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.

Brilliant.....take the rest of the day off 😘

Quote "Again, witches were persecuted by Christians!!!! It doesn't really matter why. They were tried and killed by Christians."

Yup. And a book called Demonology set a fair bit of the witch burning off. The book was written by James 6th/1st. He of King James Bible fame.

James commissioned his Bible translation to us as evidence that Kings are appointed by God.

Lightwithinlight I'll ignore the personal attack as it's obviously your way of trying to shut others down. Your own personal entrenched bias is coming across loud and clear.

No hate like Christian love, as the saying goes. Christianity and it's followers are as full of hypocrisy as every other religion.

Never been so happy to be an atheist.

None of the priests involved with the Christian nationalist-type movement want to harm gay people, unlike in Islam. Also I know for a fact that those priests all have Fatwas issued against them and have had many death threats.

I agree with this

You said that people whose beliefs run counter to the law are a danger and gave Sharia as an example. A Christian who believes that abortion should be banned is a person whose belief runs counter to the law.

So if Islam as a belief is a danger as Sharia runs counter to our laws, why isn't a Christian-driven belief in an abortion ban not also a danger as it, too, is a belief that runs counter to our laws? Or is there some exception you're making for Christian beliefs you're not willing to make for Muslim beliefs?

Are you sure about that ?

It's Not Just Uganda: Behind the Christian Right's Onslaught in Africa - FPIF

I'm talking about the UK.

@GentleSheep I'm sure if you scratched not very deep in the UK, you'd find Christians who would want to ban gays, see them outlawed, who knows maybe harm them in some way etc. Homophobia is still alive and well. The Catholic Church in the UK will not marry same sex people, even though the UK law permits it.

Equally, most people of other faiths here in the UK are perfectly happy to live and accept our existing laws.

Right. So you are saying there are no anti gay Christian preachers in the UK. I know you said " Christian nationalist-type ", but I am sure we could find some. Not sure if these fit your type.

Here is one :

Christian charity slammed for anti-gay sermon on 'boys raping boys' (thepinknews.com)

And another :

LGBT figures lobby for clamp down on anti-gay preaching after charges dimissed in two prosecutions (newsletter.co.uk)

Not surprising really, given that the Bible is anti gay.

I don't really care, but "Defender of the Faith" could mean any faith surely? And sounds much cooler. The new one sounds flimsy and wishy washy.

Its an observation that you seem to have absorbed the anti-Semitic narratives that have spread in the West since October 7th. Based on your own thinking displayed in your own post. I would also point out that it is you who called me disgusting which actually is a personal attack.

I was not shutting you down and you are welcome to respond to arguments I made. You accuse me of bias, so make a strong case for that. You haven't so far, but if you have one, make it.

But I suspect that not defending your position when challenged on it, is your own way of shutting down challenges you don't have a response to.

I have no idea what you are saying or why in the end of your post. I am an atheist too. Perhaps you are showing your own bias in assumptions you have made about people you see as being 'like me'?

'I would also point out that it is you who called me disgusting which actually is a personal attack.'

Nope. Didn't happen. Nice try though.

You have had to go to a fairly extreme independent church to find comments like that. You can always find such people in any religion. None of the mainstream churches hold positions like this.

There are Christian denominations now that welcome openly gay priests/ ministers and perform or bless same sex marriages. I am not aware of any equivalence to this in Islam, and if it exists I am sure it is a very small minority, not a common occurrence as in Christianity.

There is simply not an equivalence here in attitudes in Christianity as a whole and Islam as a whole to homosexuality.

The secular society is right in that article btw, that the state should not fund charities at odds with our laws. I went to a talk by them where they spoke of some shocking statements by Muslim registered charities including one which had on its UK website instructions on who to stone a woman to death. All the charity commission did was tell them to remove that bit from their website. We do need better awareness and regulation of this but there seems to be no will to address it. As this thread shows with its ' look over here instead' and 'ist or phobe' insults whenever anyone dares to criticise any religion, other than Christianity. Christian churches made important changes when people were able to openly criticise them and those criticisms were taken seriously. There's a lesson there.

You said I was disgustingly one-sided. In the context of the rest of your post, you were implicitly calling me racist, without any justification as I outlined at length in my response to you. I do however, have justification for saying you have absorbed anti-Semitic views and I have evidenced this at length.

But you, again, are not able to respond to any of the challenges put to you.

I don't. Who decided this was a thing and who decided the 'award' should go to Charles? Self-entitled arrogance. His other label, Defender of THE faith, the one he wants to disown, came officially with his coronation. If he doesn't want the job in full, then best he steps down, but his self-entitlement means he will do it his way, regardless - just like he did in his first marriage.

