...to support the separation of church and state?

[ella1983]

Earlier today, I signed this petition calling for the church and state to be separated, as I believe that in today's Britain, it's wrong to privilege a single faith above all others.

Do you think this is a reasonable position to take?

YANBU but, in practical terms, the single faith in question no longer appears to enjoy any privileges. We have reams of equality legislation to ensure that people of all religions and none are respected, the legal system itself is run on pretty much secular lines (religious considerations do not confer immunity from the law viz turning a gay couple away from a B&B) and it's only our Head of State who retains the title of Fid Def.

I don't know - although I am no religious, I don't really mind the set up in this country.

Our politics and laws are already pretty secular - a lot more so than America which has supposedly got separation of church and state, but is a lot more religious on both counts.

I think it's reasonable. It seems very odd to me that one particular brand of sky pixie is linked to the state in this country.

I think you are unlikely to find much antidisestablishmentarianism on mumsnet.

Lol at LeBof

Yes,I think the church and state should be separated - I've always thought it was wrong for politicians to have a voice in appointing church leaders!

YANBU. Religion should play no part in the state.

I support the separation of church and state in principle but think a more productive measure would be the banning of all religious instruction in schools and the closure of all faith schools-full stop.
That is what will make a real difference on the ground.

the banning of all religious instruction in schools

You honestly believe that increasing ignorance in the beliefs of others is a positive step?

ha what you mean like in america, they dont half pat themselves on the back for that but i honestly think we are better here. we all got a bit when tony blair started going on about god.
we were very british about, well thats all very well tony but shouldnt that be behind closed doors and we have a single faith/sate. thought it was hilarious in america if the president doesnt shit a bible in every speech he is screwed.

No, I believe that decreasing ignorance and superstition is a positive step.

CogitoErgo - "in practical terms the single faith in question no longer appears to enjoy any privileges"

Not true. In the London borough I live in, 25% of the state schools are either CofE or catholic and the vast majority pick their entire intake based upon church attendance and/or baptism. That seems a pretty big real advantage to me.

YANBU - there should be nothing but seperation between one groups church and every citizens state.

I think state and church should be separate, but so many state schools are supported by CofE or Catholic church to varying degrees, I'm not sure the state could afford tobtake over all the costs of them.

Tyr

Whilst you consider religion to equal superstition many people do not and many political and other decisions around the world are formed because of religious beliefs

I am not going to argue the rights or wrongs of this ... merely to point out that an understanding that this is the case and an understanding of what beliefs are influencing these decisions is better than ignorance so I believe that Religious Studies is important ... wether studied in isolation of forming a real element of Humanities or Citizenship studies

I support the separation.

As for the schools that would be the next step, but you can remove the special privileges first before you start on the schools.

Also I think you will find that the schools are mostly state funded anyway. They own them. they reject our kids for not having parents who believe in god, but we pay for them.

Talker2010 this always comes up. What most atheists want to ban is not learning about religion, but being required to believe in one of them. Tyr said 'religious instruction' which could mean either so I can't speak for her.

but we pay for them

In part

Removing Church from Schools will cost the state both in day to day costs and in the massive costs involved in buying the land and buildings

onagar ... I certainly agree that RS should be about providing an insight into people's beliefs

Since Tyr spoke of both Religious Instruction and church schools I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the RI part referred to non-church schools

Yes there would be practical difficulties which I don't feel are insurmountable, but in any case it's possible to say that it would be the right thing to do even if we couldn't do it today.

onagar,

I was referring to religious instruction and the right of churches to run schools.

Talker2010, it's even more muddly than that because the state schools themselves teach children to pray to Jesus - not just the schools which are officially faith schools.

I'm always posting that school should be about facts which would include lots of information about different religions and then individual churches could teach the kids whose parents want them to go there which god to pray to.

Anyway, we could remove the connection between state and church without yet removing the schools. Strictly speaking those are different things.

Ooooh you are nbu if it means my ds could get to school in his local community without him having to have some kind of relgious stuff done to him to prove his admission to a STATE SCHOOL.

I agree with removing the link between Faith and Schools, but that's another thread.

You are without a shadow of a doubt in my mind not being unreasonable. Added to that I don't think that the church should have any influence in state-funded education and neither should we have a monarchy.

This country has been on its knees for long enough without society continuing to insist that we must genuflect to someone, be that a sky pixie or a woman in a crown.