to think the census data on religion should mean some changes to how we view the Church of England in this country

[cakeorwine]

ONS data on religion released today

For the first time in a census of England and Wales, less than half of the population (46.2%, 27.5 million people) described themselves as “Christian”, a 13.1 percentage point decrease from 59.3% (33.3 million) in 2011; despite this decrease, “Christian” remained the most common response to the religion question.

“No religion” was the second most common response, increasing by 12.0 percentage points to 37.2% (22.2 million) from 25.2% (14.1 million) in 2011.

You can find out about your area here

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/bulletins/religionenglandandwales/census2021

An interesting map is available - you can zoom in to local areas
The number of Christians is falling. Still a high percentage but less than half the population of England and Wales say they are Christian.

Christianity could mean Catholicism, C of E and other Christian faiths.

So should this mean we look at 'the State Religion', having Bishops in the House of Lords and the link between the Monarch being the Head of the Church of England. Basically - look at distestablishing the Church of England from the State.

Absolutely yes! The mandatory 'daily act of worship' in state schools really gets my goat when in some areas only 5-6 pupils in a class of 30 are even Christian.

Yes please.

Morals and morality aren't exclusive to religion. I'm atheist and have brought up my children the same way, but we still do charity work, we look out for our community and our family and we act kindly wherever we can.

We don't need the threat of eternal damnation to act like good people. If you do, are you genuinely being kind or simply storing up 'heaven points'?

You have to wonder about the church's morals when they claim to be friends with an omnipotent deity, and yet they won't persuade it to do something about climate change/poverty/hunger/disease etc.

You do realise that shops open late on Sundays = the lowest paid workers get told they have to work longer hours at weekend. Don’t they deserve family time too?!

Why is it always about shop workers? What about those in hospitality who work even longer hours on Sundays and public holidays?

Sunday opening, or not, is an issue that should be considered on its own merits with the support of unions. It's not something that needs to be linked to the holy day of one subset of our society. (The proportion of the population who actually attend church is obviously a lot lower than the census 'identity')

Most practising Christians of any stripe believe this. It's the "we're a Christian country" Daily Mail types who long for no change or progress but pretty much never actually go to church who want it like it is
That said, there are some bishops whose knowledge and principles are worth a lot more than many politically appointed peers.

It’s not a race to the bottom (and I work in hospitality).

@churlishapple Said they would like a ban on all religious state schools.

That may be your thinking but it is not for a lot of others of different faiths.
I am very pleased you had the wedding you wanted. However everyone is different and that’s not the wedding everyone wants.
I was at one civil wedding where the bride was told she better not use the bathroom as they had another wedding to get to! They then rushed the service and made some unpleasant remarks.
I went to another where they pulled the bride and groom into a room together to question them about why they were getting married just before the service (even though the bride wanted to only see her husband to be while she walked down the aisle) and the bride came out in tears. Why was this questioning, if necessary, not done on an earlier day?

Whereas religious ceremonies in mosques, gurdwaras and churches have all been very personal to the bride and groom, with a lot more flexibility and each religious place had authority to legally marry the couple.

I am all for having options for people to choose what works for them.

YANBU

I don’t really think “state religions” should exist. I think religion is a personal matter for the individual. There can obviously be a culture in a country that means religious holidays are widely celebrated, bank holidays given etc but I don’t think any religious should be intertwined with the state.

For me, religious schools etc therefore allowed but of course only if they follow equalities laws etc, eg no segregation of sexes within a mixed school, no teaching that suggests homosexuality or other characteristics are “wrong” etc

When people work should be determined by contracts they've voluntarily signed up to, not the laws about when shops can be open. In any case, supermarkets are often open 18 to 24 hours a day, I doubt that the same workers staff them all the hours they're open.

On the schools thing, when my niece was 5 years old she came to stay, and casually mentioned “Hell” (can’t remember the context). Her entire family is atheist, and she had learned about Hell in her CofE primary school. 5 years old and taught about Hell! Hell is a horrifying concept, not to mention completely fabricated, yet tiny innocent children are being indoctrinated with it! AIBU to be so angered by it?

@Ihearticecream I'm sorry your friends had bad experiences of civil marriage. I've worked as a Registrar in the past and married countless couples - their joy and union was almost always a beautiful thing to witness and a privilege to be a part of.

