Clegg wants CofE disestablished and Queen removed as head
Nick Clegg has said the church and state should be separated, a view he has expressed before but one that is likely to gain fresh currency after David Cameron described Britain as a Christian country.
Clegg, an atheist, said he would like to see the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would lead to the Queen's removal as the head of the church.
"In the long run it would be better for the church and better for people of faith, and better for Anglicans, if the church and the state were over time to stand on their own two separate feet," the deputy prime minister said on his LBC radio phone-in show. He said he did not think this would happen overnight.
The monarch has been head of the Church of England since Henry VIII's split with Rome in 1534. The Queen holds the title of Defender of the Faith.
Cameron's comments last week drew an angry riposte from 50 intellectuals, writers, philosophers, scientists and humanists including Philip Pullman, Ken Follett, Prof Alice Roberts, Prof Harold Kroto and Sir Terry Pratchett.
"We are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives and a largely non-religious society. To constantly claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society," they wrote in an open letter.
But Clegg said Britain's history, heritage and architecture were "infused by Christian values", and he was not sure why people were worked up about the comments.
"I'm not a practising man of faith but I don't have a problem to say we have an important Christian identity and heritage," he said. "That is not to say we are exclusively Christian, everyone is a Christian or indeed that we have one Christian denomination. There are almost as many Catholics as Anglicans in this country.
"We should remember one of the greatest Christian values is tolerance. We are open to people of other denominations and faiths and none, and that sense of fair play and tolerance is what makes our country very special."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/24/nick-clegg-separation-church-state
Clegg, an atheist, said he would like to see the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would lead to the Queen's removal as the head of the church.
"In the long run it would be better for the church and better for people of faith, and better for Anglicans, if the church and the state were over time to stand on their own two separate feet," the deputy prime minister said on his LBC radio phone-in show. He said he did not think this would happen overnight.
The monarch has been head of the Church of England since Henry VIII's split with Rome in 1534. The Queen holds the title of Defender of the Faith.
Cameron's comments last week drew an angry riposte from 50 intellectuals, writers, philosophers, scientists and humanists including Philip Pullman, Ken Follett, Prof Alice Roberts, Prof Harold Kroto and Sir Terry Pratchett.
"We are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives and a largely non-religious society. To constantly claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society," they wrote in an open letter.
But Clegg said Britain's history, heritage and architecture were "infused by Christian values", and he was not sure why people were worked up about the comments.
"I'm not a practising man of faith but I don't have a problem to say we have an important Christian identity and heritage," he said. "That is not to say we are exclusively Christian, everyone is a Christian or indeed that we have one Christian denomination. There are almost as many Catholics as Anglicans in this country.
"We should remember one of the greatest Christian values is tolerance. We are open to people of other denominations and faiths and none, and that sense of fair play and tolerance is what makes our country very special."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/24/nick-clegg-separation-church-state
Scroll to see replies
Hardly a surprise Clegg is a pro EU puppet Republican traitor who won't be happy until the UK is an EU controlled client state. I wonder if Clegg will tell Ireland they have to remove the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. Hopefully Libdems will be wiped out at EU Election and have very few seats in 2015 and become irrelevant
Original post by Ace123
Hardly a surprise Clegg is a pro EU puppet Republican traitor who won't be happy until the UK is an EU controlled client state. I wonder if Clegg will tell Ireland they have to remove the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. Hopefully Libdems will be wiped out at EU Election and have very few seats in 2015 and become irrelevant
I cannot see how the EU and disestablishment of the church are related.
This is one of Clegg's few sensible statements. The sooner it happens and the sooner we achieve a fully secular state the better.
Original post by Ace123
Hardly a surprise Clegg is a pro EU puppet Republican traitor who won't be happy until the UK is an EU controlled client state. I wonder if Clegg will tell Ireland they have to remove the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. Hopefully Libdems will be wiped out at EU Election and have very few seats in 2015 and become irrelevant
the pope isn't Ireland's head of state...Of course he wants them disestablished, that would get them out of the House of Lords and out of politics, thereby remove one of the main bulwarks against the extremism of this government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-constituency-office-calls-police-on-food-bank-campaigners-bishop-of-oxford-and-reverend-keith-hebden-9274303.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-constituency-office-calls-police-on-food-bank-campaigners-bishop-of-oxford-and-reverend-keith-hebden-9274303.html
I don't see what this would achieve, other than uproot one of our oldest traditions. It seems to me Clegg is just trying to find ways of differentiating the Lib Dems from the Tories at any cost.
Why? What real difference would this produce? How would this make us any more of a secular state in any meaningful way?
Original post by Good bloke
I cannot see how the EU and disestablishment of the church are related.
This is one of Clegg's few sensible statements. The sooner it happens and the sooner we achieve a fully secular state the better.
