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.

Blackburn town centre this afternoon will be bringing that average up. Chap outside marks preaching about the love of Jesus with a microphone and an assistant who was giving out flyers ( not sure which church) and then outside the bus station a chap singing about Jesus , no assistant unfortunately but he was very enthusiastic. Praise the Lord.

I did not say that we need a Head of State who must not support Christianity.It's the other way round - our system has a Head of State who is also the Supreme Leader of the Church of England. We could have a Head of State who was Catholic, Jewish, C of E, Buddhist, Muslim or even just didn't believe.

Someone not being Christian does not mean they are against Christianity. It's just strange that we make our Head of State the Supreme Leader of the Church of England.

I would imagine that C of E schools and Catholic schools very much teach that God exists.

I have no issue with Christianity. I just don't think we need a State religion, I don't think our Head of State should also automatically be Supreme Leader of the Church of England (that should be someone from the Church), I don't think that we need God in our anthem, I don't think the C of E should automatically have representatives in the House of Lords.

The USA supposedly has a "separation of church and state" yet Christianity is far more important in politics than it is here.

I'm an atheist and I don't object to the relatively small number of CoE bishops and the other appointed religious leaders in the House of Lords, it's an advisory chamber with limited power so let them have their say there, if anything I reckon it helps keep religion from dominating politics.

Hear hear

Well it plays a substantial part in shaping the laws that determine how you can live your life. So there's that.

Apparently the only other country in the world (than the UK) that gives a church automatic seats in its parliament - Iran. That says something.

Does it?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/feb/18/religion-iran-jack-straw-theocracy

What laws in the 21st century have been introduced/blocked/altered as a result of this alleged church influence?

I am not sure what point you are making here.

I am not saying the two are exactly the same.

Article about the church's involvement in the Assisted Dying Bill. www.secularism.org.uk/news/2021/10/bishops-bench-rallies-against-assisted-dying-bill

The point is your statement regarding Iran with the UK is a false equivalence as they're nothing alike.

The Church has a symbolic ceremonial role in one and an authoritarian role in the other.

It doesn't change the fact that UK - as the only other coutry in the world except Iran - gives the church automatic seats in its law making function.

That's a meaningless statement which is without proper context when looking at it in the 21st Century. Its just superficial surface layer observation, nothing more.

It's been centuries since the UK was anything like Iranian theocratic rule.....🤷‍♂️

Of course it's meaningful to note that an institution that the majority of the country doesn't believe in gets automatic influence over it's laws. And to note that no other (sensible) country does this because - shock! - it's undemocratic by its very nature to have such an arrangement.

Democracy is whatever the majority agree to. There's no major movement to remove them from it.

But the fact remains the Church does not have meaningful power within the UK itself - it has a largely ceremonial role instead. That power resides with the Commons, Lords and Supreme Court - a modern democratic separation of powers.

There is no credible argument against this fact as it is settled amongst constitutional experts.

So, you were attempting to claim a particular implication about the UK by making a deliberate comparison with Iran. It's been centuries since the UK was anything like Iranian theocratic rule.....🤷‍♂️

No, I wasn't attempting to do anything except pointing out fact.

They do have a role in legislature by their seats in the HoLs. That's like saying that any MP or Lord doesn't have meaningful power.

And of course it's undemocratic. Democracy isn't about majority. The UK (and most democracies) use representative democracies where each person doesn't vote on each issues, but instead elects a representative to vote on their behalf. The HoL is an extra layer of course, which you may argue is undemocratic in itself, and doesn't have quite the power it used to have, but it still plays an important legislative function when laws are passed (and how). The fact that the church (as I said, an instituation with faltering public support and not exactly known for being progressive) plays a part in that is undemocratic by its very nature. Sitting in parliament is NOT a ceremonial role. They literally form part of the Lords which you mention yourself as one of the hodlers of the power.

I have no idea what you mean that there is no credible argument against this "fact" and "it is settled amongst constituation experts" - sounds like you googled it and that's what an article told you👌

Then your comparison is without proper context as when that's applied it becomes clear its a false equivalence vis a vis Iran.

Democracy is about what a majority agrees to - the people and/or the political representatives.

The House of Lords has 778 members in total. Of this, just 26 are from the Church and they don't attend the Lords at the same time, IIRC. So their influence drops further.

Therefore, the Church has no meaningful power within the nation unlike their counterparts in Iran who actually have considerable power.

It's been centuries since the UK was anything like Iranian theocratic rule.....🤷‍♂️

These are undeniable facts amongst constitutional experts that the UK does have a separation of powers and this ensures the Church cannot hold meaningful power in the nation ever again. The Church had meaningful power before our constitutional Monarchy system of government.

I never said they had a majority.

I still maintain it's undemocratic to give a particular institution - which does not have majority support in the country - seats on the country's legislature.

What proper context do you want me to give? It's not something that requires context - or should everyone who makes a comment about the HoL's composition have to give the 101 of constitutional law in the UK with their comment. That would make for a rather long thread don't you think?

And you keep saying this, with the shurgy emoji - what's in been 3 times now, the exact same sentence?

"It's been centuries since the UK was anything like Iranian theocratic rule.....🤷‍♂️"

But I am not sure why, as I am not saying that the UK is the same as Iran. So really, if that's your main argument you don't need to both, and it comes across a bit strange. Unless.... Is that you Archbishop of Canterbury? Ensuring noone compares your role to the Ayatollah's 😉