Religion - A British Columnist's Opinion

[Ar-Cunin]

[img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img] I liked it.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Bardan the Slayer: As you probably know, Britain is alot less religious as a country than the USA --

Really?

So then why does the USA have seperation of church and state enshrined in their constitution, while Britain has their head of state, and head of their national church as one and the same person?

Hmmmm?[/QUOTE]That may be in our (unwritten) constitution but as one of the members that lives in Britain I can assure you that Bardan is correct in his assertion.

A survey carried out by the BBC in 2000 showed that people who identified themselves with a religion fell from 58% to 48% and only 62% believed in a God.

This is an interesting survey

[Epona]

Donut, very interesting survey, thanks for the link.

I think that backs up Bardan's point well. Technically you could have a religious head of state with links between church and state where that church had no followers whatsoever. That we have a head of state who is head of the church makes a country more religious than one in which they are seperate? Definitly not. We are not a religious nation by any stretch of the imagination.

Only 24% of the population have faith in the existence of God.

[ 01-11-2003, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Epona ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Epona: Because it's a ****** up system here, IMO state and church should be seperate. Alas we have not yet been able to rid ourselves of unelected heads of state. However, that doesn't mean that we are not less religious than the USA - there are relatively few Christians here.

Ah but Bardan didn't say that England had less Christians, he didn't mention the people, only the country. He said "Britain is a lot less religious as a country than the USA".

My point is Britain is more "religious", because the head of the national church is the head of state. [/QUOTE]Seems to be a little bit too much of a constitutional definition of what it is to be religious there than I would have credited you for Yorick. You are saying that Britain as a country is more religious because the constitution says so? Nope, I don't think that really qualifies as a good definition of "religious" as far as I'm concerned. I think being religious has a lot more to do with what you believe than who your head of state is. Britain is no more than the sum of its parts - and those parts are less religious on the whole than the parts of the US, if you catch my drift.

We may have a religious state but we are not a very religious country, thats all I'm trying to say.[/QUOTE]But Barry, you as a Christian should know that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Also, religions like Buddhism, are religions that don't necessitate a belief in God either, so theistic belief is irrelevent to the discussion. Besides, individual beliefs aren't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the entity that is the nation of Great Britain.

If you have a nation which has seperation of church and state, the NATION is not by definition religious, though the citizens ARE. It is a secular nation. Like Turkey. Turkey has a majority of people who are Islamic, but it's officially a secular nation because Church and state are seperate.

Compare that to Iran on the other hand, which has been a "theocracy" for quite some time. The church and state are conjoined. The State is thus "religious." Consider India. Parts of the BJP I believe, have the agenda of making India a fully Hindu nation again, reverting to the name Hindustan. Because India is secular, they've had a 'Dalit', or 'untouchable' as head of state.

No member of the lowest class in Britain can become head of state! That position is reserved for whoever holds the higest office of the national church!

Consider the problem the officially atheistic China has had with the theocracy of Tibet. The Dalai Lama ruling Tibet as a God-King. The ultimate combination of church and state.

The English people may have a smaller percentage of the population possessing spiritual faith than those in the United States. The English people may be less religious than those in the United States. But the nation called "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has as it's head of state, the head of the national church. The nation and the church are thus conjoined by the highest office. That, in my definition makes it a more religious COUNTRY that America.

Now, consider another definition of religious as being ritualistic, tradition bound, and keenly observing ancient habits and I think there'd be a case for that as well.

However, Barry, Donut, Epona, don't take what I'm saying too much to heart. When given the opportunity, one must take the opportunity to stick the proverbial needle in the British at every available opportunity. Right??

[Epona]

Originally posted by Yorick: However, Barry, Donut, Epona, don't take what I'm saying too much to heart. When given the opportunity, one must take the opportunity to stick the proverbial needle in the British at every available opportunity. Right??

Nitpicker [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Niadh]

The queen is technicaly the head of state and church, but in practise makes no rulings. It is all done in the various parliaments that now exist. Some of which don't really do anything. The queen is now an ambasador when you look at it, she goes off to different places and shakes hands. She makes no ruling decisions or laws, unlike older Britain where the monarchy did something.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Niadh: The queen is technicaly the head of state and church, but in practise makes no rulings. It is all done in the various parliaments that now exist. Some of which don't really do anything. The queen is now an ambasador when you look at it, she goes off to different places and shakes hands. She makes no ruling decisions or laws, unlike older Britain where the monarchy did something.

Aha, but every law possesses her signature. It isn't law without it. She also has the power to do exactly what her representative in Australia once did - SACK THE PRIME MINISTER. Choosing not to bite doesn't mean you don't have teeth if they're needed.

She also meets with the Prime minister regularly. So on a constitutional and influencial level she's still powerful. What commoner has the ear of every Prime minister that serves while they're alive? What politician wouldn't pick the brain of a woman that's had a cuppa tea with all their predecessors?

Influence is EXTREMELY important. That signature is also extremely important. Imagine the constitutional chaos that would follow if she decided not to sign a law. Blanketly refused. To the point of choosing to die instead. What would happen?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Yorick: Aha, but every law possesses her signature. It isn't law without it. She also has the power to do exactly what her representative in Australia once did - SACK THE PRIME MINISTER. Choosing not to bite doesn't mean you don't have teeth if they're needed. She also meets with the Prime minister regularly. So on a constitutional and influencial level she's still powerful. What commoner has the ear of every Prime minister that serves while they're alive? What politician wouldn't pick the brain of a woman that's had a cuppa tea with all their predecessors? Influence is EXTREMELY important. That signature is also extremely important. Imagine the constitutional chaos that would follow if she decided not to sign a law. Blanketly refused. To the point of choosing to die instead. What would happen?

She can't sack the Prime Minister although theoretically she could refuse to accept the leader of the largest Parliamentary party following the election.

If she did this or if she refused to sign a Parliamentary Bill the monarchy would be removed, have no doubts about that! We executed the last King to try it!

Before BTS jumps on me I know that she once invited the leader of the Tory Party to form the Government although the Labour party held more seats.

Your 'Gollum like' struggles to poke fun at the Poms are hilarious.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Donut: She can't sack the Prime Minister although theoretically she could refuse to accept the leader of the largest Parliamentary party following the election. If she did this or if she refused to sign a Parliamentary Bill the monarchy would be removed, have no doubts about that! We executed the last King to try it! Before BTS jumps on me I know that she once invited the leader of the Tory Party to form the Government although the Labour party held more seats. Your 'Gollum like' struggles to poke fun at the Poms are hilarious.

Well, would you credit it... I got halfway through your post thinking: "I need to remind him about Heath and Wilson in 1974!", and then I realised that not only had you taken that into account but that I was being far too predictable.

And, to be fair, she didn't really ask Heath to form a government - she gave him a weekend to see if he could coax "Bomber" Thorpe into a coalition. So basically she put off her decision on who was to be invited to be PM until it was absolutely certain the Tories couldn't have coped in power. And she could defend this, I suppose, with the fact that although the Labour party had more seats the tories had marginally more votes. I say all of this to try and make myself less predictable in future! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

But in general, yes, I think a lot of Brits are quite complacent about the power the monarchy has but also a lot of non-brits seem to think that if a the monarchy has those powers on paper they would be able to use them. It would take some very weird circumstances for the monarchy to get away with really intefering in government.