to think we should separate church and state, if only to save atheist monarchs from having to pretend to have faith?

[MardyBraWouldDoEddieRedmayne]

DM link warning

For those who don't want to press on it, the link basically says that although Prince William has been confirmed, he isn't a regular church goer, just going for official occasions, weddings and Christmas.

The article states that "A spokesman for the prince insisted yesterday that he was a dedicated Christian despite his lack of regular attendance." But if he isn't, won't it be hypocritical to expect him at some point in the future to promise to become Defender of the Faith.

In addition, there's a whole load of other arguments in favour of a secular society.

• We're a multi-cultural society with many religions (and a growing percentage of the population who are non-believers) in the UK. Why should one religion be so dominant in our institutions?
• Why should some parents be denied access to certain state-funded schools on the basis that they are faith schools?
• Why should bishops be in the House of Lords?

N.B. This isn't intended to be a bunfight between believers and non-believers - just a discussion on whether we should or should not have church and state linked.

William can't simply step down without dropping Harry straight in it. That's got to be a lot of pressure to do his duty.

Does the monarch actually do anything in their role as the head of the church? As head of state they open and dissolve parliament etc but I don't think I've ever seen the Queen do anything churchy?

As for atheist monarchs, I'm pretty sure that there are many atheist vicars and bishops in the CofE.

I am not happy that clergy with a very specific and conservative agenda get automatic seats in the HoL

and seats that will always be filled by MEN with a conservative agenda or at least until the Church of England get around to realising it isn't 1537 anymore.

Another committed secularist here, so you won't find me disagreeing on that one. The politics of our country and the education of our children should be based upon intelligent policies based firmly upon evidence and principles of equality. The interpretation of ancient literature and gut moral instincts of a small and highly homogeneous section of the population should not be getting an extra voice in these issues.

Red is right: Defender of the Faith was conferred by the Pope, as Henry was a good Catholic monarch in the earlier years of his reign.

CofE bishops might get automatic seats in the Lords, but there are always appointees of other faiths too (including women). The number of people in UK who self-identify as religious (even if not observant) is a substantial majority. Given that UK is multi-ethnic (and pluri-confessional), it's not a particularly homogenous group. Though I suppose if you live in one of the less diverse areas of UK, it might seem like that (along with many other facets of life).

Having appointed religious representatives is one thing - but to allow one particular religion an automatic right to sit is quite another. The UK should not have a "state religion" or play favourites with one group over another. Either all religions should have a right to a seat or none should. None would be better and more workable. A seat anywhere in Parliament should be earned in some way, not a right. People sitting in Parliament by right is undemocratic.