Disestablishment of the Church of England

I have mentioned disestablishment often on theses pages. It is ridiculous that one sect of one faith has political, legal and social rights above any other, and until this is sorted out we cannot claim to be a nation that celebrates diversity. The CofE has absolutely no right to represent the people or have a say in the running of the nation.

I do not mind what people's beliefs are, and would go some way to respect most of them, but not when the organisation representing one group hangs on to power that it does not deserve!

Given her own good health and her mother's longevity, I wouldn't be too sure that Charles will outlive his mother! I think William as king would be very acceptable to many people and it would avoid any awkwardness regarding Camilla.
I think Charles said he wanted to be 'Defender of faiths' - a very different proposition from 'Defender of the faith'.

The Queen Mother's death was prepared for well in advance. My BiL belonged to a choir that was primed to go to Glamis to sing as soon as this event was announced which they duly did.

I think it's perfectly sensible to plan ahead for a major state event. I expect the funerals are planned as well! They are none of them really free agents, are they? As for disestablishment, I'm CoE and I think it would only be a good thing for the church. But the church is so entangled with the English constitution, it isn't just a matter of passing one law. We don't want to be left with the same kind of mess as we have over Scottish devolution.

granjura There was absolutely no way HM the Q was going to abdicate while her mother was alive, given how the Queen Mother felt about her brother-in-law. In addition, abdicating in favour of the next generation in the way the Royal Family does in the Netherlands isn't part of the British way, so I have my doubts that she would, even if faced with serious ill health. The PoW, of course has all sorts of "off-the-wall" ideas but he will, inevitably, be brought to heel when ascending the throne comes.

Btw Did you know that he has already planned his coronation. There's something a little disturbing about that.

Prince Charles really put the cat amongst the pigeons about 10 years ago, stating that he could never become the Head of the Church of England as we live in such a multicultural society. IMHO the main reason why the Queen has not abdicated, as she knows if Charles insists on this, it will really upset the apple-cart. I for one am looking forward to this.

So many people agree that the C of E should be disestablished, it's strange that no government has grasped that nettle. I wouldn't mind betting that if each MP was asked his or her opinion privately they would mostly be in favour of disestablishment. Vicars I have known would also support it. What's stopping them? The Queen, perhaps?

The problem with removing unelected bishops from the House of Lords is that everyone else in the House of Lords is also unelected, so it seems unreasonable to focus on only one group. Unfortunately, it looks as though reform of the second chamber is going to be kicked into the long grass once again. Having said that, I heartily agree that there should be a clear distinction and separation between church and state.

I do think that the church and state should be separate. I think that religious 'instruction' is the role of the religious bodies and education about religions / life values is the role of schools.

When I first saw nursery children chanting their prayer and crossing themselves in RC schools I was taken aback. I have taught in a couple of C/E schools but the level of intrusion of religion into daily school life was not as 'in your face'... just assembly really ( some interesting & others enough to put kids of church for life!) & grace before lunch.

I attended Sunday school and enjoyed it, went to church regularly until about 16/17 ..even stood up for Jesus at a Billy Graham event and I am grateful for the cultural knowledge/references CE church attendance has given me but still feel it should not have any political influence over & above how its congregations choose to vote.

I agree, too. I have a generally benign view of religion and how it is organised, until it impinges on my rights or influences legislation unduly. I think that France has set an example that should be followed here in the UK.

I agree that the separation of church and state is the way forward. Religion and belief systems should not have 'enshrined' privilege. They never should have had but the history of it all is not surprising given that organised religion is more about having power over people than anything else. Nowadays, what people choose to believe should really be a private thing, a bit like one's political inclinations, open for discussion certainly, but not not allowing certain groups to have more political influence than others in an undemocratic way (or even any political influence!). The anachronism of unelected bishops in the House of Lords is one such injustice which should, in my opinion, be abolished. It'd be a good start to show that our society has actually developed towards greater equality of treatment for all, regardless of what religious beliefs are held (or not held, as the case may be).

I hope you all have a lovely day,Butternut - the weather is gorgeous here in Haute Savoie!

I did teach in two Catholic secondary schools in the 1970's. They knew I was a 'recovering catholic' - i.e. an atheist who had been brought up as a catholic. I was actually allowed to draw up the syllabus for EPR (Education for Personal Relationships!) and to cover the various forms of contraception. The syllabus was approved by the Chairman of the Governors, who was a priest.I just had to say at the end of each lesson ' Of course, your church does not approve of most forms of contraception, other than the rhythm method'. Many mothers came up to me on Parents' nights and thanked me for the information which they themselves really needed.

I was asked to attend assembly and services to oversee my 'lively' remedial pupils, but was not expected to join in with any of the prayers or hymns. (Actually, I quite enjoy singing hymns, but there was a principle at stake).
I had no qualms about working in catholic schools as I felt I was able to soften the hard regime and my attitude towards corporal punishment (totally opposed) certainly helped to change the headmaster's attitude.

If the pupils asked me why I did not join in with worship, I told them the truth - that I did not share their religious faith. This was in the days before schools taught about the major world religions - they were told simply that Catholics were right and everybody else in the world was wrong. I was able to give them some information about other faiths and other 'stances for living'. No parent ever complained.

Yes I agree. I think the church here in France is important to a lot of people, but it is separate from the state and that seems entirely sensible to me.
More importantly - Bonne fete de mariage - I will toot the car horn for you!

Interesting post, today of all days.
This morning our son's civic wedding takes place in France, followed two days later by a church wedding. Marrying in a church is not recognised as legal here, and it would be against the law for the vicar/priest to marry anyone without a civic marriage certificate from the state.
You all know this, of course, but it has brought it home to me over the past few days just what a difference this is from the UK, and the vast difference in how both countries view the importance (or not) of the church.

I was certainly frustrated throughout my teaching career by the fact that I could not apply for jobs in the hundreds of church schools in the area where I lived. I could, of course, have lied and said that I had retained the C of E faith that I had been brought up in, but I was not prepared to do so. This certainly limited my freedom to make progress in my career at certain times.

Good morning all.
The established church has several roles - monarch is head of the C of E. Archbish of Canterbury does the coronation. Just a rubber stamping job you might argue. It was interesting to see the documentary the other week about Edward V111 though. Basic argument was that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the power behind the abdication.
I would like to point out that it is not the anglican church in the UK that is part of the establishment - it is the Church of England and can have a direct effect on legislation. There are 27 Bishops (if I am reading wikipaedia properly at this early hour) that have seats in the house of Lords and none of them come from Scotland, Wales or NI.
27 members of one church, that does not even cover the whole of the UK. That is quite a voting block.
It's a fossil and its time to get shot as part of Lords reform. Once that is done, their power is much diminished.

It is hard to see how anybody could justify the privileges given to one branch of one religion. The French are right about some things!