Page 3 | to think the UK needs to think about the role of the religion and the State given that that only 1/3 of people say they are religious

cakeorwine · 2023-05-19T19:02:49+00:00

Interesting survey results [[https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/lost-faith-the-uk's-changing-attitudes-to-religion.pdf lost-faith-the-uk's-changing-attitudes-to-religion.pdf (kcl.ac.uk)]] 1/3 of people are religious, 46% aren't religious and 20% are atheist (not sure of the difference) 50% believe in God and 48% don't - so that's a bit weird if you think about the previous survey About half of people believe in life after death and about half don't Interesting survey - the UK is one of the least religious countries in the world. Something you might not have believed if you think of our anthem and also the recent Coronation.

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 21:39

Sissynova · 19/05/2023 20:55

You’re being disingenuous, having an established church is not remotely the same as it being tied to the country politically.
Only 7% of children in NI are educated in a mixed faith school, it has a massive impact on things socially and politically.

There is space in the political landscape to discuss separate issues issues at once unless you’re incredibly limited in capacity. Trains are an entirely different topic, feel free to start a post if that’s what you’re interested in but this faux ignorance to sweep discussion under the rug because X, Y or Z unrelated issue is pathetic.

Show quote history

You specifically said that "lots of people's lives would be improved" by this proposed change to the constitution. I'm asking how. All four nations of the UK have the same basic constitution, so if England Scotland and Wales manage to avoid religious batshitery taking hold, there clearly must be another reason why it's an issue in NI.

Would you compare the situation in NI to the situation in the US? There are a few common themes after all. If so, how do you think that changing the constitution here will make a difference, when the US has the strictest separation in the world and yet religious batshitery is off the scale?

PuffinsRocks · 19/05/2023 21:41

PlatBilledDuckypuss · 19/05/2023 21:39

It is having an established church as part of the State that protects us from the raving idiocy of the fundamentalist Christian types that plague the US revoking Roe v Wade and opposing the teaching of evolution.

Be very careful what you wish for. I can see where you're coming from OP but I am very afraid the alternative will be worse.

Absolutely. It's like all these people who want rid of the monarchy, but absolutely wouldn't have wanted a President Truss or Johnson with a 4 year mandate.

ToK1 · 19/05/2023 21:46

@CurlewKate

Exactly lol.

If it doesn't affect anyone and has no significance all the more reason to get rid

greenspaces4peace · 19/05/2023 21:49

people's lives would be improved if more people had faith and hope.

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 21:50

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 21:05

It seems like the C of E has a good hold on society despite fewer people who are religious and so having fewer people who are C of E.

Head of State as its leader.
Gets to lead the nation when it comes to State occasions
Gets daily worship in school (not C of E but still daily worship)
Helps to influence Parliament

I wonder how it would argue to keep such influence despite falling numbers who are religious?

I take it that you didn't actually watch the coronation you're frothing about then? It was very much multifaith in nature, with the leaders of many different religions involved. The PM is a Hindu, that's how much influence the CofE actually has in day-to-day government.

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 21:56

MasterGland · 19/05/2023 21:31

The national anthem was widely adopted around the time of the Jacobite rebellion, it has no significance now other than tradition, a tenuous like to our national story.
I find it disheartening that there is this drive to expunge any hint of benign tradition from British life.

Your final paragraph sums up my objection better than I did. Most people aren’t religious, but many still want to hold weddings in churches because they like tradition.

OP, why don't you commission a poll to find out whether people think that the coronation should be officiated by a registrar in Westminster Register Office. Can't hold it in an Abbey as that's a religious building, can we?

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 21:56

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 21:19

So a few kids belting out songs each morning, that's as much as you can think of in terms of how it affects people's lives? Three-quarters of schools don't bother anyway.

Bishops in the Lords are few in number so they don't exactly carry a disproportionate amount of influence. I'd reform the Lords anyway, more cross-benchers (including other faiths and experts in various fields) and fewer has-been politicians. That would be a much better use of time than fretting about some oil at a ceremony.

The national anthem has no legal significance, it's got nothing to do with the state, it's simply been adopted by custom and practice.

