Why do we have a state religion?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

I guess it's just a vestige from the past. I think that getting rid of the state religion would be much more hassle and cause more problems than the effort's worth to be honest.

I would say it is more than a vestige if it has current influence on lawmaking (which as a user said, it has).

Reply 41

lilymoran

Well, Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon out of the pope (so he could marry Anne Boleyn) - her nephew Charles V was very powerful - so he decided to make himself head of an English church instead.

Kings / Queens have always needed churches to give them their 'divine' right to rule - particularly if their thrones were got by dubious means like murdering the previous incumbent.

Monarchs need bishops to validate their position. The ' quid pro quo' is the power given to bishops in the House of Lords. So Elizabeth II was anointed with ' holy oil' by the Archbishop at her coronation.

Hence the saying ' no bishops, no king'. Otherwise you could have just anybody as king.........err...couldn't you?

Reply 42

Psyk

Original post by pickup

There are countries with a monarch but no official state religion. Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden for example.

Reply 43

demx9

Original post by Jam'

Isn't it time to say NO to having a state religion? We have so many people of so many different religions and cultures that having a more highly privileged religious institution with automatically granted access to the House of Lords etc. is indicative of an intrinsic level of discrimination.

I think we should be religion-independent as there is so much variety in our country.

typical liberal, why should the system change because new people arrive ?

Reply 44

Psyk

Original post by demx9

typical liberal, why should the system change because new people arrive ?

Who says we're talking about new people arriving? Plenty of indigenous white Brits are not Christians.

Reply 45

lilymoran

Original post by Psyk

There are countries with a monarch but no official state religion. Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden for example.

The point was that Henry needed a divorce from Catherine to marry Anne, and hopefully get a son. ( Catherine, poor dear, lost all her pregnancies except one girl, Mary.)

To get a divorce he had to break with the Roman Catholic church and become head of the church himself so that he could control its declarations. That is why we have an state religion. Henry made it. He didn't have any quarrel with the RC church doctrinally, apart from the fact that the pope refused his divorce.

Countries such as Belgium or Spain etc. who have monarchs didn't have the same historical need for a state religion because they didn't have a Henry VIII with dynastic ambitions to fulfill.

After Cromwell's interlude the state religion was reinstated together with the monarchy because by then it was seen as part and parcel of the restored political king package.

Reply 46

Psyk

Original post by pickup

Oh ok. I thought you were making a general point about having a monarchy. Didn't realise you were talking about the British (well English really) monarchy specifically.

Still, in modern times we could disestablish the Church of England if we wanted to and it's unlikely it would cause the monarchy to collapse. Although as I said earlier, I don't mind it being the "official" religion when it comes to royal ceremonies. I just don't think the government should have a say in CoE religious matters and vice versa.

Reply 47

gladders

Original post by Psyk

I just don't think the government should have a say in CoE religious matters and vice versa.

Well, as has been said, the Lords Spiritual are both a small number and take no party line: they don't sit as 'The Church of England Party' but focus more on representing matters in their diocese.

As for government intrusion on the Church, in practice all religious reforms are passed by the Synod and simply sent to Parliament for information. It's extremely rare that Parliament would intervene.

In practice, church/state separation in this country is pretty robust. It overlaps in some teensy tiny ways, and not enough to warrant wasting energy disestablishing the Church.

Reply 48

lilymoran

Original post by Psyk

Of course we could / should disestablish the Church of England but as the Queen is the head of the Church as well as head of state you are back to the eternal thorny problem Henry had, of who is in charge of things - the Church ( because they anoint the Queen ) or the Queen because she is Head of State.

Many countries spent the best part of a thousand years fighting over that one.

For example what happens if the C of E decides they won't countenance divorce? (They have in the past) Where does that leave Charles? Can he still be head of the Church? If he can't, do we disestablish it and let it do its own thing. What if the Church then says it won't anoint him King either because he's divorced ? What about his wife?

Do we have another royal as head of the church? Anne? next sibling? William ? Forget about it and just have an Archbishop? Where does that leave Charles if the church won't anoint him?

Can of worms. That's why the establishment are just letting things ride. It isn't easy to see what can be done.

I guess this was one of the problems, apart from his politics etc. that led to the abdication of Edward.

Can we look forward to a rerun of Henry II and Thomas Becket?