This is one of Clegg's few sensible statements. The sooner it happens and the sooner we achieve a fully secular state the better.
Why? What real difference would this produce? How would this make us any more of a secular state in any meaningful way?
Original post by arson_fire
It would send a clear message that the UK is ready to embrace the 3rd millennium
What does this even mean? It doesn't seem to mean anything, despite sounding self-consciously grand and impressive. The fact that the Church was established a long time ago is not a persuasive argument to abandon it.
and leave behind all the voodoo fairy stories that have held humanity back for the last couple of thousand years.
The Anglican Church has only been in existence for 480 years. Again, however, this is a point that needs explaining and relating back to the question of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords and how you believe their Christian beliefs are 'holding back humanity'.
It would also remove from the democratic process the undue influence of those who happen to believe one set of stories over another.
I assume you would also then like to remove the hundreds of democratically elected MPs who identify as Christians?
As a non-religious person I find it ridiculous to want to remove Anglican bishops in the House of Lords because of their religious beliefs. What disagreeable influence do you imagine Anglican bishops will bring to the House of Lords as a result of their Christian beliefs? Love? Self-sacrifice? Goodwill? I can respect, albeit disagree with, an argument against the House of Lords on democratic grounds, but I cannot respect one against the Anglican bishops on account of their good-natured moderation of policy to align with unquestionably agreeable, non-divisive Christian ethics. Their religious beliefs otherwise have no malignant influence on legislation (unless you can prove otherwise) any more than do the swathes of MPs who also identify as religious.
I agree with Cameron that we are of course a Christian country, as do the leaders of every other major faith as reported in the national newspapers. Our flag, our national standard, is a cross, for Christ's sake. To uproot it in the ways you and Clegg are advocating on the grounds of modernising for the sake of modernising would be an act of mindless destruction against an enormous part of our history and social fabric that I don't believe would yield any improvements to any aspect of this country or Her governance.
I agree with Nick.
Original post by arson_fire
It would send a clear message that the UK is ready to embrace the 3rd millennium and leave behind all the voodoo fairy stories that have held humanity back for the last couple of thousand years. It would also remove from the democratic process the undue influence of those who happen to believe one set of stories over another.
Would that be held back as developed and lead the way for many other nations?
What your advocating has been done in many European countries before in the twentieth century. There's very few of those country's that haven't embraced totalitarian values at some point, yet surprisingly the UK has plodded along and always seems to do the right thing.
Original post by Birkenhead
As a non-religious person I find it ridiculous to want to remove Anglican bishops in the House of Lords because of their religious beliefs. What disagreeable influence do you imagine Anglican bishops will bring to the House of Lords as a result of their Christian beliefs? Love? Self-sacrifice? Goodwill? I can respect, albeit disagree with, an argument against the House of Lords on democratic grounds, but I cannot respect one against the Anglican bishops on account of their good-natured moderation of policy to align with unquestionably agreeable, non-divisive Christian ethics. Their religious beliefs otherwise have no malignant influence on legislation (unless you can prove otherwise) any more than do the swathes of MPs who also identify as religious.
The argument is not to remove automatic seats in the House of Lords for Bishops because of their beliefs, there are many Christians in both the Lords and the Commons. The problem is that they get automatic seats just because they are members of a particular church. In a secular and pluralistic society this is unacceptable. We are not a theocracy. This isn't moving into the unknown, it's making our government catch up to what our society is already like. An established church with automatic power in our legislative process is at odds with how our society is currently structured and works.
Also, their unquestionably agreeable, non-divisive Christian ethics are what drove them to aggressively fight the passage of gay marriage until they realised there was no hope of blocking it.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/7-june/news/uk/bishops-gather-in-lords-to-vote-against-gay-marriage-bill
Sometimes the Lords Spiritual stand up for what is right, other times they do not, and sometimes they actively fight against it. This is beyond the scope of the argument, however, when they should not be there in the first place; the ends do not justify the means. I think the country would be a better place if the Tory party was banned but I would never support it actually happening.
(edited 9 years ago)
Speaking as an atheist, I can thing of few issues that excite me less. Removing the Church from the Lords and removing the Queen as Supreme Governor would be nothing more than cosmetic changes - it would not make us any more secular. We are already very secular, and supposedly-church-state-separated America is riddled with unsecular attitudes.
The Church of England itself is fairly secular, and the Lords Spiritual are pretty amicable chaps. They do not sit as the Church of England Party either. Oftentimes they find themselves disagreeing with each other quite openly and voting differently.
The Church of England itself is fairly secular, and the Lords Spiritual are pretty amicable chaps. They do not sit as the Church of England Party either. Oftentimes they find themselves disagreeing with each other quite openly and voting differently.
I am a devout secularist and an atheist, but one must heed the advice of not fixing what ain't broke. Only make radical changes when the risk is low and the benefits high.