Show quote history

So what would happen if it was disestablished?

What change would it make to people's lives?

OP posts:

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 21:57

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 21:56

Your final paragraph sums up my objection better than I did. Most people aren’t religious, but many still want to hold weddings in churches because they like tradition.

OP, why don't you commission a poll to find out whether people think that the coronation should be officiated by a registrar in Westminster Register Office. Can't hold it in an Abbey as that's a religious building, can we?

Show quote history

The USA holds its inaugauration in public in Washington.

I am sure we could use our imagination.

OP posts:

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:00

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 21:56

So what would happen if it was disestablished?

What change would it make to people's lives?

Show quote history

Little. So that's why there's no need to meddle. As a PP said, be careful what you wish for, it could well be the fact of having an established church that saves us from the American-style batshittery. After all, anything associated with the state is mistrusted so people mistrust the church too.

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:00

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 21:50

I take it that you didn't actually watch the coronation you're frothing about then? It was very much multifaith in nature, with the leaders of many different religions involved. The PM is a Hindu, that's how much influence the CofE actually has in day-to-day government.

Show quote history

I watched it because it is history.

It does seem strange that by definition, the Head of State is also the Supreme Leader of the C of E. You would have thought that the Supreme Leader would be someone who was once Archbishop.

OP posts:

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:01

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:00

Little. So that's why there's no need to meddle. As a PP said, be careful what you wish for, it could well be the fact of having an established church that saves us from the American-style batshittery. After all, anything associated with the state is mistrusted so people mistrust the church too.

Show quote history

So it would make no change so we could disestablish, ensure that Bishops weren't automatically in the House of Lords, the Head of State was not the Supreme Leader of the C of E and life would carry on.

Good.

OP posts:

RightWhereYouLeftMe · 19/05/2023 22:02

Schools would not have to have a daily act of worship.

Do they have to do this? I never did this.

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:06

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:01

So it would make no change so we could disestablish, ensure that Bishops weren't automatically in the House of Lords, the Head of State was not the Supreme Leader of the C of E and life would carry on.

Good.

Show quote history

And you've just wasted a load of parliamentary and civil service time to no real gain.

Inflation is rocketing, everything is on strike, the planet is fucked, and a mad dictator armed with nuclear weapons is blowing up a sizeable chunk of Europe and you want to waste government time on something that won't make a difference to anyone's lives? Fiddling while Rome burns...

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:07

RightWhereYouLeftMe · 19/05/2023 22:02

Schools would not have to have a daily act of worship.

Do they have to do this? I never did this.

That's the law

Collective worship in schools - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_worship_in_schools#:~:text=The%20nature%20of%20the%20required%20daily%20act%20of,It%20should%20normally%20take%20place%20on%20school%20premises.

OP posts:

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:09

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:06

And you've just wasted a load of parliamentary and civil service time to no real gain.

Inflation is rocketing, everything is on strike, the planet is fucked, and a mad dictator armed with nuclear weapons is blowing up a sizeable chunk of Europe and you want to waste government time on something that won't make a difference to anyone's lives? Fiddling while Rome burns...

Show quote history

So you are suggesting that there must be a lot of link between Church and State if so much time was taken up?

Why would it take so much time?

Why do you think it would take so much time to disestablish Church and State?

OP posts:

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:09

RightWhereYouLeftMe · 19/05/2023 22:02

Schools would not have to have a daily act of worship.

Do they have to do this? I never did this.

Only technically. Ofsted said way back in the early 2000s that they didn't enforce the law, and that 76% of schools don't bother anyway. It's probably even less now.

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:10

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:09

Only technically. Ofsted said way back in the early 2000s that they didn't enforce the law, and that 76% of schools don't bother anyway. It's probably even less now.

Show quote history

So that's a simple law change

Shouldn't take too much time to implement.

No Bishops in the Lords

Easy to implement.

So where is the time being spent on implementing this?

OP posts:

Freshfoods · 19/05/2023 22:12

Lifeinlists · 19/05/2023 21:15

Daily worship in schools? Not in any of the schools I've ever taught in , apart from an RC one. The nearest it's come to anything like worship was 'quiet thinking time' lasting less than a minute.