Regarding the pre-ceremony interview - this is a legal requirement to ensure that none of their details have changed since giving their notice of marriage and to also check that there's no coercion. It gives the partners a safe space to flag it up if that's the case.

If they interview the couple together that's either because the couple requested it or because the couple were running late and there would not be time to interview them each consecutively. This is down to the couple's choices, not the Registrars. Church weddings in the summer also have to run to a schedule as they have several on the same day, this isn't exclusive to civil ceremonies.

I hope that clears things up for you.

I'm not being argumentative but a civil ceremony really isn't for people who want to walk down the aisle etc. It exists for people who don't want fuss, religious ceremony or anything more than the legal requirements. If we had the same arrangement as in France the couple would have the civil ceremony and could then go on to have any other celebration /ceremony they chose whether religious or humanist. Surely that would be a good option. As I say we only expected a simple, legal contract, and we were happy with that. It's why some people who have no belief get married in church, they want the big do. That's fine, but you don't get that in a register office.

@QuizzlyBear

Bear I totally agree but I said we need to replace it with something.

I'e in school...moral teaching and so on.

@LaurieFairyCake

But that would mean the government buying who amounts of land off the church. Most church schools are very light touch Christianity anyway.

Do remember though that when the chips are down, it's amazing how many so call agnostic's and atheists turn to the church, we provide hot food 3 times a week, a warm space 7 days a week, free counselling, free debt counselling, the food bank, free toddler group, support for people with dementia and their carers and much more - don't forget we have the venue since they closed the children's centre and town hall rooms.

I'm holding funerals for people who we have no idea who they are but we do it because they have asked us - what other organisation does that

I was absolutely delighted to see the new census results.

Hopefully we will see total separation of church and state in the not too distant future and not a moment too soon.

At a minimum it should be banned from all state funded schools.

If we had the same arrangement as in France the couple would have the civil ceremony and could then go on to have any other celebration /ceremony they chose whether religious or humanist.

This is of course possible, it's what my Sikh friend did, I'd guess quite common for those with religions not allowed to perform their own legal marriages.

The thing that seems odd and unnecessarily restrictive and discriminatory (unless it's been changed by now but I don't think it has) is that if you have a civil ceremony it can't include any vaguely religious element. I gather some registrars disallow certain pop songs referring to 'angels', for instance. Not everyone wants (or can afford) to have to have a legal wedding then decamp to another venue for a second 'ceremony'.

But none of this is really related to the question of disestablishing the CofE

I think that the idea is that if people are religious then they go to the religious building for the ceremony. Civil marriage was set up for the atheists, like me, and was a reluctant add on to the central registering of births etc. All marriages have to be registered which is why some religions have a member of the congregation take on the responsibility, some ministers will become licensed to do so. I know we are digressing, I was just making the point that other countries have separated the religious element from the legal.

But that would mean the government buying who amounts of land off the church.

How did the CofE get that land in the first place? A lot was the gift of kings, or from the lord of the manor and then from the 10th century there was a period when the 'tithe' was a mandatory tax. Not sure why it isn't viewed as state property tbh. (Obviously the same doesn't apply to other denominations but that's not what this thread is about).

@gogohmm ”Do remember though that when the chips are down, it's amazing how many so call agnostic's and atheists turn to the church, we provide hot food 3 times a week, a warm space 7 days a week, free counselling, free debt counselling, the food bank, free toddler group, support for people with dementia and their carers and much more - don't forget we have the venue since they closed the children's centre and town hall rooms.”

Exactly.

This was my experience too.

The vulnerable can’t depend on the good will of atheists and agnostics. But they can depend on the church.

I find the comparisons with France strange. Great that separation of church and state works there but this is not France. The history is different; there are historical reasons for their separation of church and state.

When the chips are down in France, the French people know how to successfully protest.
My concern is that when the chips are down here, we don’t know how to protest successfully. That puts the vulnerable at risk and so the church becomes important for standing up for the vulnerable in influential roles like the House of Lords.

So you don’t know any state and church to be intertwined. But you want the state to have the church land.

Some of those kings and lords gifting land to the church may also have had other religious reasons connected with leaving earthly possessions behind because Jesus once said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 19:24.).