'Your arguments are so one sided - disgustingly so.'

Is what I said. Your arguments. Not you. Your arguments.

You have implied I am rascist and an anti semite. Now that is a personal attack. For pointing out that Muslims are murdered for just being Muslim.

I think he should have stuck with the C of E with all its flaws
I mean the animosity between leftwing and Jews at present, anti Catholic sentiment still abounds in parts of Scotland and N Ireland, and Islam is rife with division
Yes, there are several major branches of Islam, primarily Sunni and Shia, along with smaller groups like Ibadi, Ahmadiyya, and Sufism. Each branch has its own beliefs and interpretations of Islamic teachings.

Iran mainly Shia, gulf states mainly Sunni - there is still animosity towards Muslims in India so that’s not going to gel in the U.K. or anywhere else.

We are importing hundreds of year old animosity with our huge intake of foreigners. Charles should have kept out of it. And he will have angered Christians with this watering down of his role

I have stated openly that you seem to have absorbed anti-Semitic views and evidenced at length my case for that. I stand by that. It’s not a personal attack if it’s true. It’s an observation.

You did not just state Muslims are attacked too for being Muslim. You stated it with a specific purpose within a specific context and I have explained at length the offensiveness of this and why anti-Semitic / racist thinking underlies this. I also disputed the legitimacy of your claim.

But for the third time, you have failed to address any of the counter points I made to you. I can only conclude that you are genuinely unable to defend your position and argument. Given that, I would genuinely urge you to think carefully if you should continue to hold the views you do, and to examine if they are based on the deep anti-Semitism current in our society since Oct 7th. I am sure you a good person who considers yourself not racist, but the argument you made and the context you made it in was based upon n racist views about Jews that have gained currency in our society.

@Moros "A Christian who believes that abortion should be banned is a person whose belief runs counter to the law."
However, these beliefs are based on compassion for the unborn child.

Sharia Law on the other hand seeks to restrict women in society, outlaws homosexuality, drinking, gambling, adultery, fornication, does not allow the charging of interest on a loan etc.

The two are not comparable

In UK 35% to 37% of young British Muslims (aged 16–24 / 18–24) expressed support for the introduction of aspects or provisions of Sharia law in past major surveys by organizations like Policy Exchange. (National Secular Society)

Broader surveys covering wider adult age brackets (such as polls by the Henry Jackson Society) generally find that roughly 32% of the overall British Muslim population favors implementing elements of Sharia, with younger cohorts often showing higher levels of adherence to traditional or conservative religious practices.

Analysts note that support for "Sharia" in Western polls often depends heavily on whether respondents interpret it as personal religious adherence (family law, halal rules, or moral guidance) versus a total replacement of secular national legal systems (Daily Telegraph)

@Darragon "It was over thirty years ago and I’m betting you know none of them personally. Are you really not over it yet?"

If I'm not, then I'm not alone.
If we elevate someone to a high position then they get all the benefits and trapping of that position.
But by the same token we expect them to set an example to others by conducting themselves in a way that doesn't bring their high office into disrepute.
If Charles wasn't happy with Diana he could have arranged to divorce her before he started 'playing away'. Isn't that what we advise all those who post on these threads who are considering some extra-curricular activities ?
Why is he held to a different standard?
Someone should have told Charlie-boy that The Divine Right of Kings was pretty much abolished after the glorious Revolution in 1688-89

West Bank settlers have been murdering Muslims long before October 7th.

There is no legitimate dispute to this claim. There is no rascist or anti semitic view. It's just a fact.

@Armorlux "He doesn't have a choice about being head of the CofE; it's part of the job he inherited. So he didn't set himself up and then pretend anything"

He didn't have to take the job, he could have abdicated.

If Charles was a true man of honour and integrity, rather than an entitled spoiled brat, he would not have continued his extra marital affair with the, by then, Mrs Parker-Bowles, plus, he would have walked away from the unworldly, immature, virgin 19 year old youngster, Diana. He used Diana as his brood mare. That story is all now confined to the history books. However, he is currently exhibiting a continuing lack of honour and integrity by 'snubbing' his coronation oaths. Pretty pure show being as he gets free bed, board and fancy dress at the cost of the British taxpayer and, due to his position, has accrued obscene personal wealth. But at least, according to the wokey 'be kind' modern way he is 'being true to himself' - even whilst hypocritically milking his position.

Christianity and Judaism are also rife with division. It's the nature of the beast.