Is being pubicly atheist a recent thing, especially re. collective worship?

[wanderings]

Firstly, I'm taking no sides - I had strong atheist views when I was younger, but gradually changed my mind.

There are many threads on MN about this, especially annoyance by atheist parents about collective worship in schools, and I have been wondering if it's recent that people have felt so strongly about it. I find it hard to imagine buses in the 1980s and 90s saying "there probably is no God", or parents taking their children out of assembly, or people muttering and sneering in the back row when attending baptisms (under duress): if it happened I was blissfully ignorant.

Speaking for myself, I rebelled with my heart and soul when my parents suddenly dragged me to catholic church every Sunday when I was 9. I saw the whole thing as utter nonsense, and a waste of valuable weekend time. However, I gradually changed my mind as an adult, but went CofE rather than catholic. I took the view that you did not have to take a literal view of the Bible and the church's teachings; as a child I was very literal-minded. I also love the sense of community in church.

Does anyone think it is because a generation of young adults are remembering being forced to obediently sing hymns, hear prayers from their school days, had to learn "impossibilities" such as the great flood, and are now making sure their children won't have to do the same, now that they have the right to say something which they didn't as a child?

So Quakers chose to have gay marriage. Good for them. This means Christians have to redefine marriage exactly how!

Why precisely is the CofE barred from performing same-sex marriages?

It isn't. Read the legislation.

The current situation prevents individual CofE vicars from marrying same-sex couples without the agreement of Synod. There is a common law right of marriage (ie, if it's legal for you to marry, you can demand that your local Church of England church marries you, with some minor caveats) which hasn't been extended to same-sex marriage, because the alternative would have been unwilling vicars forced into officiating (which you're against, right?)

The moment that Synod determines that the Church of England wants to do same-sex marriages, the legislation permits it (I think it requires a minor piece of secondary legislation to align the canon and civil law, but I think that's all).

All the "quadruple lock" stuff is about preventing the CofE being forced into performing same-sex marriage as a consequence of its establishment, not preventing it from performing them if it wants to.

This means Christians have to redefine marriage exactly how!

It doesn't. The claim was, however, that Christian marriage ceremonies are gay-free. They aren't. You can have a Christian same-sex wedding in your local meeting house if you are a member.

Yes Christians have it so bad. After all, none of their religious holidays have any standing in the UK, their queen isn't one of them and neither are all the recent prime ministers, the church isn't part of the establishment, it's not the default faith of schools....

Oh. Wait....

The moment that Synod determines that the Church of England wants to do same-sex marriages, the legislation permits it

I know the nuance, don't worry. and currently it is prevented from it because of the reasons you state.

All the "quadruple lock" stuff is about preventing the CofE being forced into performing same-sex marriage as a consequence of its establishment, not preventing it from performing them if it wants to.

that's what I disagree with. The price for being the established religion in a country where a huge percentage (majority?) claim to not be from that religion is that you ought to do what's in the interest of justice, not what members of the CofE want.

That's not the real price (as we see from the legislation), but it ought to be, and it is also why non-CofE members want a say.

I am certainly against forced to solemnize marriages their church doesn't want to solemnize, but I am not against forcing judges working for the state from doing it (re the recent case in the US).

But what I am certainly against is protecting only the interest of members of the CofE. So, we are concerned that CofE vicars may have to perform gay marriage, while my kid is forced into a christian assembly? is this the right balance?

I guess balance and fairness is of no concern in a theocracy. Some of us are just more equal than others.

I am certainly against forced to solemnize marriages their church doesn't want to solemnize, but I am not against forcing judges working for the state from doing it

Vicars don't work for the state, so that's OK, then. Registrars do work for the state, and are forced (and court cases against it have failed).

But what I am certainly against is protecting only the interest of members of the CofE.

If you understand the nuance, you're being deliberately disingenuous. There's no need to protect other religions from being forced to marry same-sex couples, because you have no right to be married by them anyway. Turn up at a Catholic Church as an opposite-sex non-Catholic couple and they will refuse to marry you because you aren't a member, as will your local Synagogue or Gurdwara. Turn up as a same-sex Catholic couple and they will refuse for doctrinal reasons, and the ECHR and ECtHR would currently support them in that, too (Schalk and Kopf v Austria).

For very long-standing reasons, you can demand that your local CofE church marries you, with some caveats which are similarly long-standing. There's a balance to be struck there, and in general I think the right balance was made: if we had instead gone for disestablishment, the important thing (same-sex marriage) would have been delayed for decades behind a constitutional wrangle that only obsessives care about. The CofE will come around in time anyway.

my kid is forced into a christian assembly

They aren't forced. You have right of withdrawal. You know this.

Vicars don't work for the state, so that's OK, then. Registrars do work for the state, and are forced (and court cases against it have failed).

yup, cool with that.

If you understand the nuance, you're being deliberately disingenuous.

no I am not. I wasn't talking about specifically about marriage, just that they are so worried about vicar's being forced to partake in ceremonies they disagree with (I bet my arm you could find a band of CofE vicars who would be just fine with it), when it happens daily with the CofE and non-members through schools. Wrong priorities.

if we had instead gone for disestablishment, the important thing (same-sex marriage) would have been delayed for decades behind a constitutional wrangle that only obsessives care about.

pure baseless conjecture. You have no idea what would have happened in a disestablished environment.

and gay marriage isn't the important thing in my view, it's disestablishment.

The CofE will come around in time anyway.

how comforting.

They aren't forced. You have right of withdrawal. You know this.

just like a Rolling Stones concert, no?

out of curiosity, how do you feel about the other more egregious privileges for the church, like exemptions from religious discrimination laws? Because that's part of the package.

Twunk, I can't help chortling at your complaining of having bank holidays forced upon you

I can't help chortling at you either, swallowing

You have no idea what would have happened in a disestablished environment.

I didn't say I did. I said that getting there would be a constitutional wrangle that would take decades, and I don't think anyone who gives the matter five seconds' thought would disagree. What do you think it would require, a single Act of Parliament? There's vast amounts of common law that would need straightening out, and no-one cares enough to do it. We have a compromise on same-sex marriage which means that civil authorities can perform same-sex marriages, non-CofE religious organisations can, and the CofE can if it wants to. Why trade that for a massively more complex debate that would be protracted and messy?

gay marriage isn't the important thing in my view, it's disestablishment.

You are, to put it mildly, out of step with the electorate. No-one cares about the latter. The former was widely hailed.

exemptions from religious discrimination laws?

Are you seriously saying that, for example, it should be illegal for the Catholic Church to demand that its priests are actually Catholics? That Synagogues should not be able to demand that their rabbis are practicing Jews? Because that's about the only exemption the churches have: they are not granted an exemption of discrimination law for employees more widely, just for ministers. For someone opposed to establishment, you appear awfully keen on state control of religion.

Anyway, removal of that exemption would involve us leaving the ECHR (there's endless Article 9 caselaw on this). You can read a summary here. Religions should be able to practice their religion in peace. That inevitably involves being able to control their membership to people who share their values. Hot news! You can't join the Labour Party if you're a member of the BNP. It's political discrimination, I tell you!

How come you're so clever, Ricardian? I mean, how do you know all this stuff? I've learned tons.

Why trade that for a massively more complex debate that would be protracted and
messy?

what does the established church buy you? Why does having a disestablished church make it more complex? Why wouldn't that just remove the concessions and references to the established church?

You are, to put it mildly, out of step with the electorate.

I know I am in the minority. I didn't make the claim about society.

Are you seriously saying that, for example, it should be illegal for the Catholic Church to demand that its priests are actually Catholics?

Meh, that's fine. But that's not all they get. State faith schools can discriminate against teachers on religious grounds (both for promotion and hiring, unless this has recently changed) and schools can certainly discriminate against children for entry.

I certainly think churches should be able to control and restrict their members, with some caveats. In particular, established churches have special privileges and should be more restricted here because this could potentially lead to mass discrimination. Also faith schools, as they are not only part of the religious body but also funded by the state.

I said that getting there would be a constitutional wrangle that would take decades

I think I am not understanding what you mean by "there". do you mean disestablishment or gay marriage? If the former, I don't think we disagree except for how I feel about a disestablished church (i.e. as part of the state, I want a say). so my question above about "what does disestablishment buy you?", doesn't make sense because you weren't implying it buys you anything.

Fine.

But the rest of church discrimination still stands. It's appalling.

what does the established church buy you?

Almost nothing. But countries aren't rebuilt de novo (or do I mean ex nihilum?) every ten years and we are where we are. Many Americans would prefer that there wasn't the second amendment, and a worrying number aren't that keen on the first. Many Australians (but not enough, when it's put to a referendum) would like a different head of state. Whatever you think the best outcome in the six counties might be, it isn't the current one. But countries have histories, and magic wands to wave are in short supply.

State faith schools can discriminate against teachers on religious grounds

What do you mean by "state faith schools"? Voluntary aided schools can discriminate in all teaching appointments (although in practice it's extremely rare in CofE schools which form the vast majority of VA schools, I agree that the principle is distasteful) but those are schools where the church owns the land and often the buildings (the best we can say of the governance and ownership of VA schools in general is "it's complicated").

State education in the UK has always been done on the cheap: instead of the state building schools, it struck a deal with the church to use theirs. As a country we can solve this by either building a lot of primary schools that actually are state operated, or by nationalising the church schools (ie, buying a vast amount of prime land at market rate); how much do you think that would cost? We had all this in the early 1970s with the abolition of Direct Grant schools, and I don't think anyone would try to claim that the outcome of that achieved many of its stated aims.

Also faith schools, as they are not only part of the religious body but also funded by the state.

But owned by the church: VA schools are funded for staffing and running costs and a contribution to repairs; it's not even cost-rent. If only you'd been around to help draft the 1870 Education Act a lot of this could have fixed at the time, but (see above) we are where we are. What's your proposal to fix it? Remember, at the moment in most cases the diocese owns the land, owns the buildings and funds capital work. That's a 145 year backlog of school building, more particularly land acquisition, you need to fix. Your move. We've saved a fortune by using the churches' schools; if you don't like the price they exact for that, suggest how to fix it (without, because we're adults, "no-compensation sequestration of assets").

Ricardian, you have talked more sense on this thread than all the rest of us put together.

Amazing how sensible people who agree with you seem.........

I agree that Ricardian's posts are a welcome intrusion of sense onto the thread.

Similar points might be made about bishops in the House of Lords. This paper summarises the current state of play in reform of the Lords. Meanwhile, bishops are outnumbered by the remaining hereditary peers and of course, the appointed life peers.

The presence of bishops in the House of Lords is a legacy of the contsitutional settlement of 1688, which no party has the least stomach to unpick. And while it may not be ultimately desirable to have CofE bishops in the second chamber (as I've said before, establishment has been at best a mixed blessing for the Church of England), their qualifications compare favourably with those of hereditary peers and even of many life peers - numbers of whom are simply businessmen and party functionaries who have been rewarded by the governing party. Bishops, at least, have normally been parish priests at some point in their working lives, and thus have spent time with the poor, the needy, the sick and the dying. That's more than you can say for most hereditary and many life peers.

I don't see any appetite for wholesale constitutional reform among the general public -- indeed, when the LibDems tried to reform the egregious first past the post voting system early in the last parliament they were heavily defeated in a referendum.

"I agree that Ricardian's posts are a welcome intrusion of sense onto the thread."

Particularly if you think it's right that Christianity should hold a privileged position in British society.

Incidentally, the issue with Bishops in the House of Lords is that they constitute a block vote. Which, when it comes to issues like, for example, assisted dying, stem cell research or abortion legislation is likely to skew the vote towards the traditional Christian position.

Ricardian

First of all, I am glad to hear that this system is not ideal in principle, and you wouldn't start a system this way.

Given that, abolutely the current state presents massive problems, and yes it's certainly a good question on how to do it. Start with the new academies and free schools, and never grant them these rights. First take away the employment right of discrimination and see what happens. We know that the state can erode privileges fairly effectively. I am not convinced the CofE won't back down (I think it's establishment role might help in this case). I think the Catholics are another matter.

What seems weird is not to try. A rather solid british value is non-discrimination based on religious grounds, which is evidenced by discrimination being illegal in almost every other sphere. We have wrested lots of bad privilege from the church, so I don't see why we should stop now.

In any case, I see your main arguments against change for all these cases is logistic, that it's practically difficult to change these rules. That's very different from agreeing with the laws in principle. which is where you started out when you likened dealing with schools to participating in concerts. In fact, you not only said that participation in both cases is voluntary (technically true) but said they were voluntary in similar ways and to similar degrees (obviously false). you began by saying church privilege in schools is no big deal and meaningless words. That's very different from the logistical argument.

How on Earth could you deduce that the current abortion legislation is skewed in favour of Christianity?

Incidentally, the issue with Bishops in the House of Lords is that they constitute a block vote. Which, when it comes to issues like, for example, assisted dying, stem cell research or abortion legislation is likely to skew the vote towards the traditional Christian position.

This is where the whole discussion becomes unhinged.

Firstly,the Lords Spiritual are 25 out of 771 voting Lords. They have not been the swing vote (ie, if you reverse all their votes, the outcome changes) for more than a handful of pieces of legislation in the past two centuries: the last time they had significant influence was the bizarre and long running trench warfare in parliament throughout the late 19th century over whether a man could marry his late wife's sister.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceased_Wife%27s_Sister%27s_Marriage_Act_1907

These days usually only one or two vote. If they did, by some miracle, form a swing bloc on something that mattered, then (a) the Parliament Act would be invoked and (b) there would be a constitution crisis which would probably resolve the issue against the Lords Spiritual, which is why they'd never try it.

It's worth noting that the last time they did overturn a government position, it was to ensure that children of asylum seekers were educated in schools rather than in detention centres, an amendment moved by the Bishop of Portsmouth and won by one vote against the government. That's a good thing, right?

Oh, and they don't form a block vote either. Unusually, a load of them turned out for the measure on balloting for the abolition of grammar schools, and split 9:2 (in favour of balloting, ie the non-conservative stance), and for the civil partnership bill, where they split 8:2 IN FAVOUR OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS. So evidence for them being a block is non-existent, and for them being a socially conservative block less than zero.

Secondly, at the moment CofE bishops are ex officio members of the Lords. But if they ceased to be ex officio, ex nim says, they would be appointed under their own steam, just as Jonathan Sacks and Donald Soper were.

Thirdly, there's no evidence of their alleged influence anyway. Welby had a pop at same-sex marriage but gave up immediately, and the legislation passed in a landslide in the Lords. The assisted dying debate has never got anywhere near legislation with a chance of passing Parliament, and was defeated in the Commons a few weeks ago 330-118. That's elected MPs voting it down, nothing to do with "Block Votes". It was the Church of England who campaigned for the 1967 Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised homosexuality, and the archbishops of Canterbury and York both voted IN FAVOUR: the opposition to the bill's passage came from backwoodsmen.

I don't know much about the passage of the 1967 Abortion Act, but I don't think that the Lords Spiritual were a major force: that legislation came from the Commons (it was David Steele's act) and there was sufficient support for it that the Parliament Act would have been invoked anyway.

We have legislation permitting stem cell research. We have some of the most liberal abortion law in Europe (Northern Ireland aside, but that's nothing to do with the Lords) and the changes that have - regrettably - been made to it came from the Commons. Assisted dying is routinely voted down in the Commons and therefore what the Lords think is irrelevant.

Catholic Priests can't serve in the Lords for reasons of their own Canon Law (they cannot give obedience to any power other than the Holy See) so they can't take seats even if offered: you appear to be confusing the social positions of the Catholic Church with that of the CofE.

Start with the new academies and free schools, and never grant them these rights. First take away the employment right of discrimination and see what happens.

There are no new Voluntary Aided schools, and I don't believe Free Schools or Academies that aren't conversions of VA schools have those rights to discriminate, so you've got your wish. I might be wrong: school governance is an absolute minefield. Does anyone know the current position for sure?

Actually if I was campaigning for change in schools my list of priorities would be:

Underfunding/inequalities in funding
Manipulation of education policy for short-term political ends
Disastrous shortage of head-teachers
Looming shortage of teachers, particularly in core subjects
Shortage of school governors
Micro-managment of the curriculum by politicians
Unfunded wholesale changes in provision for children with SEND
Inability of LEAs to fulfil their statutory duties to provide school places because all new schools must be academies outwith LEA control
Loss of democratic accountability in academies
Widening gulf between what schools are asked to do in terms of closing the attainment gap, and their ability to do so given the influence of economic policies, especially in the areas of household income, social services, housing and health

There probably are others but these are the ones that spring to mind. I'm afraid collective worship doesn't make it onto the radar. (And, as a school governor, I know quite a lot about the problems facing schools.)

There are no new Voluntary Aided schools, and I don't believe Free Schools or Academies that aren't conversions of VA schools have those rights to discriminate, so you've got your wish. I might be wrong: school governance is an absolute minefield. Does anyone know the current position for sure?

I believe you are correct; free schools that aren't converted from faith schools can't discriminate even if they have a religious character. I was suggesting going further that if a VA school converts, take away their discriminatory rights. Since you don't like fast major changes (I actually think that's something personal to you. My impression is that legislation here comes in massive swings), start with baby steps.

Again, faint praise like the Lords don't vote as a block, or the Lords are effectively useless or that only a small number of Lords are reserved for the church, don't justify their continued existence outside of the legal and practical argument that it is hard to change. At the very best, being useless or not obviously dangerous reduces the urgency of change, but not basic need for it. These are public figures paid by public in a time of austerity.