King Charles is now not Defender of faith

[Smokeywater]

King Charles is now not Defender of the Faith for Church of England Christian -
in the Sovereign Grant Report 2025-26
Where last year’s report described the King as “Head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith,” this year’s version reads: “His Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”

Doesnt seem a great move to me - he has a historical role as King and messing about with that role diminishes it imv - if you can just change things overnight why not change other things like being crowned in a big carry on by the Archbishop of Canterbury - William can just give that a miss and have a chinwag with a few other religious leaders.

That post is one of the most stupid, illogical one's I've ever read.
If you hate religion so much why do you keep banging on about it ?
Obviously it's got under your skin.

Note what I said as an opening to that post you quoted. "I think Restore are more in your face about it, ....."

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe: “Britain Is a Christian Country, and It Will Remain So.” - The Daily Declaration

Best link I can do quick sorry. The restore site is cloudflare stuck where I am.

Now you are just making stupid posts.
Give it a rest.

What is illogical about it ?

This is exactly what Christianity does. Punishes for not worshipping.

The Royals have done plenty of burning at the stake. So has the Church.

So in your view, atheists are sent to hell for not worshipping your God (which they can't do because they do not believe in him). How does that make any more sense? It's still punishment without a crime.

@Loobylooisblue it isn't about logic. It's about morals. Punishing someone who has done no wrong is immoral.

We bang on about religion because it ( as implemented by people) is a perpetrator of so much evil. We will stop when evildoers stop abusing human beings with religion as their tool.

We are equally opposed to evildoers who do not use religion, just in case that needs saying. And we bang on about those on other forums.

I assume that post I made was reported. No idea. It was hidden anyway, but it appears the manual mods passed it, because it now shows.

And this is a revisionism I think is happening these days. That now Christianity is all about love and understanding. That the burning of heretics never happened. The Magdalene Laundries never happened. The 250 years of slavery in the USA, justified by the Bible... never happened. The Christian Brothers who made my friend's childhood hell on earth... never happened.

And it still goes on. The Churches that shift money and Priests around. Anything to avoid taking the blame for the lives they destroyed.

Give what a rest ? It is still going on. How many kids will be told today, " Do as I say or God will send you to hell" ?

And here is a thing I used to ask American Evangelicals when I debated them online. " If your salvation depends on you converting me back into the faith, if God has set this as his unseen task for you, then do you fail his test when you give up on me ?

Ain't that a conundrum ?

So my choice is go my own way - what are the consequences ?

Not me. I refuse the concept of evil.

So what do folk think King Chuck can do to defend the faith ?

He can't because he doesn't want to. The whole point of this thread is about just that. (Although some would be forgiven for thinking it's an off topic atheist vs Christian fight). Charles wants to renege on his coronation vows. He is free to do that, but in the so-doing he should 'resign' his post. Also in the so-doing he is threatening the whole idea of a hereditary monarchy.

I just looked it up but can't find the exact vow.

I think this is for Scotland

“I . . . do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant,” and undertake to “uphold and maintain” the enactments that secure the Protestant succession “to the best of [my] powers according to law”.

Basically, Catholics are banned from being Monarch?

Source

Defender of the Faith or Protector of All? Has the King broken his coronation oath? - Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (fpchurch.org.uk)

That Church say in conclusion in that article

"The argument therefore reaches a grave conclusion. King Charles III has, essentially, broken his coronation vows by presenting the Crown as a neutral protector of religious pluralism instead of a monarch bound by oath to uphold “the true profession of the gospel” and “the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law”. This claim does not require proof that the King altered legislation; it rests on the fact that these vows are not ornamental but define the sworn obligations of the office. When he adopts the phrase “protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation,” he contradicts the oath’s explicit confessional content, effectively exchanging the obligation to maintain the gospel and the Protestant settlement for a syncretist reimagining of the office."

That makes no sense to me, unless all the protestants get together and do a full agreement on what they believe the Gospels to say. Hence the discussion about what faith he is supposed to be defending. It's not enough to just say Protestant is it ?

Or we could update the coronation vows so they are a better fit for a King of a multifaith society. We do not need to shackle ourselves with tradition.

And here is a thing I used to ask American Evangelicals when I debated them online. " If your salvation depends on you converting me back into the faith, if God has set this as his unseen task for you, then do you fail his test when you give up on me ?
Ain't that a conundrum ?

That's easy to answer. My salvation doesn't depend on converting you or anyone else to the faith. My salvation is by faith in Christ alone. God doesn't set me a 'test' to convert RedTagAlan. Jesus taught that if I have given you the gospel message and you reject it, you reject Him (and ultimately God), not me. It's not up to me whether you accept that or not, because you have free will.

Luke 16:10 (ESV) “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

A pity you haven't got anything better to do with your time than troll forums.

Oh, I bang on about religion IRL too.

BTW the dictionary definition of 'trolling' is not 'criticising or disagreeing with'.

I agree in the sense that I don't believe in evil as an entity, because I wouldn't be an atheist if I did. However, it's a handy term for people who wilfully and malevolent do harm. Harm here includes implementing abortion bans knowing they will kill women, preventing classes of people from having equal access to voting, education and careers (branches of both Islam and Christianity fall into this category, as indeed does nationalist Hinduism), persecuting classes of people for their private lives (pretty much all faiths have branches who do this). Call it shorthand. Obviously non religious people are equally capable of such acts.

Evil sounds rather religious as a concept.

@pointythings Oh, I bang on about religion IRL too.

Hmmm, I bet you're a real hoot at parties 🙄

As a PS.
I'm sure the OP wrote the title of this post in good faith (excuse pun ! ) but it seems the Royal Mint hasn't got the message because it still says "Fid def" on coins with Charles' head on.
"Fid def" is the abbreviation for "Fides defensor" in Latin = "defender of the faith"

I'm hilarious. I wonder why you feel the need to go with the personal attacks rather than addressing the points I am making about man's inhumanity to man, whether in the name of faith or otherwise?

Well, just as the royal oath can be adapted, so can the coins. Just because something has always been a certain way that doesn't mean it has to always stay that way. After all, if that were the case we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the vote. Among many other things.

It was a compliment actually.🙄

Yes the constitution can be changed. It's a pretty major change. The diestablishment of the church of England.

It sounds like a good idea. No civilised democracy should have an established church. I imagine that abolishing slavery and giving women the vote were also a big deal. Just because something is hard, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.