Original post by Ace123
Hardly a surprise Clegg is a pro EU puppet Republican traitor who won't be happy until the UK is an EU controlled client state. I wonder if Clegg will tell Ireland they have to remove the Pope as the head of the Catholic Church. Hopefully Libdems will be wiped out at EU Election and have very few seats in 2015 and become irrelevant
Wot?
The Pope is not the Head of the Irish State. That would be the President. You seem to be confused about how this Republic thing works.
Original post by Birkenhead
What does this even mean? It doesn't seem to mean anything, despite sounding self-consciously grand and impressive. The fact that the Church was established a long time ago is not a persuasive argument to abandon it.
The Anglican Church has only been in existence for 480 years. Again, however, this is a point that needs explaining and relating back to the question of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords and how you believe their Christian beliefs are 'holding back humanity'.
I assume you would also then like to remove the hundreds of democratically elected MPs who identify as Christians?
As a non-religious person I find it ridiculous to want to remove Anglican bishops in the House of Lords because of their religious beliefs. What disagreeable influence do you imagine Anglican bishops will bring to the House of Lords as a result of their Christian beliefs? Love? Self-sacrifice? Goodwill? I can respect, albeit disagree with, an argument against the House of Lords on democratic grounds, but I cannot respect one against the Anglican bishops on account of their good-natured moderation of policy to align with unquestionably agreeable, non-divisive Christian ethics. Their religious beliefs otherwise have no malignant influence on legislation (unless you can prove otherwise) any more than do the swathes of MPs who also identify as religious.
I agree with Cameron that we are of course a Christian country, as do the leaders of every other major faith as reported in the national newspapers. Our flag, our national standard, is a cross, for Christ's sake. To uproot it in the ways you and Clegg are advocating on the grounds of modernising for the sake of modernising would be an act of mindless destruction against an enormous part of our history and social fabric that I don't believe would yield any improvements to any aspect of this country or Her governance.
The Anglican Church has only been in existence for 480 years. Again, however, this is a point that needs explaining and relating back to the question of Anglican bishops in the House of Lords and how you believe their Christian beliefs are 'holding back humanity'.
I assume you would also then like to remove the hundreds of democratically elected MPs who identify as Christians?
As a non-religious person I find it ridiculous to want to remove Anglican bishops in the House of Lords because of their religious beliefs. What disagreeable influence do you imagine Anglican bishops will bring to the House of Lords as a result of their Christian beliefs? Love? Self-sacrifice? Goodwill? I can respect, albeit disagree with, an argument against the House of Lords on democratic grounds, but I cannot respect one against the Anglican bishops on account of their good-natured moderation of policy to align with unquestionably agreeable, non-divisive Christian ethics. Their religious beliefs otherwise have no malignant influence on legislation (unless you can prove otherwise) any more than do the swathes of MPs who also identify as religious.
I agree with Cameron that we are of course a Christian country, as do the leaders of every other major faith as reported in the national newspapers. Our flag, our national standard, is a cross, for Christ's sake. To uproot it in the ways you and Clegg are advocating on the grounds of modernising for the sake of modernising would be an act of mindless destruction against an enormous part of our history and social fabric that I don't believe would yield any improvements to any aspect of this country or Her governance.
I am an atheist and I consider myself quite liberal in world view.
Still I am unsure and uncomfortable with some people's rampant desire to cut out all notions of tradition of anything considered 'old' because......?
I have no idea?
Presidential democracy? We're more democratic and liberal than the United States, the apparent arch-type of 'DEMOCRATIC CREDENTIALS'.
It's like anti-monarchism it seems based off of flimsy fashionable ideologies rather than practical reasons. In all my years on this Earth I have never felt like the Anglican church somehow impeded my freedoms or democratic rights.
People see clergymen in the house of lords (a minority) and imagine scenarios from the greatest stories and media about the past in which behind every throne is a cardinal working against the king for the church's own ends.
But this is 2014, the Anglican church can hardly claim to be a powerhouse. Back then the church was powerful because of belief but also because it was a viable political and economic institution.
Now it can't even afford to repair it's churches.
So while I'd probably normally be against church involvement in the state as it stands it hardly seems a pressing concern, and while the country continues to be in the majority non-Christian it won't.
Original post by Birkenhead
Why? What real difference would this produce? How would this make us any more of a secular state in any meaningful way?
Why? What real difference would this produce? How would this make us any more of a secular state in any meaningful way?
The C of E has special privileges, and is embedded into the constitution in a way that other superstitious groups aren't. There seems little doubt that discrimination in favour of one group is divisive (and likely to lead to trouble with militant Islamists) and, in fact, none of them should be favoured. The sooner that the influence of such influential and rich religious bodies is cast loose from politics the better.
It won't make a massive difference but it's a positive move.
Original post by Good bloke
I cannot see how the EU and disestablishment of the church are related.
This is one of Clegg's few sensible statements. The sooner it happens and the sooner we achieve a fully secular state the better.
This is one of Clegg's few sensible statements. The sooner it happens and the sooner we achieve a fully secular state the better.
This.
+1.
Original post by clh_hilary
Nick Clegg has said the church and state should be separated, a view he has expressed before but one that is likely to gain fresh currency after David Cameron described Britain as a Christian country.
Clegg, an atheist, said he would like to see the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would lead to the Queen's removal as the head of the church.
"In the long run it would be better for the church and better for people of faith, and better for Anglicans, if the church and the state were over time to stand on their own two separate feet," the deputy prime minister said on his LBC radio phone-in show. He said he did not think this would happen overnight.
The monarch has been head of the Church of England since Henry VIII's split with Rome in 1534. The Queen holds the title of Defender of the Faith.
Cameron's comments last week drew an angry riposte from 50 intellectuals, writers, philosophers, scientists and humanists including Philip Pullman, Ken Follett, Prof Alice Roberts, Prof Harold Kroto and Sir Terry Pratchett.
"We are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives and a largely non-religious society. To constantly claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society," they wrote in an open letter.
But Clegg said Britain's history, heritage and architecture were "infused by Christian values", and he was not sure why people were worked up about the comments.
"I'm not a practising man of faith but I don't have a problem to say we have an important Christian identity and heritage," he said. "That is not to say we are exclusively Christian, everyone is a Christian or indeed that we have one Christian denomination. There are almost as many Catholics as Anglicans in this country.
"We should remember one of the greatest Christian values is tolerance. We are open to people of other denominations and faiths and none, and that sense of fair play and tolerance is what makes our country very special."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/24/nick-clegg-separation-church-state
Clegg, an atheist, said he would like to see the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would lead to the Queen's removal as the head of the church.
"In the long run it would be better for the church and better for people of faith, and better for Anglicans, if the church and the state were over time to stand on their own two separate feet," the deputy prime minister said on his LBC radio phone-in show. He said he did not think this would happen overnight.
The monarch has been head of the Church of England since Henry VIII's split with Rome in 1534. The Queen holds the title of Defender of the Faith.
Cameron's comments last week drew an angry riposte from 50 intellectuals, writers, philosophers, scientists and humanists including Philip Pullman, Ken Follett, Prof Alice Roberts, Prof Harold Kroto and Sir Terry Pratchett.
"We are a plural society with citizens with a range of perspectives and a largely non-religious society. To constantly claim otherwise fosters alienation and division in our society," they wrote in an open letter.
But Clegg said Britain's history, heritage and architecture were "infused by Christian values", and he was not sure why people were worked up about the comments.
"I'm not a practising man of faith but I don't have a problem to say we have an important Christian identity and heritage," he said. "That is not to say we are exclusively Christian, everyone is a Christian or indeed that we have one Christian denomination. There are almost as many Catholics as Anglicans in this country.
"We should remember one of the greatest Christian values is tolerance. We are open to people of other denominations and faiths and none, and that sense of fair play and tolerance is what makes our country very special."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/24/nick-clegg-separation-church-state
It's a fantastic thing he's said. The UK is not a christian country, and the church and state should be separate for time immemorial.
Original post by Aurangzeb
It's a fantastic thing he's said. The UK is not a christian country, and the church and state should be separate for time immemorial.
Until your mates can bring in sharia law, you mean.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- History A level- themes in Religious conflict in the Church 1529-1570
- A level resit
- Make it More Weight Control-ey !!
- Make it More Swim-ey !!
- Christmas preparations at Kingston School of Art!
- Student storage and movers
- Make it More Mountain-ey !!
- advice on uni options
- Make it More Charity-ey !!
- Official Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh freshers 2023 chat
- Singer Hurt/Heal Game
- The Official Queen's University Belfast Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- Official Queen's University Belfast freshers 2023 chat
- Make it More Illegal Substances-ey !!
- Make it More Daytime TV-ey !!
- Is University really worth it?
- Official Queen Mary University of London freshers 2023 chat
- I’ve been on TSR for 20 years. AMA
- Things to look forward to in Kingston this summer!
- University of Sussex or University of reading as firm choice for Computer scy
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 3 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 5 minutes ago
student finance - mothers boyfriend taken into accountLast reply 8 minutes ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
MPhil Advanced Computer Science Cambridge - 2024 EntryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
Help with student finance after living abroad for one yearLast reply 17 minutes ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 18 minutes ago
anyone else waiting on LSE law?Last reply 19 minutes ago
Official LSE Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 23 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
858
Last reply 24 minutes ago
British Airways Graduate Programme 2024Trending
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