Otherwise it's either form time or a full or partial gathering in the hall and matters of a parochial nature are on the agenda, definitely not religion.

The 1944 Act may require it but I know it doesn't happen in reality in many, many schools.One of the reasons so few people know any hymns any more!!

This.

MasterGland · 19/05/2023 22:20

If the church of England was 'disestablished' the constituent parishes would form new modes of governance. Many Anglo-Catholic parishes would return to communion with Rome, some low church evangelical types would form evangelical unions akin to the US-style sola scriptura obsessives. Maybe some would join the Baptists, who seem to be having a bit of a resurgence recently.

It would be a bit of a mess, from a theological perspective.

To some extent, this is already happening in slow motion as the Anglican union is fracturing on matters of doctrine.

Bishops would be appointed by the Pope, and wouldn't sit in the House of Lords....which many want to get rid of altogether anyway.

Political life would go on, religious life would be... interesting.

Ooh, we might get the cathedrals back though.

RightWhereYouLeftMe · 19/05/2023 22:27

Only technically. Ofsted said way back in the early 2000s that they didn't enforce the law, and that 76% of schools don't bother anyway. It's probably even less now.

Oh ok, that makes sense. I was born in 1992 and my school definitely did not do this - my mum would 100% have withdrawn me and I was never removed from any part of the school day so there was definitely not even any subtle "collective worship" (what does that even mean?) that I was oblivious to.

I had no idea that was the law.

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:34

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:09

So you are suggesting that there must be a lot of link between Church and State if so much time was taken up?

Why would it take so much time?

Why do you think it would take so much time to disestablish Church and State?

Show quote history

Because someone would have to comb through every bit of legislation dating back hundreds of years to remove all references to religion. Even the simple act of taking a straightforward bill through parliament takes ages, never mind constitutional stuff.

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:40

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:34

Because someone would have to comb through every bit of legislation dating back hundreds of years to remove all references to religion. Even the simple act of taking a straightforward bill through parliament takes ages, never mind constitutional stuff.

Show quote history

So it's quite entwined in our laws then, isn't it?
Despite fewer and fewer people being religious.

It is going to happen. Religion and the C of E will still carry on as long as people want to follow such beliefs.

But it won't have its political power or influence.

OP posts:

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:42

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:10

So that's a simple law change

Shouldn't take too much time to implement.

No Bishops in the Lords

Easy to implement.

So where is the time being spent on implementing this?

Show quote history

I don't think that you quite understand what is involved in changing primary legislation, particularly something as large as this.

Yes, you can amend the 1998 education act. That'll take quite a lot of parliamentary time (nothing is ever quick) considering that most heads ignore it anyway.

The Lords should be reformed from the ground up rather than tinkering at the edges. Anything constitutional won't be quick though, it'll bounce between the two houses with amendments galore.

What would you remove from the parliamentary timetable in order to fit this pointless tinkering in?

BMW6 · 19/05/2023 22:44

I am Agnostic.

As matters stand it makes no difference to me - those who have Belief, good for them. Those who don't - in what way are you being harmed?

The Church has no influence on the State in real terms that I can see.

Original poster

cakeorwine · 19/05/2023 22:45

DdraigGoch · 19/05/2023 22:42

I don't think that you quite understand what is involved in changing primary legislation, particularly something as large as this.

Yes, you can amend the 1998 education act. That'll take quite a lot of parliamentary time (nothing is ever quick) considering that most heads ignore it anyway.

The Lords should be reformed from the ground up rather than tinkering at the edges. Anything constitutional won't be quick though, it'll bounce between the two houses with amendments galore.

What would you remove from the parliamentary timetable in order to fit this pointless tinkering in?

Show quote history

It is going to happen.

Fewer and fewer people are religious.

It's going to look archaic to have the link between Church and State.

Most modern countries don't have this link.

Your argument is that it's complicated and there are more important things to do. Fair enough - but can you argue why we should have an Established Church?

OP posts: