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]

Interesting survey results

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.

How about we live as a nation?

There are plenty of people who are religious.

I am sceptical that half the country believe that Jesus was the son of God and that they follow the teachings of Christ given that only a third of people say they are religious.

Keep religion and the State separate.

What difference will it make to people's lives if their was to be separation? I am sure the Church of England will survive.

Maybe we could make a start by getting rid of Good Friday, Easter Monday and Christmas Day as official bank holidays and giving people the chance to have more annual leave instead.

So if people wanted to take those days off for religious or because they want to celebrate family at Christmas they could. Or they could have extra leave instead to use when they wanted to. .

People of other faiths could use this extra annual leave to take days off for their religious days.

According to you, a minority in the UK are Christian so that doesn't square with your claim that 'In order to take a full part in the life of any state school, you have to be at least a nominal Christian.'

The people involved in the approval of legislation who are only involved because of their faith...... What about other MPs and members of the Lords. Do you not think it possible that their faith (or lack of faith) has a distinct bearing on their response to legislation? The Hindus, Muslims, Jews who serve in parliament? None of them swayed by their faith? Christians who aren't Lords Spiritual?

'I am sceptical that half the country believe that Jesus was the son of God and that they follow the teachings of Christ given that only a third of people say they are religious.'

Many people are 'cultural Christians'. We live in a country where the tenets of Christianity are the bedrock of our society. People may say they're not religious, but the society they live in, the mores, culture etc are associated with Christianity.

A third of people may say they're religious but there's nothing in these surveys to say whether people associate being religious as going to church, tithing income, fasting etc. Many people who are cultural Christians may not claim to be religious. Many people have a faith or spirituality but wouldn't claim to be religious.

The people involved in the approval of legislation who are only involved because of their faith...... What about other MPs and members of the Lords. Do you not think it possible that their faith (or lack of faith) has a distinct bearing on their response to legislation? The Hindus, Muslims, Jews who serve in parliament? None of them swayed by their faith? Christians who aren't Lords Spiritual

So we don't need the Lords Spiritual then as we have people of faith in their already.

Completely agree.

on a far more superficial level, I find arguments for the abolition of links to religion or becoming a republic utterly devoid of an understanding of the need for joy, tradition and celebration in society.

England managed to get rid of one king only to end up reinstating the monarchy which was in no small part due to the fact that puritans made the country a completely joyless place to live.

It does not make me feel like I belong. It feels like a club for people who have faith and is not inclusive. If you don't believe in God, then there's a message in this that makes me feel like I don't belong in this country

to be brutally honest that sounds like a you problem. I’m a first generation, agnostic at best, person who has no issue with whether or not I belong in the UK. It’s a collection of diverse countries with history dating back centuries. To not be able to identify with any of it.

But why does that mean we don't need the Lords Spiritual? Obviously you're happy with people of faith in parliament. It works both ways too - members of the Lords Spiritual have many qualities besides their religious positions. Highly educated, probably far more experience of people from all walks of life due to the nature of their work than many MPs

'If you don't believe in God, then there's a message in this that makes me feel like I don't belong in this country.'

That's a very, very extreme response. So, if 2/3 aren't religious do 2/3 of the population feel they don't belong? Of course not.

Christianity, if you don't want it to, impacts your life in precisely zero ways.

It's not Christianity.

It's the link between Church and State.

There is a difference.

Can you argue why there should be a link between Church and State (except for saying it would be complicated to separate them)

Can you argue why we should have God save the King as our anthem when many people don't believe in God?

If the Lords Spiritual are there because they of the fact they are Church of England representatives, so they bring a spiritual element (well, a C of E element), then we have plenty of people in faith in Parliament already so no need for that.

We also have people who are educated in there and who have a wide range of experience.

The 26 bishops in the HoL are never there together, they have a rota, so probably a maximum of 4 or 5 will be there on average. They do have other things to do. Their influence is minimal to non existent.

If I had to choose between Nadine Dorries and a senior bishop (as they all are) taking a seat in the Lords, it wouldn't be a difficult choice.

A new head could rebadge the toilets as "gender neutral" overnight, which does actually affect the privacy and dignity of your children. I'm not going to be worried about an obsolescent law that the overwhelming majority of schools (and Ofsted) happily ignore.

