to think there is nothing wrong with saying britain is a christian country

[Slutbucket]

I have no strong opinion about David Cameron but I don't think h e has said anything wrong in describing Britain as a christian country. Our main holidays are Christmas and easter, the head of state needs to be protestant and much of our history and traditions are based around the christian religious calendar. We are moving to a more secular society but I can't see these traditions dying out. I live in a very multi cultural area where all festivals are celebrated. I have friends from many cultures who are not alienated by the christian festivals. Many send Christmas cards as a mark of respect (and some just celebrate Christmas because they like the festival) some people are not religious but will celebrate these festivals in some form ie buy an Easter egg for their children, celebrate pancake day.

Errol the full text of the speech was worse. One main point basically was "I find the King James Bible the most beautiful translation because I'm used to it and I speak a language influenced by it because it objectively is".

I'm interested now, so say George wants to marry a Jew or Muslim or whatever and she is insistent that her children follow her faith and he's not personally bothered, not particularly religious except for the cameras and royal traditions and would be happy to agree as it is so important to her... would he first of all not be able to marry her in the first place without renouncing his throne and secondly not be able to allow his children to be raised Jewish or Muslim and if he did then they would lose their right to the throne? Surely then they are being discriminated against and denied of their birthright for a religious belief and if you want to get technical about it they could argue he had lost a job due to that discrimination... ? How would it be different to them when it's the law for everyone else?

Politicians choose their words carefully to win votes. In this case, it's "Oh, good grief, the traditional oldies are all drifting over to UKIP - better say something to get a few back."

Random, your ignorance is staggering.

indigo and so is your rudeness and arrogance. At least I'm asking and trying to learn. Who are you to put that down?

has Cameron got american advisors?

this all smacks of very american electioneering

indigo as you are obviously better informed than random, could you answer? I actually dont know either- what would be the situation if George's kids were Muslim?

George can marry whoever he likes, but if she is a Roman Catholic, he will lose his place in the line of succession. He will renounce his right to the throne. If his children are brought up as Anglicans, they will have a claim to the throne through George, although George cannot ascend.

If they are brought up as Roman Catholics, they also will lose their right to the throne. (Prince Michael's children are Anglicans, so they enjoy a place on the line of succession).

You can discriminate against religious belief if it actually impacts on the job. For example, a devout Hindu would be unable to work at an abattoir, because it involves killing animals for meat. Agreeing to be the Head of the Church of England is an intrinsic part of the coronation ceremony. The crowning occurs in Westminster Abbey, and is performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That's the (almost) the equivalent of the Pope!

Btw I dont want to be a christian country- I want to be a secular country, where religion is a private matter. No more faith schools, Christian or otherwise; no more Bishops in the Lords imposing their agenda on our lawmaking.

So go on the internet and research and learn; don't bleat 'Oh no, that can't be troo..'
I'm not being arrogant. I'm stating a fact.

tilly i knwe that about RCs, but are there rules about other faiths?

if its just "you must be C of E" then what about atheists? if Georgy is an atheist is it just a matter of "dont ask: dont tell"?

If george is gay, will he be allowed to marry? after all, Charles has remarried after divorce which is also Not Allowed.

Well the role of monarch has always changed over the centuries, could they not, if they wished remove the head of the church part completely and pass that role to say the Archbishop of Canterbury or create a new role? If the citizens are no longer majority Christian and there comes a time (please!) when they separate religion from the state completely then surely a royals religion wouldn't matter?

"They" being who?

indigo why don't you just fuck off. I'm here having a conversation and trying to learn about stuff I've never really considered or looked in to. I can research online but then couldn't everyone here? There would never be any need to ask ttc or pg or baby questions, ask recommendations for make up or clothes or advice for HR issues or legal or recipes or anything. Who are you to dictate what people here can and can't talk about? Who are you to comment on a person's intelligence? I'd be damn sure there are things I know about which you would not have a clue with but I would never dare dream of belittling and humiliating you publicly for asking. The idiots are not those who say they don't know and ask questions, it is those who look down on that and those who stay ignorant and don't ask. You are a rude, mean, not nice person and I'd thank you not to talk to me again.

..and I would never dream of telling you to 'fuck off'.

So go on the internet and research and learn
I thought that's what she was doing. Fortunately Tilly was able to reply with civility - although I'm not sure we quite got to the bottom of it. My understanding (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that only RCs are specifically barred from the throne - I don't think it's actually enshrined in law that the monarch can't be a Muslim or an atheist - I doubt such an eventuality was even thinkable at the time the law was made! The position of Monarch at the moment comes with being both head of the Church of England but also the Church of Scotland - which is a different entity entirely (though nowadays probably neither would call the other heretical).

I would have to read through the texts of the actual laws (I'm not overly keen on the prospect of reading 18 century legalese) and check a constitutional lawbook, but I would guess that non-Christians are equally barred. You have to be capable of swearing all the religious bits. Muslims can't become Popes, Christians can't become rabbis, and non-Christian Protestants can't become head of the Church of England.

The role of the monarch has changed over the centuries, but only due to Acts of Parliament (and once through a civil war). To remove headship of the Church of England would require more legislation. Disestablishment legislation, if I remember the term correctly.

My comment was not in response to a request for information, rather to the confident assertion that the Act of Settlement 'wouldn't hold any weight if it came down to it'.

That's interesting. By the time George is King, it is more than possible that his family will not be christian. We are talking about 60-odd years away, after all.

I expect it will be dealt with before he is old enough, just as they changed the act of succession to allow a first-born daughter to be entitled to the throne, even if a brother is born later, quite recently.

my dad reckons this is why Diana was bumped off. Because if she had married Dodi and had a baby, future King William would have had an Egyptian Muslim half-brother.

non-Christian Protestants can't become head of the Church of England.
I think you meant 'non-protestant Christian'

Having just checked Wikipedia, the law seemed to be preoccupied with excluding Roman Catholics - following recent change in the Succession law, in addition to equalising females, ' the ban on the monarch being married to a Roman Catholic would be lifted, although the monarch would still need to be in communion with the Church of England'.

Crescent - yes... a bumbling play for 'middle England'.

Why would it hold weight?? If George had been Georgina and the law not changed to allow a first born girl to take the throne, in 60 years could you see the country accepting that?? No chance! There'd be uproar! Now gay marriage is legal what if, as mentioned, he is gay and wants to marry? And by the time it gets to his kids things may be different again. Stuff which was unheard of 50 years ago is the norm now, stuff which was perfectly acceptable is disgraceful now. Times change and my only point in any of this, or rather question, is why shouldn't the royals and their role and the traditions that govern them change in time too? Edward had to abdicate to be with a divorcee, Charles, only 2 generations on, is divorced and remarried and can still take the throne and old horse face be queen. There's nothing absurd about thinking other things would be unacceptable in the future.

lionheart

Christened for many. I had a 'heated debate' with a friend pre census, she saw no problem with putting her self down as C of E even though she only time she goes to church is wedding christenings (not her own child) and funerals.

We are literally a Christian country, we have a state religion, but I wish we didn't.

And most people seem happy to not live by Christian values, you know things like letting same sex couples marry, allowing women to be equal to men, women not having to ask their husband's permission to get contraception or a hysterectomy.

Shopping on Sundays? Many people seem quite happy to do that.

How often on here do people complain about their child being taught Christian religion as fact?