a wedding venue. In an age where so many weddings now take place in all kinds of unconsecrated buildings and locations (and quite rightly so IMO) I fail to see how it was ever allowed to reach this point.

The really interesting question here, I guess, is that of whether it should be deemed necessary for a religiion to entail the worshipping of a 'god'. Without that we are back to the old problem of what exactly religion is and it's time that was defined in law if this is now going to open the floodgates to all manner of tax-dodger claiming to be a religion. A simpler solution, of course, would be to do away with all special treatment for religions. after which it might also be interetsing to see how many of these continue to exist once all possibility of financial advantage is removed.

4jbbarret
Déc 14, 2013, 8:23 am

>3 Booksloth: why you think it is necessary that the current queen should be around the see the change?

Well, perhaps I was being unfair on the Queen, but what I really meant was that it would be an opportunity missed if the separation were to occur after the next coronation rather than before it.

Looking back at what was said about the last coronation, from the Times editorial:
“Today’s sublime ceremonial is in form, and in common view, a dedication of the State to God’s service through the prayers and benedictions of the Church. That is a noble conception, and of itself makes every man and woman in the land a partaker in the mystery of the Queen’s anointing. But the Queen also stands for the soul as well as for the body of the Commonwealth. In her is incarnate on her Coronation the whole of society, of which the State is no more than a political manifestation.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time remarked : “This country and Commonwealth last Tuesday were not far from the Kingdom of Heaven.”

All getting as close to divine right as they dare.

No doubt we shall be spared such twaddle at the next coronation. Prince Charles is said to be considering a modernisation of the ceremony, which will inevitably lead to a lot of tap-dancing around traditional expectations, but the fact will remain that central to that event will be The Coronation Oath.

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/british-constitution/coronation-oath defines this as follows:

“The Coronation Oath is the freely taken and mutual covenant between the Monarch and the People of Britain. During the Coronation ceremony, the People effectively elect the Monarch, and in return, the Monarch swears the Coronation Oath.”

If the separation of church and state is accomplished before the next coronation there will have to be an awful lot more than just modernising that ceremony.
Could the formalisation of the installation of the new head of state continue to be a church service? With the Archbishop of Canterbury, who would have no state role, officiating?

If so, then the tap-dancing around that could be humorous to observe.

5jbbarret
Modifié : Déc 14, 2013, 8:45 am

>3 Booksloth: Scientology: whether it should be deemed necessary for a religiion to entail the worshipping of a 'god'

Not that this will help much, but from a summary of the reasoning behind the judgement ( at http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/12/11/a-rare-win-for-scientology-supreme-court... ):

"The High Court correctly decided that Scientology was a religion. Religion should not be confined to faiths involving a supreme deity, since to do so would exclude Buddhism, Jainism, and others. Moreover, it would involve the court in difficult theological territory: Scientologists do believe in a supreme deity, but one of abstract and impersonal nature. It is not appropriate for the Registrar General or the courts to determine questions such as whether this belief constitutes a religion. In a different context, the Charities Act 2006 states that “religion” includes religions not involving belief in a god."

6Sandydog1
Fév 23, 2014, 1:28 pm

The majority of Britons believe state and church should be separate? So did the majority of American political leaders -- 225 years ago.

7Booksloth
Fév 24, 2014, 7:21 am

jb - I don't know how I've come to lose this thread for the past 2 months but I just discovered that I'd failed to reply to your thoughtul response to my earlier comment: that was very rude of me. I take your point absolutely about the coronation and I dread the day (for oh-so-many reasons!) when Chuckie takes over the top job. I actually have more respect in many ways for religious fundies than for the people who adhere to these wishy-washy pick-and-mix religions. At least the fundies know what they believe in and adhere to some or other kind of prescriptive creed laid down at a time when people could not be expected to know any better. I see Charlie's coronation - if he has any say in it - involving circle dance, a dash of moon worship and chanting to the Transcendent Absolute. As you suggest, at least it should be a laugh but I don't see much else to be gained from it.

8TotalBookcase
Modifié : Sep 1, 2015, 6:24 am

Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.

9paradoxosalpha
Modifié : Sep 1, 2015, 9:32 am

>8 TotalBookcase:

I have had two principal religious affiliations in my lifetime, and in neither case did I abdicate my personal decision-making as a result of church membership. To the extent that I have identified with a group credo that asserted certain beliefs, it certainly neither claimed to nor did answer "all questions" that I faced. If anything, it served as a complicating factor, something else to take into account when making decisions and seeking answers. I suspect that my experience was more the rule than the exception among "believers" generally.

It's not clear to me that you even know what you mean when you refer to a "church going national." England is hardly a model of theocracy.

10spartan
Sep 1, 2015, 12:32 pm

Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.

11paradoxosalpha
Sep 1, 2015, 1:48 pm

>10 spartan:

The question mark in the parenthetical makes the second paragraph of #8 seem deliberately uncertain, but I could be reading it wrong.

Based on the contrary views I offered, I could see if you thought I was just being a prick in my penultimate sentence of #9. Still, I really meant what I wrote.

12spartan
Modifié : Sep 1, 2015, 8:22 pm

Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.

13TotalBookcase
Sep 4, 2015, 6:22 am

Ce utilisateur a été suspendu du site.

14Meredy
Sep 4, 2015, 3:32 pm

>13 TotalBookcase: . . . along with the outrageous presumptuousness (and ignorance) of referring to "the Christian Bible."