I believe that parents should have the right to choose how their kids are educated, so if they want to send their kids to a faith school then they should be able to. I went to one (it happened to be the nearest primary). I don't recall it being particularly in-your-face about religion.

@DdraigGoch "I believe that parents should have the right to choose how their kids are educated, so if they want to send their kids to a faith school then they should be able to."

Absolutely fine. So long as they aren't allowed to apply to non faith schools. That would be fine. It wouldn't be a problem if a faith based education is so important to them.

But I'm not sure why you would choose this particular hill to die on, OP.
Why do you feel so strongly about a matter which is largely symbolic and has no measurable effect on our daily lives?

Believe in God, don't believe in God, not sure to believe in God. In this country, so what? No one will persecute you or give a toss to be honest. If you don't like the national anthem, don't sing it but, above all, don't be too literal about every bit of symbolism.

Can you argue why there should be a link between Church and State (except for saying it would be complicated to separate them)

Can you argue why we should have God save the King as our anthem when many people don't believe in God?

There’s no requirement for anyone to have an argument for either. If the proposal is to remove them it’s on the proposer to present a convincing argument.

The Church has no real meaningful power in the UK in actual practice, especially since we do have a tangible separation of powers between The Commons, Lords and Supreme Court.

This contrasts with the Republic of Ireland where the Catholic Church still has considerable power and influence. E.g., the church still owns 95% of primary schools and 50% of secondary schools.

This is clearly not the case in the UK itself.

The UK is only a theocracy in name whereas the Republic of Ireland is a theocracy in practice.

@DdraigGoch Also-what about my fight to a secular education for my children?

OK - because many people don't believe God exists. Some people also believe that a belief in God and religion itself has caused a lot of harm and destruction over the centuries. So singing God save the King is asking (for some) that a being they don't believe in should save the King.

Separating the C of E and the State. Religion is personal. Belief is personal. The Bishops should not be appointed by the Prime Minister (even though it is on recommendation, they can still be blocked). Thatcher blocked the appointment of a Bishop she thought was too political.

Faith should be for personal life just as many other beliefs are. We don't need a State Religion anymore than we need a State sport or a State dietary system such as vegetarianism or veganism.

Ok.

I just don’t agree with you and don’t perceive the problem to be serious or big enough to warrant changing.

I'd go further. In the Lords reform I'm proposing I'd appoint the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, the Chief Rabbi, and leaders of the other major religions in the UK to the Lords. I'd also appoint the former heads of the services, former senior police officers, presidents of the Royal Colleges and any other professional institution with a Royal Charter. It would ensure a broad range of talents. That's the crossbenchers done.

Then I would allocate the remaining 50% to the political appointees (because many retired MPs/ministers do have lots of experience to bring), restricting the number of new appointees to a quota based on the vote share at the last GE - so party leaders will have to be a bit more choosy about who they appoint because they can't stuff the house any more. This brings some proportionality to parliament without yet more elections, the last thing we want is another chamber of politicians kissing babies to win a few votes - as I said before, I want the upper house to be composed of people who want to do what's right, not what's popular; I want them to be answerable to no one. The Commons should provide enough representative democracy, the role of the Lords is to improve legislation by using their experience to send amendments to the Commons.

I don't know how you think that you're going to enforce that.

"Our Jeremy Kyle lie detector says that you once prayed that your husband would come back safe from Iraq*. Therefore you're not permitted to send your child to Generic High School.

*People who don't really believe in god and have never been to church will often grasp at any straws when their lives or those of their loved ones are in peril.

Send your kid to one of the two-thirds of schools that isn't a faith school. Even many of those who are faith schools aren't in your face about it.

Absolutely fine. So long as they aren't allowed to apply to non faith schools. That would be fine. It wouldn't be a problem if a faith based education is so important to them

sorry, are you arguing for segregation based on faith/no faith?

I am sceptical that half the country believe that Jesus was the son of God and that they follow the teachings of Christ given that only a third of people say they are religious.

I'm not sure that every bishop believes that Jesus was the son of God. Have you ever watched Yes, Prime Minister? There's an episode in that devoted to the appointment of a bishop and the idea that believing in God was an optional extra in the Anglican Communion was clearly a running joke even in the '80s.

Much easier said than done in some places.

Villages often have just the one school and often it's a faith school because the Churches built schools.